tegwick
96d11431dc
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
1.8 KiB
| title | status | maturity | families | scales | admission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mutation Outcome Tracking | draft | hypothesis |
|
|
research-candidate-only |
Mutation Outcome Tracking
Context: a remote write can finish even when its response disappears. Problem: transport failure leaves acceptance uncertain. Recoverability competes with latency, retention cost and backend complexity.
Proposed solution: track each attempt as pending, accepted, explicitly rejected or unknown. Bind retry identity to the original payload and authority scope. Resolve unknown outcomes through a documented operation lookup or idempotent replay within its retention contract. Changed intent gets a new identity. Without such a contract, require reconciliation rather than claiming an automatic retry is safe.
Consequences: feedback can be honest about uncertainty; operation history consumes resources. Expired receipts and lost identity need an unresolved recovery path. Timeout, cancellation or a generic server error alone cannot prove rejection. Disabling a button limits interaction, not server execution or duplication.
Evidence: T03 documents Stripe's bounded idempotency mechanism; T04 demonstrates why browser cancellation is insufficient. Neither establishes this full frontend state model or a second independent known use. Recurrence: unknown. Hypothesis only.
Proposed connection: acceptance enables Invalidate and Reproject. Compare Pending Synchronization: local commit can already be valid there while remote propagation remains unacknowledged.
T01–T05 refer to TransactionalEvidenceExpansion. Connections are research proposals, not admitted graph edges. Reasoning exercise: VC-01.