tegwick
96d11431dc
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
57 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
57 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# Open Questions
|
|
|
|
## Core ontology
|
|
|
|
- Is `Authority → Projection → Affordance` a better primary axis than traditional "state management" terminology?
|
|
- Should `Mutation` represent intent, transport, state transition, or be split?
|
|
- Is `Reconciliation` independent enough to be a first-class responsibility?
|
|
- Should `Communication Window` become a canonical dimension?
|
|
|
|
## Pattern language
|
|
|
|
- What qualifies as a pattern rather than a technique?
|
|
- How much implementation detail belongs in canonical patterns?
|
|
- How do we represent patterns that only make sense at one scale?
|
|
- How should pattern relations be validated?
|
|
|
|
## Agentic use
|
|
|
|
- Which metadata is necessary for useful pattern retrieval?
|
|
- Should the pattern graph be exported as JSON/YAML/RDF?
|
|
- Can force matching be made quantitative without creating false precision?
|
|
- Can architecture review be expressed as unresolved-force detection?
|
|
|
|
## Evidence
|
|
|
|
- What makes a frontend pattern "established"?
|
|
- Should known uses be manually curated or automatically mined?
|
|
- How should contradictory source claims be represented?
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Investigation ledger
|
|
|
|
All entries are open. Update status and evidence links as research proceeds;
|
|
retaining a hypothesis requires evidence just as rejecting one does.
|
|
|
|
| Question | Working hypothesis | Disconfirmation exercise | Owner workplan |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| Q01 Responsibility coverage | Nine responsibilities explain the seed cases | Record any important decision that cannot be mapped without distortion | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q02 Independence | Authority and projection can vary independently | Compare server-authoritative and local-first decisions; identify forced coupling | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q03 Pattern recurrence | Candidates describe reusable configurations | Seek independent uses and a counterexample; reject product-specific restatements | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q04 Generativity | Resulting contexts make later decisions easier | Compare walkthrough with a plain narrative and change one constraint | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q05 Sequence ordering | The general sequence works with explicit branches | Test offline, collaboration and quality requirements that force earlier decisions | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q06 Scale and boundaries | Composition and deployment are distinct dimensions | Analyze independently owned features that deploy together, and the reverse | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q07 Retrieval | Metadata improves relevant, justified recommendations | Held-out prompts including ambiguity, incompatibility and abstention | FEP-WP-0004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
## First-cycle update — 2026-09-24
|
|
|
|
[AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md) records an initial manual comparison.
|
|
Q02 remains open: distinguish authority scope and acknowledgement semantics before
|
|
claiming independent responsibility dimensions. Q03 remains open because source
|
|
statements do not alone establish recurrence. Q04 awaits VC-01/VC-02 walkthroughs.
|
|
The failed provider runs are execution failures, not negative evidence for the model.
|
|
|
|
## Transactional contrast — 2026-09-25
|
|
|
|
[VC-01/VC-02 assessment](../reviews/VC01-VC02-Comparison.md) sharpens Q02: local drafts do not imply local authority. Q03 lacks independent frontend uses; Q04 remains unknown despite two complete synthetic narratives. No question is closed by pattern count.
|