frontend-patterns/research/evolution/ledger.json

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "coverage": "Ten selected retrospective outcomes (not a historical census), followed by prospectively registered bounded cycles. Retrospective effort remains unknown.",
  "events": [
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0001",
      "date": "2026-09-25",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "D",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "What do pinned recovery implementations establish?",
      "previous_belief": "Documentary motivation did not locate draft/outcome mechanisms in frontend code.",
      "conclusion": "Zulip and Element locate partial draft/outcome mechanisms; complete pattern recurrence is still unknown.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0005",
        "CAND-0007"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Deployed full lifecycle remains unverified."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0002",
      "date": "2026-09-25",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "D",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Does cancellation or a transport error settle mutation outcome?",
      "previous_belief": "Recovery identity and authoritative echo required executable checks.",
      "conclusion": "Synthetic transport with the real Matrix SDK distinguishes replay identity, duplicate commits and authoritative echo.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0007"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/MatrixRecoveryExperiment.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "No real server deduplication guarantee."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0003",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "cross-stream",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Does naming patterns improve the frozen pilot decisions?",
      "previous_belief": "Initial editorial scores were 21/24 named and 19/24 prose.",
      "conclusion": "Submitted model review adjudication yields 18/24 in each condition; this does not establish equivalence or a presentation benefit.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0005",
        "CAND-0007",
        "CAND-0001",
        "CAND-0002"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/submitted-review-01/adjudication.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Independent human validation pending.",
        "Historical effort unknown; this entry does not allocate whole-pilot telemetry."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0004",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "D",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Which recovery recommendations overstate their guarantees?",
      "previous_belief": "Shared guidance left retention/export policy, cancellation and local backup boundaries insufficiently explicit.",
      "conclusion": "Guidance now separates authorization, remote compensation, atomic supersession and off-device backup.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0001",
        "CAND-0002",
        "CAND-0003",
        "CAND-0005",
        "CAND-0007"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/SharedGuidanceRevision.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Editorial correction is not new production evidence."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0005",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "B",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "What does URL/history and enhancement documentation actually promise?",
      "previous_belief": "Navigation and rendering seeds lacked explicit dereferenceability and fallback distinctions.",
      "conclusion": "Developed two hypotheses separating address-bar updates from direct loads, and HTML delivery from usable no-script actions.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0009",
        "CAND-0010"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/NavigationRenderingEvidence.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Navigation/history/cache runtime checks remain pending."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0006",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "F",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Why can immediate nested dismissal close the outer task?",
      "previous_belief": "The first fixture exposed a timing failure with unresolved ownership.",
      "conclusion": "Trace locates stale Escape listener ownership despite inner registration/focus; a guard can lose input.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0016",
        "CAND-0015"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/BoundaryRecoveryExperiment.md",
        "research/reviews/NestedDismissalIsolation.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Readiness waits are not a public product repair."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0007",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "F",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Can event-time ownership route dismissal without a settling delay?",
      "previous_belief": "Isolation supplied a mechanism but no lifecycle-safe candidate routing experiment.",
      "conclusion": "Controlled fixture routed 24/24 versus raw 20/24; initial measurement error and corrected results retained.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0016"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/NestedOwnershipRouting.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Animated exit and competing-owner coverage remain open."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0008",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "E",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Are feature organization and independent activation the same boundary?",
      "previous_belief": "The feature-slice hypothesis needed a source-layout/release contrast.",
      "conclusion": "Pinned examples distinguish organizational slicing from activation contracts; added Independent Feature Boundary.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0013",
        "CAND-0017"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/FeatureDeploymentBoundaries.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Shared startup dependencies still couple nominally separate features."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0009",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "E",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "Does publication or rollback update every session?",
      "previous_belief": "Static source review could not establish loaded/lazy-session behavior.",
      "conclusion": "Native-module experiment distinguishes publication, activation and already-bound sessions; artifact retirement breaks old lazy sessions.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0017"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/FeatureReleaseExperiment.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "No CDN or upstream deployment validation."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0010",
      "date": "2026-09-26",
      "recording": "retrospective",
      "stream": "E",
      "comparison_group": null,
      "question": "How do stale activation writers and unfinished drafts constrain updates?",
      "previous_belief": "Release experiment left activation conflicts and reload policy unexecuted.",
      "conclusion": "Conditional replacement rejects stale writers; explicit reload policies preserve or refuse transition, with schema recheck after navigation.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0017",
        "CAND-0005",
        "CAND-0006"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/ActivationConflictsAndReload.md"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "One-process atomicity; no native unload, crash or real remote-outcome coverage."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0011",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "B",
      "comparison_group": "B-navigation-mechanism-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation.md",
      "question": "Can a public route preserve selection and complete-document availability across native/enhanced entry, history and HTTP caching?",
      "previous_belief": "Native href/GET contracts plus representation-aware routing and cache selection should satisfy this narrow obligation; documentary support lacked runtime checks.",
      "conclusion": "Corroborated in pinned htmx fixture: native and history paths work; missing Vary reproduces fragment-as-document reuse in both browsers. Existing obligations stand; no new pattern or promotion.",
      "disposition": "corroboration",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0009",
        "CAND-0010"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/NavigationHistoryExperiment.md",
        "research/experiments/navigation-history/result.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "One authored application, no independent recurrence or usefulness gain.",
        "Accessibility, delayed scripts, interrupted transport, real intermediaries and offline availability remain open."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 6.177,
        "execution_minutes": 1.021,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0012",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "F",
      "comparison_group": "F-navigation-focus-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation-focus.md",
      "question": "Does enhanced route replacement need explicit continuation and feedback policy that respects changed focus ownership?",
      "previous_belief": "Native controls alone do not establish enhanced focus/feedback semantics; delayed responses should respect focus moved to another surviving task. Modal return is not automatically route continuation.",
      "conclusion": "Corroborated in 22 cases: raw same-ID link focus survives but this fragment contract leaves stale title and silent failure; authored heading/status policy works and preserves newer search focus. No AT speech or universal heading policy established.",
      "disposition": "corroboration",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0010",
        "CAND-0016"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/NavigationFocusExperiment.md",
        "research/experiments/navigation-history/focus-result.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation-focus-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Author-model DOM evidence, no human/AT validation or independent recurrence.",
        "Delayed history focus, competing requests, delayed scripts and interrupted enhancement remain open."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 5.138,
        "execution_minutes": 0.525,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0013",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "F",
      "comparison_group": "F-navigation-ownership-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation-ownership.md",
      "question": "Can obsolete history/navigation completions affect newer intent, and does separating completion ownership from focus ownership prevent it?",
      "previous_belief": "The single-response continuation policy preserved newer search focus but left competing history/success/error completions unresolved; focus-at-swap alone might not be sufficient.",
      "conclusion": "Revise operational guidance: validate navigation ownership before content/URL/title/feedback effects, including stale errors and newer failure, independently of focus permission. Prior policy misses obligations in 12/12 adversarial rows; authored guard meets 12/12. Pause fixture work for independent source contrast.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0009",
        "CAND-0010",
        "CAND-0016"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/NavigationOwnershipExperiment.md",
        "research/reviews/NavigationThreadReview.md",
        "research/experiments/navigation-history/ownership-result.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-navigation-ownership-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "One authored htmx family and author-model review, not production recurrence or AT validation.",
        "History adapter is pinned implementation-dependent; pending-state, multiple-miss and lifecycle limits remain open.",
        "Three distinct protocols are not a comparable diminishing-returns window."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 13.918,
        "execution_minutes": 1.238,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0014",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "B",
      "comparison_group": "B-independent-navigation-source-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md",
      "question": "Where does independently developed Zulip scope navigation/search result and focus applicability, and where does our model fail to establish a guarantee?",
      "previous_belief": "The authored navigation generation guard protected current-view and focus effects, but independent application recurrence and alternative ownership/cache policies were unverified.",
      "conclusion": "Revise guidance toward per-effect applicability: pinned Zulip preserves noncurrent cache data while guarding main selected-view continuations by list identity. Make client-fragment addressability explicit without inferring no-script enhancement. Shared feedback, auxiliary callbacks and deferred focus limit the inference.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0009",
        "CAND-0010",
        "CAND-0016"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/ZulipNavigationSourceStudy.md",
        "research/reviews/ZulipNavigationSources.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Static targeted ranges in twelve files, no Zulip runtime/upstream test execution or independent human/AT review.",
        "Auxiliary lookup/anchor continuations, deferred focus and callback wiring need a bounded follow-up before any race claim.",
        "One Zulip family supplies partial mechanisms, not full-contract recurrence or a no-script guarantee."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 6.345,
        "execution_minutes": 0.289,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0015",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "cross-stream",
      "comparison_group": "CD-authority-projection-documentary-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-authority-projection.md",
      "question": "Do the six authority/projection seeds denote reusable patterns or a mixture of scoped acceptance, projection placement and delivery choices?",
      "previous_belief": "Authority is scoped and acknowledgement levels differ, but six seed names lack developed contracts and their projection/delivery relationships are not explicitly compared.",
      "conclusion": "Revise the research decision aid to separate scoped acceptance, projection computation and delivery timing with compatibility constraints. Six seed dispositions and two synthetic traces; retain all seeds, zero new drafts or candidate maturity changes.",
      "disposition": "revision",
      "affected_patterns": [],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/AuthorityProjectionComparison.md",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-authority-projection-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Six living primary documents across four families, not independent full-contract implementations; exact revisions unknown.",
        "Synthetic VC-01/02 reasoning is not execution or demonstrated usefulness; authority/merge/storage and phase-specific recovery contracts still need application evidence.",
        "Existing candidate profiles unchanged; five prospective groups are not a comparable learning trend."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 3.128,
        "execution_minutes": 0.033,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0016",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "cross-stream",
      "comparison_group": "CD-acceptance-projection-static-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md",
      "question": "Does the six-question authority/projection aid distinguish local editable content, remote shared acceptance and subsequent projection in a pinned application?",
      "previous_belief": "Scoped acceptance, projection location and delivery schedule are separate questions with compatibility constraints; a local display need not establish shared acceptance.",
      "conclusion": "Corroborated in pinned Zulip content editing: conditional local Markdown echo precedes remote validation; locked optional content checks and server rendering precede save/event scheduling; HTTP and event application are distinct paths. Same displayed object can carry tentative content. No candidate or maturity change.",
      "disposition": "corroboration",
      "affected_patterns": [],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/ZulipAcceptanceProjection.md",
        "research/reviews/ZulipAcceptanceSources.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Ten selected source/test files from one existing Zulip family, no application/database/upstream test execution or full-contract recurrence.",
        "Response/event ordering, lost response after acceptance and current-edit ownership need preregistered reproduction; no defect or safe-replay claim.",
        "Six prospective groups are not a comparable trend; original human and milestone gates remain open."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 4.182,
        "execution_minutes": 0.102,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0017",
      "date": "2026-09-27",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "B",
      "comparison_group": "B-independent-navigation-source-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-target-lookup.md",
      "question": "Do Zulip's target-message lookup and anchor-navigation fetch continuation guard against a stale navigation that occurred while the request was in flight, the way the main narrow-fetch continuation (ZN02) does?",
      "previous_belief": "ZN07 located both callbacks and noted no visible captured-current-list guard, but did not trace their callers or check test coverage.",
      "conclusion": "Traced both continuations to their concrete completion points: process_result calls opts.cont unconditionally, and neither the target-lookup channel.get nor load_messages_around_anchor supplies opts.msg_list, so neither participates in the opt-in list-identity guard that message_fetch.ts implements for other callers. No located test exercises a stale-navigation scenario for either path.",
      "disposition": "corroboration",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0009",
        "CAND-0010"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/ZulipTargetLookupCallPath.md",
        "research/reviews/ZulipTargetLookupSources.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-target-lookup-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Static source trace only; no application, database or upstream test executed, and no race actually reproduced.",
        "show() performs its own state reset on entry, so a stale re-entry's externally observable effect is unverified without execution.",
        "Second cycle in comparison group B-independent-navigation-source-v1; still short of three comparable cycles, and the workplan's rule against manufacturing cycles to reach that count still applies."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": null,
        "execution_minutes": null,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    },
    {
      "id": "LEARN-0018",
      "date": "2026-09-28",
      "recording": "prospective",
      "stream": "D",
      "comparison_group": "D-sqlite-git-recovery-v1",
      "protocol_ref": "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-28-storage-receiver.md",
      "question": "Which process-recovery obligations can SQLite plus actual Git receive-pack satisfy, and where does object identity fail to supply an operation receipt?",
      "previous_belief": "Atomic local intent/outbox updates and stable receiver identity support recovery within explicit transaction, ancestry and retention boundaries.",
      "conclusion": "Nine checks corroborate atomic SQLite process recovery, Git replay and server ancestry refusal; split-transaction and fresh-identity negative controls retain the limits. One authored integration, not a full frontend use.",
      "disposition": "corroboration",
      "affected_patterns": [
        "CAND-0002",
        "CAND-0003",
        "CAND-0006",
        "CAND-0007"
      ],
      "evidence": [
        "research/reviews/StorageReceiverRecovery.md",
        "research/experiments/storage-receiver/result.json",
        "research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-28-storage-receiver-effort.json"
      ],
      "remaining_uncertainty": [
        "Power-loss, device-loss backup, remote durability and arbitrary operation-ID retention remain unverified.",
        "No full frontend contract, independent human validation or M1/M2/M3 acceptance.",
        "New runtime group is not comparable with static studies; no learning trend."
      ],
      "reviewer": {
        "name": "Codex",
        "role": "author-model",
        "independent_human": false
      },
      "effort": {
        "research_minutes": 4.123,
        "execution_minutes": 0.014,
        "reported_tokens": null,
        "cost_usd": null
      },
      "supersedes": []
    }
  ]
}