tegwick
d7b2ea49ce
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
41 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
41 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# VC-01 / VC-02 cross-case assessment
|
|
|
|
Codex self-review, 2026-09-25. Inputs: [transactional administration](../walkthroughs/VC01-TransactionalAdministration.md)
|
|
and [offline field notes](../walkthroughs/VC02-OfflineFieldNotes.md). Both are synthetic;
|
|
the comparison is a hypothesis test in prose, not independent validation.
|
|
|
|
| Decision | VC-01 | VC-02 | Consequence for the language |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| First acknowledged boundary | Server accepts a valid command | Local recoverable commit | “Saved” needs an explicit scope |
|
|
| Local editing | Unaccepted proposal | Locally authoritative revision after commit | Local state does not imply local authority |
|
|
| Remote divergence | Reject stale proposal; retain intent for review | Preserve divergent revisions for reconciliation | Shared concern, different acceptance histories |
|
|
| Response loss | Outcome unknown until operation-specific evidence | Propagation unacknowledged; local commit remains valid | Pending synchronization and pending mutation are not synonyms |
|
|
| Retry | Same command identity under bounded contract | Same propagation identity under receiver contract | Retry identity is a shared prerequisite, not yet an admitted pattern |
|
|
| Refresh | Server observation must not erase a draft | Incoming revision must not erase unresolved local work | Preservation connects the cases without equating their storage guarantees |
|
|
| Single writer branch | Domain validation and uncertain outcomes remain | Conflict-copy path can be omitted | Remove mechanisms only when their motivating force disappears |
|
|
|
|
Q02 remains open but gains a precise counterexample to “local state means local
|
|
authority”: VC-01 keeps local drafts while server acceptance controls shared records.
|
|
Q03 remains open: server API evidence does not establish independent frontend uses.
|
|
Q04 remains unknown: both plain narratives already express the obligations. An
|
|
independent reviewer must judge whether names expose omissions or improve decisions.
|
|
|
|
Provisional relations: Local Draft State supports Version-Checked Mutation recovery;
|
|
Mutation Outcome Tracking distinguishes acceptance from Invalidate and Reproject
|
|
freshness. Across cases, draft preservation resembles Conflict Copy's preservation
|
|
of intent, but neither requires the other's exact mechanism. These are editorial
|
|
connections, not canonical graph edges or evidence of recurrence.
|
|
|
|
Keep the structure stable for the next cycle. Seek implementation evidence for the
|
|
weakest new claim (unknown-outcome recovery), then an independent comparison of both
|
|
cases. Rendering/addressing can follow as a bounded new branch after that review;
|
|
a graph export or broader schema would not resolve the current evidence gaps.
|
|
|
|
## Pinned implementation and recovery follow-up — 2026-09-25
|
|
|
|
[Zulip/Element inspection](FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md) adds two partial uses
|
|
of unsent-intent preservation and asynchronous message reconciliation. They do not
|
|
prove the full approval or offline-note designs. [Review disposition](RecoveryWalkthroughReview.md)
|
|
records two rejected model findings and three separate editorial lifecycle corrections.
|
|
Q03 still needs complete-pattern evidence; Q04 remains unknown. A completed second-model
|
|
response does not satisfy independent empirical review.
|