tegwick
211f8fc4b2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 182330@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 242866cf-789d-4e24-ac5e-0a1d7b47a701
1.5 KiB
Here's a review of the proposed frontend decision based on the provided reference:
-
Operation and Visible State: The application should distinguish between the locally saved, un-uploaded content and any current authoritative state. The agent's "local save" is not remote acceptance, and the explicit rejection means the proposed changes are not authoritative. The editor should reflect this divergence, showing the agent's work as distinct from the rejected upload status.
-
Information and Policy Boundaries: The product rule for "recoverable rejected edits" is insufficient. The absence of explicit policy for local viewing, retention, export, or deletion after access withdrawal means these actions are undefined, not implicitly permitted or forbidden. Export requires separate permission, which is currently missing.
-
Recovery Action and Rejected Alternative: The suggestion to keep the editor open indefinitely and export a recovery archive is a workaround for missing policy. A more robust recovery action would involve preserving the agent's work with a distinct identity and provenance, as policy permits, rather than relying on an open application state.
-
Missing Contract: There is no defined retention or failure scope for the locally saved content, especially concerning off-device recovery. The application lacks a clear contract for how to handle this "recoverable" content when access is withdrawn, including its eventual deletion or transfer.