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
7 lines
No EOL
1.2 KiB
Markdown
7 lines
No EOL
1.2 KiB
Markdown
* **Operation and Visible State:** The system must atomically commit the chosen revision `c`, the new operation `Q`, and the non-retryable status of `P` within a single recoverable transaction. This ensures that `P` is not reactivated after a restart if the process dies between transactions.
|
|
|
|
* **Information and Policy Boundaries:** The scenario highlights a missing contract regarding the receiver's version and ancestry enforcement. Without this, the system cannot guarantee that an already transmitted `P` will be correctly handled by the receiver, even if marked non-retryable locally.
|
|
|
|
* **Recovery Action and Rejected Alternative:** The proposed correction prevents `P` from becoming active again locally after a crash, addressing the risk of re-transmitting a superseded operation. The alternative of marking `P` non-retryable in a separate transaction is rejected due to the vulnerability to process death.
|
|
|
|
* **Missing Contract:** The absence of a documented contract for the receiver's version/ancestry enforcement means the system cannot rely on the receiver to correctly handle `P` if it arrives after `Q` or `c`, or if it's a stale version. This requires external reconciliation or a defined receiver policy. |