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
1.4 KiB
Here's a review of the proposed frontend decision based on the provided reference:
-
Operation and Visible State: The tool separates the current scene from pending uploads and a conflict copy. This aligns with keeping observations and unfinished proposals distinct, and preserving alternatives. However, the "conflict copy" implies divergence detection, but its resolution mechanism and whether it's presented to the user are unclear.
-
Information and Policy Boundaries: The tool's local copies and archive are intended for recovery, but their retention, access, and deletion policies are undefined. The reference emphasizes that missing policy means unknown, not unconditional retention or deletion, and that recoverability isn't permission to retain restricted content.
-
Recovery Action and Rejected Alternative: The tool claims restart-safe offline save and local copies. However, the reference states that untested recovery is unknown, not impossible. The alternative of relying on an unchecked off-device archive is insufficient, as its restoration of pending identities and content is unverified.
-
Missing Contract: There's no defined retention/failure scope for the local copies or the off-device archive. The reference explicitly requires defining this scope and testing clean-store restoration, including pending identities, before promising off-device recovery. Same-device copies are not independent backup.