frontend-patterns/research/evaluations/language-replication-03/raw/r11/answer.md

• The accepted batch import I should be treated as complete, and the failure to refresh visible cards does not invalidate its acceptance. The new card draft D must be preserved separately from any refresh attempts.

• The authenticated receipt for I establishes its acceptance. The lack of an ordering contract for the cache read means its opaque version labels cannot be used to infer the current state or to justify re-running I.

• The correct recovery action is to refresh the affected observations while keeping the unfinished draft D separate. Rerunning I is an incorrect action as it was already accepted. Replacing the editor from the cache is also incorrect due to the lack of a read-after-write contract.

• The proposal is missing a contract for how to handle divergent observations after an accepted operation, specifically how to reconcile the visible cards with the accepted import I when a refresh fails and a background cache provides inconsistent data.