tegwick
f273a190f0
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
116 lines
7.1 KiB
Markdown
116 lines
7.1 KiB
Markdown
# Open Questions
|
|
|
|
## Core ontology
|
|
|
|
- Is `Authority → Projection → Affordance` a better primary axis than traditional "state management" terminology?
|
|
- Should `Mutation` represent intent, transport, state transition, or be split?
|
|
- Is `Reconciliation` independent enough to be a first-class responsibility?
|
|
- Should `Communication Window` become a canonical dimension?
|
|
|
|
## Pattern language
|
|
|
|
- What qualifies as a pattern rather than a technique?
|
|
- How much implementation detail belongs in canonical patterns?
|
|
- How do we represent patterns that only make sense at one scale?
|
|
- How should pattern relations be validated?
|
|
|
|
## Agentic use
|
|
|
|
- Which metadata is necessary for useful pattern retrieval?
|
|
- Should the pattern graph be exported as JSON/YAML/RDF?
|
|
- Can force matching be made quantitative without creating false precision?
|
|
- Can architecture review be expressed as unresolved-force detection?
|
|
|
|
## Evidence
|
|
|
|
- What makes a frontend pattern "established"?
|
|
- Should known uses be manually curated or automatically mined?
|
|
- How should contradictory source claims be represented?
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Investigation ledger
|
|
|
|
All entries are open. Update status and evidence links as research proceeds;
|
|
retaining a hypothesis requires evidence just as rejecting one does.
|
|
|
|
| Question | Working hypothesis | Disconfirmation exercise | Owner workplan |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| Q01 Responsibility coverage | Nine responsibilities explain the seed cases | Record any important decision that cannot be mapped without distortion | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q02 Independence | Authority and projection can vary independently | Compare server-authoritative and local-first decisions; identify forced coupling | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q03 Pattern recurrence | Candidates describe reusable configurations | Seek independent uses and a counterexample; reject product-specific restatements | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q04 Generativity | Resulting contexts make later decisions easier | Compare walkthrough with a plain narrative and change one constraint | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q05 Sequence ordering | The general sequence works with explicit branches | Test offline, collaboration and quality requirements that force earlier decisions | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q06 Scale and boundaries | Composition and deployment are distinct dimensions | Analyze independently owned features that deploy together, and the reverse | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q07 Retrieval | Metadata improves relevant, justified recommendations | Held-out prompts including ambiguity, incompatibility and abstention | FEP-WP-0004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
## First-cycle update — 2026-09-24
|
|
|
|
[AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md) records an initial manual comparison.
|
|
Q02 remains open: distinguish authority scope and acknowledgement semantics before
|
|
claiming independent responsibility dimensions. Q03 remains open because source
|
|
statements do not alone establish recurrence. Q04 awaits VC-01/VC-02 walkthroughs.
|
|
The failed provider runs are execution failures, not negative evidence for the model.
|
|
|
|
## Transactional contrast — 2026-09-25
|
|
|
|
[VC-01/VC-02 assessment](../reviews/VC01-VC02-Comparison.md) sharpens Q02: local drafts do not imply local authority. Q03 lacks independent frontend uses; Q04 remains unknown despite two complete synthetic narratives. No question is closed by pattern count.
|
|
|
|
2026-09-25 follow-up: [pinned frontend code](../reviews/FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md) supports two partial draft-separation uses, but not full-pattern recurrence. [Review attempt](../reviews/RecoveryWalkthroughReview.md) yielded no adopted model fixes; editorial lifecycle corrections do not resolve Q04 usefulness.
|
|
|
|
## Q04 presentation pilot — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Matched pilot](../evaluations/language-pilot-01/README.md) completed six new briefs
|
|
under two equivalent-information conditions. Q04 remains open: small mixed descriptive
|
|
differences, same-author editorial scoring and pending human adjudication do not
|
|
establish usefulness. The six briefs are consumed pilot material, not future held-out
|
|
items. Next: independent ratings before changing guidance or replicating.
|
|
|
|
2026-09-26 submitted-review update: [adjudicated totals](../evaluations/language-pilot-01/submitted-review-01/adjudication.md)
|
|
are 18/24 for each condition after four corrections. No presentation benefit is
|
|
established; equal totals do not establish equivalence. Worksheet declares model
|
|
authorship and prior aggregate-result exposure. Q04 remains open; future rubrics
|
|
should split compound obligations before execution.
|
|
|
|
## Breadth update — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Six-candidate review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md) extends Q03/Q05/Q06.
|
|
Q06 separates module interfaces, client activation, fault containment and independent
|
|
release contracts. Q05 asks when modal focus/lifecycle requirements must shape
|
|
composition. Q03 still lacks verified recurrence for these complete contracts;
|
|
Q04 still lacks demonstrated decision benefit. Synthetic probes do not close cases.
|
|
|
|
## Q05 temporal interaction ownership — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Nested dismissal isolation](../reviews/NestedDismissalIsolation.md) distinguishes
|
|
visible/focused interaction from ownership of its dismissal handler. A guard can
|
|
prevent the wrong close while losing valid input. Q05 remains open: lifecycle and
|
|
input-routing contracts may need to shape composition before focus-return rules.
|
|
No new pattern or canonical dimension follows from one synthetic family.
|
|
|
|
Q05 routing follow-up: [experimental owner dispatch](../reviews/NestedOwnershipRouting.md)
|
|
separates input delivery from return-focus policy. Successful cancellation and cleanup
|
|
matter alongside correct close targeting. The bounded mechanism comparison supports
|
|
this distinction; it does not establish a universal ownership model or close Q05.
|
|
|
|
## Q06 source, artifact and activation boundaries — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Pinned contrast](../reviews/FeatureDeploymentBoundaries.md) locates feature APIs
|
|
inside one application build and separately defined microfrontend release workflows.
|
|
Shared startup dependencies still couple runtime availability. Q06 now distinguishes
|
|
module imports, artifacts, activation bindings, runtime failures and team ownership;
|
|
separate repositories prove none of the latter guarantees by themselves.
|
|
[VC-06](../walkthroughs/VC06-MicrofrontendEstate.md) changes only release cadence to
|
|
show why source boundaries can remain while deployment units merge. Runtime version
|
|
skew/rollback and independent assessment remain open; Q06 is not closed.
|
|
|
|
Q06 lifecycle follow-up: [release experiment](../reviews/FeatureReleaseExperiment.md)
|
|
distinguishes artifact retention, document binding and module-instance lifetime.
|
|
Old delayed loads can fail after artifact retirement even while already-loaded old
|
|
sessions work. Deployment independence remains conditional on a session-support
|
|
contract; no general answer or canonical promotion follows from this fixture.
|
|
|
|
Q06 activation/reload follow-up: [conditional update and draft tests](../reviews/ActivationConflictsAndReload.md)
|
|
show why disjoint-intent retry differs from competing rollback, and why preflight
|
|
compatibility must be rechecked after reload. Same-tab draft preservation is narrower
|
|
than durability or remote-outcome recovery. No question or maturity gate is closed.
|