Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
8.9 KiB
Pattern Candidate Catalog
This file tracks concepts before promotion into canonical pattern files.
| Candidate | Family | Scale | Status | Main force |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Server Authority | authority | L2 | seed | authoritative consistency |
| Local Authority | authority | L2 | seed | offline usability |
| Replicated Authority | authority | L2 | seed | collaborative concurrency |
| URL as Application State | address | L3 | seed | addressability |
| Server Projection | projection | L3 | seed | client compute / delivery |
| Client Projection | projection | L3 | seed | interaction locality |
| Streaming Projection | projection | L3 | seed | first-content latency |
| Islands of Interactivity | projection | L3 | seed | client execution cost |
| Local Interaction State | affordance | L6 | seed | responsiveness |
| Optimistic Overlay | affordance | L6 | seed | interaction latency |
| Invalidate and Reproject | synchronization | L3/L6 | seed | freshness |
| Persistent Subscription | synchronization | L3 | seed | update latency |
| Vertical Feature Slice | composition | L4 | seed | change locality |
| Independent Feature Boundary | composition | L4 | seed | team autonomy |
| Progressive Enhancement | quality | cross-scale | seed | resilience/accessibility |
| Failure Boundary | quality | L5/L6 | seed | fault containment |
seed means "worth researching", not "accepted into the canon".
First investigation dispositions — 2026-09-24
See AuthorityPilot. These are manual source-review outcomes, not successful bench extraction or canonical admission.
| Candidate | Evidence reference | Disposition / question |
|---|---|---|
| Server Authority | SRC-0001, Carniato review C01 | Retain; identify precisely which data and decisions it governs |
| Immediate Feedback | SRC-0001, Carniato review C02 | Add seed; feedback should distinguish tentative from durable/accepted state |
| Local Authority | SRC-0002, local-first review C01 | Retain; test primary ownership versus cache behavior |
| Scoped Authority | Cross-source interpretation in AuthorityPilot | Defer new pattern; may belong in context requirements instead |
No recurrence, established maturity, known uses or required dependency edges are claimed by these dispositions. Other seed candidates remain unassessed.
2026-09-25: the completed local-first -06 investigation found no pattern justified
by its single-fragment packet. Local Authority remains a manual seed hypothesis;
no generated candidate IDs or relations were admitted. The missing evidence is
persistence, concurrency, recovery and located independent uses. See
editorial review.
Located conflict-handling uses — 2026-09-25
Conflict Copy is a new research draft (synchronization, L2/L6, hypothesis). It merges the Joplin and Obsidian workspace P01 candidates. Two independently published application guides document the narrow mechanism; no runtime tests or universal no-loss guarantee. Invalid generated requires edges were rejected. See evidence/dispositions.
The expanded evidence also refines Local Authority: local persistence, remote-version selection, semantic resolution and backup are separate concerns. A primary local copy does not make every local edit globally authoritative.
Application-driven drafts — 2026-09-25
VC-02 connects Conflict Copy with three new hypothesis research drafts: Local Commit Boundary, Pending Synchronization, and Explicit Reconciliation. Their exact transaction/retry/UI contracts are proposed, not inferred implementation guarantees. No FEP IDs or canonical edges. Test whether Explicit Reconciliation deserves a separate pattern; full admission remains open.
Transactional expansion — 2026-09-25
Four additional hypothesis drafts: Local Draft State, Version-Checked Mutation, Mutation Outcome Tracking and Invalidate and Reproject. The last elaborates the existing seed name. Eight developed research drafts now exist; none has canonical admission. Server Authority remains context; Optimistic Overlay remains deferred. See dispositions and evidence.
Presentation pilot — 2026-09-26
Six-pair pilot: initial masked editorial scoring found 21/24 obligations met with named patterns versus 19/24 with equivalent prose, and two unsupported claims in each. Inconclusive; human review pending. Retain all eight hypotheses, no new pattern or promotion. Do not mistake a small presentation difference for proof of recurrence or improved architecture decisions.
2026-09-26 adjudication: the user-submitted model-assisted worksheet supports four rating corrections; both presentations now meet 18/24 obligations. The original 21/24 versus 19/24 figures above are historical. Adjudication retains all eight hypotheses and the unfulfilled independent-human evidence gate.
Navigation/rendering expansion — 2026-09-26
URL-addressable State develops the URL as Application State seed; Progressive Enhancement develops its existing seed. Ten developed hypothesis drafts now exist, none admitted. VC-03 adds a provisional synthetic case; documentation mechanisms do not establish full-pattern recurrence or decision benefit. Six existing drafts received shared guidance corrections outside the frozen pilot. Stop adding drafts for this slice; next gather implementation evidence and challenge the proposed contracts.
Broader decisions — 2026-09-26
The user's request to broaden supersedes the previous slice's pause on candidate addition. Six further developed hypotheses bring the current total to sixteen:
| Draft | Family / scale | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Presentation Model | composition, affordance / L4, L6 | Separate presentation decisions from widget APIs |
| Derived State | projection, affordance / L3, L6 | Compute values instead of maintaining competing mutable copies |
| Vertical Feature Slice | composition / L4 | Organize a capability behind a public module interface |
| Islands of Interactivity | projection, execution / L3, L5 | Activate selected document regions |
| Failure Boundary | quality, composition / L5, L6 | Contain a declared failure class and define recovery |
| Focus Return | quality, affordance / L6 | Resume keyboard work after modal interruption |
Breadth review records primary claims, non-overlap, counterexamples, synthetic probes and deferred candidates. Initial seed rows above are historical inventory, not additional developed records. No canonical admission, proven recurrence or demonstrated presentation benefit is claimed.
Partial boundary execution — 2026-09-26
Browser experiment adds partial evidence for Failure Boundary and Focus Return. Seven of eight immediate-run assertions met; a separate 100 ms nested-settling condition met eight. Removed-trigger default behavior is a negative control, and immediate nested dismissal remains unresolved. Sixteen hypotheses retained, no admission or full-pattern recurrence claim.
Source/build/release distinction — 2026-09-26
Independent Feature Boundary develops the existing seed around separate release/activation contracts (composition/execution, L1/L4). Seventeen developed hypotheses now exist; none admitted. Pinned example sources support partial mechanisms, not verified production release independence. Vertical Feature Slice gains a source-layout example and a contrast with deployment. Evidence and provisional VC-06 distinguish module, artifact, activation, runtime-failure and organizational boundaries.
Independent Feature Boundary follow-up: native-module release cases add bounded execution for publication, activation, session-scoped rollback and artifact retention. Corpus remains seventeen hypotheses; synthetic host behavior is not an independent application use or production release guarantee.