frontend-patterns/research/plan/OpenQuestions.md

# 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.

## Q05 navigation completion versus focus ownership — 2026-09-27

[NO01–NO06](../reviews/NavigationOwnershipExperiment.md) distinguish rights to apply
a navigation result from rights to move focus. Obsolete errors and history completions
can violate current intent even when the prior single-response policy seemed adequate.
Q05 remains open beyond one fixture family. [Thread review](../reviews/NavigationThreadReview.md)
pauses the fixture and proposes an independently developed application source contrast.
No new ownership pattern or canonical dimension is admitted.