test-driver/research/findings/F-0001-milestone-sequence-drift.md
tegwick c856cb9e64 T01: establish canonical milestone sequence, record F-0001
Three documents defined conflicting milestone sequences; an unqualified
reference to e.g. 'M2' was ambiguous across the corpus.

- docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md (M0-M10) is now canonical
- INTENT.md and ConceptModel section 15 carry superseded banners plus a
  mapping table rather than being deleted
- canonical order is explicitly distinguished from execution order
- research/findings/ established; F-0001 filed as CONCEPT_DRIFT, resolved
  via path 2 (concept deliberately revised), with one residual for T10

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1629012@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 78d4fb13-8a1e-474b-87a3-9b9261c49a39
2026-08-22 23:07:31 +02:00

3.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

id type class status discovered resolved discovered_by source workplan task
F-0001 framework-finding CONCEPT_DRIFT resolved 2026-08-22 2026-08-22 concept-assessment history/2026-08-22-concept-assessment-swot.md TD-WP-0002 TD-WP-0002-T01

F-0001 — Three conflicting milestone sequences

Class

CONCEPT_DRIFT — the repository carried three mutually inconsistent statements of the same concept, with no explicit decision revising any of them.

Note the unusual shape: §5 of the Improvement Loop defines concept drift as implementation diverging from concept. Here there was no implementation at all. The drift was document-to-document, which the taxonomy does not currently name. See "Residual" below.

Observation

Three documents each defined a milestone sequence for the same project:

Document Sequence
INTENT.md § Initial Milestones M0M3
docs/TestDriverConceptModel.md § 15 M0M3 (different content)
docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md M0M10

The two M0M3 sequences disagreed with each other and both disagreed with the M0M10 sequence. M2, for instance, denoted "Adaptation and Crystallization" in one document and "Test-Driver Lab" in another — so an unqualified reference to "M2" was ambiguous across the corpus.

Why it matters

The project's own thesis is that implementations must not silently redefine intended behaviour, and that concept drift is a first-class finding. The corpus exhibited the failure it was written to prevent, before a single line of code existed. Left unresolved, every subsequent milestone reference in commits, workplans and evidence would have been ambiguous.

Resolution

Path 2 of §5 — the concept is deliberately revised.

docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md (M0M10) is now canonical. It is the most complete of the three, is the only one carrying exit criteria and success metrics, and is the only one that names the lab, self-verification, the improvement loop and the compression review.

The other two sections were replaced in place with a superseded banner and a mapping table rather than deleted, so that references from earlier commits and from history/ remain interpretable.

Execution order is deliberately not the canonical order: workplans/TD-WP-0002-vertical-spike-crystallization.md drives one thin thread through canonical M1M7 rather than completing each milestone in turn. Canonical sequence and execution sequence are now distinct and separately stated.

Residual

The finding taxonomy (§9) has no class for divergence between concept documentsCONCEPT_DRIFT is defined as implementation-vs-concept. This finding was classified CONCEPT_DRIFT as the nearest fit.

Carry into TD-WP-0002-T10 (compression review): either widen CONCEPT_DRIFT to cover intra-conceptual inconsistency, or accept that pre-implementation document drift is not a framework finding at all and should be handled as ordinary editorial hygiene. Do not add a new finding class before that question is answered — the taxonomy is already larger than the evidence supporting it.