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 - docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md (M0-M10) is now canonical - INTENT.md and ConceptModel section 15 carry superseded banners plus a mapping table rather than being deleted - canonical order is explicitly distinguished from execution order - research/findings/ established;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
3.1 KiB
| 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 |
M0–M3 |
docs/TestDriverConceptModel.md § 15 |
M0–M3 (different content) |
docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md |
M0–M10 |
The two M0–M3 sequences disagreed with each other and both disagreed with the
M0–M10 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 (M0–M10) 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 M1–M7 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
documents — CONCEPT_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.