tegwick
c856cb9e64
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 - docs/TestDriverInitialMilestones.md (M0-M10) is now canonical - INTENT.md and ConceptModel section 15 carry superseded banners plus a mapping table rather than being deleted - canonical order is explicitly distinguished from execution order - research/findings/ established;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
77 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
id: F-0001
|
||
type: framework-finding
|
||
class: CONCEPT_DRIFT
|
||
status: resolved
|
||
discovered: "2026-08-22"
|
||
resolved: "2026-08-22"
|
||
discovered_by: concept-assessment
|
||
source: history/2026-08-22-concept-assessment-swot.md
|
||
workplan: TD-WP-0002
|
||
task: 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.
|