WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft v0.2: founder review resolves all 7 open questions

- umbrella term 'work record'; intake kind 'intake item'
- any repo file is a work-record source; generated per-repo index
  (transclusion-style, markitect scope) replaces separate authored file
- engagements are their own kind
- ordering simple (lane+priority+age); deps optional; WSJF optional,
  situational overload-triage only
- issue-core repositioned as third-party tracker connector (UUID<->
  external id, boundary sync), out of the internal loop
- fresh intake entity in state-hub; suggestions to read-only legacy
- budgets hybrid: repo budgets.yaml + frontmatter override + global
  best-guess default; enforcement programmatic, never agentic

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

research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md

@@ -1,12 +1,13 @@
 # Work Orchestration Architecture — Draft for Discussion
 
-> Draft v0.1 — 2026-07-19. Synthesis of
+> Draft v0.2 — 2026-07-20 (v0.1 2026-07-19). Synthesis of
 > `2026-07-19-work-orchestration-infrastructure-survey.md` (internal) and
 > `2026-07-19-work-orchestration-best-practices.md` (external).
 > Trigger: reconciling the binky-control automation queues with the
-> suggestion/task/workplan backbone (AWQ-010 case). Status: **proposal** —
+> suggestion/task/workplan backbone (AWQ-010 case). Status: **proposal,
-> nothing here is canon until ratified; terminology extensions are marked
+> founder-reviewed** — the seven open questions were resolved with the
-> ⟨new⟩ and would land as a canon standard v0.1 after discussion.
+> founder on 2026-07-20 (§8); terminology extensions are marked ⟨new⟩ and
+> land as canon standard drafts next.
 
 ## 0. Thesis
 
@@ -69,10 +70,20 @@ attention_cost, …) extend the spine; they never replace it.
 
 ### 1.2 File-first, one reconciliation loop (aspect 3)
 
-- Every work record originates in a repo file: workplans as today; intake
+- Every work record originates in a repo file — and **any file in a repo is
-  items, decisions, engagements as YAML blocks inside per-repo registry
+  a potential source of work records**. Workplans stay dedicated files;
-  documents (`queues/…` or the existing live documents — location is
+  intake items, decisions, engagements are YAML blocks authored *in
-  convention, the schema is what matters).
+  context*: thematic live documents, meeting notes, design docs, triage
+  logs. The schema is the contract, not the location. (Motivating example:
+  meeting notes with todos are kept where the work happens, yet the todos
+  must surface in one global orientation view — see the index below.)
+- A fully **generated per-repo work-record index** captures every
+  registered record with a reference to its source location — a
+  transclusion-style view: the record lives once in its source file, the
+  index (and other views) reference it. Registration binds each record to
+  hub state wherever it was authored, which stabilizes concurrent
+  human/agent edits and enables cross-checks instead of causing conflicts.
+  Efficient transclusion and index management is markitect-family scope.
 - **Forgejo CI validates schemas** on push (yaml-block schema per kind —
   the GitOps "validate before apply" rule).
 - `fix-consistency` grows checks per kind (as C-06 does for workplans):
@@ -171,16 +182,39 @@ The three binky queues are retained **as products, redefined as views**:
 
 | Today | Becomes |
 | --- | --- |
-| AutopilotWorkQueue.md (hand-edited) | *Autopilot view*: `kind=intake∨task, lane∈{green,blue}, status∈{open,todo}, tag=automatable`, WSJF-ordered; "never empty" becomes a monitored invariant with an alert, not a plea |
+| AutopilotWorkQueue.md (hand-edited) | *Autopilot view*: `kind=intake∨task, lane∈{green,blue}, status∈{open,todo}, tag=automatable`, ordered by lane+priority+age (§4.1); "never empty" becomes a monitored invariant with an alert, not a plea |
 | DecisionQueue.md open section | *Decision view*: `kind=decision, status=prepared`, ordered by needed_by; resolved log is generated |
 | OfficeHourQueue.md | *Engagement view*: `kind=engagement`, batched per command day; runbook generation stays (officehour/) |
+| — (new) | *Per-repo work-record index* (§1.2): every registered record, any kind, any source file — the "all my todos across everything" orientation view |
 
-Mechanics: records are authored in files (cheap intake preserved — one YAML
+Mechanics: records are authored in their source files (cheap intake
-block, schema-checked); `fix-consistency` indexes them; view documents are
+preserved — one YAML block, schema-checked, authored where the context is);
-regenerated `[auto]` sections. Pull protocol becomes a status transition
+`fix-consistency` indexes them; view documents and the index are
+regenerated `[auto]`. Pull protocol becomes a status transition
 (`todo → progress` with owner) instead of a prose note — which makes claims
-visible fleet-wide and collision-free (issue-core remains the claim
+visible fleet-wide and collision-free.
-*interface* for harness runtime; the record is the truth).
+
+### 4.1 Ordering (resolved 2026-07-20)
+
+Default ordering is deliberately simple: **lane + priority + work-item
+age** — zero extra fields at intake. Dependency capture is *optional* per
+record (edges when they matter, never mandatory). **WSJF is an optional,
+situational triage instrument** for capacity-overload situations, applied
+to a view when selection pressure justifies estimation cost — never a
+required field. Rationale: small tasks implement faster than they can
+feasibly be planned and evaluated beforehand; mandatory estimation is waste
+at the bottom of the size distribution.
+
+### 4.2 issue-core: third-party connector, not core loop (resolved 2026-07-20)
+
+issue-core's role is a **connector framework to external issue-tracking
+systems** (Forgejo issues, Jira, GitHub, …): it maintains the mapping
+between internal work-record UUIDs and external issue ids and provides
+two-way, transclusion-like sync *at the boundary* when we collaborate
+through a third-party tracker. It is not part of the internal execution
+loop — claiming and execution run on work records directly (harness intake
+via NATS/activity-core per its stated target). Until an external
+integration is actually switched on, the connector layer adds zero load.
 
 Promotion (the AWQ-010 lesson) becomes a **first-class transition**:
 `intake.routed → workplan|task|decision|engagement` with back-links
@@ -204,12 +238,20 @@ files and re-syncs — never a manual transcription again.
   classification + credential lanes; centralization is by shared runtime
   (harness, activity-core, hubs) — efficient utilization with clean blast
   radii.
-- **Budgets as guardrail envelopes** (aspect 1): per-run token budgets
+- **Budgets as guardrail envelopes** (aspect 1, resolved 2026-07-20):
-  (harness manifests, enforced today) roll up to per-workplan and per-lane
+  three-level resolution, strictly programmatic —
-  envelopes recorded on the work record; `record_token_event` meters,
+  1. workplan frontmatter override (narrowest, lives with the work),
-  `budget-breached` tag + escalation on breach. Complex-project risk
+  2. per-repo `budgets.yaml` lane/default envelopes (the auditable
-  control = dependency edges (existing) + lane gates + budget envelopes +
+     guardrails),
-  flow metrics, all on one spine.
+  3. **global best-guess default** when neither exists — nothing ever runs
+     unbounded.
+  The harness resolves override → repo policy → global default at run
+  start; `record_token_event` meters; `budget-breached` tag + escalation on
+  breach. Budget resolution and enforcement is **automation infrastructure
+  code, never agentic effort** — AI tokens and personal review only refine
+  the estimates over time. Complex-project risk control = dependency edges
+  (existing) + lane gates + budget envelopes + flow metrics, all on one
+  spine.
 
 ## 6. Opinionated by construction (aspect 7)
 
@@ -247,28 +289,43 @@ files and re-syncs — never a manual transcription again.
 Each stage is independently valuable; stopping after any stage leaves the
 system consistent (no big-bang).
 
-## 8. Open questions for discussion
+## 8. Resolved questions (founder review, 2026-07-20)
 
-1. **Naming**: "work record" vs. "work item" as umbrella; "intake item" vs.
+1. **Naming**: umbrella term is **work record**; the intake kind is
-   keeping "suggestion" fleet-wide; German-friendly alternatives?
+   **intake item** ("suggestion" remains only as the legacy bridge name).
-2. **Where intake blocks live**: per-repo `queues/intake.md` vs. today's
+   Mental model: a task is a specific *kind* of work record — the smallest
-   thematic live documents (AutopilotWorkQueue as a *view* argues for
+   executable unit; the work-record supertype guarantees the shared spine
-   separating authored records from generated views into distinct files).
+   across all kinds.
-3. **Engagements** as their own kind vs. decisions-with-a-time-window —
+2. **Where records live**: **any repo file is a potential source of work
-   the Orange lane is behaviorally distinct (batching), which argues for
+   records** (meeting notes, thematic docs, design docs); a fully
-   the separate kind, but the spine could carry it as a decision subtype.
+   **generated per-repo index** references all registered records in their
-4. **WSJF adoption**: reuse the 2026-06-04 calibration or start simpler
+   source locations (transclusion-style; markitect-family tooling). See
-   (lane + priority + age) and let kaizen metrics justify WSJF later?
+   §1.2. Registration binds records to hub state wherever authored —
-5. **issue-core's long-term role**: claim interface only (proposed here),
+   stabilization and cross-checking for concurrent human/agent work, not a
-   or should issues become file-backed work records too?
+   conflict source.
-6. **Suggestion table reuse vs. new intake entity** in state-hub — schema
+3. **Engagements** are their **own kind** — a command day batches many
-   archaeology needed before stage 3.
+   engagements; an engagement may spawn or resolve several decisions but is
-7. **Budget envelope placement**: frontmatter on workplans vs. a separate
+   not itself one.
-   `budgets.yaml` per repo (compliance kinds may want the latter).
+4. **Ordering**: simple default (lane + priority + age); dependency capture
+   optional; **WSJF optional and situational** — a triage instrument for
+   limited capacity under overload, not a universal method. Small tasks
+   implement faster than they can feasibly be planned and evaluated. §4.1.
+5. **issue-core** is a **connector framework to third-party issue
+   trackers** (internal UUID ↔ external issue-id mapping, two-way
+   transclusion-like sync at the boundary); not part of the internal loop;
+   must add no load until an integration is actually used. §4.2.
+6. **Hub entity**: **fresh intake entity** with the clean UUIDv7 spine; the
+   suggestions table becomes read-only legacy with a one-time close-out of
+   its few records.
+7. **Budgets**: **hybrid** — per-repo `budgets.yaml` guardrails +
+   workplan-frontmatter overrides + a **global best-guess default** as
+   final fallback so nothing runs unbounded; resolution/enforcement is
+   programmatic infrastructure, never agentic effort. §5.
 
 ---
 
 *Prepared from live fleet data (AWQ-010 reintegration, DEC-2026-003/004
 dual bookkeeping, BINKY-WP-0002 slug drift) and the two research artefacts
-alongside this file. Next step after discussion: canon standard drafts +
+alongside this file. All open questions resolved with the founder
-a CUST workplan for stage 1–2.*
+2026-07-20. Next step: canon standard drafts (work-record types, autonomy
+lanes, intake lifecycle) + a CUST workplan for migration stages 1–2.*