6e8f0db6c0
- Add dialogue prompt file writing for audit/debugging - Update README install instructions - Add new RFCs (0053, 0055-0059, 0062) - Add recorded dialogues and expert pools - Add ADR 0018 dynamodb-portable-schema - Update TODO with hook configuration notes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
12 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
12 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
[PERSPECTIVE P01: Refs table disagreement is a Phase C implementation detail, not an architectural blocker]
|
|
I verified the codebase: `register_ref` writes only to `alignment_refs` and does NOT update inline `refs` on the source entity, meaning the two stores are already divergent by design -- inline refs are creation-time snapshots while `alignment_refs` captures post-creation additions. Whether DynamoDB uses separate cleartext ref items (my R2 position) or inline-only refs (Strudel's R2 position) is a schema choice that Phase C's `DynamoDialogueStore` implementor will resolve with concrete benchmarks, and both approaches work identically under full-partition load plus in-memory assembly.
|
|
|
|
[CONCESSION: Strudel's observation that dual-write redundancy exists is factually correct]
|
|
The codebase does dual-store refs, and Strudel correctly identified this. My preference for separate cleartext ref items in DynamoDB remains a valid optimization for post-creation ref mutations, but I concede this is an implementation trade-off for Phase C, not a design principle worth blocking convergence.
|
|
|
|
[RESOLVED: Refs table disagreement (Judge's remaining disagreement)]
|
|
Both positions produce identical read behavior under the converged full-partition-load pattern. The choice belongs in Phase C implementation, not in the architectural specification.
|
|
|
|
[MOVE:CONVERGE]
|
|
|
|
---
|