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>
15 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
15 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
[PERSPECTIVE P01: Verdict denormalization elimination is confirmed sound from a relational integrity standpoint]
|
|
In Round 2 I discovered that verdicts are INSERT-only immutable snapshots, making my R1 staleness concern incorrect. Cannoli's in-memory assembly pattern independently proves that the denormalized arrays (`tensions_resolved`, `key_evidence`, `key_claims`, `recommendations_adopted`) provide zero read benefit when every query already performs a full-partition load. From a relational database architect's perspective, eliminating these denormalized fields is not a compromise -- it is the correct normalization decision for both backends, removing write complexity and redundant state without sacrificing query capability.
|
|
|
|
[PERSPECTIVE P02: Schema governance as first trait gate decision validates the converged position]
|
|
The first concrete test of Croissant's `PartitionScoped` marker trait and governance ADR should be the verdict entity schema itself: strip the denormalized arrays from the domain model during Phase A trait extraction, confirming that in-memory assembly from partition-scoped CRUD is sufficient. This makes denormalization elimination not just a Phase C DynamoDB concern but a Phase A deliverable that simplifies the SQLite implementation too.
|
|
|
|
[RESOLVED MUFFIN R1-T01]
|
|
Confirmed resolved. Verdicts are immutable snapshots; in-memory assembly from full-partition load eliminates the denormalized arrays entirely; no consistency mechanism is needed because the denormalization itself is removed.
|
|
|
|
[CONCESSION: Refs table is a Phase C implementation detail]
|
|
Strudel, Cannoli, Croissant, and Galette all agree the refs table question (inline JSON vs separate cleartext items) does not affect the trait contract and can be deferred to Phase C. I concur -- both representations feed the same in-memory assembly pattern with identical correctness properties.
|
|
|
|
[MOVE:CONVERGE]
|
|
|
|
---
|