claw/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-19-post-g7-boundary-decision-roadmap-design.md

Post-G7 Boundary Decision Roadmap Design

Date: 2026-04-19 Status: Draft Upstream Validation Layer: real_sample_validation_records_2026-04-18.json Upstream Entry Rules: boundary_runtime_entry_rules_2026-04-18.json Upstream Closure: 2026-04-19-g7-real-sample-entry-closure-report.md

1. Intent

This design defines the next bounded roadmap after G7 has closed as the first executed boundary-family real sample.

The current validated state is now:

1. G1-E = executed-pass
2. G2 = executed-pass
3. G3 = executed-pass
4. G7 = executed-pass

So the next roadmap must not reopen any closed mainline slice and must not continue extending the finished G7 plan.

The only question under this roadmap is:

After G7, should another boundary family enter real-sample scope next, or should boundary work stop and defer to prerequisites?

2. Problem Statement

The prior boundary-entry roadmap solved the first ambiguity by selecting G7.

That ambiguity is now closed.

The remaining ambiguity is narrower:

1. whether G6 is now the next justified boundary-family entry candidate
2. whether G8 is now the next justified boundary-family entry candidate
3. or whether both should remain held and a bounded prerequisites roadmap should be opened first

Without a new roadmap, the next step would drift into one of three bad outcomes:

1. reopening G7 after closure
2. opening both G6 and G8 at once
3. starting runtime-platform implementation without a bounded decision slice

3. Scope Boundary

This roadmap is limited to a post-G7 boundary-family decision.

It may include:

1. restating the now-closed G7 result
2. comparing only G6 and G8 as remaining boundary candidates
3. determining whether one of them is admitted next
4. or determining that both remain held and a prerequisites slice is needed
5. publishing one bounded follow-up design + plan

It must not include:

1. reopening G7 implementation or expansion
2. reopening G1-E / G2 / G3
3. opening G4 / G5
4. implementing host-runtime, transport, or local-doc prerequisites
5. executing real samples for more than one boundary family

4. Current Decision Inputs

The current repo state already provides the relevant admission constraints:

1. G6 still needs stronger host-bridge real execution semantics than current repo-local coverage
2. G8 still needs stronger local document pipeline and attachment/runtime handling than current repo-local coverage
3. G7 is no longer a candidate because it has already closed as an executed pass

These are decision inputs only.

They are not yet implementation tasks.

5. Roadmap Goal

The goal of this roadmap is to reduce the post-G7 boundary question to one bounded next step:

1. select exactly one next bounded direction
2. either G6
3. or G8
4. or a prerequisites-only slice with both held

6. Preferred Outcome

The preferred outcome is:

1. either one selected next boundary family
2. or one bounded prerequisites roadmap
3. with the non-selected direction explicitly held

7. Acceptance Logic

This roadmap is successful when:

1. G6 and G8 no longer compete ambiguously
2. G7 is not reopened
3. only one bounded next direction is emitted
4. no runtime-platform implementation is started under roadmap scope

8. Out of Scope

The following are explicitly out of scope:

1. new scene-generator family work
2. new canonical answers
3. new mainline contract correction
4. direct host-runtime implementation
5. direct local-doc runtime implementation
6. G4 / G5