112 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
112 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Post-G7 Boundary Decision Roadmap Design
|
|
|
|
> Date: 2026-04-19
|
|
> Status: Draft
|
|
> Upstream Validation Layer: [real_sample_validation_records_2026-04-18.json](D:/data/ideaSpace/rust/sgClaw/claw-new/tests/fixtures/generated_scene/real_sample_validation_records_2026-04-18.json)
|
|
> Upstream Entry Rules: [boundary_runtime_entry_rules_2026-04-18.json](D:/data/ideaSpace/rust/sgClaw/claw-new/tests/fixtures/generated_scene/boundary_runtime_entry_rules_2026-04-18.json)
|
|
> Upstream Closure: [2026-04-19-g7-real-sample-entry-closure-report.md](D:/data/ideaSpace/rust/sgClaw/claw-new/docs/superpowers/reports/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`
|