main
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
b7005e6fdd |
M5: genre-neutral authoritative narrative state, with review corrections
Replaces AI-DnD's RPG relative-delta world state with the genre-neutral typed
narrative state of ADR 010: explicit, absolute, allowlisted events proposed by
the model, validated by the application, applied to one authoritative document,
and snapshotted per position so restore stays a row read.
This commit includes the corrective pass that followed the independent review
in planning/reports/M5-IMPLEMENTATION-REPORT.md. The invariant it exists to
hold is:
visible active transcript position == stored head == authoritative state
Narrator editing (D10, STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §§14-15)
A narrator edit no longer rewrites a row. It returns to the state before the
turn, takes the reader's exact text as the accepted narration, re-derives the
state that text implies, and becomes a new active continuation — while the
original narration keeps its words, its live flag and its whole future as
retained history. At the tip the correction is another take; with story below
it, it forks. No new history machinery: this is the existing fork/take/head
path with the reader's text in place of a generated reply. The §14A refusal
is therefore gone for narrator turns, and remains only for player input.
Pre-M5 positions
Migration 88 backfills the empty narrative document onto every action written
before M5, and a missing snapshot now restores the empty document instead of
leaving the previous position's state standing. Restoring to an old Save
Point no longer leaves a later position's entities and facts on screen.
Narrator context
Replayed history carries prose only; the machine-readable block is no longer
reconstructed into past turns, where it contradicted the authoritative state
in the same prompt. A fact withdrawn by a manual correction is now named as
no longer true, with the reader's reason, rather than silently dropped.
Also
- state_changes joins the action-list bulk read, removing one query per row.
- Extraction takes only the application's own protocol payload: an ordinary
```json or ```python block in a story survives, and a mangled proposal
still does not reach the reader.
Planning: ADR 013 records the authoritative document shape; §§14-15/14A, D10,
C04 and BUILD-MILESTONES are updated to describe what exists. Debt is recorded
against M8 (scenario editor UX) and M9 (export of the audit trail).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PWU4gTfLYY6Qq9U7aa9Qw2
|
||
|
JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
62a997f364 |
M4: close out Save Points, with browser verification
Closes M4. The review's three findings are fixed, the durability rule the specification always implied is now enforced, and M3's and M4's browser behaviour has been verified in a real browser for the first time. B-1 -- the Save Point list was an N+1 that loaded whole Action rows, narration included, to answer "does a row exist here". It is now one bulk two-column coordinate query plus one lineage: 53 SELECTs for 25 Save Points became 5, and the count no longer grows with the list. The clause is an OR of exact (branch, depth) pairs rather than two IN lists, because the cross product would report a Save Point resolved on the strength of another one's depth existing on this one's branch. A test builds exactly that trap. B-2 -- reclassified during closeout from "missing warning" to a behaviour defect, and fixed as one. STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §19 says a named checkpoint remains until explicitly deleted, and §28 already required future cleanup to retain checkpoint-referenced paths; a cascade that silently removed Save Points with a branch violated both, and a warning would only have documented the violation. A branch a Save Point names can no longer be deleted. The request is refused with the offending Save Points named, the user deletes them explicitly -- which deletes no story -- and the branch then goes. The scope is the subtree, because deleting a branch takes its descendants. Both delete controls disable and explain. Recorded as a new §19.1; models.py, TECHNICAL-DESIGN §8.8 and DATA-MODEL §8 had all recorded the cascade as the rule and now record the refusal. An earlier pass in this same closeout had kept the cascade and added a warning. That was the wrong fix and its tests were replaced rather than left standing, since they pinned the defect. B-3 -- the D11/L03 automation never left one process, so it could not distinguish durable state from a live Python object. It now spawns real server processes, kills the first, and reads the campaign back with the second. C-5 -- creating a Save Point takes the campaign's turn lock. "Save where I am" has to name one committed position, and the head is what a turn in flight is about to move. Rename and Delete deliberately do not take it. The architecture is untouched: a Save Point is still name + note + (branch, depth), and restore is still coordinate -> head.move_to_node -> head.move_to -> attempts.restore_state. No second restore path, no state copied into a checkpoint, no fork on restore. Browser verification -- the first in this project, and it covers both milestones. Firefox 154.0.1 through geckodriver over the W3C WebDriver protocol, driving the rendered DOM: 47/47 checks, twice, on independent databases, no console errors. M3's Undo/Redo enable states, transcript movement, Retry and the take pager, divergence retiring Redo; M4's whole Save Point lifecycle, both confirmations, and the new branch-delete refusal including its recovery. No dependency was added: the WebDriver client is stdlib HTTP. No application defect was found by the browser. Four failures occurred, all in the harness -- a wrong SPA route, a wait comparing transcript length when the empty-story placeholder is longer than the first turn, a fixture deleting the branch it was reading, and a reload assertion that sampled once instead of waiting. The last was checked against the app before being called a harness bug. Tests: 698 backend pass (was 680), 60 M4, 94 M3 history, 66 export/ migrations, 93 security/local-only. Frontend lint and build clean, Docker build clean, loopback binding unchanged. No assertion weakened, no skip added. Planning: STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §19.1 is the only behavioural change and it strengthens §19. V1-ACCEPTANCE-TESTS records D11-D14, I04, L03 and the E-series, keeping automated, live-runtime and browser evidence distinct, and weakens no pass condition. DATA-MODEL records the coordinate with the retry measurement that settles it. BROWSER-UX-SPEC rules for Moment over Turn. BUILD-MILESTONES marks M4 COMPLETE, closes M3's browser condition, and lists what M5 inherits. VERSION adds v2.6. No new ADR: ADR 005 already decides that history is preserved rather than overwritten, and §19.1 is that decision applied to checkpoint-referenced history. M4 is closed. M5 may now be briefed; it has not been started. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PWU4gTfLYY6Qq9U7aa9Qw2 |
||
|
JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
c8755c21c2 |
Planning: close M3 and record active-head architecture
M3's review recommended planning changes and, following the M2 pattern, reported rather than applied them. This applies them, and adds the ADR the review asked for. ADR 012 records the architecture rather than the requirement. ADR 005 already says that going backward must preserve abandoned history and that the user sees Undo/Redo/Retry rather than branch management; it names a movable active head as the direction and stops. What M3 settled is the shape: the head is stored rather than derived, every read of the story is capped at it in one place, one mechanism moves it, the state of a position comes off the node rather than from a replay, the first write below a moved-back head is the divergence, and whether Redo exists is decided by the lineage rather than by a flag that could be stale. The last of those is the property worth keeping — a flag can be wrong and make the story wrong; a lineage cannot. Two semantics are ratified in STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS.md, both of them reversals or narrowings that a reader would otherwise take for bugs. Undo now crosses fork points and continues to the campaign opening, because refusing at the fork was a consequence of deleting rows the parent line was also reading, and nothing is deleted any more. And the system refuses to switch which take is live while a later story is off screen, because doing it quietly would leave retained history continuing from words the story no longer says. A new §14A covers editing in place. §14-15 describe the finished behaviour — the edit becomes authoritative, the state it implies is re-evaluated, a new continuation is created, the original is retained — and that requirement is intact and explicitly not weakened here. It is also not built, because re-evaluating state from prose a user typed needs M5's extraction pass. §14A says what exists in the meantime and why refusing is the minimum that holds the invariant rather than the destination. TECHNICAL-DESIGN.md gains §8.7 and §9.1, recording the implemented model and the bundle behaviour as fact in the way §5.2 records M1 and M2. §10.4 gains a constraint that is easy to lose: the snapshot half of the hybrid state model is a requirement, not an optimization. Head movement is a row lookup plus a restore, which is why Undo, Redo and Save Point restore cost the same at any distance into a campaign; a state model recoverable only by replaying from the opening would make all three proportional to campaign length, on exactly the long campaigns this product is for. DATA-MODEL.md records the head as stored on the campaign rather than derived from its newest turn — two campaigns holding identical turns can be read at different places, and nothing about the turns can tell them apart — and the branch disposition as implemented: the depth a divergent write left the branch at, deliberately advisory, and carried through export because every row of an abandoned line is exported either way. BUILD-MILESTONES.md marks M3 complete and states the one condition still open. M4 is told a Save Point is a durable pointer and that restoring one is head movement with a bounds check, not a restore system: a second mover is the specific failure to avoid, because the two paths would silently disagree about what restore means. M5 gets three constraints — keep state efficiently recoverable, move the test instrumentation rather than the assertions when the world-state protocol goes, and finish the narrator edit §14A defers. V1-ACCEPTANCE-TESTS.md clarifies ownership without lowering a bar. D10 keeps all three pass conditions and is explicitly recorded as *not* satisfied at the end of M3; what changed is that the document now says which milestone delivers which condition. D03's result is recorded as a full pass rather than the partial the text allowed for, I07 gains the pre-M3 bundle clause, and L01 gains the note that resolves its apparent conflict with A05 — a failed turn does advance the head by one, onto the player's retained input, and that is A05 working rather than L01 failing. README.md described a different application: a hosted demo, guest accounts, cloud providers, Postgres, a Render blueprint, an analytics dashboard, a QuickJS scripting engine, and 549 tests. M2 removed all of that and the README was never updated — a gap M2's own debt table missed. It now describes what this fork is, including the endpoint policy and the TLS behaviour, and the numbers in it are the current ones. M3's report is included here as its own evidence record: no separate baseline report was produced, so it carries the raw counts and runtime observations as well as the review, and §W records this closeout. SPECIFICATION.md and SECURITY-THREAT-MODEL.md are unchanged. M3 altered no product requirement and touched no path in the threat model. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QF5TcoB86QADgjHz1GZe8u |
||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
717670afe0 | Update planning package after Phase 0B | ||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
f011362494 | Add initial planning files from ChatGPT research here |