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
M2's review reported six planning recommendations rather than applying them,
three marked before M3. All six are applied here, plus three additions drawn
from the same evidence. No implementation file is touched.
The endpoint policy was the gap that mattered. It is the most consequential
setting in the application — the storyteller sends the player's prose, the
context, the memories and the embedding inputs to whatever address it names —
and it existed only as a module docstring. It is now ADR 011 and a new §10A in
the threat model, which also retires the assumption in §71A that the inherited
guard was a starting point. It was not: AI-DnD's SSRF guard blocked private
addresses to stop a hosted server reaching its own internal network, which is
the exact opposite of what a local storyteller needs. It was removed, not
adapted.
Both documents state the rule as implemented — an allowlist of explicit
local-network CIDRs, every resolved address checked, enforced on save and again
before every outbound request, TLS never traded against it — and both state the
two residual limits plainly rather than implying they are covered: a hostile
host already on the trusted LAN is inside the permitted boundary, and a
rebinding interval exists between the policy's resolution and the client's
connection. Accepted risks, not M3 work.
The CIDRs are spelled out rather than derived from is_private/is_reserved, and
the ADR records why: is_private is true of the documentation ranges and
0.0.0.0/8, and is_reserved is true of IPv6 loopback, so a rule built on it
refuses an ordinary same-host Ollama on [::1].
TECHNICAL-DESIGN §5.1 items 3 and 4 are marked done, closing all five hardening
items. A new §5.2 records the M1/M2 architecture as fact rather than intention,
so later milestones inherit what the code does. A new §18.1 carries the lesson
of M2's two regressions: when removing a setting, test a real consumer
construction path; when adding one, prove it reaches the component that uses
it. Both defects hid behind a green suite because the tests at that boundary
were mocks.
BUILD-MILESTONES records M2 complete, with the capabilities later milestones
inherit and the debt carried forward. Two notes go to milestones that would
otherwise misread what M2 left them. M5 is told that eight rollback tests now
use the world-state engine as instrumentation and not as endorsement — the
instrumentation moves when the protocol does, and those tests are reworked
rather than deleted. M6 is told that the memory bank died silently under a
green suite, so background failure must be observable and at least one real
provider-construction path must be tested.
The security contract gains what M2 demonstrated. H10 now names the two
conditions that were defects during M2: a wildcard origin must be refused at
startup, and an unknown /api path must 404 rather than returning the SPA with
200. New H12 covers endpoint enforcement, and its fourth pass condition is the
one that matters — a public endpoint written into the database behind the
settings API must still be refused at the wire. A build passing the first three
and failing that one has configuration validation only.
SPECIFICATION.md is deliberately unchanged. M2 altered no product requirement;
it removed capability the specification never asked for.
The two M2 reports gain appended closeout notes rather than edits. Their
original wording about an uncommitted working tree was true when written, and
the note records what happened afterwards: the six-file correction is 8652fe7,
8c65ae9 remains the implementation commit, and the two were never squashed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HsZBU8sWRuYTyLgWsu2oQ6
