# Phase 0A Preliminary Recommendation

**Date:** 2026-09-01  
**Status:** Static recommendation; pending Phase 0B clone/build/runtime experiments.

## Recommendation

### First choice to validate: AI-DnD

Use **AI-DnD as the preliminary production fork candidate**.

This is a change from the earlier slight preference for Open Dungeon.

The deciding evidence is not feature count; it is **where the hard architectural work already lives**.

AI-DnD already implements:
- parent/lineage story tree,
- alternate takes,
- non-destructive retry,
- branch-aware state rollback,
- prompt snapshots,
- context windowing,
- memory bank + embeddings,
- story cards,
- complete tree export/import,
- local Ollama,
- a substantial automated test suite.

Those are precisely the systems most dangerous to retrofit after a linear chat application has accumulated behavior.

## Why Open Dungeon is second

Open Dungeon remains the best direct match to the desired *product*:
- simple browser fiction interface,
- Ollama,
- local SQLite,
- strong local image path,
- visual continuity.

However, its present persistence semantics are linear and destructive:
- prior messages can be updated,
- retry/erase deletes the selected message and the story tail.

To satisfy the specification, we would need to introduce turn parentage/branches, branch-specific summaries/state, and non-destructive editing underneath features already written around a list. That is foundational work.

Open Dungeon should remain the fallback base if Codex proves AI-DnD's RPG/cloud systems are too entangled to remove.

## Why ai-adventure is third

ai-adventure has the cleanest *architecture* for state authority and local-only trust:
- typed model proposals,
- validation,
- atomic commit,
- append-only events,
- replay,
- checkpoints,
- branches,
- deterministic local lore,
- explicit minimal network posture.

Its problem is product distance:
- CLI presentation,
- LM Studio primary provider,
- no browser application,
- no media,
- less semantic long-memory machinery.

It should be the architectural control against which the selected browser fork is judged.

## Do not merge repositories

The recommendation is not to combine several projects mechanically.

Fork one project and re-implement selected ideas using compatible patterns/code only where justified.

A merged codebase would import:
- incompatible assumptions,
- duplicate persistence models,
- different provider abstractions,
- unnecessary dependencies,
- licensing complexity.

## Proposed target architecture after Phase 0B

If AI-DnD passes validation:

### Retain
- React/Vite browser shell,
- FastAPI service boundary,
- SQLite,
- story tree/lineage,
- state snapshots,
- context budgeting,
- Memory Bank,
- story cards,
- Insights,
- Ollama path,
- export/import,
- relevant tests.

### Remove
- multi-user/hosted auth,
- demo keys/rate-limit hosting features,
- Render/Neon path,
- analytics,
- cloud model providers,
- QuickJS scripting,
- AI-Dungeon compatibility not needed for core stories,
- RPG-only presentation/mechanics.

### Generalize
- world-state engine -> narrative state/facts/entities/threads,
- Story Cards -> local knowledge sources with authority/provenance,
- Memory Bank -> branch-safe story memory with Canon/Scene/Heuristic trust classes,
- scenario -> genre-neutral campaign/story profile.

### Add
- local document ingestion,
- Canon / Reference / Inspiration source classification,
- local lexical + optional Ollama semantic retrieval,
- scene snapshots,
- visual character/location fields,
- media asset/job records,
- media-provider interface,
- later local image/video adapters.

## Phase 0B should be narrow

Codex should not repeat the broad research.

It should validate three concrete engineering hypotheses:

### Hypothesis 1 — AI-DnD can be stripped safely
Prove local Ollama story/branch/memory operation still works after disabling/removing hosted/cloud/analytics/scripting paths and running with minimal RPG state.

### Hypothesis 2 — Open Dungeon branch retrofit is materially larger
Map exactly how many DB functions/API routes/UI components/summary behaviors must change to make retry/edit non-destructive and branch-aware.

### Hypothesis 3 — ai-adventure is viable but farther from product
Prove Ollama adapter effort is small and estimate the service/browser wrapper effort without starting production UI development.

Then choose the fork based on measured modification cost.

## Decision gate

Select AI-DnD unless Phase 0B finds one of these blockers:

- branching/state logic is inseparable from RPG mechanics,
- removing hosted/scripting paths destabilizes a large percentage of tests,
- local-only configuration still requires hard-to-remove external services,
- dependency/security burden is materially worse than static review suggests.

If any blocker is confirmed, select Open Dungeon and explicitly budget a story-tree/persistence rewrite as the first production architecture milestone.