A snapshot: read at commit 707a04c7ce8 on 2026-10-18T00:06:01Z by majordomus 0.29.0. Nothing on this page is read again. See it live

I0801

Narrow the Clean Extraction Boundary and record what was adopted

Where it stands

devtask.issue

Readiness: complete completion is recorded and every required evidence token is present
Status: DONE
Can start: not now
Milestone: M003
Milestone status: ACTIVE
Wave: 0
Waiting on: none
Holds back: I0807
Behind it in all: 10
Evidence: 1 of 1

Moves

plan.transition

What it is

Objective: Rewrite the Clean Extraction Boundary in docs/DESIGN.md so that it permits a generic deterministic provenance graph derived from this repository's own artifacts while continuing to exclude everything it excludes today, and record in docs/EXTRACTION_REPORT.md which architectural ideas from the studied prior art were adopted by re-derivation and which were refused, each with its reason.
Why: The boundary currently reads 'graph semantics' among the things excluded absolutely. The rest of this milestone builds a reference graph. Shipping that against a published boundary that forbids it would make the boundary decorative, which is precisely the failure mode this project was built to detect. The adoption record exists so that the next reader can tell a re-derived idea from a copied implementation.
Now: docs/DESIGN.md lists 'graph semantics' in the absolute exclusion sentence and lists ten items that crossed the boundary by abstraction. docs/EXTRACTION_REPORT.md records the evidence behind the v0.1 decisions and says nothing about session or knowledge tooling.
Wanted: The exclusion sentence distinguishes the domain, inference and semantic machinery that stays out from the generic provenance graph over this repository's own files that is now in. The adopted list names the session and knowledge ideas taken by re-derivation. A refusal list names what was studied and deliberately not taken, each with the reason, including the database, the embedding layer, the vault renderer and the copied-narrative session note.
Done when: unknown: the record declares no `completion`
Risk: A boundary narrowed to fit the feature being built is not a boundary. The wording has to be one a reader could use to refuse a future proposal, not one that merely describes what is about to be committed.

Acceptance

The boundary states what kind of graph is permitted and what kind is still excluded, in one sentence a reader can apply to a proposed feature
The adoption list names each adopted idea and the Majordomus object it becomes
The refusal list names each refused idea and why, with the databases and the embedding layer among them
No internal path, hostname, component name or quotation from the studied material appears anywhere in either document

Validation: bin/majordomus doctorbash test/run.sh 08_no_forbidden_constructs
Evidence required: boundary_rewritten
Evidence present: boundary_rewritten

Scope

Touches: docs/DESIGN.mddocs/EXTRACTION_REPORT.md
Not: Any implementationAny change to the ten items already recorded as having crossed the boundaryNaming any internal path, component or vocabulary of the studied material
Depends on: none
Priority: p1
Profile: deep-work
Parallel safe: true
Owner: unknown: the record declares no `owner`

The work so far

Branches: none
Merged: none
Commits: 0
Trunk: master
Sessions: none
Created: 2026-09-04
Updated: 2026-09-04T15:40:54Z
Started: 2026-09-04T15:37:53Z
Verified: unknown: the record declares no `verified_at`
Completed: 2026-09-04T15:40:54Z

Synchronisation

Adapter: scripts/github-sync
Repository: unknown: the derived plan's header carries no repository
External issue: unknown: a live GitHub state; this executable makes no network call, so only `scripts/github-sync --check` can answer it
State there: unknown: a live GitHub state; this executable makes no network call, so only `scripts/github-sync --check` can answer it

Findings

Nothing is wrong with these records.