I0801 — Narrow the Clean Extraction Boundary and record what was adopted

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.

DONE wave 0 · p1 · deep-work profile · parallel safe

Part of M003 — A session is a durable envelope, and knowledge is compiled from what is already canonical.

Objective

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.

Current state

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.

Desired state

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.

Scope

docs/DESIGN.md
docs/EXTRACTION_REPORT.md

Out of scope

Any implementation
Any change to the ten items already recorded as having crossed the boundary
Naming any internal path, component or vocabulary of the studied material

Dependencies

None. This issue is a root of the graph.

What waits on this

I0807DONE Discover knowledge sources from git, not from the filesystem

Acceptance criteria

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 doctor
bash test/run.sh 08_no_forbidden_constructs

Evidence required

boundary_rewritten

Evidence

covers	type	command	result	at commit
boundary_rewritten	manual	bin/majordomus doctor	exit 0, and test case 08_no_forbidden_constructs passes alongside it. The boundary now states a provenance test a reader can apply to a proposal: an edge that can name the line stating it is a reference, one that exists because something looked related is a semantic claim and stays out. Section 11 of the extraction report records the second-pass evidence, seventeen adopted ideas with the object each becomes here, and eleven refusals including every database, embeddings, generated summaries and a note-vault renderer	2c4dc6f

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.

Timeline

started: 2026-09-04T15:37:53Z
verified: —
completed: 2026-09-04T15:40:54Z

Those three fields, the evidence above and the state of the dependencies are all the status is made of. There is no status field to disagree with them.

Canonical record: .ai/repo/project/issues/I0801.yaml. Read it back with majordomus plan show I0801.