glm-5.2
5941280bca
Address the root cause of rework-causing hedging: the architect was
put in a logical bind where it couldn't express justified uncertainty
('the pieces exist but the shape isn't clear yet'). The only options
were 'decide now' (premature) or 'deferred(scope)' (false — the
information isn't missing, it's un-synthesized). The agent picked
deferred(scope) with a circular blocking condition (OQ-64 blocked on
OQ-55, OQ-55 needs OQ-64) because there was no honest way to say 'I
can see the pieces but I can't see the shape.'
Changes to the architect role spec:
- Add deferred(unclear) state: the pieces exist but the composition
isn't clear; resolution requires investigation (work through
examples, POC), not waiting. Has an investigation target and an
impacts field.
- Add 'Impacts' field to the OQ format: what does this block
downstream? Be specific ('blocks the first hub deployment because
the hub dials workers' not 'blocks the hub crate'). The triage
signal that makes deferral urgency visible — the field that would
have made the AlknetClient circular hedge visible.
- Add circular-reasoning guard to self-review: 'check that your
blocking condition isn't a prerequisite of the thing you're
deferring.'
- Trim anti-patterns #9-#11 (hedging synonyms catalog, ~40 lines):
detection belongs in the reviewer, not the architect's self-review.
The architect is too close to its own reasoning to see its own
circular hedges.
- Trim door-types section (30→10 lines): keep the one-paragraph
summary, cut the elaboration.
Changes to the architecture-reviewer role spec:
- Add Decision Quality (F) category: false-deferral check
distinguishing three cases — (1) hedging on a resolved decision, (2)
false deferral / circular hedge (the blocking condition is a
prerequisite of the thing being deferred), (3) legitimate deferral.
- Add Impacts Field Coverage (G) category: check that unresolved OQs
have specific impacts fields.
- Note: the Decision Quality category is often the highest-value
check on poorly-defined projects — the architect cannot self-review
it (circular reasoning is invisible from inside the circle).
Retrofit existing OQs:
- Add Impacts field to all 16 unresolved OQs (10 deferred, 6 open).
- Update OQ-63 (TlsError shape) to reflect ADR-087's client-side
addition — the error type now covers both server and client
variants.
- Move OQ-65 (WebSocket carrying channels) to alknet-http theme
(done in prior commit; this commit adds its impacts field).
- Verified: no circular reasoning found in existing deferrals. The
AlknetClient hedge (OQ-64) was the circular one; it's already
resolved by ADR-087.
1.4 KiB
1.4 KiB
OQ-32: Multi-Hop Federation
- Origin: ADR-029 §3.7,
docs/research/alknet-call-peer-routing/findings.md§3.7 - Status: deferred(scope)
- Door type: One-way (federation model), two-way (mechanism)
- Priority: low
- Impacts: None currently — the one-hop model covers all current use cases. Would impact peer-graph routing if a multi-hop topology becomes needed (e.g., chained hubs).
- Blocked on: A concrete use case for multi-hop federation. The one-hop model covers all current use cases (head→worker, runner→hub).
- Resolution: The model is one-hop — worker A does not transitively
see worker B's ops through the head unless the head explicitly re-exports
them. The peer-keyed overlay model extends to multi-hop without redesign
(a chain of
PeerRef::Specificrouting decisions), but path-finding (which peer reaches which op transitively) is where a graph library (petgraph) would pay off. For one-hop (shallow), a nestedHashMap<PeerId, HashMap<String, ...>>suffices. Multi-hop federation is a feature extension — the one-hop model is the architectural commitment; extending to multi-hop doesn't break downstream crates. Whether multi-hop becomes a real use case is a future decision; the peer-keyed model does not foreclose it. - Cross-references: ADR-029, client-and-adapters.md