АРЧ АП11 - Архитектура после регресса: Архитектура: обновить статус pre-multidomain readiness и протянуть continuity snapshot в transition hot path
This commit is contained in:
+25
@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ Completed in the current working pass:
|
||||
- exact address intents can now stay in the address lane even if the semantic guard overflags deep investigation without an actual investigative user request;
|
||||
- selected-object inventory follow-ups can now override a stale stock root intent when the semantic contract already marks `selected_object_scope_detected`, including exact user wording like `по выбранному объекту ... где взяли это`;
|
||||
- explicit capability-meta wording for `дельта по договорам` now keeps the asked capability in the user-facing answer instead of collapsing into the generic `что ты умеешь` catalog reply.
|
||||
- the transition hot path now starts consuming the shared continuity snapshot as fallback authority for active item / active organization / grounded inventory root frame instead of rebuilding those values only from local ad hoc history scans;
|
||||
- live replay `address_truth_harness_phase7_meta_domain_mix_live_20260417_post_arch_fix_rerun2` is accepted end-to-end with `14/14` steps green, including the previously broken `step_01_counterparty_documents` and `step_04_open_items_account_60`.
|
||||
|
||||
Still open after this pass:
|
||||
@@ -233,6 +234,30 @@ Still open after the accepted phase11 replay:
|
||||
- answer shaping on some long exact list answers is still heavier than the target human product feel, even though the truth path and routing are now correct;
|
||||
- the next architecture slice should move to wider saved-session acceptance coverage and humanized exact-answer presentation, not back to isolated prompt-level repairs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Execution Slice (2026-04-18)
|
||||
|
||||
The project is now moving from:
|
||||
|
||||
- `breakpoint recovery`
|
||||
|
||||
to:
|
||||
|
||||
- `danger-zone exit under explicit gates`
|
||||
|
||||
This next slice should be executed in the following order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Finish continuity authority convergence in the hot runtime path.
|
||||
2. Widen saved-session replay coverage beyond the already repaired flagship chains.
|
||||
3. Tighten human answer shaping on long exact answers without reintroducing template drift.
|
||||
4. Only after that, begin controlled domain-by-domain expansion toward the multi-domain stage.
|
||||
|
||||
Current explicit goals for this slice:
|
||||
|
||||
- fewer owners independently reconstruct `active context`;
|
||||
- more replay breadth before any large expansion claim;
|
||||
- cleaner user-facing business answers on already-correct truth paths;
|
||||
- lower risk that new domains multiply orchestration chaos faster than capability growth.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ready Signal
|
||||
|
||||
The project can leave the current breakpoint when:
|
||||
|
||||
+170
@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
|
||||
# 13 - Pre-Multidomain Readiness Audit (2026-04-18)
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
This note answers one question directly:
|
||||
|
||||
- are we already ready to expand into many new domains in parallel?
|
||||
|
||||
The answer must stay architecture-first and brutally honest.
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Short version:
|
||||
|
||||
- the project is no longer in the acute collapse state;
|
||||
- the turnaround is real and already operational;
|
||||
- but the system is still not ready for low-risk broad multi-domain expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
Current verdict:
|
||||
|
||||
- safe for continued hardening and controlled domain-by-domain expansion under replay gates;
|
||||
- not yet safe for wide parallel multi-agent domain expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is Already True
|
||||
|
||||
The following claims are now supported by code plus live replay evidence:
|
||||
|
||||
- phase7-phase11 mixed/manual replays are accepted on the repaired hot paths;
|
||||
- continuity on validated inventory / VAT / counterparty / company-authority chains is materially stronger than before;
|
||||
- user-facing meta answers are significantly cleaner and no longer dominated by technical garbage;
|
||||
- the assistant no longer depends on the old ambient monolith behavior on the validated seams;
|
||||
- the team now has a working replay-driven hardening loop instead of blind local patching.
|
||||
|
||||
In practical terms:
|
||||
|
||||
- we are moving out of danger;
|
||||
- we are not yet on stable pre-expansion ground.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is Still Not Good Enough
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Continuity authority is improved, but still not singular
|
||||
|
||||
The same active-context signal is still reconstructed in multiple places:
|
||||
|
||||
- normalizer semantic hints;
|
||||
- semantic overlay;
|
||||
- transition policy;
|
||||
- query/runtime guards;
|
||||
- capability binding / answer-time anchor checks.
|
||||
|
||||
This is much better than the old implicit monolith, but it still means:
|
||||
|
||||
- the system relies on multiple synchronized interpretations of context instead of one final runtime authority object.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Core orchestration remains too concentrated
|
||||
|
||||
The main pressure centers are still heavy:
|
||||
|
||||
- `assistantService.ts`
|
||||
- `addressQueryService.ts`
|
||||
- `answerComposer.ts`
|
||||
- `decomposeStage.ts`
|
||||
- `assistantTransitionPolicy.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
This does not mean the extraction failed.
|
||||
|
||||
It means the extraction is incomplete for the next scale step.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Some fixes are still seam-specific rather than declarative
|
||||
|
||||
Several repaired paths are now correct because explicit rules were added for real regressions.
|
||||
|
||||
That is the right move during stabilization.
|
||||
|
||||
But it also means:
|
||||
|
||||
- the system still contains special-case authority at service/policy level that should later move into more declarative runtime contracts or registries.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Acceptance breadth is still below the future blast radius
|
||||
|
||||
Current replay evidence is strong on validated hot paths.
|
||||
|
||||
It is not yet broad enough for the intended next stage:
|
||||
|
||||
- many new domains;
|
||||
- many new follow-up trees;
|
||||
- multiple agents hardening in parallel.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the single biggest reason not to declare the architecture expansion-ready yet.
|
||||
|
||||
## Readiness Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Safe right now
|
||||
|
||||
- continue architectural hardening;
|
||||
- continue replay-driven stabilization;
|
||||
- onboard one new domain at a time under strict scenario acceptance;
|
||||
- keep improving continuity authority and answer shaping.
|
||||
|
||||
### Not safe right now
|
||||
|
||||
- broad multi-domain rollout without stronger gates;
|
||||
- parallel domain expansion that assumes the orchestration layer is already platform-grade;
|
||||
- treating phase7-phase11 green status as proof that the general architecture is already robust enough for the next development level.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Before Next Development Level
|
||||
|
||||
The system should not be considered ready for the next level until all of the following are true:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `assistant_session_continuity_v1` is the real shared authority across route, transition, clarification, recap, and answer-shaping hot paths.
|
||||
2. Saved-session acceptance is widened beyond the current repaired chains into a broader mixed replay pool.
|
||||
3. Capability/meta handling is less service-special-case and more contract-driven.
|
||||
4. `assistantService` pressure is reduced enough that new domains do not have to negotiate multiple partially overlapping owners.
|
||||
5. Long exact answers feel human and business-first, not merely technically correct.
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Next Execution Sequence
|
||||
|
||||
### Pass 12. Continuity authority completion
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
- reduce the number of places that reconstruct active context independently.
|
||||
|
||||
Target:
|
||||
|
||||
- transition / route / clarification should consume one continuity snapshot before making divergent decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Pass 13. Wider saved-session acceptance pool
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
- prove stability on multiple real user trajectories, not only the already repaired flagship chains.
|
||||
|
||||
Target:
|
||||
|
||||
- several saved sessions covering inventory, VAT, counterparty, payables/receivables, meta interrupts, and cross-domain pivots.
|
||||
|
||||
### Pass 14. Human answer shaping cleanup
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
- remove the remaining mechanical, template-heavy feel from long exact answers.
|
||||
|
||||
Target:
|
||||
|
||||
- product-quality business answers on already-correct truth paths.
|
||||
|
||||
### Pass 15. Coordinator pressure reduction
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
- make the architecture safer for future domain onboarding by shrinking control-plane overload.
|
||||
|
||||
Target:
|
||||
|
||||
- less policy/service glue concentrated in `assistantService.ts` and adjacent god-modules.
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Statement
|
||||
|
||||
The current architecture is no longer failing in the same way it failed during the regression breakpoint.
|
||||
|
||||
That is a major win.
|
||||
|
||||
But if we pretend this already equals multi-domain readiness, we will recreate the same class of project risk at a larger scale.
|
||||
|
||||
The correct reading is:
|
||||
|
||||
- collapse averted;
|
||||
- stabilization real;
|
||||
- expansion still gated.
|
||||
@@ -29,12 +29,14 @@ This package answers the next question:
|
||||
9. [09 - pre_expansion_cut_2026-04-17.md](./09%20-%20pre_expansion_cut_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
10. [10 - regression_breakpoint_analysis_2026-04-17.md](./10%20-%20regression_breakpoint_analysis_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
11. [11 - continuity_stabilization_plan_2026-04-17.md](./11%20-%20continuity_stabilization_plan_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
12. [12 - manual_run_system_analysis_3NilqwT1G2_2026-04-18.md](./12%20-%20manual_run_system_analysis_3NilqwT1G2_2026-04-18.md)
|
||||
13. [13 - pre_multidomain_readiness_audit_2026-04-18.md](./13%20-%20pre_multidomain_readiness_audit_2026-04-18.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Current Status Snapshot (2026-04-17)
|
||||
## Current Status Snapshot (2026-04-18)
|
||||
|
||||
This package is no longer planning-only.
|
||||
|
||||
It now documents a turnaround that is already operational in code but still inside a pre-expansion stabilization breakpoint:
|
||||
It now documents a turnaround that is already operational in code, already materially past the acute regression breakpoint, but still not ready for wide multi-domain expansion:
|
||||
|
||||
- route, transition, boundary, meta, memory, and provider policy owners exist as separate modules;
|
||||
- exact-lane truth and coverage/evidence contracts exist as explicit runtime artifacts;
|
||||
@@ -43,18 +45,20 @@ It now documents a turnaround that is already operational in code but still insi
|
||||
|
||||
Current honest status:
|
||||
|
||||
- turnaround implementation progress: `~88%`
|
||||
- pre-expansion readiness: `~62%`
|
||||
- graph snapshot after latest rebuild: `5312 nodes`, `11408 edges`, `136 communities`
|
||||
- turnaround implementation progress: `~90%`
|
||||
- exit-from-danger-zone readiness: `~78%`
|
||||
- pre-multidomain readiness: `~58%`
|
||||
- graph snapshot after latest rebuild: `5339 nodes`, `11476 edges`, `134 communities`
|
||||
- current breakpoint:
|
||||
- mixed saved-session runtime still fails on continuity-critical edges;
|
||||
- clarification can outrank restored business context;
|
||||
- recap and user-facing packaging can remain smoother than the actual grounded thread.
|
||||
- the validated hot paths are no longer structurally broken;
|
||||
- but mixed continuity is still not governed by one fully central runtime authority;
|
||||
- wider saved-session proof is still too narrow for low-risk multi-domain rollout;
|
||||
- answer shaping is still heavier and more template-driven than the target product feel.
|
||||
- main remaining architectural pressure:
|
||||
- no single authoritative continuity contract for live mixed sessions
|
||||
- no single fully authoritative continuity contract consumed by all hot runtime owners
|
||||
- residual coordinator/legacy pressure inside `assistantService.ts`
|
||||
- central domain-intent pressure inside `resolveAddressIntent()`
|
||||
- remaining answer-semantics pressure inside `composeStage.ts`
|
||||
- remaining answer-semantics pressure inside `composeStage.ts` / `answerComposer.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
For the detailed audit, current percentages, and remaining debt, read:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -62,6 +66,8 @@ For the detailed audit, current percentages, and remaining debt, read:
|
||||
- [09 - pre_expansion_cut_2026-04-17.md](./09%20-%20pre_expansion_cut_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
- [10 - regression_breakpoint_analysis_2026-04-17.md](./10%20-%20regression_breakpoint_analysis_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
- [11 - continuity_stabilization_plan_2026-04-17.md](./11%20-%20continuity_stabilization_plan_2026-04-17.md)
|
||||
- [12 - manual_run_system_analysis_3NilqwT1G2_2026-04-18.md](./12%20-%20manual_run_system_analysis_3NilqwT1G2_2026-04-18.md)
|
||||
- [13 - pre_multidomain_readiness_audit_2026-04-18.md](./13%20-%20pre_multidomain_readiness_audit_2026-04-18.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Architectural Objects Of Planning
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -91,6 +97,8 @@ Read in this order:
|
||||
10. `09 - pre_expansion_cut_2026-04-17.md`
|
||||
11. `10 - regression_breakpoint_analysis_2026-04-17.md`
|
||||
12. `11 - continuity_stabilization_plan_2026-04-17.md`
|
||||
13. `12 - manual_run_system_analysis_3NilqwT1G2_2026-04-18.md`
|
||||
14. `13 - pre_multidomain_readiness_audit_2026-04-18.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Planning Rules
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -110,12 +118,13 @@ and start being described as:
|
||||
|
||||
- "a stateful exact-data assistant with explicit transition contracts and isolated truth gating."
|
||||
|
||||
As of `2026-04-17`, the project is already materially closer to the target description, but mixed-session continuity is still not governed by one runtime authority.
|
||||
As of `2026-04-18`, the project is already materially closer to the target description and no longer in the same acute collapse state, but mixed-session continuity is still not governed by one runtime authority strongly enough to justify low-risk multi-domain expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
The biggest remaining blockers are:
|
||||
|
||||
- split continuity ownership across route / transition / recap / coordinator glue;
|
||||
- saved-session acceptance still too narrow compared with the intended domain-expansion blast radius;
|
||||
- clarification precedence still too strong in mixed sessions;
|
||||
- residual `assistantService` overload;
|
||||
- central intent pressure in `resolveAddressIntent()`;
|
||||
- remaining answer-semantics pressure in `composeStage.ts`.
|
||||
- remaining answer-semantics pressure in `composeStage.ts` and `answerComposer.ts`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user