From 6ba5a83f815eba60718fae96edc123b1c249d4ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vuong Hoang Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:11:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] docs: the operator moved the design ownership boundary, and the fence was ours MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Round 1 ruled not-as-shown: 'He didn't go far enough, still looks like the booth. I want him to consider the flow and the requirements — design touches, layout, usability all belong to him.' The handoff paragraph that said we were not asking for layout changes driven by information architecture is void. design-dev's 'class additions only, no reordering' was that constraint honoured, so the ruling corrects our brief rather than his round — worth recording that way round, because the next session reading only the artifact would read it as a design failure. Flow, layout, usability and the requirements are his now; the IA is no longer fenced off. What survives is split in two on purpose: correctness invariants that are not design opinions, and engineering defaults we chose that he may now argue with, where a dispute goes to the operator rather than being settled between agents. --- ROADMAP.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ persistent-memory.md | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+) diff --git a/ROADMAP.md b/ROADMAP.md index 95c5c07..7a70610 100644 --- a/ROADMAP.md +++ b/ROADMAP.md @@ -157,6 +157,30 @@ weighed against the v1 path and lost on purpose. v1 gate: we own the information architecture (it is driven by the measurement above), design-dev owns the visual and interaction system. + 🛑 **OPERATOR RULING 2026-09-23 — THE OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY MOVED, AND IT MOVED + OUR WAY OUT.** The first concept round was ruled **NOT ship-as-shown**: + *"He didn't go far enough, still looks like the booth. I want him to consider + the flow and the requirements — design touches, layout, usability all belong + to him."* **Flow, layout, usability and the REQUIREMENTS are design-dev's.** + The information architecture is no longer fenced off from him: what belongs on + which page, what groups with what, what the rail counts and whether a rail is + the right object at all are his calls to propose and build. + + ⚠ **The fence was OURS, and it is what produced a reskin.** The handoff said + *"what we are not asking for: layout changes driven by information + architecture"*, and design-dev's *"markup changes are class additions only, no + reordering"* was that constraint honoured. The ruling corrects the brief, not + his round. **That paragraph is void — do not restate it.** + + What survives is two tiers, deliberately separated because collapsing them is + how we over-fenced the first time. **Tier 1, correctness not taste:** + deterministic order (an operator directive — the RULE may change, but not into + "whatever the layout yields"), autoescape, blur keeps admitting it is + cosmetic, restart discipline. **Tier 2, engineering defaults WE chose and he + may now argue with:** the gallery working with JavaScript off, virtualization + parked, compare mode deferred. Tier 2 disputes go to the operator, not settled + between agents. + ⚠ **The `/vor-ui` brief this row used to require was DECLINED, and rightly.** The row predates `docs/design/information-architecture.md`; with that doc, the landed templates and the seven handoff constraints in hand, a `/vor-ui` pass diff --git a/persistent-memory.md b/persistent-memory.md index 377932d..1a9ff21 100644 --- a/persistent-memory.md +++ b/persistent-memory.md @@ -43,6 +43,22 @@ _As of 2026-09-22:_ until now — `scripts/booth` executes it before every one of the documented three. Now covered by `test_stdlib_only`. Same detail file carries why `importlib.metadata` is the WRONG version source in this repo. +- 🛑 **ROUND 1 RULED NOT-AS-SHOWN, AND THE SCOPE FENCE WAS OURS** (operator, + 2026-09-23): *"He didn't go far enough, still looks like the booth. I want him + to consider the flow and the requirements — design touches, layout, usability + all belong to him."* **The handoff's "what we are not asking for: layout + changes driven by information architecture" paragraph is VOID** — design-dev's + "class additions only, no reordering" was that constraint honoured, so the + ruling corrects OUR brief, not his round. Flow, layout, usability and the + requirements are his; the IA is no longer fenced off. Two tiers survive: + correctness (deterministic order, autoescape, blur-admits-cosmetic, restart + discipline) and engineering defaults he may now ARGUE with (no-JS gallery, + virtualization parked, compare mode deferred) — tier-2 disputes go to the + operator, not settled between agents. Relayed in full; questions 2 and 3 + (voice, emblem) remain UNANSWERED and were not answered on his behalf. + ⚠ **Calibration for the next round: his bar is "did anything change when I + opened it".** He said the Booth "kind of looks the same" about our own U7 + navigation work, before ever seeing the design round. - 🔶 **SVOS CONCEPT ROUND IS UP AND THREE RULINGS ARE WITH THE OPERATOR** (booth `booth-svos-retheme`, ask id `svos`: ship / voice / emblem, all three with design-dev's recommendation attached). **Nothing from us gates it and