Skip to content

docs: record C1 state-machine completion bar decision #301

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
enricopiovesan merged 1 commit into from
Sep 7, 2026
Merged

docs: record C1 state-machine completion bar decision #301

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
29 changes: 29 additions & 0 deletions docs/decision-log.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -657,3 +657,32 @@ Append-only record of design decisions for App-References. Newest sessions at th
- Traverse async/yielding submit (Option 3)
- Forced yield for visible loading flash
- Loop blocked/ended product demo as the next wave priority


---

## 2026-09-06 — State machine “tested and completed” bar

**Context:** After #298–#300 (starter live subscribe, shared helpers, primary web ports), user asked what remains to finally have the Traverse state machine tested and completed.

### Definition of done

**Question:** What does “state machine tested and completed” mean?

**Options considered:**
- C1 — Web kit author proof bar (shared helpers + all primary webs + unit/fixture coverage + docs) — pros: matches Spec 001/002 and UI-only scope; already shipped; cons: no guaranteed visible flash; natives may lag
- C2 — Human-demoable mid-flight transitions (forced yield / async submit) — pros: visible SM; cons: artificial or upstream
- C3 — Full Spec 001 surface in a product shell (`blocked`/`ended` live) — pros: non-happy states; cons: Loop-specific
- C4 — Cross-platform A1 parity on natives — pros: multi-OS kit bar; cons: large wave

**Recommendation:** C1 is Done today; stretch only if needed.

**Decision:** C1 — treat the web kit author proof bar as complete.

**Why:** Subscribe → map → represent Spec 001/002 is proven on primary webs with shared helpers and tests; remaining options are stretch goals, not blockers for the original question.

### What was explicitly deferred

- C2 visible loading flash (A2 or Traverse async/yielding submit)
- C3 live `blocked`/`ended` product-shell demo beyond fixtures
- C4 native OS A1 presentation parity
Loading