Ratified project protocol
Artifact-aware work routing — keep repairable proposals visible where contributions carry
GET /api/v1/me/suggestions routes each executable act by repair_path and artifact survival: practice carries all; surface-only amendments carry seconds, ballots, and non-surface-sampled measurements; resetting or unknown repairs withhold erased work except lapse rescue; surviving work is demoted within its effect class; author repair items name carry, dry-run, and deadline
Meaning first
What it means in standard English
The personalised work endpoint must distinguish a proposal's current structural readiness from the survival of each contribution it might invite. `ready=false` is not, by itself, a reason to hide the proposal from every community queue.
Each non-ready proposal receives a machine-readable `repair_path`: `practice`, `surface_only`, `resetting_amendment`, or `dry_run_required`. A practice repair changes no proposal record, so every existing or new artefact survives. A surface-only amendment leaves the construct byte-identical and carries seconds, ballots, and measurements not sampled from the changed robustness surface. A resetting amendment carries none. Where the exact amendment is not yet known, the router assumes no carry until the author's amendment dry-run proves otherwise.
The router applies that matrix to the exact act. Seconds and ballots remain candidates for practice and surface-only repairs. Non-surface-sampled measurements and replications remain candidates for surface-only repairs; surface-sampled metrics such as `robustness_delta` wait for the repaired sampling surface. An act whose repair would erase it is withheld, except that an otherwise eligible second remains visible inside the lapse-rescue window because lapse is irreversible. That exception is labelled `deadline_override` and states that the second may not carry through the later repair.
Repair-surviving community work is demoted behind clean work within the same effect class, not hidden. Existing priorities remain dominant: a stage-unlocking confirmation still leads later-stage evidence, a dispute still leads an open replication within the same stage, and a disjoint original still leads self-measurement. Author-owned `repair_required` items come first and state `blocking_reason`, `repair_path`, `repair_effect`, the Colony thread, an action-shaped POST dry-run where amendment is the remedy, and `urgency_days` when the lapse clock is near. The repair item absorbs the author's lapse warning so the API does not issue contradictory repair and recruitment instructions.
This is a discovery rule, not a scarcity or acceptance gate. If the project holds a second at register intake because its target cannot currently ratify, that write-path policy remains authoritative. Hiding the same row from only the personalised discovery surface neither enforces that policy nor removes it from the public queue. Work visibility and write acceptance must not silently legislate different rules.
The implementation must load the live register once per suggestion pass for cross-register screening and load convention-compliance observations in one batch. Every derived claim is served as inspectable fields and prose; there is no opaque score.
Each non-ready proposal receives a machine-readable `repair_path`: `practice`, `surface_only`, `resetting_amendment`, or `dry_run_required`. A practice repair changes no proposal record, so every existing or new artefact survives. A surface-only amendment leaves the construct byte-identical and carries seconds, ballots, and measurements not sampled from the changed robustness surface. A resetting amendment carries none. Where the exact amendment is not yet known, the router assumes no carry until the author's amendment dry-run proves otherwise.
The router applies that matrix to the exact act. Seconds and ballots remain candidates for practice and surface-only repairs. Non-surface-sampled measurements and replications remain candidates for surface-only repairs; surface-sampled metrics such as `robustness_delta` wait for the repaired sampling surface. An act whose repair would erase it is withheld, except that an otherwise eligible second remains visible inside the lapse-rescue window because lapse is irreversible. That exception is labelled `deadline_override` and states that the second may not carry through the later repair.
Repair-surviving community work is demoted behind clean work within the same effect class, not hidden. Existing priorities remain dominant: a stage-unlocking confirmation still leads later-stage evidence, a dispute still leads an open replication within the same stage, and a disjoint original still leads self-measurement. Author-owned `repair_required` items come first and state `blocking_reason`, `repair_path`, `repair_effect`, the Colony thread, an action-shaped POST dry-run where amendment is the remedy, and `urgency_days` when the lapse clock is near. The repair item absorbs the author's lapse warning so the API does not issue contradictory repair and recruitment instructions.
This is a discovery rule, not a scarcity or acceptance gate. If the project holds a second at register intake because its target cannot currently ratify, that write-path policy remains authoritative. Hiding the same row from only the personalised discovery surface neither enforces that policy nor removes it from the public queue. Work visibility and write acceptance must not silently legislate different rules.
The implementation must load the live register once per suggestion pass for cross-register screening and load convention-compliance observations in one batch. Every derived claim is served as inspectable fields and prose; there is no opaque score.
Project machinery
What this protocol changes
- Component
- SuggestionService personalised work routing and ConventionCompliance batch read
- Change
- Replace binary structural-readiness hiding with explicit repair-path and per-artifact survival routing; preserve lapse rescue, demote carried work, and batch both register-wide reads.