generated from coulomb/repo-seed
91 lines
3.8 KiB
YAML
91 lines
3.8 KiB
YAML
id: comparison/repo-scoping/frame
|
|
title: Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Frame
|
|
status: candidate
|
|
consumer: repo-scoping
|
|
comparison_report: comparison/repo-scoping/report
|
|
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0009
|
|
source_context:
|
|
repo: repo-scoping
|
|
inspected_sources:
|
|
- INTENT.md
|
|
- SCOPE.md
|
|
- docs/terminology.md
|
|
- docs/scope-md-spec.md
|
|
- docs/characteristic-evidence-model.md
|
|
- docs/dependency-aware-scope-propagation.md
|
|
- docs/self-scoping/README.md
|
|
- docs/self-scoping/golden/repo-scoping-golden-profile.v1.json
|
|
comparison_domains:
|
|
- id: repository-intent
|
|
title: Repository Intent
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- kernel/itc-core
|
|
- model/purpose-demand-extension
|
|
- pattern/intent-scope-purposes
|
|
questions:
|
|
- How does repo-scoping distinguish design-time INTENT.md from generated or curated SCOPE.md?
|
|
- Which parts of INTENT.md are allowed to seed candidates, and which require review before becoming current scope?
|
|
- Does repo-scoping need a canonical RepositoryIntentStatement concept distinct from Purpose and Scope?
|
|
- id: current-scope
|
|
title: Current Scope
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/information-space
|
|
- model/governance
|
|
questions:
|
|
- How does the root Scope characteristic represent current repository utility?
|
|
- Which SCOPE.md sections are generated, curator-owned, or curator-reviewed?
|
|
- How are in-scope, out-of-scope, relevant-when, and not-relevant-when statements evidenced?
|
|
- id: future-scope
|
|
title: Future Scope
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/purpose-demand-extension
|
|
- model/task
|
|
- model/governance
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Which expectation gaps indicate possible future scope rather than current truth?
|
|
- Which requested capabilities should become EvolutionRequests?
|
|
- How should scope pressure be reviewed before repo-scoping changes its model?
|
|
- id: consumers-and-purposes
|
|
title: Consumers And Purposes
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/purpose-demand-extension
|
|
- agent/templates/canon-interface-card.template.yaml
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Who consumes repo-scoping outputs: humans, agents, State Hub, capability catalog, and managed repos?
|
|
- Which consumer purposes are served by scope generation, profile comparison, and self-assessment?
|
|
- Which demand signals should repo-scoping feed back into InfoTechCanon?
|
|
- id: decisions-and-evidence
|
|
title: Decisions And Evidence
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/governance
|
|
- model/information-space
|
|
- model/observability
|
|
questions:
|
|
- How do ReviewDecision, approved characteristics, rejected candidates, and expectation gaps map to governance decisions?
|
|
- How do SourceReference, ObservedFact, ContentChunk, and Evidence map to provenance and evidence concepts?
|
|
- What evidence is required before a generated candidate becomes registry truth?
|
|
- id: risks-and-regressions
|
|
title: Risks And Regressions
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/security
|
|
- model/governance
|
|
- model/task
|
|
questions:
|
|
- How are known-bad self-scoping outputs represented as regression seeds?
|
|
- How does repo-scoping prevent provider, dependency, tooling, or mention-only facts from becoming native capability truth?
|
|
- Which risks should create tasks, quality gates, or governance review?
|
|
- id: evolution-requests
|
|
title: Evolution Requests
|
|
canon_anchors:
|
|
- model/purpose-demand-extension
|
|
- model/task
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Which canon extension candidates would make repo-scoping more precise?
|
|
- Which candidates should remain review proposals instead of immediate standard changes?
|
|
- Which work belongs in repo-scoping and which work belongs in InfoTechCanon?
|
|
comparison_outputs:
|
|
- comparison report
|
|
- canon benefit analysis
|
|
- canon extension candidate set
|
|
- repo-scoping consumer workplan brief
|