---
id: RREG-WP-0016
type: workplan
title: "Native Candidate Generation Recovery"
domain: capabilities
repo: repo-scoping
status: active
owner: codex
topic_slug: foerster-capabilities
created: "2026-05-15"
updated: "2026-05-15"
state_hub_workstream_id: "088c5674-8edb-447b-8fb5-2a7a34d85ba1"
---

# Native Candidate Generation Recovery

WP0014 fixed the acceptance boundary: deterministic rules no longer promote bad
candidates into approved registry truth. WP0015 fixed the self-assessment input
set so repo-scoping no longer analyzes runtime checkouts as if they were native
source.

The clean post-WP0015 challenger still fails the golden profile. It produces one
candidate capability, `Route LLM Requests Across Providers`, and nests native
API/CLI surfaces below that false provider-routing capability. Quality gates now
flag this correctly (`RREG-QC-002`, `RREG-QC-003`) and the approved map remains
empty, but candidate generation still needs to recover the repo's real native
capabilities.

This workplan is deliberately about generation quality, not acceptance policy.

## T01: Separate Provider Vocabulary From Native Capability Seeds

```task
id: RREG-WP-0016-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0e65e301-aba6-4720-a4bd-481eebf1b63f"
```

Update deterministic candidate generation so LLM-provider facts and credential
configuration are never enough to create the parent capability for a repository
unless supported by owned product intent/source.

Acceptance criteria:
- Provider vocabulary can remain evidence or a low-level observed fact.
- Provider vocabulary does not become the dominant parent capability for
  repo-scoping's own self-assessment.
- Existing llm-connect-like fixtures that truly model provider adapters remain
  explainable through source-role metadata.

Implementation note 2026-05-15: narrowed deterministic LLM-provider capability
promotion to facts classified as `utility-facade` or `utility-adapter`; generic
owned implementation vocabulary such as scanner constants, normalization
tables, and API schemas now remains observed fact material. Added regression
coverage proving owned provider vocabulary does not create
`Route LLM Requests Across Providers` while adapter-like provider fixtures still
can. A throwaway self-assessment preview moved repo-scoping from `regression`
to `needs_review`: the forbidden provider-routing candidate disappeared and the
remaining generated candidate is `Expose Repository Interface`.

## T02: Generate Native Repo-Scoping Candidate Families

```task
id: RREG-WP-0016-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3db9742c-43fd-48ec-bcb7-13034f8c3f2e"
```

Use intent, docs, source, tests, and schema files to generate repo-scoping's
expected native candidate families instead of a single provider-routing bucket.

Initial expected families:
- repository registration and metadata import
- deterministic repository scanning and observed facts
- provenance-aware content indexing
- reviewable candidate characteristic generation
- candidate review/edit/reject/merge/relink/approval workflow
- approved profile search, comparison, export, and gap exploration
- SCOPE.md generation, diffing, validation, and write flows
- dependency graph and impact exploration
- scope context API for downstream agents

Acceptance criteria:
- Clean self-assessment matches at least a meaningful subset of the golden
  expected capabilities.
- API and CLI features attach under native workflow candidates, not provider
  routing.
- Candidate source refs cite repo-owned docs/source/tests instead of schema
  examples or dependency vocabulary alone.

## T03: Re-Run Clean Self-Assessment And Compare

```task
id: RREG-WP-0016-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "9ae662c0-3858-4c7d-b06e-26e1c8da7921"
```

After generator improvements, rerun the clean deterministic self-assessment and
compare it to the golden profile and the post-WP0015 rejected challenger.

Acceptance criteria:
- The forbidden provider-routing candidate is absent or isolated as rejected /
  requires-review evidence rather than a native capability.
- The comparison report shows matched expected capabilities.
- Remaining gaps are captured as generator follow-up, golden-profile update, or
  human review notes.