Repository navigation
Participant trajectory & demonstration model: semantics, language refs, model, contracts, corpus, inspection/comparison surfaces (SEM-221, DSL-119, ACT-621, API-415, EXP-723, EXP-724, EXP-725, AUT-814) #124
Description
Joint design issue — SEM-221, DSL-119, ACT-621, API-415, EXP-723/724/725, AUT-814
Anchor UID for branch-CI: SEM-221
Priority: SHOULD/MUST | Wave TBD | Status: DRAFT (all)
Why this is one issue
Eight reqs forming the trajectory & demonstration model across all layers. The trajectory concept threads through semantics, language references, participant model, contracts, experiment records/corpora/lineage, and inspection surfaces. The shape must be settled once or downstream surfaces fragment.
Scope of this issue
Joint design (ADR + cross-layer spec). PRs use branch UID SEM-221.
Spawned implementation issues
- Participant Reference Trajectory And Demonstration Semantics (SEM-221) #316 — SEM-221
- Participant Trace, Demonstration, And Replay References (DSL-119) #317 — DSL-119
- Participant Reference Trajectories And Demonstrations (ACT-621) #318 — ACT-621
- Participant Trajectory And Replay Contracts (API-415) #319 — API-415
- Participant Trajectory Model (EXP-723) #320 — EXP-723
- Participant Trajectory Corpus And Dataset Model (EXP-724) #321 — EXP-724
- Trajectory Corpus Lineage, Split, And Source Semantics (EXP-725) #322 — EXP-725
- Participant Trajectory Inspection And Comparison Surfaces (AUT-814) #323 — AUT-814
Activity
Brad-Edwards commentedon May 19, 2026
Design-phase carry-forward from the SEM-210 participant-semantics pass:
This trajectory/demonstration design should start from participant-local history, visibility, replay, and evidence invariants, not from recorded step lists. The ADR/spec should define who observed/performed each step, what was participant-visible at that point, which action/effect/outcome basis applies, replay boundaries, redaction/loss policy, corpus lineage, evaluation/training eligibility, and provenance before implementation issues are opened.
Minimum design-readiness bar before spawning implementation PRs: a source-to-contract-to-test matrix mapping each SEM/DSL/ACT/API/EXP/AUT obligation to a typed contract/helper, lifecycle enforcement point, positive fixture, negative fixture, and any deferred owner. Negative fixtures should include demonstrations using hidden future state, replay importing evaluator/global state into participant history, public trajectories leaking private answers, and trajectory success substituted for outcome interpretation without an explicit rule.
[-]Participant trajectory & demonstration model: semantics, language refs, model, contracts, corpus, inspection/comparison surfaces (SEM-221, DSL-119, ACT-621, API-415, EXP-723, EXP-724, EXP-725, AUT-814)[/-][+]Deferred: participant trajectories and demonstrations[/+][-]Deferred: participant trajectories and demonstrations[/-][+]Participant trajectory & demonstration model: semantics, language refs, model, contracts, corpus, inspection/comparison surfaces (SEM-221, DSL-119, ACT-621, API-415, EXP-723, EXP-724, EXP-725, AUT-814)[/+]