From d9954be74683e8f49975ac955af78419bfc0c27a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: PerchAnton <101743951+PerchAnton@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2026 15:36:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Compare stale draft protection across two real dialogs

---
 README.md        |  7 +++++++
 docs/ADOPTION.md | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 7768f19..8a6887b 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -42,6 +42,13 @@ and checked in CI. [Walkthrough and host responsibilities](docs/CONTEXT_WALKTHRO
 The host supplies stable identities, advances revisions, and keeps the check and
 command on the same serialized edit path. A correct local helper can provide the
 same protection; this example does not claim less code or faster execution.
+
+**Would this earn a place in your editor?** In a proposed PdfCraft fix, two native
+regressions went from 0/2 passing to 2/2. One protected a newer title and the other
+preserved Redo. The full patch added a net 217 production UI lines. If two dialogs
+in your editor have this problem, try a local helper and the crate against the
+same tests. [What to measure in the second dialog](docs/ADOPTION.md#try-a-second-dialog).
+
 The separate [interaction-check](https://github.com/PerchAnton/interaction-check)
 development tool is optional. Neither project depends on the other.
 
diff --git a/docs/ADOPTION.md b/docs/ADOPTION.md
index a78315d..eedd259 100644
--- a/docs/ADOPTION.md
+++ b/docs/ADOPTION.md
@@ -86,3 +86,18 @@ PhotoCraft and PdfCraft are proposed consumers, not adopted dependencies. We hav
 demonstrated behavior protection in a consumer patch; we have not demonstrated lower
 total source size or faster editing. The next valuable milestone is a maintainer-reviewed
 workflow and ownership decision, not more adapters or a larger API.
+
+## Try a second dialog
+
+Pick two dialogs in the same editor that share a document revision but edit
+different fields. In each, type a draft, apply a change elsewhere, undo that
+change, then confirm the old draft. Record the resulting value and whether Redo
+still works. Use the same native assertions for both implementations.
+
+Start with the editor's smallest correct helper. On a separate branch try
+`edit-session`, keeping the same command dispatch and revision source. For the
+second dialog, record which checks you reused, which host-specific code you
+had to write and the production lines added or removed. Count tests separately.
+If both versions pass and the second dialog reuses as much with the local
+helper, keep the helper. A useful trial result is the pair of diffs and tests,
+including the cases where the crate added work.