fabro/.chisel/calibration/work/adjudication.md

Calibration Adjudication

Revision: 6bb6b5efcc0e36b52e3c097f532d9f2c00914c6c

Cartography: v1 at 2bcf94fed8a9b429f18d9196fa824711d6f4cb0a. The only later commit adds cartography artifacts, so the mapped code paths are unchanged at the assessed revision.

Sample: fabro-workflow, fabro-http, fabro-web-app, repository-ci. Control: fabro-checkpoint.

Independent Score Matrix

Cells list reviewer 1 / reviewer 2 / reviewer 3.

Component	Ownership and boundaries	Simplicity	Domain model	Duplication of knowledge
fabro-workflow	2 / 3 / 4	2 / 2 / 2	2 / 3 / 2	2 / 2 / 2
fabro-http	4 / 4 / 4	4 / 4 / 4	4 / 3 / 4	3 / 4 / 4
fabro-web-app	4 / 4 / 3	2 / 2 / 2	2 / 2 / 2	2 / 2 / 2
repository-ci	4 / 4 / 3	3 / 3 / 3	2 / 3 / 2	2 / 2 / 2

Unanimous pairs establish that central machinery may still have a stable path: fabro-workflow is 2 for simplicity and duplication; fabro-web-app is 2 for simplicity, domain model, and duplication; and repository-ci is 3 for simplicity and 2 for duplication. fabro-http is unanimously 4 for ownership and simplicity.

Material Disagreements

fabro-workflow × ownership and boundaries — 2 / 3 / 4

• Evidence: pipeline/mod.rs and pipeline/types.rs give the normal run explicit phase owners; lifecycle/mod.rs:WorkflowLifecycle owns callback ordering through focused delegates.
• Counterevidence: terminal completion and failure are also constructed in pipeline/finalize.rs:build_terminal_event, operations/start.rs:emit_workflow_run_failed, operations/start.rs:persist_terminal_engine_failure, completion/drop guards, retry, and archive operations.
• Ambiguous rule: two reviewers judged the clear normal path; one judged whether the same lifecycle has one home across normal and exceptional paths.
• Discriminator: inspect every recurring terminal path. A routine terminal-contract change crossing several operation owners is score-2 ownership pressure even when the success path is well partitioned.
• Draft adjudication: 2.

fabro-workflow × domain model — 2 / 3 / 2

• Evidence: pipeline/types.rs encodes phase states and canonical product records are reused.
• Counterevidence: event/events.rs:Event::StageCompleted carries a string status; lifecycle/event.rs:EventLifecycle::after_node serializes a typed outcome and event/convert.rs:stage_status_from_string reparses it with an unknown-value fallback.
• Ambiguous rule: whether a typed durable event isolates an invalid intermediate representation on the common producer path.
• Discriminator: common-path invalid intermediate states are central even when the durable result is typed.
• Draft adjudication: 2.

fabro-http × domain model — 4 / 3 / 4

• Evidence: ProxyPolicy, resolve_with_env_value, and HttpClientBuildError form a closed policy with explicit precedence and rejection.
• Counterevidence: public builders expose both proxy_policy(ProxyPolicy::Disabled) and lower-level no_proxy().
• Ambiguous rule: whether a lower-level transport control creates a second meaning for the repository policy.
• Discriminator: an escape hatch does not split the canonical concept when the typed policy remains closed and its precedence is enforced.
• Draft adjudication: 4.

fabro-http × duplication of knowledge — 3 / 4 / 4

• Evidence: define_builder! is the shared async/blocking authority and ProxyPolicy::resolve owns precedence.
• Counterevidence: adding a policy variant synchronizes the enum, parser, expected-value error text, behavior match, and tests.
• Ambiguous rule: whether co-location and exhaustive matching make all policy vocabulary authoritative.
• Discriminator: hypothetical variants do not establish routine recurrence; exhaustive compiler-checked behavior remains one authority unless direct evidence shows recurring manual synchronization.
• Draft adjudication: 4.

fabro-web-app × ownership and boundaries — 4 / 4 / 3

• Evidence: entry.tsx, route graphs, lib/api-client.ts, queries, mutations, effect hooks, and the build script give shared responsibilities visible homes.
• Counterevidence: install-app.tsx and routes/run-stages.tsx contain several central transformations and presentation concerns.
• Ambiguous rule: whether a busy but clearly identified route owner is boundary pressure or simplicity pressure.
• Discriminator: do not lower ownership for internal complexity unless routine changes cross another owner or reverse the mapped dependency direction.
• Draft adjudication: 4.

repository-ci × ownership and boundaries — 4 / 4 / 3

• Evidence: Rust and TypeScript workflows have distinct validation jobs, narrow permissions, and delegate build procedures to repository commands.
• Counterevidence: the Rust clippy job embeds the repository's legacy-auth vocabulary check.
• Ambiguous rule: whether enforcement of a product migration invariant is misplaced when CI owns validation but not the underlying vocabulary.
• Discriminator: a named invariant check may live in CI, but its product vocabulary must remain authoritative elsewhere; this isolated boundary friction fits 3.
• Draft adjudication: 3.

repository-ci × domain model — 2 / 3 / 2

• Evidence: job, runner, permission, and test-mode vocabulary is otherwise coherent.
• Counterevidence: rust.yml:on.*.paths names nonexistent openapi/** rather than docs/public/api-reference/fabro-api.yaml, and zizmor.yml:rules.stale-action-refs.ignore identifies exceptions by stale line positions.
• Ambiguous rule: whether configuration references are domain vocabulary or only duplicated operational data.
• Discriminator: identifiers that control central behavior are domain vocabulary; missing or stale referents create score-2 pressure.
• Draft adjudication: 2.

Draft Anchor Decisions

• Anchor score 4 on a positive enforcing mechanism, never absence of a defect.
• Separate owner clarity from the amount of machinery inside that owner.
• Treat invalid common-path intermediate states as domain-model pressure.
• Treat repeated semantic decisions as duplication only when routine changes require manual synchronization.
• Treat mapped configuration identifiers as domain vocabulary.
• Reserve N/E for a lens without direct evidence; no sampled pair required it.

Consistency Review

The fresh reviewer applied only the written draft to fabro-checkpoint and reported:

Lens	Score	Evidence confidence
Ownership and boundaries	2	Medium
Simplicity	3	High
Domain model	2	High
Duplication of knowledge	2	High

The control exposed four material wording problems:

1. The draft did not say how a component-level score combines several responsibilities, or whether positive mechanisms and friction can coexist at score 4.
2. Necessary layered delegation could satisfy the original ownership and simplicity score-2 wording.
3. The domain rules did not say when a public low-level API is an escape hatch or what score a common invalid intermediate implies.
4. Decision rule 5 contradicted the duplication anchor by assigning routine string synchronization to score 3.

The revision now says that a central concern caps rather than averages, score 4 requires a positive production mechanism without material friction, public surface alone does not establish routine work, and missing paths are not negative without mapped-purpose evidence. The anchors now distinguish competing owners from necessary delegation and maintainer navigation from runtime layering. Decision rules 2–6 resolve scoped lifecycle handoff, necessary delegation, common-path invalid states, direct evidence of recurring synchronization, and configuration identifiers. Tests corroborate production authorities but are not second authorities merely because they restate a contract.

All 16 wording observations in consistency-review.md are covered by those changes or by the existing primary-lens and confidence sections. No consistency objection remains open before validation.

Validation

Round 1

Assignment	Validator 1	Validator 2	Validator 3	Result
fabro-workflow × ownership	2	2	2	Resolved
fabro-workflow × domain	2	2	2	Resolved
fabro-http × domain	4	4	4	Resolved
fabro-http × duplication	4	4	3	Repeated adjacent split
fabro-web-app × ownership	4	4	4	Resolved
repository-ci × ownership	4	2	4	Non-adjacent split
repository-ci × domain	2	2	2	Resolved
Control × ownership	2	4	2	Non-adjacent split
Control × simplicity	4	4	3	Adjacent split
Control × domain	2	3	2	Adjacent split
Control × duplication	3	2	3	Adjacent split

The sample's workflow lifecycle, event status, HTTP policy model, web composition, and CI identifier anchors now converge. Six assignments require the permitted final simplification:

• HTTP diagnostic allowed-value text is a concrete second semantic representation, even though the macro is the behavioral authority.
• A CI check owns trigger coverage for every path its embedded policy scans; this is distinct from the domain meaning of a nonexistent selector.
• Control ownership is judged against the mapped metadata-branch purpose, not against narrower names on Store and BranchStore.
• The control's unused dependency and unused parallel entry layer are isolated simplicity friction rather than evidence-free public breadth.
• Validation in an external caller does not make an invalid-capable mapped entry type enforce its own legal shape.
• Repeated fixed Git protocol syntax is a concrete second representation, but multiple current call sites alone do not make changing that protocol an ordinary mapped change.

Decision rules 2–6 now state those discriminators directly. Round 2 will re-score only the six unresolved assignments.

Round 2

Assignment	Validator 1	Validator 2	Validator 3	Result
fabro-http × duplication	3	3	3	Resolved
repository-ci × ownership	2	2	2	Resolved
Control × ownership	2	2	2	Resolved
Control × simplicity	3	3	3	Resolved
Control × domain	2	2	2	Resolved
Control × duplication	3	3	3	Resolved

All round-2 scores converge. The final control baseline is ownership 2 (High), simplicity 3 (High), domain model 2 (Medium), and duplication of knowledge 3 (Medium). Domain confidence remains Medium because one validator found a material ambiguity over whether low-level Git path validation belongs inside the component. Duplication confidence remains Medium because stable protocol syntax is concrete repetition but has limited demonstrated change burden.

Across both validation rounds, the final disputed sample scores are:

Component	Ownership and boundaries	Domain model	Duplication of knowledge
fabro-workflow	2	2	—
fabro-http	—	4	3
fabro-web-app	4	—	—
repository-ci	2	2	—

No non-adjacent or repeated adjacent split remains.

Open Questions

None.