Session 3 of the four-session plan. Two more engineering planning
docs that lock in the most contentious architectural decisions
before V1 implementation begins.
docs/architecture/tool-handoff-boundaries.md
--------------------------------------------
Locks in the V1 read/write relationship with external tools:
- AtoCore is a one-way mirror in V1. External tools push,
AtoCore reads, AtoCore never writes back.
- Per-tool stance table covering KB-CAD, KB-FEM, NX, PKM, Gitea
repos, OpenClaw, AtoDrive, PLM/vendor systems
- Two new ingest endpoints proposed for V1:
POST /ingest/kb-cad/export and POST /ingest/kb-fem/export
- Sketch JSON shapes for both exports (intentionally minimal,
to be refined in dedicated schema docs during implementation)
- Drift handling: KB-CAD changes a value -> creates an entity
candidate -> existing active becomes a conflict member ->
human resolves via the conflict model
- Hard-line invariants V1 will not cross: no write to external
tools, no live polling, no silent merging, no schema fan-out,
no external-tool-specific logic in entity types
- Why not bidirectional: schema drift, conflict semantics, trust
hierarchy, velocity, reversibility
- V2+ deferred items: selective write-back annotations, light
polling, direct NX integration, cost/vendor/PLM connections
- Open questions for the implementation sprint: schema location,
who runs the exporter, full-vs-incremental, exporter auth
docs/architecture/representation-authority.md
---------------------------------------------
The canonical-home matrix that says where each kind of fact
actually lives:
- Six representation layers identified: PKM, KB project,
Gitea repos, AtoCore memories, AtoCore entities, AtoCore
project_state
- The hard rule: every fact kind has exactly one canonical
home; other layers may hold derived copies but never disagree
- Comprehensive matrix covering 22 fact kinds (CAD geometry,
CAD-side structure, FEM mesh, FEM results, code, repo docs,
PKM prose, identity, preference, episodic, decision,
requirement, constraint, validation claim, material,
parameter, project status, ADRs, runbooks, backup metadata,
interactions)
- Cross-layer supremacy rule: project_state > tool-of-origin >
entities > active memories > source chunks
- Three worked examples showing how the rules apply:
* "what material does the lateral support pad use?" (KB-CAD
canonical, project_state override possible)
* "did we decide to merge the bind mounts?" (Gitea + memory
both canonical for different aspects)
* "what's p05's current next focus?" (project_state always
wins for current state queries)
- Concrete consequences for V1 implementation: Material and
Parameter are mostly KB-CAD shadows; Decisions / Requirements /
Constraints / ValidationClaims are AtoCore-canonical; PKM is
never authoritative; project_state is the override layer;
the conflict model is the enforcement mechanism
- Out of scope for V1: facts about other people, vendor/cost
facts, time-bounded facts, cross-project shared facts
- Open questions for V1: how the reviewer sees canonical home
in the UI, whether entities need an explicit canonical_home
field, how project_state overrides surface in query results
This is pure doc work. No code, no schema, no behavior changes.
After this commit the engineering planning sprint is 6 of 8 docs
done — only human-mirror-rules and engineering-v1-acceptance
remain.
