D12 — Scope versus pace is open, and governs everything else here #49

New Issue

2026-09-05T16:20:22Z

dtourolle commented

2026-09-05 16:20:22 +00:00

Decision D12 — scope versus pace — is still OPEN, and it governs every other ticket in this tracker.

The calibration selected an ambitious feature set — full tablet editing, full ingest, culling as a differentiator, complete GPU masking, AI denoise, Fuji-first colour, deep sync, sidecar durability — against a stated pace of evenings and weekends, indefinitely.

Those are not compatible as stated.

What the evidence now says

docs/outstanding.md §§1–10 are what that incompatibility looks like eleven versions later, and they land almost exactly where D12 predicted: tablet editing carries SAF at unproven scale, background execution limits, and two GPU vendors to validate — and every one of those is unbuilt or unrun.

The parts that were built — the develop pipeline, sync, faces, the catalog — are the parts that did not need a decision first. That is the pattern, and it is the same one §10 finds in the spikes.

What resolves it

Not working faster. Moving requirements across the line — from in-scope to deferred, with the reasoning recorded, the way §7 already does for the things that were deferred deliberately.

Concrete candidates already identified elsewhere in the tracker:

§3.10 plugins — 21 IDs, 12% of the register, and §7 already says deferred (#15).
FR-DSP-2 — two measurements say it costs more than it saves on the interactive path (#23).
NFR-P8 — needs a restatement as two figures, not an implementation (#43).
R1 and R2 — unfalsifiable as written (#45, #46).

Resolving those five alone would move the coverage figure from a number that misleads to one that means something.

Why this is a ticket

Because it is the only one that changes the size of all the others, and because an unbuilt requirement nobody intends to build is worse than a deferred one — it keeps costing attention.

See docs/outstanding.md §11.

**Decision D12 — scope versus pace — is still OPEN, and it governs every other ticket in this tracker.** > The calibration selected an ambitious feature set — full tablet editing, full ingest, culling as a differentiator, complete GPU masking, AI denoise, Fuji-first colour, deep sync, sidecar durability — against a stated pace of evenings and weekends, indefinitely. > > **Those are not compatible as stated.** ## What the evidence now says `docs/outstanding.md` §§1–10 are what that incompatibility looks like eleven versions later, and they land **almost exactly where D12 predicted**: tablet editing carries SAF at unproven scale, background execution limits, and two GPU vendors to validate — and every one of those is unbuilt or unrun. The parts that *were* built — the develop pipeline, sync, faces, the catalog — are the parts that **did not need a decision first**. That is the pattern, and it is the same one §10 finds in the spikes. ## What resolves it Not working faster. **Moving requirements across the line** — from in-scope to deferred, with the reasoning recorded, the way §7 already does for the things that were deferred deliberately. Concrete candidates already identified elsewhere in the tracker: - §3.10 plugins — 21 IDs, 12% of the register, and §7 already says deferred (#15). - FR-DSP-2 — two measurements say it costs more than it saves on the interactive path (#23). - NFR-P8 — needs a restatement as two figures, not an implementation (#43). - R1 and R2 — unfalsifiable as written (#45, #46). Resolving those five alone would move the coverage figure from a number that misleads to one that means something. ## Why this is a ticket Because it is the only one that changes the size of all the others, and because an unbuilt requirement nobody intends to build **is worse than a deferred one — it keeps costing attention**. See `docs/outstanding.md` §11.

dtourolle added the size:S decision docs labels 2026-09-05 16:20:22 +00:00

dtourolle referenced this issue

2026-09-05 16:20:49 +00:00

§3.10 vs §7 — the register says the plugin API is both deferred and specified #15

dtourolle referenced this issue

2026-09-05 16:20:56 +00:00

R1 — no acceptance criterion, and S9 is what would give it one #45

dtourolle commented

2026-09-05 16:20:57 +00:00

Governs every other ticket here. The five concrete candidates it names: #15, #23, #43, #45, #46.
Resolving those alone would move the coverage figure from a number that misleads to one that means something.

**Governs every other ticket here.** The five concrete candidates it names: #15, #23, #43, #45, #46. Resolving those alone would move the coverage figure from a number that misleads to one that means something.

dtourolle commented

2026-09-19 10:19:21 +00:00

Decided 2026-09-19, by events (fbbdecf): the scope as calibrated stands, v1 has no date, and (post-v1) in §7 is the one way a clause leaves the count — used for the plugin API and nothing else. D3 is recorded as delivered.

Decided 2026-09-19, by events (fbbdecf): the scope as calibrated stands, v1 has no date, and `(post-v1)` in §7 is the one way a clause leaves the count — used for the plugin API and nothing else. D3 is recorded as delivered.

dtourolle closed this issue

2026-09-19 10:19:22 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dtourolle/DarkRoom#49