Gaps, open questions and honest tensions
Summary
The document that keeps the site honest about itself. Six build-fresh items, of which the backups doctrine and the description of how a brief becomes work here are the two with no existing material anywhere. Five open questions, including whether a hub site is worth its drift risk at all, and whether the estate's methodology should be published given that it is a competitive asset. Four tensions the site is instructed to publish rather than resolve, the sharpest being that teaching a practice honestly means teaching the gap between the rule and the practice — which is, in the end, what a non-functional-requirements site is for.
Key concepts
- Backups: the question to answer first
- Should IFD be published at all?
- Is a hub worth its drift risk?
- Proposed, and not built
Key ideas
- Decide whether the vault model is already the backup doctrine before writing the doctrine.
- The open-source position answers the publish-IFD question yes; say so explicitly rather than assuming it.
- The hub teaches what the spokes measured, and curation is the first thing to rot.
- An agent that learns the no-mocks rule also learns the coverage reality.
On this site
Every item is carried onto the site: the questions are published unresolved, and the build-fresh items appear on the proposed list rather than being quietly dropped.