amadan
Region HA two-box model plan: Astra review brief, round 3
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 file changed,
+65
−0
docs/superpowers/plans/CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-TWO-BOX-BRIEF-3.md+65 −0
CI passed — run details
diff --git a/docs/superpowers/plans/CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-TWO-BOX-BRIEF-3.md b/docs/superpowers/plans/CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-TWO-BOX-BRIEF-3.md| new file mode 100644 |
| index 000000000..a13cdc74e |
| --- /dev/null |
| +++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-TWO-BOX-BRIEF-3.md |
| @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ |
| +# Review brief: region HA two-box joint model plan, round 3 |
| + |
| +You are an independent second reader. This is round 3: first give a disposition table for each round 2 finding and partial in docs/superpowers/plans/CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-TWO-BOX-R2.md (resolved, partly, or not), judged against the plan's "Rev 5: round 2 dispositions" table and its coverage table, then report only NEW findings. Review the implementation plan |
| +`docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-07-region-ha-hostlife-two-box.md` at the |
| +commit named in the prompt, against the tree at the working directory |
| +(branch region-ha-hostlife-two-box, based on design-moves-any-region; the |
| +model is `internal/sim/hostlife`). |
| + |
| +The plan extends the joint executable model of the host lifecycle claim and |
| +instance moves from one box per region to one or two. It is region HA's |
| +validation milestone (claim spec rev 6.30 §1.1 activation gate, R18-3, L18): |
| +relocation may not merge until a joint round passes on this model. |
| + |
| +Authorities: |
| +- claim spec rev 6.30: `git show origin/design-replica-ownership:docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-host-lifecycle-claim-design.md` |
| + (search "two boxes per region" for the required cases); |
| +- region HA spec: `git show origin/main:docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-04-region-ha-box-placement-design.md` |
| + (rulings H1-H19); |
| +- region HA plan 1b-next rev 19, accepted: |
| + `git show origin/plan-region-ha-1b-next:docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-07-region-ha-1b-next-relocation.md` |
| + (rulings 1-27, L21 open) and its review findings CODEX-PLAN-REGION-HA-1BN-R*.md; |
| +- moves spec rev 7.22 on this branch. |
| + |
| +## Fixed: do not re-argue |
| + |
| +- Rulings H1-H19, 1b-next's rulings 1-27, and L21 being open (Paul's call). |
| +- The CPU budget: one 3000-seed sweep per revision, serial, nice 19, PAR=2; |
| + deep runs only on Paul's say-so. Do not ask for more seeds. |
| +- Changes are additive: the claim's and moves' rules are not rewritten. |
| + |
| +## What to check |
| + |
| +1. Coverage: is every required L18 case a witness or invariant in both a |
| + one-box and a two-box region (create spread, relocation by drain, |
| + termination during serving and every relocation phase, nested failover, |
| + stale edges files, unenrolled references, a volume without |
| + DeleteOnTermination, crashes during installation, late uploads and PUTs |
| + after termination)? |
| +2. Fidelity: does each modelled guard match the 1b-next rev 19 guard it |
| + names? A model rule stronger or weaker than the code hides bugs. List any |
| + 1b-next guard with no model counterpart. |
| +3. Mutation strength: does each new guard's mutation fail a seed or a direct |
| + test? Are the "expected misses" justified? |
| +4. One-box identity: can any change alter one-box behaviour or the existing |
| + expected outcomes? |
| +5. Task order and compilation: tasks applied in order build and pass. |
| +6. Are 1b-next's past findings (R1-R19, model F1-F3) each something this |
| + model would catch if reintroduced? Name any it could not. |
| + |
| +## Output |
| + |
| +Findings ranked P1/P2/P3, each with task and step, the problem, evidence and |
| +a concrete fix. End with a verdict: ready to build, or not ready. |
| + |
| +## Notes |
| + |
| +- Rev 4 maps past 1b-next findings either to model rules or to the |
| + 1b-next test that proves them (the coverage table). A mapping to a |
| + 1b-next stage A test is acceptable where claim §11 does not require the |
| + case in the executable model; check each such claim against §11. |
| +- Model rulings 20 (F5) and 21 (F4) are posted to the claim and moves |
| + sessions for an answer; judge them as stated. |
| +- Rev 5 parks a pinned manifest left behind at relocation completion in |
| + the model. Say whether 1b-next rev 19 does the same; if not, that is a |
| + finding against 1b-next, to be reported as such. |