Skip to content

Phase 6 — Critique of the lens designs

Performance design concerns

  1. It risks treating checkpoint frequency as only a latency problem. Durability quality is part of the phase exit criteria; "fewer writes" is not automatically better.
  2. It mentions a harness contract but does not specify what evidence must survive the abstraction boundary.
  3. It assumes graph construction cost matters before measuring it.

Security design concerns

  1. It is strong on forbidden transitions but thin on operator ergonomics during legitimate HITL recovery.
  2. "Replay verified" needs a concrete chain-head or checksum model; otherwise the phrase is decorative.
  3. It treats raw graph internals as sensitive, correctly, but does not say how much sanitized evidence Phase 6.5 still needs.

Best-practices design concerns

  1. The proposed VulnRemediationSut is right in spirit but could become a second orchestration API if its semantics are not pinned tightly.
  2. "Plugin-local behavior, shared ports" needs a hard file-placement rule or contributors will drift.
  3. The testing advice is good but underspecified on exact replay and resume edge cases.

Synthesis pressure

The final design must keep the graph plugin-local, name a stable SUT contract with precise inputs and outputs, state the replay boundary concretely, and make clear that Phase 6 adds orchestration without reopening the trust decisions from Phases 3–5.