Private
Public Access
docs(ssdl): rename SSDL shape symbols to concise form (o->, o=>)
Final vocabulary: - ===> -> -> (codepath) - ===>W===> -> => (wide codepath) - o==> -> o-> (codecycle) - oo==>oo -> o=> (wide codecycle) - ===>B===> -> ->B-> (codepath with branch) - ===>M===> -> ->M-> (codepath with merge) Composites ===>B===> and ===>M===> preserved as ->B->/->M-> so the branch/merge markers stay visible (vs. dropping them entirely). Scope: 3 reports files (computational_shapes_ssdl_digest, proposed_new_tracks, session_synthesis), 4 intent_dsl_survey files (plan, report, report_v1.1, report_v1.2), 3 nagent_review files (state.toml description, v2_2, v2_3). All old symbols verified gone via grep; all new symbols verified present at expected locations.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ Each got ~4 surgical spec edits + See Also cross-references. No plan/task change
|
||||
|
||||
### The 5 open questions the report surfaces
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Vocabulary preference** — the §2 vocabulary (`[I]`, `===>`, `o==>`, etc.) is a proposal. Alternatives: box-drawing characters (`┌─┐│└─┘`) for more ASCII-art look; Markdown tables for tabular content; hybrid (ASCII boxes for layout, tables for tabular data).
|
||||
1. **Vocabulary preference** — the §2 vocabulary (`[I]`, `->`, `o->`, etc.) is a proposal. Alternatives: box-drawing characters (`┌─┐│└─┘`) for more ASCII-art look; Markdown tables for tabular content; hybrid (ASCII boxes for layout, tables for tabular data).
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Comparison policy** — after locking a design, do we always verify with `MiniMax understand_image` (slow but accurate)? Only when the design uses color/custom drawing? Only when the implementing Tier-3 reports a mismatch?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user