Version. 0.1 · Date. 2026-08-09 · Author. Claude.ai (drafting) / Marvin Percival (approving).
Target. /Users/dunin7/loomworks-engine and /Users/dunin7/loomworks.
Baseline. Engine 5857f52, surface 40319a1. CC confirms both at Step 0.
Companion to. scoping-notes/loomworks-b67-organized-view-citability-scoping-note-v0_2.md — the source for every fact in this CR. Where this document and the note disagree, the note governs; CC verifies against the code, not against this paragraph.
Charter. Autonomous regime. Status. Ready for CC execution.
Three rulings, already given. A CR drafted from the note inherits them:
structured_data kind, not a widened AnswerSource. A retrieved note and standing context are not the same kind of thing; one channel with a discriminator would flatten a real distinction into a type tag.On any engagement with a current Manifestation, the model receives an ORGANIZED VIEW block on every turn — rationale (clipped), group labels, per-group counts — carrying no identifier of any kind. It is standing context, not retrieval-triggered.
So an answer can be shaped by an arrangement it cannot attribute. This is B-61's defect in a different channel, and the note confirms the item's own hypothesis: it is cheaper, because Manifestation is a MemoryObject with a durable id and version, plus engagement_version_at_derivation — which makes it more citable than an assertion, since it names which state of Memory the arrangement was an arrangement of.
structured_data is already a kind-discriminated union, so this is the established extension point rather than a new mechanism.
Engine. A new structured_data kind carrying the Manifestation's id, version, and engagement_version_at_derivation, written on turns where the ORGANIZED VIEW block was assembled — from the object the block was rendered from, per §0.3.
Surface. Render it as a citation alongside existing sources, distinguishable from a retrieved note. What the person sees should make clear this is how the material was arranged, not another piece of material.
Not on turns without the block. Tier 1 and Tier 2 engagements have no organized view; nothing should appear for them.
Persistence. CR-2026-185 established that sources survive a reload. This kind follows the same path — and the same rule: an answer with no organized view is different from one whose citation was never recorded. Do not let absent render as empty.
It does not fix B-69, and must not try. The note establishes the derivation path is a Kind B contact point: the rationale is a generated claim whose subject is the seed's purpose, and when the seed moves, the Manifestation is not superseded, nothing recomputes, and the stale rationale sits beside the current seed in the same prompt, every turn. That is recorded, not designed around. No invalidation, no staleness flag, no recomputation.
But it makes the drift discoverable, for free. The cited object already carries seed_version, so an Operator following the citation can find that the arrangement was organised under a seed that has since moved. That is a side effect of citing the object — which this CR wants for its own reasons — not a remedy.
| Step | What | Mode |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Pre-flight, both repos. | Auto |
| 1 | Verify the note's findings against the code — the block's assembly site, the union's extension point, the fields available at render. Halt if the object rendered from is not reachable at the write site, since §0.3 is not negotiable. | Auto, conditional halt |
| 2 | New kind + write path + tests. | Auto |
| 3 | Persistence per §2 + tests, including absent-vs-empty. | Auto |
| 4 | Surface rendering + tests. | Auto |
| 5 | Both suites; gates clean. | Auto |
| A | Checkpoint. | Checkpoint |
| 6 | Tag cr-2026-196-b67-organized-view-citation. Push. | Auto |
Execute CR-2026-196 v0.1 at ~/Downloads/cr-2026-196-loomworks-b67-
organized-view-citation-v0_1.md. Confirm the CR number first.
Drafted from your own scoping note v0.2, which is the source for every
fact in it. Where the CR and the note disagree, the note governs —
verify against the code, not against my summary of your work.
§0 carries three settled rulings. Don't re-raise them.
The test that matters is gate item 1: prove the citation records the
object RENDERED FROM, not a re-read. A test where the stored object
differs from the rendered one is the only way to show that — if they're
always identical in the test, the assertion proves nothing.
HALT at Step 1 if the rendered object isn't reachable at the write
site. Cite-as-rendered isn't negotiable, and re-reading would silently
produce a citation that's correct almost always.
§3: this does NOT fix B-69 and must not try. The Kind B contact point
stays recorded and unremedied. The drift becoming discoverable is a
side effect of citing an object that already carries seed_version — not
a remedy, and the completion record should say so plainly so nobody
later reads B-69 as partly closed.
DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida CR-2026-196 — B-67 organized view citation — v0.1 — 2026-08-09