Document: loomworks-session-handoff-2026-06-05-c5-arc-v0_1 Version: 0.1 Date: 2026-06-05 Role this session: Scoping (C5 domain layer) → seed v0.11 amendment drafting (halted, then unblocked, text ready) Operator: Marvin Percival — DUNIN7 Canonical home: loomworks-record
This session scoped C5 (the domain layer), discovered a vocabulary problem that blocked the seed v0.11 amendment, resolved it, and drafted v0.11 amendment text that is approved-pending — it has not yet been applied to the seed. Two foundational Discovery reframes also surfaced (Memory-is-recall; provenance-threads) and were parked by Operator decision, recorded in memory, not drafted.
The single next action: approve the seed v0.11 amendment text (reproduced in §4 below) so it can go to Claude Code, OR revise it first. Everything else is downstream of that.
Two scoping notes landed on origin/main this session. One amendment is drafted and waiting.
| Artifact | Path | Commit | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| C5 scoping note | scoping-notes/loomworks-c5-scoping-note-domain-reference-model-v0_1.md | fe2bd86 | on origin/main |
| Role-vocabulary reconciliation scoping note | scoping-notes/loomworks-role-vocabulary-reconciliation-scoping-note-v0_1.md | 793606a | on origin/main |
Seed is unchanged: v0.10 at dc9c784. No seed amendment has been committed.
Role vocabulary for the seed: methodology vocabulary governs (Option A + C from the reconciliation note).
In plain terms: Contributor = anyone who writes into Memory (the base sense the seed already mostly uses). The domain write-admit gate = trusted contributor / trusted core (existing methodology vocabulary — zero new role words). The philosophy document's senior Contributor sense (a promoted Reviewer) is left standing as product-framing with a noted divergence; where the two documents disagree on the word, the seed's base sense governs the seed.
Corrections this forced, preserved as before/after (do not smooth):
These corrections fold into the C5 CR when drafted; no C5 note v0.2 needed.
This is the recommended next chat. Role: seed amendment. The amendment text is already drafted and Operator-approved-pending (§4). The only open step is the Operator saying approve (or revising), after which it goes to CC.
What v0.11 does: adds the contribution (write) access axis to the seed's Memory section, beside the existing reach (read) axis from v0.10. Uses trusted-core / trusted-contributor vocabulary. Ratifies base-Contributor in Authorisation. Annotates the longer-horizon three-role citation. Partially resolves the drafter's-notes steward deferral. Bumps v0.10 → v0.11.
Discipline already satisfied: CC re-pulled the exact current v0.10 seed text this session (Memory lines 31–49, Authorisation 271–275, longer-horizon 143–149, drafter's-notes 301–306, version labels 1/3/310, commit dc9c784, working tree byte-identical to origin). The amendment text in §4 is written against that canonical pull. A fresh chat can either trust this pull (it is recorded verbatim in the conversation that produced this handoff) or have CC re-pull to be safe.
Touch-point 1 — Memory section, NEW paragraph inserted after the access-modes paragraph (current line 39). Line 39 is unchanged.
> A scope's Memory has a second access axis, distinct from reach: who may contribute to it. For an engagement, contribution is straightforward — the engagement's own contributors write into it. For a scope shared across engagements, such as a domain, contribution is gated, so that a shared body of knowledge does not degrade to whatever any contributor writes. Each shared scope has a trust graph: a set of vetted contributors — its trusted core — may write into the scope's Memory directly, and a contribution from anyone outside the trusted core is held until a member of the trusted core admits it or turns it away. Reach and contribution are independent: a domain is typically open to reach (anyone may draw on it) and gated on contribution (only the trusted core admits what enters it). How a contributor earns a place in a scope's trusted core is governed at the scope level, not fixed by the environment; the environment provides the gate, the trust graph, and the review queue, and each scope adopts the admission practice that fits it.
Touch-point 2 — Authorisation section, REPLACE line 275.
Before: "Contributors to Loomworks as an engagement are every person in the system — automatic membership at signup. The Operator governs; Contributors participate. In the longer-horizon product framing, Reviewers are invited by the Operator per the philosophy document's Stage 2-3 machinery; that machinery is out of current phase scope."
After: "Contributor is the base participation role: every person in the system is a Contributor — automatic membership at signup — and a Contributor is anyone who writes into Memory. The Operator governs; Contributors participate. Within a shared scope, a subset of contributors form its trusted core and admit others' contributions; trusted-core membership is a standing within a scope, not a separate role. (The philosophy and architecture document uses 'Contributor' in a second, narrower sense — a Reviewer promoted into internal collaboration on a single engagement — as part of its longer-horizon product machinery, including the invited-Reviewer stages. That product framing is distinct from this base role and is out of current phase scope; where the two documents diverge on the word, the seed's base sense governs the seed.)"
Touch-point 3 — longer-horizon three-role line (line 145), light annotation.
Before: "The three-role framework (Operator, Reviewer, Contributor), the six-stage Engagement lifecycle..."
After: "The three-role framework (Operator, Reviewer, Contributor — the product-framing senior sense, distinct from the base Contributor role above), the six-stage Engagement lifecycle..."
Touch-point 4 — drafter's-notes steward-deferral (line 305), partial resolution.
Before: "Does not decide which scope type ships first, who governs each scope type, or when a steward role enters vocabulary. Those are C5 scoping questions."
After: "Does not decide which scope type ships first or who governs each scope type — C5 scoping questions. (On the 'steward role' deferred here at v0.10: v0.11 resolves the contribution admit-gate as the scope's trusted core, using existing trust-graph vocabulary. The separate cross-Operator promotion-proposer role — what the investigations call a domain steward — remains genuinely open and is a C5 open question, not settled by v0.11.)"
Touch-point 5 — version labels (lines 1, 3, 310) bump v0.10 → v0.11, and ADD a v0.11 change-note in the Memory section (after the existing v0.9→v0.10 note at line 49):
> What changed from v0.10, and why (Discovery-record note). v0.10 widened Memory to N-scope and committed two reach (read) access modes — open and OVA-restricted — but was silent on contribution (write) access to shared scopes. C5 scoping surfaced the gap: a shared domain needs a gate on what enters it, or the commons degrades. v0.11 adds the contribution axis, using the methodology's existing trust-graph vocabulary (trusted core / trusted contributor) rather than minting a new role. A vocabulary-reconciliation pass (recorded in loomworks-role-vocabulary-reconciliation-scoping-note-v0_1) found "Contributor" carried two conflicting senses across the canon; v0.11 ratifies the base sense (any participant who writes) for the seed and notes the philosophy document's divergent senior sense as product framing left standing. The reach axis (v0.10) is unchanged; v0.11 adds the write axis beside it.
Filename of the new seed: loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_11.md (and .html companion per format discipline — note the .html was not produced for the v0.10 seed work; confirm whether the seed carries an .html companion or is .md-only before assuming).
These emerged late this session, are recorded in Claude's memory (entries on Memory-is-recall and provenance-threads), and the Operator chose to let them sit — preserve the thought, keep building, do not let them become roadblocks. They are upstream of v0.11 (about what Memory is for), and v0.11 is independent of them — v0.11 stands and lands regardless.
Reframe A — Memory is recall, not non-forgetting. Not-forgetting is table stakes (a diary doesn't forget; human memory doesn't forget in the storage sense). The human deficit is recall: finding the relevant thing, knowing what links to what, noticing when a premise has changed. Loomworks's product is recall over a body that doesn't forget. Consequence: the seed's Memory section currently leads with not-forgetting (the least interesting property) and undersells recall (the actual product). A potential future seed reframe, not drafted.
Reframe B — provenance-threads / non-human contribution. Every contribution carries threads to its origin: outward (person, document, sensor/instrument, query, another scope) or inward (inference derived from existing assertions). Trust axis is tie-to-verifiable-source, not human-vs-machine — a calibrated sensor ranks high, an AI investigation low. AI/non-human origin must be marked non-suppressibly (invisible as interface/clerk, attributed as knowledge source). Folds AI-as-contributor, query-as-contributor, sensor, other-scope, and inference into one model.
Implementation guardrail (Operator instruction — apply to all Loomworks build from here): keep these doors open at near-zero cost now, so the reframes stay buildable later:
contributor person-only — origin should be a typed reference that can point at a person, AI actor, query, sensor, or another scope.Do not assume human-only contributors or read-equals-write anywhere in schema or build.
Touching either reframe — especially Reframe B near OVA's actor model or the invisible-AI principle — requires a CC pull of: OVA actor model, the seed's invisible-AI/Companion-disclosure language, and the external-service-polling phase's existing provenance handling. Do not reconstruct these from memory.
loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_11.md.Operational-hygiene cluster (OL main fast-forward drift, npm vulnerabilities, Phase 57/58 branch residue) remains available as a lighter alternative thread.
Apply the seed v0.11 amendment to candidate-seeds/loomworks/loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_10.md,
producing a new file loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_11.md in the same directory. Do NOT push.
Re-pull current v0.10 first and confirm byte-identical to commit dc9c784 before editing.
Five edits (exact text provided in the handoff section 4):
1. Memory section: INSERT the new contribution-axis paragraph immediately after the
access-modes paragraph (current line 39). Do not alter line 39.
2. Authorisation section: REPLACE the Contributors sentence (current line 275) with the
base-Contributor + trusted-core text.
3. Longer-horizon (line 145): annotate the three-role citation with the product-framing
clarifier.
4. Drafter's notes (line 305): replace the steward-deferral line with the partial-resolution
text.
5. Version labels (lines 1, 3, 310): v0.10 -> v0.11, date 2026-06-05. ADD the v0.11
Discovery-record change-note after the existing v0.9->v0.10 note.
Update the drafter's-notes section heading and any "v0.10" self-references in that section
to v0.11 as appropriate. Confirm header, title, and footer all read v0.11 (no internal
inconsistency).
Commit on a branch seed-v0_11 off main. Report the SHA, the new filename, and a diff summary.
Halt before push.
(Confirm before pasting: whether the seed carries an .html companion that also needs producing — the v0.10 work was .md-only. If .html is required, that is a separate CC step using the record's md→html conversion.)
DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — session handoff: C5 scoping arc + seed v0.11 ready — v0.1 — 2026-06-05