Digital Employee Works

English

简体中文

English

简体中文

Appearance

R2 → CodeFlowMu V2.0.4: Evidence-Association Engineering Pack ​

Status: Published.

This page records a complete research-to-engineering path. A fixed historical REPORT slice first established that lifecycle location does not prove evidence ownership. R2 was then implemented as a read-only evidence-association diagnostic. Real task data was used during development to calibrate revision semantics, REPORT ownership, execution projection, and the formal final-REPORT anchor. The completed capability entered the formally released CodeFlowMu V2.0.4 and was then observed on the same QA task across active → review.

This is not product certification, and no evidence-association result is promoted into delivery or acceptance.

1. Research origin: ten historical REPORT records ​

Public artifacts:

The fixed sample yields linked = 4, missing = 4, and conflict = 2.

This is not a defect rate. It supports one research finding: location is not ownership proof, and missing or conflicting evidence must not be repaired by inference.

2. Engineering translation: R2 becomes a read-only association diagnostic ​

The V2.0.4 first-party implementation decomposes the chain into explicit edges such as:

text
TASK / revision → attempt → lease
                    └→ execution → action evidence
REPORT → Task
REPORT → REVIEW
EVAL → REVIEW

The diagnostic reads formal sources and produces a derived snapshot. Its API returns diagnostic_only: true. Reader failure does not change formal state, and the diagnostic queue is built from real conflict snapshots rather than every absent or not-applicable edge.

3. Real-task calibration during development ​

TASK-20260827-024 is used here as a development-stage calibration case, not as a released-product failure case.

The live task data helped tighten several contracts:

  • values from different revision domains must not be compared as one business revision;
  • parent-task and linked-task context must not automatically become direct REPORT ownership;
  • when an attempt already has a formal session_id and matching runtime facts, one not-yet-materialized store must not by itself define execution absence;
  • when progress and final reports coexist, current_final_report_id provides the current formal REPORT anchor;
  • diagnostic cache identity moved to schema 3 / diag3: so current semantics are recomputed consistently.

These are normal engineering-convergence decisions for a new diagnostic capability: define what is comparable, what establishes a relation, and what must remain unknown or not applicable.

4. V2.0.4 formal-release live validation: the same QA task from active to review ​

Two local UI views show the same task:

TASK-20260827-030-PM-to-QA

This is a QA task and a first-party observation of the completed V2.0.4 capability after formal release.

Public structured artifacts:

The author will add the raw UI screenshots separately as first-party page evidence.

active ​

Visible summary: linked=4 / missing=0 / conflict=0 / observer_only=0.

Visible linked edges include task revision→attempt, attempt→lease, attempt→execution, and execution→action evidence.

No formal REPORT exists yet, so the REPORT edges are correctly not applicable, not missing:

  • REPORT → Task: not_applicable / lifecycle_does_not_require_report
  • REPORT → REVIEW: not_applicable / report_not_available

The important result is missing=0 / conflict=0: no REPORT is normal at this stage.

review ​

After the same task enters review, the formal REPORT and REVIEW exist and the graph correctly shows:

  • attempt→lease: linked
  • attempt→execution: linked
  • execution→action evidence: linked
  • REPORT→Task: linked
  • REPORT→REVIEW: linked

EVAL → REVIEW remains:

  • not_applicable / eval_not_present

That is also correct, not missing. This is a QA task; in the current workflow EVAL belongs to the PM path, so this QA task is not expected to carry an EVAL report.

The pair therefore shows the intended dynamic behavior: evidence requirements change with lifecycle stage and role, and the diagnostic changes with the formal facts rather than forcing every edge into linked or missing.

5. The critical adjudication boundary ​

The V2.0.4 UI states:

This conclusion describes evidence relationships only. It does not mean the task has been delivered or verified successfully.

Therefore REPORT → REVIEW = linked establishes a stable-key relationship only. It does not establish REPORT truthfulness, REVIEW correctness, QA pass, ADMIN acceptance, or eligibility for done.

6. Public boundary ​

  • The historical 4/4/2 result comes from one fixed ten-record slice.
  • TASK-20260827-024 is used only for development-stage semantic calibration, not as a released-product failure narrative.
  • TASK-20260827-030-PM-to-QA is a first-party V2.0.4 same-task active → review observation after the capability was formally released.
  • The raw UI screenshots will be added separately by the author; the current structured artifacts preserve stage, visible edge status, and reason code.
  • The evidence supports the disclosed research-to-engineering path and dynamic diagnostic semantics. It does not certify all tasks, lifecycle combinations, desktop paths, or PWA paths.

Last updated: