gnu.in.labs / Corpus Méthodologique & Hygiène Mental
0.1 · DRAFTFrançais ↗
← Portal / METHODOLOGYDRAFT14 min

Architecture & contracts

Identity
EC-M03
Classification
proposed-principle
Prerequisites
Git basics, Reading a test result
Artifacts
CONTRACT.md; transition table; executable Lab A example; action identity journal.
Success
A valid request produces one action; a denied request produces none. The teaching model does not prove continuity of a real graphics engine.

Status: methodological draft, to be adapted — not ratified in consuming projects.

Separate responsibilities

A library exposes capabilities; a profile composes policies and behavior; a surface renders state; an authority layer decides whether an action can execute.

Responsibility Contract Explicit non-goal
Geometry typed transforms and rectangles no content selection
Motion continuity and interruption no system action grant
Rendering visible projection of state no data provenance invention
Content identity and state no authorization
Events order and causality no authority amplification
Data providers provenance, freshness, error no mutation grant
Policy/actions scoped capability checks no theme decisions

Interface contract

Define inputs, outputs, errors, ownership, lifecycle, concurrency, cancellation, deprecation and public/internal/experimental status.

Transition example

When a surface changes anchor mid-flight, define observed start, target state, interruption rules and geometry invariants. Smooth visuals do not prove correct responsibility boundaries.

Exercise

An animated menu starts a process. Where is authority checked? What happens after denial?

Self-checkPermission belongs at the execution boundary, not inside an easing function. The UI may reflect an explicit denied state without granting any authority.

Engineering problem

A fictional menu preserves state during interruption but may trigger the same action twice.

Reproducible method

  1. Name idle, moving, denied and done states
  2. define request_id/target inputs
  3. assign action ownership
  4. specify duplicates and cancellation
  5. write interruption, denial and restart oracles.

Responsibilities: the author proposes and records results; the reviewer challenges the oracle; the consuming project owner decides adoption.

Example, counterexample and failure

Example: a restart changes target but preserves request_id. Counterexample: the renderer launches the action on every frame. Failure: retry gets a new identity and bypasses deduplication; define retry identity in the contract.

Artifacts and qualification

CONTRACT.md; transition table; executable Lab A example; action identity journal.

A valid request produces one action; a denied request produces none. The teaching model does not prove continuity of a real graphics engine.

Transfer exercise

Apply this method to fictional Courier. Produce the artifacts above, then invent a case that invalidates an overbroad conclusion.

Transfer self-checkThe case is fictional and reproducible; baseline is identified; procedure and expected result are explicit; a failure is retained; the conclusion cites artifacts and limits. If any criterion is missing, revise before declaring the method applied.

References

Study edition · not ratified