Talk:Feature Request Log
Calibration Report — Feature Request Log — 2026-07-14
- Page: Feature Request Log
- Summary: A log of genuinely desired features that were attempted and found not currently possible with available tools — distinct from Calibration Failure Log (design was wrong) and Known Site Issues (something broken).
- Reviewer: Sovereign, with Claude
- Review Type: Self-Assessment
Summary of Changes
- New page created as the seventh distinct tracker, following direct consideration of whether it belonged folded into Calibration Failure Log — rejected, since "not buildable yet" and "design was wrong" are genuinely different categories that would blur each log's usefulness if mixed.
- Deliberately structured as an index-only page, with full request write-ups and open discussion living on Talk — distinct from other trackers, since a feature request is inherently open to proposal and revision in a way a settled bug/failure record is not.
- First entry logged: the just-tested Cargo multi-table join attempt for per-dependency rich status on `Calibration Dependencies Display`, confirmed structurally impossible (list-type fields stored in a separate internal table, not visible to standard `join on` syntax).
- Added to the seven-template mandatory block, matching every other page built tonight.
Reasoning / Rationale
The Talk-based format was chosen specifically because feature requests, unlike settled logs, benefit from ongoing discussion — someone may propose the Lua-module alternative already flagged as unexplored, or find a different approach entirely. Keeping the main page as a scannable index while pushing full detail (and any future replies/debate) to Talk mirrors how Calibration Reports themselves already work for every other page.
Confidence / Certainty Level
High — the underlying Cargo limitation was directly tested and confirmed via a real error message, not inferred.
instrument_grade: Experimental (unchanged)
calibration_rationale: New page, first entry, structurally sound but not yet round-robin reviewed. review_confidence: Moderate
What This Report Does NOT Claim
This does not claim the Lua-module alternative has been evaluated or attempted — it's named as an open, undiscussed possibility only. Does not claim this is the final or only viable format for future entries; the pattern itself has one real test case so far.
Fields Changed
New page created.
Open Items
- Whether the Lua-module workaround is worth pursuing remains genuinely open, flagged for discussion on the Talk entry itself.
- Not yet round-robin reviewed.
- First real test of the Index-plus-Talk-detail format for this specific tracker type — worth confirming it holds up once a second entry is added.
See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better.
Sovereign (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2026 (EDT)
Calibration Report — Feature Request Log — 2026-07-14
- Page: Feature Request Log
- Summary: A log of genuinely desired features that were attempted and found not currently possible with available tools — distinct from Calibration Failure Log (design was wrong) and Known Site Issues (something broken).
- Reviewer: Sovereign, with Claude
- Review Type: Self-Assessment
Summary of Changes
- New page created as the seventh distinct tracker, following direct consideration of whether it belonged folded into Calibration Failure Log — rejected, since "not buildable yet" and "design was wrong" are genuinely different categories that would blur each log's usefulness if mixed.
- Deliberately structured as an index-only page, with full request write-ups and open discussion living on Talk — distinct from other trackers, since a feature request is inherently open to proposal and revision in a way a settled bug/failure record is not.
- First entry logged: the just-tested Cargo multi-table join attempt for per-dependency rich status on `Calibration Dependencies Display`, confirmed structurally impossible (list-type fields stored in a separate internal table, not visible to standard `join on` syntax).
- Added to the seven-template mandatory block, matching every other page built tonight.
Reasoning / Rationale
The Talk-based format was chosen specifically because feature requests, unlike settled logs, benefit from ongoing discussion — someone may propose the Lua-module alternative already flagged as unexplored, or find a different approach entirely. Keeping the main page as a scannable index while pushing full detail (and any future replies/debate) to Talk mirrors how Calibration Reports themselves already work for every other page.
Confidence / Certainty Level
High — the underlying Cargo limitation was directly tested and confirmed via a real error message, not inferred.
instrument_grade: Experimental (unchanged)
calibration_rationale: New page, first entry, structurally sound but not yet round-robin reviewed. review_confidence: Moderate
What This Report Does NOT Claim
This does not claim the Lua-module alternative has been evaluated or attempted — it's named as an open, undiscussed possibility only. Does not claim this is the final or only viable format for future entries; the pattern itself has one real test case so far.
Fields Changed
New page created.
Open Items
- Whether the Lua-module workaround is worth pursuing remains genuinely open, flagged for discussion on the Talk entry itself.
- Not yet round-robin reviewed.
- First real test of the Index-plus-Talk-detail format for this specific tracker type — worth confirming it holds up once a second entry is added.
See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better.
Sovereign (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2026 (EDT)
Auto-Linked/Popup Glossary for Defined Terms — 2026-07-14
Type: Future layer, not yet built
This project has accumulated a real, growing vocabulary of precisely-defined terms (Breadcrumb, Nonconformance, Pre-Calibration Check, Calibration Recommendation, and others) — each defined once, correctly, but currently only findable if a reader already knows which page to check. Eventually, any use of a defined term anywhere on the site should auto-link or show a popup/tooltip pointing to its canonical definition, removing the need for a reader to already know the vocabulary or go hunting for it. Requires a real glossary/definitions system to exist first as the single source each term resolves to — not yet built, explicitly deferred rather than attempted piecemeal per-term. Sovereign (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2026 (EDT)
Dependency-Stale drift_report_status Value — 2026-07-14
Status: Future layer — deferred pending its own detection mechanism, not yet added as a real option Reviewer: Sovereign, with Claude
What was considered: A sixth `drift_report_status` value, `Dependency-Stale`, for the case where a page's `depends_on` field itself is wrong — not because the page's own content is incorrect, but because a listed dependency has become too general, no longer genuinely load-bearing, or was never quite correct to begin with. This is distinct from every current status value, all of which describe the page's own content or an open question about it, not the accuracy of its dependency list.
Why not added now: this status value would have nothing to check it against — there is currently no mechanism (automated or otherwise) that detects a stale or over-broad dependency. Adding the status option before the detection mechanism exists would create an option nobody could reliably set with confidence, the same premature-infrastructure mistake already avoided elsewhere in this project (e.g. the Instrument Card, held back until real calibrated data existed to display).
Depends on: the "Dependency Removal, Not Just Addition, Needs Its Own Check" future layer already logged on Insights and Future Layers — that mechanism would need to exist first, and this status value is the natural next step once it does.
Open for discussion: when that detection mechanism is eventually built, does it produce this as a new `drift_report_status` value, or does it warrant its own separate tracker entirely, the same way Nonconformance and Breadcrumb tracking are each distinct?
See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better.
Sovereign (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2026 (EDT)
Calibration Report — Feature Request Log — 2026-07-20 (Structural Pre-Cal)
- **Page:** Feature Request Log
- **Summary:** Structural pre-calibration. Only one minor nonconformance found and corrected.
- **Reviewer:** Sovereign
- **Review Type:** Self-Assessment (Structural only)
- Summary of Changes:**
- Reordered templates so the seven mandatory ones begin with `{ {RelatedPages}}` and `{ {Standalone Transparency}}` comes after them.
- Process Note:**
Nonconformance was logged before the fix was applied.
- What This Report Does NOT Claim:**
No content calibration was performed. The page was already largely conforming on the critical rules (placement, static dates, canonical param names, visible Resource, etc.).
See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better. Sovereign (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2026 (EDT)