[1.0 T8] Separate current architecture from decision history in the site #184

Problem and outcome

Explain how the product works and why choices were made, while preserving human challenge and avoiding mandatory approval status for ordinary agent work.

Interaction contract

Keep FluencyLoop. Proposed positioning: Stay fluent as people and agents evolve the product.

Use retained product reasoning automatically. Explain consequential choices at the right depth. Recommend a path. Continue within agreed intent. Ask when human judgment is needed. Update the shared model at natural boundaries.

The flagship goal/principles/precedents/tradeoffs reasoning is integrated into the existing design explanation at proportional depth. It is not a mandatory recital, proposal form, or new approval exchange. People must remain able to understand and challenge the design.

Scope

• Keep Architecture and Decisions as distinct connected views. Progressively disclose supporting implementation choices and show rationale by reference.
• Explain assumptions, scope, alternatives, and replacement history. A delegated agent choice can be active; separately confirmed human choice and evidence verification are distinct provenance.
• Show unresolved historical conflicts without locking navigation or demanding remediation before work. Keep freshness exposure passive.
• Support technical concepts and repository-owned journeys/specifications. Preserve deep links, source evidence, and optional safe diagrams; no mandatory graph.

Acceptance criteria

• A reader can follow a current concept to its rationale and alternatives, and identify a reason to reconsider it.
• Active delegated choices do not appear invalid solely because no separate approval event exists.
• Replaced history, unverified evidence, and unresolved successors are distinguishable without a compliance score or forced repair flow.
• Designer artifacts and legacy routes/source/diagram views remain navigable.

Validation

Use lifecycle/provenance/legacy-link fixtures and browser keyboard/navigation checks. Include a human design-challenge task and ensure record counts or approval badges cannot substitute for comprehension.

Starting points

site/server.js buildNavigation, renderConceptList/renderConcept/renderDecision; site.css/site.js; tests/site.bats, tests/diagram-renderer.bats

Constraints

• Target dev; main distributes releases. No runtime implementation occurs in the planning PR.
• T1 is an observed pilot using existing artifacts before new infrastructure. Use its evidence to retain, narrow, or defer later scope.
• Recommend and continue within authorized intent; ask with a recommendation only for consequential unresolved judgment. Batch independent questions, reuse settled answers, and wait for dependent work. Silence is not approval.
• Absent briefs, historical link gaps, stale prose, and unreviewed metadata alone are advisory. Do not require onboarding, cleanup, or retrospective approvals to work.
• Unknown familiarity is not fluency and does not automatically require a blocking probe/check. Support requested guided learning without quizzes; keep calibration/preferences private. T5 explicitly updates inherited pause rules.
• Capture rationale once, link mechanical views, record outcome deviations at natural closure, distill once at wrap-up, and reuse unchanged context.
• Preserve append-only history/provenance; Bash and PowerShell implement the same contract. Core remains Node-optional; no new database, hosted service, or vector search.

Dependencies and size

• Task: T8
• Relative size: L (not a calendar estimate)
• Depends on: T2: [1.0 T2] Add stable record references and explicit decision lifecycle #178, T7: [1.0 T7] Make Product and Constitution the human view of direction and principles #183
• Milestone: https://github.com/baokhang83/fluencyloop/milestone/3
• Plan: draft source
• Planning PR: docs: propose FluencyLoop 1.0 shared product direction and design #189