Select localized audit efficiency improvements

docs/roadmap/audit.md

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 # Consolidated Audit Review
 
-Status: initial scope selected; efficiency and structural-refactoring scope
-remain under review. Implementation has not begun.
+Status: initial scope and four localized efficiency improvements selected;
+collection-policy and structural-refactoring scope remain under review.
+Implementation has not begun.
 Consolidated: 2026-10-25. Baseline: `ecd5d5d`.
 
 This document consolidates nine sequential audits for maintainer review. It owns
@@ -20,8 +21,8 @@ product fixes.
 
 The 35 original numbered findings map to 31 review entries after deduplication
 and integration of related test work. All findings remain unresolved; the
-[settled scope decision](#oq-1-what-should-the-first-implementation-scope-include)
-identifies the selected work. OQ-2 and OQ-3 remain open.
+[settled scope decisions](#settled-scope-decisions) identify the 25 selected
+entries. OQ-3 remains open, covering E01/E02 and the four broader refactors.
 Their medium/low priorities retain the original assessments; those labels do not
 imply severity certification or implementation order. IDs remain stable as work
 is selected or completed.
@@ -908,38 +909,53 @@ boundaries. Delivering defects first and cleanup separately would reduce the
 initial review surface, but would retain redundant work and revisit those
 boundaries. The combined approach is selected.
 
-The six efficiency candidates and four broader structural refactors remain
-unselected pending OQ-2 and OQ-3. This decision does not select new public behavior
-or establish an implementation sequence.
-
-## Open Questions
+Efficiency and broader structural choices are addressed separately below. This
+decision does not select new public behavior or establish an implementation
+sequence.
 
 ### OQ-2. Which Efficiency Candidates Should Accompany Remediation?
 
-**Recommendation:** consider E04/E05 as narrow local improvements, and A05/F08
-as lower-priority options after their correctness/diagnostic boundaries are sound.
-Evaluate E01/E02 together with E03 before committing to a policy-state redesign:
-their distinct scaling cases need preserved acceptance even if they share an
-implementation. These candidates have source-level evidence of avoidable work,
-but no new measured speedup claim.
+**Settled:** include the four localized efficiency improvements below. Decide
+E01/E02 together with collection-policy preparation and evidence ownership (E03)
+under OQ-3; those two efficiency candidates remain unselected.
 
-**Alternative:** defer all six efficiency candidates until representative consumer
-profiling establishes their practical cost. This concentrates the first effort
-on correctness and cleanup, at the cost of retaining demonstrated growth patterns.
-It does not block C02's availability fix or A04/D01's enforcement of existing
-resource budgets. Broader experiments in `future.md` remain separately deferred.
+| Selected improvement | Scope and dependency |
+| --- | --- |
+| E04: tier-history projection lookups | Reuse a local lookup index or equivalent traversal while preserving authored coordinates and projection evidence. |
+| E05: compound identity restoration | Avoid repeated mapping scans while preserving child identity, mapping order, and detached nodes. |
+| A05: dynamic-type eligibility reuse | Reuse only completed successful checks within the operation, after A02 repairs descriptor construction failure state. |
+| F08: secret-failure location lookup | Include at lower priority; prepare lookup state lazily so successful loads avoid unnecessary indexing. |
+
+Together with OQ-1, this selects 25 review entries. These local changes address
+source-demonstrated repeated work without requiring public APIs, persistent
+caches, or a new architectural model. Preserve their behavioral acceptance
+cases and keep implementation proportionate. E01/E02 involve policy retirement
+timing and mutable ownership, so their scope belongs with the E03 discussion.
+
+Deferring all six until consumer profiling was considered. That would reduce
+initial scope and avoid optimizing uncommon workloads, but would retain known
+growth patterns with relatively direct remedies in the four selected cases.
+The selected approach does not promise a measured startup improvement; practical
+benefit depends on configuration shape and workload. Broader experiments in
+[future.md](future.md#3-performance-experiments) remain deferred. C02's availability
+fix and A04/D01's existing-budget enforcement remain selected independently.
+
+## Open Questions
 
 ### OQ-3. How Much Structural Refactoring Should Be Selected?
 
 F01's removal of the test-only protocol is already selected under OQ-1.
+OQ-2 leaves E01/E02's policy retirement and copying improvements for this decision,
+alongside E03's policy preparation and evidence responsibilities. Their distinct
+scaling cases must remain visible even if implemented together.
 
 **Recommendation:** assess active acquisition handoffs (F02) and policy/evidence
-ownership (E03) with their affected fixes before selecting a wider extraction. Leave glob
-entry extraction (C03) and transport simplification (F07) optional unless a
-concrete design reduces concepts and clarifies ownership.
+ownership (E03), including E01/E02, with their affected fixes before selecting a
+wider extraction. Leave glob entry extraction (C03) and transport simplification
+(F07) optional unless a concrete design reduces concepts and clarifies ownership.
 
-**Alternative:** include all four structural refactors in the same effort for a
-more uniform maintenance result. This offers broader readability improvements
+**Alternative:** include all four structural refactors alongside E01/E02 in the
+same effort for a more uniform maintenance result. This offers broader readability improvements
 but increases review scope and the chance of moving complexity rather than
 removing it. Neither approach calls for a new public API, generic framework, or
 changes to the established configuration model.