Plan PromptKit adoption with structural repair enabled

docs/roadmap/configkit.md

@@ -121,9 +121,14 @@ ConfigKit implementation, then PromptKit implementation, followed by a combined
 v2.0.0 release. Revisit that sequence alongside other major changes. Keep
 implementation units reviewable even when the release combines them.
 
-The separate [runtime behavior decisions](runtime-behavior.md) remain unresolved.
-Coordinate the retry-count question with the new configuration semantics where
-appropriate; do not silently change runtime behavior merely by changing loaders.
+The separate [runtime behavior decisions](runtime-behavior.md) track remaining
+questions and the selected retry direction.
+The coordinated plan adopts PromptKit's explicit retry semantics and enables
+structural repair from the outset. Include separate transient-retry and positive
+repair budgets, plus the total-operation deadline policy, in the shared settings
+design. The reviewed PromptKit baseline is v0.11.0; exact defaults and settings
+ownership remain detailed-planning decisions. Do not implement the runtime change
+merely as a side effect of replacing the configuration loader.
 Retention and transcript timestamp decisions are not automatically included.
 
 ## Open Design Decisions and Boundaries

docs/roadmap/library-adoption.md

@@ -21,9 +21,12 @@ infrastructure while keeping transcript-correction responsibilities in Audita.
 
 This roadmap owns sequencing across the two adoptions. The
 [ConfigKit roadmap](configkit.md) owns the configuration migration's proposed scope.
-PromptKit consumer requests are recorded upstream in
-`../promptkit/docs/roadmap/audita-feature-requests.md`; they remain proposals until
-accepted and released there. Do not treat proposed upstream capabilities as present.
+PromptKit v0.11.0 is the reviewed baseline for the adoption prototype. It supplies
+transient HTTP retries, execution observations, typed failure categories, an offline
+proposal/assessment example, and LGPL-3.0-or-later licensing. The earlier upstream
+consumer requests are no longer outstanding prerequisites on those points.
+Audita has not yet adopted either library; recheck the selected releases during
+detailed planning.
 
 ## Migration Posture
 
@@ -43,9 +46,10 @@ changes, especially changes to module or pipeline configuration.
 
 Define the target settings model for both libraries before implementing either
 migration. Decide how Audita selects proposal and validation execution profiles,
-supplies credentials, selects retry behavior, and assigns per-backend concurrency
-limits. Give each setting one authoritative home; avoid duplicate model, endpoint,
-credential, or timeout definitions with competing precedence.
+supplies credentials, selects transient-retry and structural-repair budgets, and
+assigns per-backend concurrency limits. Give each setting one authoritative home;
+avoid duplicate model, endpoint, credential, or timeout definitions with competing
+precedence.
 
 Keep ConfigKit application configuration distinct from PromptKit execution profiles.
 In particular, optional ConfigKit configuration profiles and PromptKit execution
@@ -66,10 +70,24 @@ call and one LLM-validator call through PromptKit using controlled offline respo
 Verify profile selection, credentials, embedded prompts and schemas, shared backend
 capacity, failed output validation, cancellation, and diagnostic mapping.
 
-Establish how retries and content repair differ and how their budgets and execution
-observations reach Audita. Keep optional content repair disabled initially unless a
-specific need justifies it. Audita's domain acceptance checks remain necessary even
-when generated output satisfies a JSON schema.
+Enable structural repair from the outset for proposal and LLM-validator outputs.
+Additional attempts to obtain valid output are desired behavior, not a deferred
+optimization. Select explicit positive repair budgets during detailed planning and
+exercise invalid output that becomes valid after repair, as well as exhausted
+repair budgets.
+
+Keep transient HTTP retries and structural repair distinct. With the reviewed
+library, each generation, including a repair, has its own transient-retry budget;
+plan and document the combined request allowance and overall deadline. Adopt
+PromptKit's explicit zero-disables-retries semantics instead of Audita's legacy
+zero-as-default behavior. The library's narrower transient retry policy does not
+retry transport failures or malformed provider responses; do not restore the old
+policy through an overlapping application retry loop.
+
+Verify that initial, retry, and repair calls share backend limits and that their
+observations reach Audita without double-counting usage. Audita's domain acceptance
+checks remain necessary after structural repair succeeds; valid JSON does not imply
+an acceptable correction or validator decision.
 
 Use the prototype to resolve genuine boundary gaps and inform configuration design.
 It is evidence for the migration, not a permanent alternate runtime. Avoid finalizing
@@ -100,9 +118,10 @@ Remove the temporary bridge from the preceding stage.
 ### 5. Validate and Release the Combined Migration
 
 Validate the assembled configuration-to-execution workflows, including local and
-API backend limits, failure/cancellation behavior, credential handling, diagnostics,
-and domain outcomes. Use deterministic tests and controlled endpoints rather than
-paid calls as acceptance gates. Update documentation and examples together with
+API backend limits, successful and exhausted repairs, transient retries,
+failure/cancellation behavior, credential handling, diagnostics, and domain outcomes.
+Use deterministic tests and controlled endpoints rather than paid calls as acceptance
+gates. Update documentation and examples together with
 implemented behavior and remove obsolete contracts and code.
 
 Complete one migration guide covering files, CLI, environment settings, credentials,
@@ -110,31 +129,40 @@ execution profiles, inspection, and changed diagnostics. Release the combined
 breaking transition under the established [release procedure](../release.md), with
 no CI waiting added to release completion.
 
-## Parallel Upstream Preparation
+## Reviewed Upstream Readiness
 
-PromptKit work can proceed alongside Audita's design and ConfigKit implementation.
-Prioritize evaluation of transient-failure retries, actionable failure classification,
-and execution observations, supported by a representative consumer example. Existing
-per-backend capacity controls are the intended foundation; additional scheduling
-features are not assumed necessary.
+The v0.11.0 review covered the relevant implementation, the full test suite,
+targeted race tests, and the offline proposal/assessment example; those checks
+passed. Existing per-backend controls cover the requested capacity model, including
+retry and repair interactions. No further upstream feature request is currently a
+prerequisite to the prototype. Keep the planned adoption sequence unchanged.
 
-Resolve the proposed LGPL 3.0 licensing change and applicable distribution terms
-before selecting PromptKit for adoption. Recheck released APIs, toolchain requirements,
-and dependency versions at implementation time. Pin published library releases;
-production builds must not depend on sibling checkouts or local module replacements.
+Remaining integration work includes selecting a total-operation deadline alongside
+per-attempt timeouts, using shared backend identities with finite limits, and mapping
+PromptKit observations to Audita-owned diagnostic records. Observation callbacks are
+synchronous and may overlap across runs; collection must be short and safe for
+concurrent use. Distinguish unknown or incomplete usage from known zero and do not treat
+observations as a complete billing ledger or a stable serialized report format.
 
-If a required upstream capability is not ready, complete independent work and
-reassess sequencing explicitly rather than quietly recreate that capability as
-permanent Audita infrastructure. The prototype should identify what is genuinely
-required for adoption versus useful later enhancement.
+The licensing change has shipped as LGPL-3.0-or-later. Account for applicable
+notices and source/rebuild distribution requirements in Audita's release design;
+relicensing no longer needs to be requested upstream. Recheck released APIs,
+toolchain requirements, and dependency versions at implementation time. Pin
+published library releases; production builds must not depend on sibling checkouts
+or local module replacements.
+
+If the prototype reveals a genuine remaining gap, evaluate it explicitly rather
+than quietly recreate shared library functionality as permanent Audita infrastructure.
 
 ## Coordination and Open Decisions
 
 - Finalize the configuration/profile boundary, defaults, credential ownership, and
-  retry semantics before committing to the new file schema and CLI design.
-- Define how failed validation, exhausted retries, and partial execution observations
-  map to Audita warnings, rejected work, and failed runs.
-- Coordinate the [runtime retry-count question](runtime-behavior.md) with this design.
+  retry/repair budgets and deadline policy before committing to the new file schema
+  and CLI design. Structural repair is enabled by the agreed direction; its positive
+  default count remains to be selected.
+- Define how exhausted repair, failed validation, exhausted retries, and partial
+  execution observations map to Audita warnings, rejected work, and failed runs.
+- Resolve the [runtime retry-count follow-up](runtime-behavior.md) through this migration.
   Retention and transcript timestamp questions are not automatically included.
 - Revisit ordering when other major changes are defined. Prefer designing shared
   module/pipeline settings once, while keeping unrelated work independent.

docs/roadmap/runtime-behavior.md

@@ -3,13 +3,16 @@
 **Last updated:** 2026-09-23
 
 The documentation migration identified these existing behaviors for separate
-product consideration. No behavior change is approved or implemented by this list.
+product consideration. Implementation status and any selected direction are noted
+below; this document does not claim that runtime changes have landed.
 
 - Decide whether the `never` retention selection should delete successful-run
   diagnostics; current behavior is documented in
   [operations](../operations.md#retention-behavior).
-- Decide whether an explicit zero retry count should disable retries; current
-  adapter behavior is documented in [configuration](../config.md).
+- The [library-adoption plan](library-adoption.md) selects explicit zero as disabling
+  transient retries, alongside separately enabled structural repair. Implement this
+  as part of the migration; the current adapter behavior documented in
+  [configuration](../config.md) remains unchanged until then.
 - Decide whether missing or null input timestamps should be rejected; current
   decoding is documented in the [input contract](../integrations/transcript-glossary-files.md).