83 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
# Deferred Feature Work
|
|
|
|
**Last updated:** 2026-09-25
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Deferred or exploratory work; not implemented or scheduled. These
|
|
entries preserve scope outside the [resilience roadmap](resilience.md) and
|
|
[span-deletion consistency roadmap](span-deletion.md). Each entry states its
|
|
intent; inclusion does not commit us to implementing every capability.
|
|
|
|
## Domain-Aware Response Recovery
|
|
|
|
First implement [partial success for validator decision sets](decision-set-reconciliation.md),
|
|
preserving usable decisions without another model call. Reconsider guided recovery
|
|
after that simpler change, based on the failures that remain. General per-entry
|
|
salvage from structurally invalid responses is also a separate design question;
|
|
the accepted reconciliation feature retains whole-response structural validation.
|
|
|
|
Add bounded feedback and regeneration for model responses that satisfy the
|
|
structural schema but violate Audita's domain response contract, such as missing,
|
|
duplicate, or unexpected validator decision indices. The goal is to recover more
|
|
usable work before excluding affected candidates, reducing the impact of an
|
|
isolated malformed decision set.
|
|
|
|
This capability is desired but explicitly deferred from the current resilience
|
|
work. That work retains existing PromptKit structural repair and safe filtering;
|
|
unresolved domain-invalid decision sets produce errors and exclude their affected
|
|
candidates while other candidates can succeed.
|
|
|
|
Before implementation, define the Audita/PromptKit ownership boundary, which
|
|
checks are eligible for feedback, how feedback identifies defects without exposing
|
|
secrets, and how regeneration fits bounded budgets and operation deadlines. Reuse
|
|
shared library capabilities where appropriate; do not introduce an uncoordinated
|
|
outer retry loop that multiplies existing retry/repair budgets.
|
|
|
|
Ordinary editorial rejection is a valid decision, not a reason to regenerate until
|
|
an edit is approved. Recovery must preserve required validation, candidate identity,
|
|
partial-success safety, and truthful error/recovery reporting. Validate with
|
|
controlled responses that distinguish recoverable protocol defects from valid
|
|
negative decisions. Exact APIs, budgets, and sequencing remain undecided.
|
|
|
|
## Independent Whole-Pipeline Traversal by Chunk
|
|
|
|
Explore allowing each fixed chunk to advance through its ordered stages without
|
|
waiting for other chunks to finish the current stage. This could reduce waiting
|
|
behind a slow chunk and improve utilization while preserving stage order within
|
|
each chunk and deterministic final recombination.
|
|
|
|
The resilience feature deliberately retains stage barriers: finish a stage across
|
|
chunks before advancing to the next stage. Fixed boundaries alone do not authorize
|
|
independent traversal.
|
|
|
|
A future design must establish that stages do not depend on other chunks' evolving
|
|
state, preserve stable identities and partial-success rules, and continue to share
|
|
PromptKit's per-backend capacity across all roles and stages. Reporting must remain
|
|
deterministic despite different completion orders, and fatal cancellation must
|
|
still stop and join active work. Assess whether the scheduling change materially
|
|
improves real workloads before introducing additional orchestration machinery.
|
|
No new scheduler, global limiter, or execution mode is selected by this entry.
|
|
|
|
## Whole-Segment Removal
|
|
|
|
Potential future work, subject first to evaluating whether it is worth implementing
|
|
at all. Empty replacement text and deletion of a span within a surviving segment
|
|
are covered by the accepted [span-deletion consistency roadmap](span-deletion.md).
|
|
That feature does not remove segment records or permit blank resulting segments.
|
|
|
|
Before designing segment removal, review representative production examples to
|
|
establish whether whole-segment deletion is a meaningful unmet need. An empty
|
|
replacement alone does not establish that intent: it can express ordinary filler
|
|
or punctuation deletion within a larger segment. Assess how often genuinely
|
|
expendable whole segments occur after deterministic normalization, the transcript
|
|
quality benefit of removing them, and the risk of losing substantive speech.
|
|
Compare those benefits with the implementation and ongoing maintenance costs.
|
|
Retaining the segment and declining the edit is a valid outcome if the benefit is
|
|
small or uncertain. No numerical adoption threshold is selected.
|
|
|
|
Only if that evaluation supports proceeding should a separate feature design
|
|
choose a representation, authorization and validation rules, and reporting
|
|
semantics. It must address meaning preservation and the effects on segment
|
|
identity, timestamps, fixed chunks, subsequent stages, recombination, and output
|
|
consumers. Do not infer authorization to remove a segment from an empty string
|
|
or introduce segment-removal machinery as part of span-deletion consistency.
|