Files
audita/docs/roadmap/remediation.md

162 lines
9.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Maintainability Audit: Findings and Recommended Changes
**Reviewed:** 2026-09-25, source commit `011b021`.
**Scope:** Recent partial-decision reconciliation, validation context, prompt
alignment, and request-local reference changes, including related existing code.
**Status:** R27–R30 addressed; see the resolution record below. Previous findings and resolution records remain in Git
history through `011b021`.
## Architecture Assessment
The recent changes fit Audita's existing boundaries. Proposal generation,
validation, prompt assets, and outcome reporting already have suitable owners;
this audit does not recommend a new common package or a broad refactor.
The strongest opportunities are shared prompt instructions and request-scoped
validation context preparation. Two smaller improvements concern recovery-reason
classification and partial-result assembly; both predate the latest commits.
These are bounded maintenance recommendations, not new release gates or changes
to correction policy, response acceptance, or reporting semantics.
## R27 — P2: Consolidate Shared Prompt Instructions
**Category:** Repeated behavioral-contract text; risk of future drift.
**Evidence:** The four [proposal prompts](../../internal/prompts/assets/prompts/modules.grammar.proposal.yaml)
repeat literal source-span matching, request-local identity, replacement-text,
source-based proposal, and confidence instructions. The three active
[validator prompts](../../internal/prompts/assets/prompts/validators.editorial_review.yaml)
repeat candidate-reference, supplemental-context, and verdict-confidence guidance.
Recent contract changes required coordinated edits across these assets. The
[prompt registry](../../internal/prompts/registry.go) already provides a shared
hardening fragment supplied through the role-bound adapter.
**Recommended change:** Extract genuinely common passages into embedded fragments
under `internal/prompts/assets/shared`, following the existing fragment-supply
approach. Keep the fragments owned by `internal/prompts` and use the existing
PromptKit rendering path. Keep module-specific examples, replacement-policy
instructions, protected-name exceptions, and semantic criteria in their individual
prompt definitions. Do not merge similar-looking rules with different meanings.
**Acceptance:** Common instructions have one maintained source and appear in all
intended rendered prompts. The existing module and validator distinctions remain
intact, including glossary replace-all behavior and the spoken-word protected-name
exception. Focused rendering checks cover fragment inclusion and representative
module-specific guidance without requiring exact-prose snapshots or introducing
a separate templating framework.
## R28 — P2: Prepare Validation Context Once Per Request
**Category:** Repeated computation and overlapping segment lookup.
**Evidence:** [BuildLLMValidationRequest](../../internal/framework/validators/llm_validators.go)
already indexes transcript segments, but
[validationContext](../../internal/framework/validators/llm_context.go) scans the
transcript again for each candidate. It also calls
[NewProtectedVocabulary](../../internal/framework/validators/protected_terms.go)
for each candidate, rebuilding the same vocabulary and compiling its matching
expression repeatedly. This is duplicated preparation rather than copied code.
**Recommended change:** Prepare a segment-position lookup and protected vocabulary
once per validation request, then pass that prepared context into the existing
context-selection helper. Keep the implementation within `framework/validators`.
Continue selecting glossary evidence for each candidate individually because its
proposed replacement can mention different terms. A process-wide cache or new
context-management package is unnecessary for this cleanup.
**Acceptance:** Candidates in one validation request reuse the prepared lookup and
vocabulary. Context still consists of the available immediate neighbors within the
current chunk and relevant glossary entries in glossary order. Candidate-specific
replacement text still participates in glossary selection. Existing optional-context
trimming, token estimation, and oversized-input handling retain their behavior.
Verify these outcomes with focused behavioral tests rather than assertions about
private helper call counts or unmeasured performance guarantees.
## R29 — P3: Share Execution-Recovery Classification
**Category:** Duplicate reporting rule; predates the latest commits.
**Evidence:** [Proposal generation](../../internal/framework/proposal_generation/generate.go)
and [LLM validation](../../internal/framework/validators/llm_validators.go)
independently translate structural-repair and transient-retry counts into
`output_repaired` and `service_recovered` reasons. The conversion is the same in
both locations; the surrounding success and domain-outcome decisions differ.
**Recommended change:** Place a small conversion helper in the existing
`framework/outcomes` package and use it from both callers. Keep the decision to
record recoveries at the call sites, along with domain-specific reasons such as
filtered validator decisions. Do not combine proposal and validation orchestration
or move domain-success classification into this helper.
**Acceptance:** Both callers use the same execution-count conversion. Existing
reason ordering, successful-operation reporting, and domain-specific additions
remain intact. A partially unavailable validation batch continues to record its
failure and execution counts without acquiring recovery records merely because a
repair or retry occurred. Existing outcome tests should continue to protect these
distinctions.
## R30 — P3: Centralize Partial Validator Result Assembly
**Category:** Repeated early-return construction; predates the latest commits.
**Evidence:** Several early returns in
[LLMBackedValidator.Validate](../../internal/framework/validators/llm_validators.go)
repeat nested slice appends to combine immediate decisions, oversized-input
decisions, and decisions from completed model batches, together with accumulated
operation outcomes. This makes it easier for a future failure path to omit facts
already collected by the validator.
**Recommended change:** Use a small local result-building helper to assemble the
partial result consistently. Keep error handling, batching, success-path ordering,
and cardinality enforcement explicit. A general-purpose result-aggregation package
is not needed.
**Acceptance:** Cancellation and failure paths retain the same previously collected
decisions and operations. Result ordering and cardinality behavior remain unchanged;
the helper does not enforce complete cardinality on interrupted work. Retain the
existing partial-progress and fatal-failure coverage, adding tests only for a
material gap exposed by the refactor.
## Boundaries to Preserve
- Keep proposal and validator reference mapping separate. Proposals can target the
same segment repeatedly; duplicate validator decisions make that candidate
unavailable. Similar indexing arithmetic alone does not justify a generic
reference-management abstraction.
- Keep distinct protected-term policy checks separate. They already share the
vocabulary implementation and intentionally apply different policies.
- Preserve exact source-span matching, request-local references, batching, and
partial-success behavior. Consolidation is not a reason to strengthen contracts
or broaden the accepted correction scope.
## Review Verification and Limits
- This is a source-level maintainability audit, not a finding of demonstrated
production failures or a measured performance assessment.
- No application tests were rerun for the original read-only audit; its roadmap
update used documentation link and whitespace checks. Implementation validation
is recorded below.
- Future remediation should run focused behavioral tests and the broader suite
appropriate to the actual change, following the testing policy. No live-provider
evaluation or new evaluation framework is required by these recommendations.
- The findings above describe the audited baseline. Implementation and validation
are recorded below; no release publication is included.
## Resolution Record
Implemented as focused changes within the existing packages. Proposal and validator
reference mapping and distinct protected-term policies remain separate.
| Finding | Resolution and evidence |
| --- | --- |
| R27 | Common proposal and validation instructions live in two embedded shared fragments, supplied through the existing role-bound PromptKit adapter. Individual YAML definitions retain policy differences and examples. Rendering tests check fragment inclusion once per applicable prompt and representative module-specific guidance. |
| R28 | Validation request construction builds one segment-position lookup and protected vocabulary, reused by context selection for every candidate. A new test verifies that two replacements of the same source span receive their own relevant glossary entries. Existing neighbor, glossary-order, chunk-boundary, and budget tests pass. |
| R29 | Both proposal generation and validation use `outcomes.ExecutionRecoveries`. Call sites still control success and domain-specific recovery reasons. Existing tests cover combined recoveries and failed validation with repair counts but no recovery record. |
| R30 | A local result builder combines collected decisions and operation outcomes for partial returns and completed validation. Sorting and full cardinality checks remain outside it. Existing fatal-batch, partial-progress, runner, and reporting tests pass. |
Validation: `go test ./...` passed, including PromptKit preparation, partial-decision
reconciliation, subprocess reports, and fatal-progress coverage. Documentation
links and whitespace checks passed. No live model evaluation or performance
measurement was performed; the changes make no new model-quality or latency
promise.