David F GliddenandClaude Opus 4.8
3f9a89b00c
Basic Memory v0.21.6 first sync over the live memory dir (steward-authorized live-dir trial, Option A 2026-06-06): adds permalink: to frontmatter, refolds long YAML description lines, strips final newlines. Bodies untouched — verified via full diff classification. From this commit forward, any diff in claude/memory shows only what Basic Memory or the session writes. Trial design: MemPalace untouched as incumbent; git status check on this dir at every wrap; end-of-day evaluation (recall quality, sync robustness, rebuild-from-files, malformed-file behavior). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
25 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
25 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: Acknowledgments wait for empirical validation
|
|
description: When a maintainer/contributor addresses our findings on a PR or issue,
|
|
delay the thank-you until any active validation run produces data we can include.
|
|
Don't acknowledge eagerly out of social momentum.
|
|
type: feedback
|
|
originSessionId: a5411fd1-4a96-43e7-aa1a-1a50d8951a8f
|
|
permalink: claude-memory/feedback-acknowledgments-wait-for-validation
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When a maintainer or contributor responds to our findings on an open PR or issue (especially with code fixes) AND we have an active validation run underway against the same surface, **wait to acknowledge until the validation produces data**.
|
|
|
|
**Why:** Steward's reasoning (2026-05-12, in the context of Shtefan's `ceccbfa` commit responding to our PR #442 test report while our chamber-library mine was still running): *"Once the mine completes is the right moment — whatever data that gives us is all the more valuable and the gratitude will land more authentically."*
|
|
|
|
Two things this protects:
|
|
1. **The data is the substance of the acknowledgment.** "Thank you, also confirming on N drawers across X corpora" lands as a real artifact in the thread. A premature "thanks!" is just social noise.
|
|
2. **Authentic gratitude requires real validation.** Acknowledging before testing would be performative — saying it's verified before actually verifying.
|
|
|
|
**How to apply:**
|
|
- Maintainer fixes our finding while we have a long-running validation. → Note the engagement internally; don't comment yet.
|
|
- Maintainer asks "did this work?" in the meantime. → Reply with current state + ETA, not a thank-you.
|
|
- Validation completes. → Acknowledge with the data: scope, drawer counts, search-quality signal, anything concrete the maintainer can use.
|
|
- Generalizes beyond PR threads: applies to any public communication where social momentum tempts an early "great, thanks!" before we have the substance to back it.
|
|
|
|
This is also a contamination-awareness principle: the urge to acknowledge promptly is partly trained behavior (collaborative-tool affordance). Worth pausing on whether the acknowledgment carries content, or just smoothness. |