memlnaut-nisps/docs/specs/_archive/tiered-plan-README.md

deprecated-by	superseded-by
2026-07-13	MAIN.md

Tiered Specs — MEMLNaut-NISPS (Deprecated)

Note: This tiered planning approach was not built out; the corpus adopted a flat MAIN.md layout instead (see docs/specs/MAIN.md).

This corpus was the prescriptive plan for the project: what we are building and why, organised from high-level intent down to implementation specifics. It is distinct from the two orienting docs at the repo root:

• MAP.md — "what is" (neutral inventory of the code as it stands). Voice: stenographer.
• ALIGNMENT.md — "how good is what is, vs. what we need" (dated, opinionated gap diagnosis). Voice: critic.
• docs/specs/ (this corpus) — "what we are going to build" (prescriptive, tiered). Voice: architect.

The five tiers

T0  Mission                        [SHARED across all products]
T1  Capabilities & Principles      [SHARED]
T2  Architecture & Contracts
     ├ contracts spine (schema/codegen, ML-core API, ControlEvent/outputs, crystallization)  [SHARED]
     ├ core engine architecture
     ├ firmware architecture
     ├ playground architecture
     └ backends architecture
T3  Component Design   →  core | playground | firmware | backends   (branches per product)
T4  Implementation specifics  →  (same branches)  →  spawn Ergo tasks/epics

Files:

Tier	File(s)	Status
T0	T0-mission.md	draft — awaiting audit
T1	T1-capabilities-and-principles.md	draft — awaiting audit
T2	T2-architecture-and-contracts.md (+ per-product sections)	not started
T3	T3-component-design/{core,playground,firmware,backends}.md	not started
T4	T4-implementation/{core,playground,firmware,backends}.md → Ergo	not started
—	00-decisions-log.md	the interview outcomes that seed these tiers
ref	slp-workshop-firmware.md	evolving — SLP-Workshop: Part I shipped (mode + Jolt / OU-explore gestures), Part II planned (output modes, gate sequences, Manifold config UX)

Audit protocol (why tiers exist)

The point of tiering: each tier is audited and agreed before the tier below it is authored. A change is only made downstream of a tier when that tier itself got something wrong. So:

1. T0 + T1 are reviewed and approved first (they constrain everything).
2. Only then is T2 authored; reviewed; approved.
3. Only then T3; then T4 → Ergo → execution.

If review of a lower tier reveals that an upper tier is wrong, fix the upper tier first, then propagate. Every tier file ends with a "Traces up to" line citing the tier(s) above it that justify its content.

Keeping it honest

Per the project's doc-sync rule: when code changes invalidate a spec, update the spec in the same commit. When a T4 item is implemented and verified, it migrates from "spec" to MAP.md ("what is"); the spec entry is pruned. Stale prescription is worse than none.

Recon that seeded this corpus: .local/recon/dossier/00-GROUND-TRUTH.md + 00-DECISIONS.md.