E02 — Producer/consumer retention and independent acquisition

Authored design — 2026-09-15. Section 4. This cascade elaborates the existing checklist item. It is not a dispatch, implementation receipt or completion verdict. Work outside WM-01–14 still requires Joe’s explicit greenlight; having a cascade is necessary but not permission.

Section 3/4 index · Exact TODO · Cascade JSON

Situation and design problem

Complete acquisition cannot be inferred from a set of retained records. E02 must show what the run was obliged to retain and whether each independent producer and consumer actually supplied it.

Governing checklist snapshot

E02 — Producer/consumer retention and independent acquisition. PARTIAL: checkpoints and emitters exist. Complete immutable census universes, model threading, evidence-manifest acquisition, freshness, exact commission preimages and independent semantic ownership remain required. Close-retention source acceptance at 3a6f4f61 does not establish that a post-change production close used it.

This is the checklist’s dated evidence account, not a new deployment census. Existing source/test evidence keeps its bounded credit. The acceptance obligation above governs this design.

Pattern applications

E02-1 — Fix the acquisition universe

Pattern: wm-qualifying-run/complete-acquisition-universe

Declare required commissions, sources, model identities, observations and occurrence/cutoff boundaries before inspecting success. Produce an immutable manifest of required members, including inaccessible ones.

E02-2 — Acquire independent original evidence

Pattern: wm-prediction/observation-can-disagree

Resolve exact commission preimages, literal observation bytes and reviewer/producer authority. Preserve source and freshness pins. Reconstructed history is not an original, and a manifest is not acquired evidence.

E02-3 — Thread identities through consumers

Pattern: wm-qualifying-run/complete-acquisition-universe

Use existing checkpoint/retention seams to retain which model and evidence each actual consumer read. Demonstrate a post-change production close before crediting the accepted close-retention source as executed.

E02-4 — Reconcile completeness and omissions

Pattern: wm-prediction/observation-can-disagree

Compare the acquired population with the declared universe and independently review semantic ownership. Retain missing, stale and insufficient results without labels. Future occurrences need authentic new commissions; missing historical commission 20588 remains unavailable.

Composition and interfaces

Each node’s stated artifact is the input or constraint for the related node below. These are design dependencies, not a claim that a runtime scheduler automatically fires patterns. Existing WM producers are reused through the linked contracts; no second implementation is implied.

Retain the actual subject, source/model revision, task/occurrence, cutoff, producer and consumer for each interface. A missing field is a named gap; a default that changes the meaning is not an adapter. Reuse existing records where they satisfy these obligations. If a new component is indispensable, identify its exact TODO/cascade clause before seeking a separately bounded implementation instruction.

Worked situation

A close-retention writer is accepted in source, but no subsequent close contains its new fields. E02 credits the writer’s implementation and keeps production acquisition open rather than treating the code diff as a retained observation.

This is a distinguishing design example, not a claimed production experiment.

Implementation sequence and closure evidence

1. Bind the first application to the actual source, task and authority. Resolve the decisions below before their dependent change; do not reproduce a known gap merely to claim activity.
2. Implement only the specifically dispatched producer/consumer change from the middle applications. Retain the meaningful pre-change failure and relevant post-change controls; do not start a general infrastructure project.
3. Acquire the final application’s evidence and independent review. Compare it against every clause of the exact TODO, identifying any still-open dependency. Source, tests, serving state, ordinary use and whole-run validation receive different credit.

Distinguishing controls: Remove a manifest member, substitute a newer source at the same path, omit commission bytes, inject self-owned observation and pair an old close with new source identity.

Closure rule: every part of the quoted obligation must be supported by the indicated artifacts and actual connections. A useful rejection proves the rejecting boundary only. One accepted subclause does not tick the whole item. A bellback must supply the exact reviewed subject, executed checks, independent verdict and remaining clauses.

Dependencies and authority boundaries

WM-04 · R9 · TRACE · E03 · E05

This cascade specifies retention requirements, not permission to resume the held P1 store. Any indispensable persistence change requires its own explicitly greenlit bounded E02 dispatch.

Dependency links describe required interfaces; they do not authorize work on those items. No implementation outside the existing TODO list is approved. Publication does not select a numerical law, settle an unresolved operator ruling or authorize a run.

Pattern and source scope

All seeded patterns are applied above. The JSON pins their source bytes and the governing checklist/rulings. Historical formulas, thresholds and examples in a pattern remain scoped examples unless the governing contract adopts them. This draft adds no pattern-library entries and claims no independent semantic ratification.