# Open Workplace reference scenarios Status: Observable examples for `open-workplace/0.1` These scenarios test whether an agent can apply the candidate [Protocol](protocol.md) and [Architecture](architecture.md) to concrete situations. They provide examples, not an external status or compatibility claim. The end-to-end [use cases](use-cases.md) examine complete environments. This document keeps each scenario small enough to expose one primary behavior. Each scenario identifies inputs, expected orientation and required behavior. An implementation may use different files or interfaces through its declared [Profile](profiles.md). ## Scenario 1: static Home without implementation tooling ### Given A directory contains a declared Home, Profile identifier, shared constitution, Member, Desk, Room, Material, Site and Route sources. The implementation CLI, validator and live orientation service are unavailable. ### Expected - Status: `degraded` - The agent reads the static sources through the Profile. - It identifies the Home, Member, Desk, current Room and Site. - It reports that validation and generated projections are unavailable. - It does not invent live state or discard readable source authority. ### Meaning The Workplace remains interpretable without a resident process. Tooling strengthens validation and presentation. ## Scenario 2: provider projection conflicts with a source ### Given The Profile marks `team-source.md` as the Home constitution and `AGENTS.md` as a generated projection. The projection contains an older rule that conflicts with `team-source.md`. ### Expected - The agent uses `team-source.md` for the shared rule. - It reports projection drift and identifies both files. - It avoids editing `AGENTS.md` as the owner. - It follows the Profile's rebuild path only with the required authority. ### Meaning A projection can improve access while the owned source retains authority. ## Scenario 3: two sources claim one responsibility ### Given Two sources both claim to own the current release policy for the same Room. The Profile supplies no composition or precedence rule, and their instructions conflict. ### Expected - Status: `ambiguous` for release-policy work. - The agent identifies the competing sources and their claimed owner. - It requests human resolution or keeps affected work ephemeral. - It may continue read-only work unrelated to the policy. ### Meaning The agent exposes a conflict instead of choosing by path depth, modification time or provider preference. ## Scenario 4: implicit multi-repository environment ### Given A human names three repository roots and one shared instruction directory. None declares a Workplace Profile or Home. ### Expected - Status: `candidate` - The agent inspects only the approved roots. - It records repositories, Guidance, methods and external relationships. - It presents plausible boundaries, including one coordinating Home and separate Workplaces when evidence supports both. - It distinguishes observation, inference and human confirmation. - It performs no mutation. ### Meaning Workspace roots support recognition without defining the Workplace. ## Scenario 5: Site checkout inside a Home ### Given A product repository sits under the Home directory. The Instance declares the repository as a Site and the Desk declares a Route to its checkout. ### Expected - The Home owns its constitution and Rooms. - The Site owns product source, Git history, permissions and delivered truth. - The Route owns the declared access path. - The agent does not treat physical containment as shared ownership. ### Meaning Filesystem topology can support access without changing sovereignty. ## Scenario 6: Route without mutation authority ### Given The Resolved Workplace Context includes a valid Route to a public website Site. The human asks for a draft but gives no delivery instruction. ### Expected - The agent may prepare an ephemeral draft in the current Meeting. - It does not modify, commit, push or deploy the Site. - It reports the Site as the intended destination when useful. - A later external effect requires scope-specific human authority. ### Meaning Access and consent remain separate. ## Scenario 7: Meeting output without retention ### Given An agent produces a research summary during a Meeting. The human reads it and continues the discussion without requesting a lifecycle transition. ### Expected - The summary remains ephemeral. - Praise and continued conversation do not retain or accept it. - A later session cannot treat the summary as Workplace truth unless an owner retains or accepts it through the declared lifecycle. ### Meaning Execution output does not become durable Material through existence or approval tone. ## Scenario 8: provider handoff ### Given Codex completes one Meeting. The Home sources retain selected research and an accepted decision. Claude enters later through a different provider projection. ### Expected - Claude resolves the same Home, Member, Desk, relevant Room and Sites. - It reads retained and accepted Material through owned sources. - It does not require Codex's transcript or private memory. - Provider-specific instructions may differ while source authority remains the same. ### Meaning The Workplace carries continuity across provider interfaces. ## Scenario 9: two agents in separate Meetings ### Given Codex works in a Product Room against a product Site. Claude works in a Launch Room against a website Site. Each receives a resolved context for its Meeting. ### Expected - Each agent loads the Home constitution and its own Room scope. - Each receives the relevant Equipment, Material, Sites and Routes. - Neither agent gains authority from the other Meeting. - The agents may proceed without a resident coordinator when their mutation scopes do not overlap. - The host still handles file or Site conflicts when scopes overlap. ### Meaning Ownership can reduce overlap. It does not replace technical concurrency control. ## Scenario 10: Profile represents part of the model ### Given A Profile represents Home, Room, Material and Site, but it has no Desk or Equipment representation. It declares those limits. ### Expected - The agent records the missing concepts in the Resolved Workplace Context. - It may report `resolved` for work that does not need those concepts. - It reports `degraded` when the current task depends on personal continuity or reusable methods that the Profile cannot locate. - It does not invent Desk or Equipment sources. ### Meaning A Profile can expose partial support when it names the loss and preserves the authority required by the current work. ## Scenario 11: transposition with semantic loss ### Given A source Profile distinguishes retained Material from accepted truth. A target Profile stores both in one undifferentiated collection. ### Expected - The comparison classifies the lifecycle mapping as partial. - The fidelity report names the lost distinction. - The proposal asks for human confirmation before application. - The target must not label all imported Material as accepted. - Verification checks the behavior recorded in the approved proposal. ### Meaning Successful file transfer does not prove responsibility or lifecycle fidelity. ## Scenario 12: no added Workplace structure ### Given A user performs a short, isolated task inside one repository. The work will end with the session, uses no shared methods and has no durable relationship outside the repository. ### Expected - Recognition may report `candidate` while inspecting the approved root. - The agent concludes: `No additional Workplace structure needed.` - It explains which first-class properties would add no value for this task. - It performs no adoption action. ### Meaning The model supports a negative adoption result. Added structure must serve durable work. ## Scenario 13: an implementation extension stays local ### Given An agent receives `open-workplace/0.1` and an Endroit Profile that also exposes the Endroit Work Resolution lifecycle. ### Expected - It identifies Workplace-first as the paradigm and Open Workplace as the implementation-neutral model and Protocol. - It identifies Endroit as the Workplace-first application framework and the implementation that owns the Profile. - It may use Work Resolution inside the Endroit Instance when the Profile and local authority allow it. - It does not require Work Resolution from another Profile or describe it as normative `open-workplace/0.1` behavior. ### Meaning A qualified implementation can add useful product behavior without expanding the protocol by implication. ## Coverage map | Scenario | Primary protocol behavior | | --- | --- | | 1 | Degraded operation | | 2 | Source and projection authority | | 3 | Conflict visibility | | 4 | Candidate recognition | | 5 | Site sovereignty | | 6 | Route and human authority | | 7 | Material lifecycle | | 8 | Provider-independent continuity | | 9 | Multiple Occupants and Meetings | | 10 | Profile limits | | 11 | Transposition fidelity | | 12 | Structure without value | | 13 | Profile extension boundary | ## Claim maturity Scenarios 1, 4 and 8 reflect behavior observed through Endroit and its dogfood Home. Scenarios 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 express invariants already used by the model and local operations. Scenario 13 reflects the current separation between the Open Workplace Protocol and the Endroit Profile. Scenarios 3, 10, 11 and 12 remain proposed tests for the Working Draft. A second independent Profile and external Home would provide stronger evidence. ## Review questions A reviewer can use the scenarios to ask: - Did the agent identify the correct owner? - Did it preserve source provenance? - Did it separate access from authority? - Did it keep ephemeral work out of durable truth? - Did it report missing capability and semantic loss? - Did two provider interfaces recover the same Workplace meaning? A failed scenario should lead to a clearer rule, a narrower claim or a model change supported by evidence.