Open Workplace reference scenarios

Status: Observable examples for open-workplace/0.2-draft

These scenarios exercise the Protocol’s responsibility boundary. They do not define a serialization or prove compatibility across Profiles.

1. Static Sources without optional tooling

Given a valid Workplace declaration and readable Sources, while the Profile CLI is unavailable.

Then the resolver:

• follows the Profile’s static discovery procedure;
• preserves owner, provenance and authority;
• reports degraded and names the unavailable validation;
• does not invent live observations;
• does not report resolved merely because files are readable.

2. Projection drift

Given a provider Projection whose digest or content differs from its declared Source.

Then the resolver uses the Source, reports drift and does not edit or promote the Projection as truth.

3. Conflicting authority

Given two incompatible Sources claiming the same responsibility under the same authority, with no Profile composition rule.

Then the affected context is ambiguous. Source order and physical proximity do not decide the winner. Unrelated read-only work may continue with the ambiguity visible.

4. Visible repository without declaration

Given a repository containing instructions, documentation and Git history but no valid Workplace declaration or Profile.

Then it is at most a candidate. The resolver does not infer its owner, widen inspection or claim a Resolved Workplace Context.

5. External checkout inside a Workplace

Given an external repository physically located below the Workplace directory and a declared Relationship to it.

Then the repository keeps its source, history and permissions. The Workplace owns only its declaration and Relationship. Containment does not transfer authority.

6. Access without mutation authority

Given a valid Relationship and readable external target, while the human requested only a draft.

Then the implementation may prepare temporary output but does not modify, commit, push, publish or deploy. Access does not imply consent.

7. Explicit durable transition

Given an agent-produced result and no request to retain or accept it.

Then the result remains outside durable Workplace truth. Praise, continued discussion and session end do not transition it.

When the human requests a durable transition with a destination owner and mutation scope, the implementation records the observed result without implying currentness, completion or delivery.

8. Provider handoff

Given provider A produced temporary output and selected Material was later retained through the Profile.

Then provider B resolves the Workplace from the same Sources and provenance, not from provider A’s transcript. It receives only the context relevant to the new objective.

9. Missing optional concept

Given a Profile that represents Source, Projection, Material and Relationship responsibilities but has no concept equivalent to an Endroit Room or Desk.

Then it can still target 0.2. It declares the limits relevant to its own resolution and does not invent Endroit objects.

10. Bounded ambiguity

Given clear declaration and Sources for one objective, plus a conflict in an unrelated responsibility.

Then the resolver may report the objective as resolved while retaining the unrelated limit, provided no action depends on the disputed authority.

11. Intended versus observed external effect

Given an authorized attempt to update an external authority that fails or partially succeeds.

Then the implementation reports the observed partial or failed effect. It does not mark the intended effect delivered or current.

12. Delegation preserves boundaries

Given a parent delegates a bounded objective.

Then the delegate receives the relevant Resolved Workplace Context, inspection and mutation limits and existing authority. Delegation does not widen access or reset approval.

13. Endroit extension boundary

Given an Endroit Profile exposes Home, Member, Desk, Room, Equipment, Site, Route, Artifact or Work Resolution concepts.

Then those remain Endroit-owned. Another Profile is not required to expose them, and the repository makes no claim that Endroit proves conformance or cross-Profile interoperability.

14. 0.1 declaration

Given a declaration targeting open-workplace/0.1.

Then an implementation of 0.2 does not silently treat it as compatible. It uses an explicit legacy adapter when available or reports the version limit.

Coverage

These are specification examples, not a universal test kit. A future conformance claim requires another independent Profile and agreed observable fixtures.