Workspace Lifecycle Design Examination
What Was Examined
The pass covers every design artifact and this module’s responsibilities row. It reviews the existing planning layer, cited product records, staff route declarations, seven application dispatchers, lifecycle persistence, participant declarations, job graphs, notice handling, reset and purge coordination, restore recovery and operational reports. Every design artifact receives new narrative text and structured explanatory wording, with artifact identities, operation identities, permissions, sources and authority values retained except for the recorded verification corrections.
The supplied planning layer still carries draft status, and the requested design brief is absent. Neither is treated as approval. Console implementation and registration-level custom-field evidence remain outside what the registered paths establish; the screen contracts now describe documented requirements with unverified implementation rather than asserting that components are absent.
What Changed
The largest correction concerns irreversible removal. Finalization can remove the workspace before recording completion, leaving a gap that ordinary retry cannot recover; even completed removal can lack its external ledger. Cancellation also stores a notice that the normal watcher excludes before sending. Those conditions are recorded as findings rather than hidden by an atomic or eventual-delivery guarantee.
Resource and notice persistence validate stored vocabulary without enforcing the claimed successor or terminal rules. Screen reads are narrowed to actual response content. Application contracts distinguish ledgered defaults, adoption and no construction work, and describe only declared reset and export operations. Retry concurrency, copied availability, unavailable registration evidence and the bounded watcher execution remain explicit limits.
The responsibilities section retains this module’s ownership and delegated boundaries without changing other modules. Existing overlap with Security remains a finding requiring a coordinated revision. No planning approval, architecture approval or code deployment is implied by the examination.
Coverage and Its Limits
All seventeen staff HTTP operations, forty-five application operation declarations and the CRM deployment operation have contracts. Twenty lifecycle table declarations have aggregate object homes, and all four lifecycle state machines have workflows. The four documented screen contracts establish no verified console components. The direct cited source-path audit finds all eighty paths at their pinned heads; path existence is separate from behavior proof, and cross-module registration and shared-engine implementation details retain the stated evidence limits.
Every service, workflow and screen declares an empty inference list. The reviewed dispatchers invoke participant work rather than a model; removal of inference records is resource cleanup. No new Inference Operation is justified by those calls.
Verification corrections are committed separately where discovered before rewriting. Additional factual narrowing discovered during the prose pass is recorded in the correction inventory, so those rewrite commits also contain the stated verification changes. Each artifact’s main rewrite has its own commit; later commits finish branch, timing, publication and boundary wording. The work changes specification files only and does not modify the reader or code repositories.
Validation
The required installation and corpus conformance command passes with zero errors. Corpus tests also pass. These checks establish corpus conformance and checker behavior, not a deployed cross-application purge, provider failure recovery or browser behavior.
Verdict for Andrew
The design now describes the reviewed lifecycle behavior with explicit evidence limits, but it does not establish complete cross-application removal or built console behavior. Its weakest boundaries are finalization recovery, notice completion, participant omissions and registration or console evidence outside the permitted scope. Before implementation preparation, decide how to recover removal after the workspace disappears, how to deliver cancellation notices and protect restored workspaces, and resolve planning approval and the overlapping ownership and screen decisions.