Atlas

Atlas is the catalogue of Canvas projects. Its pinned first entry is LychD's own Canvas, with a curated static project map. Search, filters and pagination apply to the loaded user collection while that entry remains available. Open a project to draw on its Canvas, or open its Project record directly to inspect its brief, concerns, decisions and related activity.

A conversation can end while the undertaking continues. The project record keeps its brief, concerns, judgments, and proposed next step available across conversations and Runs. Begin with a software release, a record, or the continuing care of a home; an existing conversation, Pattern, or Run is unnecessary.

The current surface gathers this material in a Project. Its concerns name what deserves attention, and its judgments retain your reasons for accepting, disputing, or questioning the work. The guide below follows that Project from its first brief to a later review.

The wider map begins with a question or an idea before it has a Project. It asks what each Concern means, how it breaks down, where it is addressed, and what supports a judgment. A Concern need not come from a Covenant. Independent Concerns and their relations remain the designed direction.

Owned Technology Map explores a candidate undertaking across devices, software, firmware, and services: prefer more openness, retain exact evidence and unknowns, and distinguish understanding from the ability to modify, replace, or recover a component.

Put an undertaking on the map

Open Canvas in the Altar navigation, then Atlas for the catalogue. New Canvas creates a draft project with a blank board immediately; a name and brief can follow. Keep the project when it is worth retaining in your working collection, or discard an eligible draft to remove it from the catalogue. Discard retains a recoverable account, and cannot remove LychD, a kept project, or existing planning records. In the Project record, describe the desired outcome or the responsibility you intend to keep. Add a proposed next step when you know one. Saving records your plan; it does not submit an Intent or start execution.

The catalogue lists retained projects and their lifecycle. Open the Project record to work with its brief, concerns, decisions, and related activity. Active, Paused, and Closed describe your planning choice. You can reopen a closed project. Pausing or closing leaves admitted Runs alone and does not promise to prevent new work through other instruments.

The proposed next step offers the project's explicitly linked conversations and Choose or start a conversation. Each conversation appears once here even when it is linked to several concerns; those evidence relationships remain separate. The chooser keeps a return link to the project and lets you select or create a séance deliberately. Opening it does not send the brief or next step to a model; you decide what to offer in Bridge.

Make a concern answerable

A concern states a question, risk, requirement, or condition that needs judgment. Its optional criteria explain what would make an answer adequate. Prefer something you can inspect, such as “The export must preserve the original audio,” with criteria naming the comparison you will make.

Assess a concern when you can explain a judgment about it. Record Sufficient, Insufficient, or Disputed, with your reason and any linked activity you cite. Until then, it remains unassessed. Atlas retains the brief and concern text you judged, your local Sigil attribution, and the assessment time. This preserved basis makes the judgment reviewable: a successful Run alone cannot award sufficiency, and a linked Run does not show that every criterion was tested.

Changing the brief or a concern makes earlier assessments need review. The earlier judgment and its original requirements remain readable. Record a fresh assessment after examining the new basis. Atlas does not silently reinterpret what an older assessment meant.

On a stale latest assessment, Compare with judged basis shows the brief, concern and criteria as judged beside their current values. This is a read-only comparison; a new judgment still needs an explicit assessment save.

Use Find a concern and the Assessment filter to reach a question or judgment in a longer project. The assessment form opens beside the concern and its history. Cited activity opens in a new tab, letting you inspect it without leaving your draft.

The board filters its loaded page. It counts unassessed concerns, assessments needing review, and current insufficient or disputed judgments separately. A stale judgment belongs under needing review, rather than among current judgments. These counts answer different questions; they do not combine into a measure of project health. Inside a project, the four count controls select those same groups. Clear concern filters restores the full list and returns focus to Find a concern.

Decisions retain a statement and reason. When a decision changes, record a replacement that supersedes it. The earlier decision stays under Earlier decisions.

Connect the work already done

Choose Link to project in Bridge or Orb, select a project in Atlas, and review the prefilled activity before saving. You may associate it with a particular concern and add a context note. This path can also create a new project before reviewing the link. Atlas's Link activity form still accepts the identity from an Altar URL. References open the original Bridge conversation or Orb evidence; those instruments retain their own authority and show the Project association back to Atlas.

A session reference relates that conversation. It does not silently add all of its Runs. A Run reference opens the currently retained evidence, with Orb's capture limits and gaps; Atlas does not freeze a copy of that evidence. If the target becomes unavailable, the retained reference does not become a successful result.

To inspect why an assessment reached its judgment, follow concern → assessment → cited reference → conversation or Run. Each citation names an Atlas reference record by its own identity. Linking activity to a concern is a separate relation and does not automatically cite it as evidence. A relation view must keep uncited references recognizable and preserve each reference's scope and note, even when several references lead to the same target.

Linking does not feed the whole project into a model, change the selected conversation's Context, or authorize another act. Use Bridge's ordinary admission and consent when you decide to carry out a proposed next step. Loom continues to own the reusable score; Nexus continues to show readiness and physical transitions.

Return after a failed save

Atlas saves through the Vessel. In the PostgreSQL profile, projects survive browser and Vessel restarts. The test-only memory profile retains them only for its process lifetime.

Retry the same pending change when a save's outcome is uncertain. Its identity prevents duplicate concerns, assessments, decisions, and references.

If another view changed the project, Atlas refuses the overwrite. Load the latest saved version and compare the differing fields beside your draft. Use saved… adopts the saved value of one field; Use reviewed values enables a new explicit save of the values now in the form. Review fields the other editor changed, including those you left untouched. If the read fails, Atlas shows that failure rather than an empty map.

The surface retains records when a project closes. Draft discard is a retained tombstone rather than a delete action. Existing installations need the normal database migration before opening Atlas. Migration 0009 refuses to remove its schema while projects remain.

Frontend owns the design, Persistence owns retention, and State of Work records the implementation evidence and remaining boundary.

Reading direction

For interface review and design, use the following composition and acceptance case.

The current Project view puts concerns before secondary context. Wide screens keep the brief and proposed next step beside them; narrow screens follow the concern list with that context. The brief starts collapsed when concerns exist, while continuation links remain available.

The planned composition gives Concerns their own entrance and one readable detail. Meaning, decomposition, where each part is addressed, criteria, judgment, original basis, attribution, and cited references belong together; older assessments and decisions can unfold beneath them. Inside a Project, its brief and proposed next step frame that same account. Keep unassessed, stale, insufficient, and disputed counts distinct. A compact portfolio row helps compare undertakings without turning planning lifecycle into a health score.

Start relations as an exact list for the selected concern. A small diagram is useful only if it makes a decomposition, addressing relation, or citation chain easier to follow, with the kind of relation stated and shared identities preserved. Neither similarity tags nor visual clustering create Project membership or automatic coverage.

Acceptance case: return to a project with fifty concerns, find an assessment whose criteria changed, inspect its cited Run, and reconcile a conflicting edit while retaining the draft and judged basis. A shared conversation appears once as a continuation destination while its concern relations remain distinct. Larger collection limits and catalogue-wide search need an explicit server contract; hiding rows cannot create that support. This composition and its scale checks are targets under Frontend, not additional delivered controls.

Concerns before a Project

Begin with “Can someone trust this answer?” even if the surrounding idea has no name. Break that Concern down into “Can its sources be inspected?”, “Is uncertainty visible?”, and “Can a mistake be corrected?” Each deserves its own meaning and criteria. The parent still asks whether these parts are enough; three sufficient judgments need not settle the original question.

As an application takes shape, map where those Concerns are addressed:

In this proposed design, a part can address several Concerns, and a Concern can need several parts. An empty addressing list exposes an unresolved need. The map would show how an application answers its Concerns while leaving adequacy to judgment and testing. If the idea later becomes a Project, its existing Concerns would be associated with it without recreation. These relations are still a design direction, not existing Atlas records or controls.

The idea or Project can author its own Concerns and Covenants. Its questions may lead to an adopted decision, whose consequences suggest further Concerns. It may draw inspiration from LychD, another document, or an existing Concern; none is a required template. A source-inspired proposal keeps the passage and exact version used, why it applies, and the meaning proposed here. Review and accept that interpretation; a later source revision should invite comparison rather than replace what was written locally.

Acceptance case: start a Concern without a Project, give it three children, and reuse one child under another Concern. Map two children to exact parts of a proposed application and leave the third visibly unaddressed. Inspect the source of a suggested child, distinguish inspiration from an adopted rule, and associate the questions with a Project later. Change a part used by an assessment and verify that its original basis survives while the affected judgment needs review.

Frontend owns this contract. State of Work records the current Project-bound surface and the missing independent records, decomposition, addressing, and seeding.