# Source trail and corrections

[Return to the essay](../index.html)

## Earlier written intent

The local LinkedIn archive and exported share records support these dates and links. Exported visibility is MEMBER_NETWORK, so the links may require access and were not verified as openly visible today.

- [15 July 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7218749288967802881): boxes as processes, wires as typed systems, independent work side by side.
- [20 July 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7220547389109997569): composing mortar, setting-out and walling through compatible interfaces.
- [22 July 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7221278623683543041): apparently disappearing scaffold and excavator wires reveal missing removal processes; information and physical resources need different copying/discard rules.
- [23 July 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A7221653169582276608): delayed trusses, endangered walls and a temporary roof in the same diagram. This is a particularly clear precursor to the farm-track example.
- [25 October 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7255535450898022400): a common interacting-process account with projections to task-only and risk-only views. The earlier probability/intention dichotomy is corrected in this essay.
- [29 March 2025](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7311718459971624961): changed state mediates between tasks; connect process and task views. An information-preserving projection is an aspiration requiring an explicit preservation claim, not a theorem inherited by this prototype.
- [13 April 2025](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7317118242257293312): the risk-list thicket metaphor. This does not establish the provenance of the two particular tree pictures.

Two undated local draft fragments also connect typed boxes/wires with processes beyond the intended task list. They were read as intention evidence, not treated as published posts; their complete private text is not reproduced here. The exact cow scenario and exact set nesting were not found in the targeted LinkedIn search. The six pictures and the current brief supply those details.

## The six pictures, read individually

| Original | Preserved idea | Correction or interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| pre cow plan.jpg | Two tasks, resources, scope, surrounding farm/access | Farm adjacency is context; single access is a constraint. State the uncertain competing use and consequence. |
| pre cow flow.jpg | Move feeds pour; resources cross process boundaries | Make access explicit; allocate crew to actual operations; label outputs by condition and return reusable resources. |
| cow risk occurs.jpg | Farm activity enters the project model through a shared road | Replace duplicated road branch and crossed-out task with reserved access and a disabled transition. Sunshine is a possible decision input, not an established cause. |
| project tasks in context.jpg | Tasks and risks interact with ongoing business as usual | Process labels, intention and effect are distinct. Enclosing bars alone do not implement optics; loops need declared feedback semantics. |
| risk trees.WEBP | Two entwined accounts with cross-coloured nodes | Motivating metaphor, not a formal tree or measured project graph. |
| risks and tasks together.WEBP | Same entanglement expressed through process-like blocks | Retain its conceptual invitation without claiming executable semantics from the picture. |

All six published images are exact source copies. [Asset manifest and SHA-256 values](asset-provenance.json). Corrections are adjacent prose and new vector diagrams; no original has been silently repainted or deleted.

## Paper attribution and the remembered environment

Capucci's [2021 article](https://matteocapucci.wordpress.com/2021/05/26/open-cybernetics-systems-i-feedback-systems-as-optics/), Context section, has a [visually checked environment comb](https://matteocapucci.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/sys-env.jpg?w=903): a U-shaped environment surrounding the system and separate environmental activity. This is the strongest located visual match. Separate scope/resource bars remain Lawrence's adaptation. The underlying paper's optics require more than a similar drawing.

The [public foray prompt](foray.md) identifies what is borrowed from each specific paper and what this construction adds. Public links use verified bibliographic identifiers. In particular, the correct DOI for Libkind and colleagues' operadic dynamical-systems paper is [10.4204/EPTCS.372.14](https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.372.14); a differing saved metadata value was not reused or changed.

## A deliberately small claim

This prototype demonstrates the consequences of explicit token-resource rules. It does not prove all risk can be reduced to processes, that every diagram is a valid schedule, or that formalism improves real delivery. The next comparison should be with a simple resource table using the same assumptions.


## The generic context comb — 24 September 2026

The original context photograph now has a prominent, dedicated section rather than a place inside a disclosure. Its exact bytes remain unchanged. The interpretation of the green scope arch, lower resource/context cradle and reciprocal task/risk connections is explicitly a reconstruction of Lawrence's sketch.

The new `assets/context-comb.svg` is a two-stage, left-to-right open process schematic. Project processes P1/P2 occupy openings in a continuing context. Setup, outside activity E1/E2, explicit joint handover H and result assessment make the surrounding comb visible. Scope/objectives are boundary/assessment annotations; uncertainty may concern either lane. No implicit resource fork or instantaneous feedback is asserted.

The ordinary typed expression is `post ∘ (P2 ⊗ E2) ∘ H ∘ (P1 ⊗ E1) ∘ pre`. It assumes separately allocated inputs and no hidden exchange inside a parallel stage. Further interaction requires further stages. This explanatory construction is not the Capucci optic formalism or a new implementation of it; the existing farm-track transition model is unchanged.