BIP - State Model Confirmation
Read-only post-confirmation build-in-public candidate page for the confirmed AFPS Tracker state model. This page does not publish posts, create approval gates, write social-ledger records, or alter canonical artifacts.
confirmedbip_phase: prototypingsource skill: state-model
Source Basis
This BIP page is based only on confirmed local artifacts: alignment/state-model-afps-tracker.html, design/afps-tracker/domain-model-afps-tracker.md, design/afps-tracker/model-tree-afps-tracker.yaml, and design/afps-tracker/flow-tree-afps-tracker.yaml.
No bundled social convention files were present in this checkout, so candidates are conservative and avoid metrics, customer claims, launch promises, private repository specifics, and production-readiness claims.
Candidate Angles
| Channel | Status | Draft angle | Claim-safety notes | Publish precheck |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| recommended | Before designing the UI, we modeled trust as its own domain object: source support, parser confidence, diagnostics, and handoff eligibility each need separate state. | Source-backed by confirmed model; avoids product launch or adoption claims. | Review for private repo names before posting. | |
| X | recommended | State modeling changed the AFPS Tracker design: a clean next command is not a field, it is a policy outcome. If evidence is partial or blocked, the route is suppressed. | Grounded in confirmed policies and handoff states. | Keep thread short; link only to public-safe context if available. |
| Bluesky | recommended | Working note: the useful abstraction was not a dashboard card. It was a TrustEnvelope that keeps parser confidence separate from source confidence. | Source-backed by glossary and contracts. | Remove jargon if audience is non-technical. |
| Threads | not-now | Short behind-the-scenes note about making source-backed workflow state legible before UX variation work. | Safe but less specific for the audience. | Use only if paired with a simple visual. |
| Mastodon | recommended | Design-system note for workflow tools: do not collapse extraction confidence and source confidence. They fail differently and should recover differently. | Matches confirmed confidence separation rule. | Post without proprietary paths or internal file names. |
| not-now | Ask-focused post: when modeling read-only workflow state, how do others separate evidence, provenance, and diagnostics? | Safe if framed as a design question, not promotion. | Pick a relevant community and disclose context carefully. | |
| Hacker News | not-now | Show HN-style writeup on source-native workflow trackers and why domain modeling comes before UI. | Could be safe, but needs a public artifact or demo first. | Wait for a runnable/public page. |
| YouTube Community | not-now | Poll: what should a workflow tracker do when the next step is contradicted by source evidence? | Conceptual and safe. | Only useful if there is an existing audience. |
| YouTube long-form | not-now | Video outline: modeling a read-first tracker around ProductPath, evidence links, diagnostics, and handoff suppression. | Safe with sanitized examples. | Needs visuals and a public demo before recording. |
| YouTube Shorts | not-now | Short hook: the bug was thinking next command was data; the model says it is a trust decision. | Safe, but requires careful wording. | Use only with a clear diagram. |
| TikTok | rejected | Fast product-build montage. | Would overstate product maturity and hide source nuance. | Do not publish from this artifact alone. |
| Instagram Reels | rejected | Visual launch teaser for AFPS Tracker. | Premature launch framing is unsupported. | Do not publish. |
| LinkedIn video | not-now | Two-minute explanation of why diagnostics attach at the narrowest affected scope first. | Safe if examples are sanitized. | Needs a simple diagram and public-safe script. |
Rejected Angles
- Launch announcement: rejected because the confirmed artifact is a logical model, not a shipped product.
- Performance or accuracy claims: rejected because no measured runtime, accuracy, or user outcome data exists in the confirmed source.
- Customer story: rejected because no approved customer names, quotes, or production use evidence are present.
- Implementation architecture thread: rejected because storage, endpoints, auth, migrations, and deployment are explicitly deferred.
Next Actions
Future publishing or ledger work should happen in a separate workflow after a human selects a candidate and reviews the final public-safe wording. No social-ledger record was written by this page.