Atlas
In plain words: Project Board
Guide to the Project Board (Atlas): keep a project's brief, concerns, judgments and next step across conversations and Job Records, and record assessments like Sufficient, Insufficient or Disputed.
- 1Saving a project records a plan; it never submits a request or starts work.
- 2Editing a brief or concern marks earlier assessments as needing review.
- 3Standalone concerns before a project exist are the designed direction.
Partial Project surface works; independent concerns and relations are Designed.
Words on this page, decoded click one for its card
Project Board Atlas
Where ongoing projects, open questions and decisions are tracked.
It's like: A Trello or Jira board.
Click a dot to open that part's card.
A conversation can end while the undertaking continues. AtlasProject Board keeps its brief, concerns, judgments, and proposed next step available across conversations and RunsJob Records. Begin with a software release, a record, or the continuing care of a home; an existing conversation, PatternWorkflow, or RunJob Record 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 CovenantDesign Rule (ADR). 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 AtlasProject Board in the Altar navigation. Create a project with a name and a brief: 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 ana IntentRequest or start execution.
The board lists retained projects and their lifecycle. Open one 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 RunsJob Records 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 BridgeChat.
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. AtlasProject Board retains the brief and concern text you judged, your local SigilID Badge attribution, and the assessment time. This preserved basis makes the judgment reviewable: a successful RunJob Record alone cannot award sufficiency, and a linked RunJob Record 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. AtlasProject Board 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 BridgeChat or OrbRun Inspector, select a project in AtlasProject Board, 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. AtlasProject Board's Link activity form still accepts the identity from ana AltarControl Panel URL. References open the original Bridge conversation or Orb evidence; those instruments retain their own authority and show the Project association back to AtlasProject Board.
A session reference relates that conversation. It does not silently add all of its RunsJob Records. A RunJob Record reference opens the currently retained evidence, with OrbRun Inspector's capture limits and gaps; AtlasProject Board 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 RunJob Record. Each citation names ana AtlasProject Board 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 ContextBriefing Pack, or authorize another act. Use BridgeChat's ordinary admission and consent when you decide to carry out a proposed next step. LoomWorkflow Viewer continues to own the reusable score; NexusModel Status Board continues to show readiness and physical transitions.
Return after a failed save
AtlasProject Board saves through the VesselEngine Room. In the PostgreSQL profile, projects survive browser and VesselEngine Room 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, AtlasProject Board 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, AtlasProject Board shows that failure rather than an empty map.
The initial surface retains records when a project closes; it has no delete action. Existing
installations need the normal database migration before opening AtlasProject Board. 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 RunJob Record, 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:
| Concern | Possible place addressing it | What still needs judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sources can be inspected | A source record and the answer's citation view | Whether the cited material supports the actual claim |
| Uncertainty is visible | An answer policy and its presentation | Whether the reader can distinguish evidence, inference, and missing knowledge |
| Mistakes can be corrected | A correction procedure and revision history | Whether an earlier answer and its correction remain understandable |
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 AtlasProject Board records or controls.
The idea or Project can author its own Concerns and CovenantsDesign Rule (ADR)s. 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.