Skip to content

roadmap: track Hindsight comparison and local-first product readiness #725

Open

Description

@cdeust

Objective

Make Cortex a usable local-first memory product, using the Hindsight comparison to identify concrete gaps. This tracks an ongoing investigation and a proposed backlog; it is not a claim that Hindsight is superior on every axis or that the comparison is complete.

Delivery ownership confirmed by the owner, October 10

This workspace owns macOS corrections and native Claude Code/Codex verification against the 18 acceptance journeys. The owner's collaborator performs Windows verification using the same invariants and artifact identities. Linux qualification is deferred and does not block a macOS-qualified release. Windows support claims await that collaborator's receipts; Linux remains explicitly unverified. This assignment preserves the full macOS product expectations, including documentation and visual inspection.

Evidence already collected

Pinned Cortex revision: 02c3cf006e7024811bcb379ce375e7eafd8267a9.
Pinned Hindsight revision: 44d5340148fd47efb34e184d61f87ab5e2d8d1e2.
Companion inspected read-only: cdeust/cortex-viz@2482563172c0f02a1c022b82cb4e38299b7748b4.

Static source comparison, public-API retrieval measurement and live Hindsight documentation rendering were inspected. The retrieval experiment used 500 SciFact documents, 1812 shared facts and 50 questions. Warm mean latency was 1.5674s for Hindsight versus 3.5509s for Cortex; nDCG@10 was 0.8866 versus 0.8769–0.8796. These results concern this retrieval setup only: different embeddings/rerankers, prebuilt Hindsight graph, PostgreSQL stores and no extraction or final-answer measurement. They do not establish default SQLite performance, general product quality or service-level guarantees. Raw response SHA256: 9ca9738a6605440a867334e44b73b35b5f666f3221363c4e49f68f8d14e7e175.

Project evidence is retained locally under rea/_reference/hindsight-cortex-2026-10-10/ (report, manifest, benchmark protocol/results/raw responses, rendered documentation captures). Findings and acceptance evidence are also recorded in each child issue below.

New issues

Existing work to reuse

Validation campaigns required before product conformance

  • Extraction and normalization on identical source documents, including contradictory and dated facts.
  • Final answers: correctness, source fidelity, abstention and reader-model budget.
  • Correction/deletion propagation, synthesis freshness and interrupted-ingestion recovery.
  • End-to-end first local install, default backend, actual companion rendering and source inspection.
  • Operational costs, resource use, offline behavior, isolation and cross-client contracts.
  • Documentation usability on a built artifact: discoverability, first success, troubleshooting, accessible rendering and offline assets.

Prioritize a reliable first local memory round-trip, then source inspection and a guided documentation journey. Reuse cortex-viz; its existing visualizations should be assessed, not replaced on the assumption that no UI exists. Resolve backend capability gaps explicitly. The documentation and rendering work must demonstrate real product behavior.

Primary references

Hindsight documentation, Cortex README, cortex-viz README.

Global product audit extension, October 10

The investigation now covers product promise, knowledge lifecycle, native Claude/Codex integration, distribution, platform support, offline operation, backup/restore, model identity, costs, documentation and inspection. Coverage of the analysis does not establish native conformance of every product combination.

Executed during the extension:

  • Four production stdio smokes passed (Claude/Codex client names, full/lean, discovery and memory_stats), without native host lifecycle delivery.
  • Offline profile replays demonstrate missing Codex bootstrap and naming-dependent behavioral observations.
  • A real safe_handler boundary probe shows four cancelled callers leave four workers active; a fifth request starts despite the declared budget of four. Native MCP cancellation delivery is a separate acceptance case.
  • GitHub wheel/MCPB checksums match; each of 660 engine Python members matches the v4.23.5 tag. Forty-two differ from current main. Installed uv/PyPI runtime bytes were not inspected.

New child issues:

The proposed acceptance contract has 18 journeys across 12 candidate OS/host/backend cells. This is a validation design, not a support claim. Each receipt identifies artifact digest, client/OS/interpreter, backend, model manifest, fixture, native events and observed effects. Current macOS receipts remain bound to their original versions. Windows full-suite debt (#692/#693), macOS SQLite vector support (#691), install/default-backend issues (#703–#705) and measurement gaps (#708/#709) remain linked rather than duplicated.

Release ordering: establish install/runtime/store identity and first successful round-trip; establish document/source/correction recovery; prove native host continuity; publish measured baselines and recovery evidence; integrate documentation and visual inspection. Existing closed repairs to artifact/claim deletion and lineage are acknowledged, not refiled as absent features.

Local report: rea/_reference/hindsight-cortex-2026-10-10/global/rapport-global.md; machine-readable acceptance contract: global/contrat-acceptation.json. These local paths are evidence locations, not downloadable public URLs. Each child contains primary-source permalinks and its acceptance evidence.

Historical evidence refresh: the public v4.23.4 native receipt was downloaded and its published checksum verified. It records macOS shared-PostgreSQL transfer in both directions, project exclusions and automatic startup context, plus the initial tool-discovery failure. It remains evidence for that release and platform, not full native coverage of current main.

Activity

  1. cdeust commented on Nov 5, 2026

    @cdeust
    OwnerAuthor

    CI autopilot : issue mise en hold — tracker sans livrable propre.

    #725 suit la comparaison Hindsight et liste ses enfants (#713–#724, #726–#734) ; chaque correctif passe par l'issue enfant (PR Refs/Closes sur l'enfant). Ses « campagnes de validation » recoupent #720 (bench étendu, en hold) et #730 (reçus de parcours natifs). Il n'y a donc pas de tranche autonome que l'autopilot puisse livrer ici sans dupliquer un enfant.

    À trancher par un humain : garder #725 comme tracker pur (l'autopilot le laisse alors de côté), ou nommer une tranche qui lui est propre (par ex. le contrat d'acceptation des 18 parcours versionné dans le dépôt).


    Generated by Claude Code

  2. added
    autopilot:holdCI autopilot stood down: a human decision is required
    on Nov 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    autopilot:holdCI autopilot stood down: a human decision is requiredenhancementNew feature or request

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions