docs(catalog): add IP-036 a lost response is not an absent commit

[yuedai-pbc]

Goal And Delivered Outcome

• Goal/source and gap: GH-C37 asks for one new public-safe good/bad case in the
  interaction pattern catalog. The catalog tells a controller what to do with an
  authority it can see — IP-006 for a projected write scope that disagrees
  with its checkpoint, IP-016 for the idempotency key inside a task lease, IP-020
  for a Todo claim / supersede / successor lifecycle, IP-033 for a rejection that
  is recorded rather than absent — and has nothing for the transport-level case
  all four assume away: the commit landed and nobody was told. The rule is already
  in shipped code and tests (loopx/cli_commands/delegation.py:25 registers
  --operation-id as "Stable request identity; reuse after a lost response",
  handoff_mode.py:99 the same shape for a canonical set intent,
  tests/control_plane/test_coordination_recoverable_execution.py:693 asserts a
  re-sent operation returns already_applied with the original receipt,
  test_coordination_provider_parity.py:222 makes operation_identity_reuse a
  per-provider dimension), but no concept entry tells an agent that a lost
  response is not an absent commit, so the default recovery move is a blind retry.
• Observable before → after, with the validation row that proves it: before, the
  catalog has no IP whose agent channel says "name the write, recover by readback,
  and never leave a committed record pointing at unpublished material"; after,
  IP-036 A Lost Response Is Not An Absent Commit states those rules with the
  settled vocabulary (delivered / replayed / ambiguous_reconciled) as the
  single owner of an ambiguous outcome. The static and real_entrypoint rows
  prove the entry is structurally complete (row, detail heading, single-family
  listing) while leaving production behavior untouched, and regression_parity
  proves the three surfaces cannot drift.
• Issue/task and intended base: Closes #5026 (GH-C37), base main.

Scope And Continuation

• Completed scope and remaining work: complete within this scope. One catalog
  entry with its family-table row, its Pattern-To-Canary matrix listing, a mermaid
  visual model, and validation references — 1 file, +107 / −1. Docs only; no
  production or test change, so no runtime behavior can regress.
• Slice boundary / successor: N/A for this entry. Deliberately not folded in:
  adding --operation-id to durable-write commands that lack one, and changing
  any create/recovery ordering. Both belong to #5007 / #5012 and their owners;
  this entry cites them as the public counterexample and the proposed fix, not as
  work done here. A catalog-level assertion that every durable write command
  exposes a recovery identity would need the CLI owners' input and is recorded as
  a gap, not built.

Validation

• Tested revision: e6ad8790b
• Run state: finished
• Input classes: none

Check kind	Result	Public-safe evidence / limitation
static	passed	python3 examples/interaction-pattern-catalog-smoke.py → interaction-pattern-catalog-smoke: ok. Structure check asserts one `
real_entrypoint	passed	loopx check --scan-path docs/concepts/interaction-pattern-catalog.md → public boundary scan clean: 1 files.
regression_parity	passed	Four mutations of the entry itself, one at a time, each reverted before the final run: (A) delete the detail heading → pattern rows without a detail heading; (B) list IP-036 under a second family → pattern ids listed under more than one family; (C) rename the table row's id → pattern rows without a detail heading (the row and heading must pair, in either direction); (D) drop IP-036 from the family matrix while keeping row and heading → smoke still passes, disclosed rather than hidden: the matrix enforces "no duplicates and no unknown ids", not "every pattern is listed", so the family listing here is a consistency choice, not a gate. Reverting all four → smoke ok.
unit	not_run	Not required: no code or test changed. The cited tests in tests/control_plane/ and tests/cli_commands/ are the independent oracle for the entry's claims and were not modified.

• Coverage and gaps: the changed path is one documentation file, so the structural
  smoke plus the repository boundary check cover it end to end. Untested path: the
  mermaid diagram is rendered by the docs pipeline and was verified as text only,
  not visually. Each factual claim in the entry is pinned to a file:line in the
  tested revision, so a reviewer can falsify any one of them directly;
  #5007 / #5012 are cited as issue state and as the author's own description of
  the create-path ordering, and this PR depends on neither landing.

Frontend / Visual Evidence

• UI impact: none
• Before: N/A
• After: N/A
• States and viewports shown: N/A
• Source data: none

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Breaking change
• Documentation only
• Other (describe above)

LoopX Area

• Documentation

Technical Direction

GH-C37 (interaction pattern catalog curation), under the architecture and research
incubator direction.

Shared-authority RFC fixture impact

Not applicable: no shared-authority fixture, provider arm, RFC ledger, or
semantic vocabulary entry is touched. The entry cites the settled-outcome
vocabulary as an existing owner rather than changing it.

Boundary Checklist

• No private benchmark traces, verifier output, credentials, internal links,
  raw agent sessions, or local machine paths are added.
• loopx check --scan-path run on every touched public file → clean.
• No maintainer-owned lane, benchmark run, or private artifact is duplicated.

[huangruiteng]

动机

审查精确 head e6ad8790b56369850b7a83e1ae2f0d866db61ac1。#5007 显示持久写入可能已经提交，调用方却丢失了响应；把命令错误直接理解为“未提交”，会诱发重复 Todo 或缺少私有材料的权威记录。原目录已有 IP-006、IP-016、IP-020、IP-033，但没有独立说明这一传输层歧义。新增可复用条目完成本 PR 的文档目标，不等于修复 #5007。

改动思路

IP-036 进入 State And Boundary 分类，以稳定 operation id、原始收据读回、被引用材料核验串起恢复路径，并把租约幂等键、Todo 生命周期、记录过的拒绝及投影范围问题留给既有条目。文档引用已有命令帮助、receipt_index 与 provider parity 测试；真正的提交与重试权威仍在调用者及协调 provider。正向路径是同一意图按同一身份核对单次提交；反向路径是不同意图复用身份被拒，或已提交记录缺材料时明确失败。

具体改动

唯一变更是 docs/concepts/interaction-pattern-catalog.md（+107/-1）。分类表为 IP-036 增加入口；正文增加触发条件、四条规则、Mermaid 流程、错误气味和测试指针，没有生产代码、schema、默认值或测试变更。

关键内容讲解

“Lost Response”明确把响应当成提交的通知，而不是提交本身；失败后需用同一 operation id 核对收据。第三项规则指出 #5007 的已提交 Todo 与缺失 validation declaration，且把 #5012 写作提案，未把现有 lease replay 测试冒充 Todo create 已修复的证据。与 IP-016、IP-020、IP-033、IP-006 的对照保留了各自边界。

对主干的风险

未发现阻断性代码或协议风险。最强的误读是把“重发并读回”理解为所有命令已具备幂等恢复；#5007 与 #5012 当前仍开放，因此后续实现落地时需更新此条目的时态。一个非阻断的协作问题是 GitHub PR 描述目前仅为字面量 @/tmp/pr-ip036-final.md，请改成公开可读的目标和验证说明。

精确 head 上的 interaction-pattern-catalog-smoke.py 返回 ok，base-to-head 的 git diff --check 通过，完整单文件 diff 与引用的现有代码/测试已检查。没有运行产品行为测试，也未轮询远端 CI；不能据此声称 #5007 已交付。

我的整体评价

APPROVE。这是独立且有用的文档增量；它不改变长周期执行或实际用户入口，不能借此宣称运行时体验已改善。条目与既有目录结构和边界相符，篇幅用于说明失联恢复的好坏路径。剩余风险是 #5012 合并后叙述可能过时，以及 PR 描述的临时路径；后者建议修正文案，不阻断本次审查。

English verdict: APPROVE - exact head e6ad8790b56369850b7a83e1ae2f0d866db61ac1; docs-only IP-036 distinguishes lost responses from absent commits, catalog smoke and diff check pass, and #5007/#5012 remain unresolved/proposed. Replace the literal temporary-path PR description as a non-blocking follow-up.

[huangruiteng]

Merge-readiness qualification for exact head e6ad8790b56369850b7a83e1ae2f0d866db61ac1: HOLD; no merge performed.

This is the docs-only IP-036 catalog change. The published exact-head review approved its one-file scope after the catalog smoke and git diff --check passed. No runtime or authority behavior changes were in scope; the suggested PR-description cleanup remains non-blocking. No additional refactor is warranted for this documentation boundary.

The current loopx pr-review --goal-id loopx-meta --check-merge-readiness 5027@e6ad8790b56369850b7a83e1ae2f0d866db61ac1 returns ready=false solely because GitHub reports merge_state=BEHIND (merge_state_requires_update). The published review remains valid for this head and there are no unresolved review threads. CI was not queried under this Goal's wait_for_ci=false policy; the earlier local checks were not rerun for this qualification. Update the branch/base relationship, then recheck the resulting exact head and its required validation before any maintainer merge decision. This comment grants no merge authority.

[yuedai-pbc]

已修正 PR 正文：之前那条是本地写法失误（-f body=@<path> 没被展开，字面量直接进了描述），现在换成了公开可读的目标、范围、验证与边界披露（含 Closes #5026）。issue #5026 与 #4954 那条评论的内容不受影响。

关于第 3 条规则的时态，同意你的判断并已按此边界写：本条目引用 #5007 作为公开反例、引用 #5012 作为提案中的落盘顺序，没有把 lease replay 测试当作 Todo create 已修复的证据，也不依赖其中任何一条合并。等 create 路径的修复落地后，需要更新的就是这一段的时态（"proposes" → 现有实现），我已把它记成本条目的唯一后继维护点；除此以外这个切片没有遗留工作。

复核数字与正文一致：exact head e6ad8790b 上 python3 examples/interaction-pattern-catalog-smoke.py → ok，base-to-head git diff --check 干净，未运行产品行为测试（无代码/测试变更），也未轮询远端 CI。