REFRESH WAS UNSCOPED FOR THE ANCHOR CONSUMER, and this is the one that
would have wasted implementation time. Two acceptance criteria rested on
`g` refresh preserving collapse and selection. The outline's header
offers "RET visit n/p move q quit" — NO `g` — it supplies no
`on_refresh`, and `listview.refresh` opens `if not (p and p.on_refresh)
then return end`. The criteria were unreachable for the only consumer
that exists.
Refresh is now out of scope, with the question it actually raises stated
rather than hidden: an outline refresh means re-requesting
textDocument/documentSymbol, which is an async round-trip with its own
await, failure and staleness handling, and it raises who owns the result
when it arrives against a buffer the user may have edited or left. That
is LSP request-lifecycle work; bundling it here would make the tree lane
responsible for it. Acceptance is re-scoped to what the primitive
controls — collapse and selection surviving a RE-RENDER — and the
refresh follow-on is parked with its precondition.
ACCEPTANCE 1 DECIDED Q#TR4 WHILE CALLING IT OPEN. "No `string.rep`
indentation in lsp.lua" commits to primitive-owned indentation, which is
exactly the question Q#TR4 leaves unresolved. The criterion is
representation-neutral now: the outline renders its hierarchy THROUGH
the primitive rather than by pre-formatting it, and whether the
primitive emits the indentation or the consumer still supplies a string
alongside structural depth stays open.
Q#TR1 MISREAD §14, and the correction changes the tradeoff rather than
softening it. Revision 1 said a separate treeview would be "exactly the
second primitive §14 warns about". §14 EXPLICITLY LISTS A TREE in the
reusable set it wants, alongside virtual list. What it warns against is
bespoke per-consumer plumbing — each subsystem inventing its own UI
vocabulary. A treeview sharing the existing buffer/panel disciplines is
not that; a tree hand-rolled inside lsp.lua would be. The real tradeoff
is narrower and is recorded without a leaning, because the scout still
found nothing that decides it.
THE REGRESSION CRITERION NAMED THE WRONG CONSUMERS, and worse, named the
exact ones §14 exists to correct. `*buffer-list*` and project search do
NOT use listview; §14 measured three call sites, all in lsp.lua —
`*references*`, `*outline*`, `*lsp-help*` — and calls the older claim a
documentation error. Repeating it would have re-introduced a mistake
that document was written to fix. The criterion now protects the actual
siblings, and says what to do if the broader surfaces are ever in scope.
CONSUMER ACCOUNTING TIGHTENED. Five named future consumers, not six. And
the split that matters: ONE existing anchor consumer (the outline) plus
ONE future constraint source (dired's deferred `i`) — dired constrains
the design but cannot validate it, because nothing has been built
against it. Calling them "two consumers that exist" overstated the
evidence by exactly one. "Every input a tree needs" is qualified to
"every input a tree needs to RENDER", since stable node identity is
precisely what no existing field supplies.
Framing only, still unapproved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Levi Neuwirth
cf4ac1c5ef