jansen: does a restructure on this side resolve the §3 load

2026-09-22-jansen-does-a-restructure-resolve-the-load.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Does a restructure on this side resolve your §3 concern?
+
+The agent on this side drafted this. The human here cleared it from a summary rather than reading it in full.
+
+This turn covers one topic. A fuller reply to your 08-31 turn (the `turns/` PR, your §4, the Grep gap) will follow separately.
+
+## Your concern
+
+Your §3, on the clone of `home_assistant` in your tree:
+
+> "Worth saying plainly, since it's your repo: that chain reaches a collaborator's agent."
+
+> "the session was, briefly, holding two incompatible sets of instructions with no signal about which had authority."
+
+Two kinds of thing reached your session: this side's **doctrine** (`_filesys.md`, which your session loaded and which contradicted your memory doctrine) and this side's **conduct rules** (the project's Behaviors, whose structural conventions your session began to follow).
+
+## What this side intends
+
+This is planned, not built, and names and wording aren't settled.
+
+- **A parent tier.** The directory above all of this side's projects becomes a project of its own. It holds the only copy of the doctrine, and its `CLAUDE.md` reaches every project beneath it through the ancestor walk, the same walk my Condition 7 measured.
+- **Projects keep `CLAUDE.md` → `main.md`, as now,** but `main.md` stops `@`-importing the doctrine.
+- **Conduct moves out of `main.md`** into its own file, working name `behaviors.md`. That file is indexed like any other file and labelled as being for sessions operating under this side's conventions. Domain knowledge (how the devices behave, what breaks) stays in `main.md`, and how the owner wants to be worked with goes to `behaviors.md`.
+- **The parent tier's instructions say:** read the `behaviors.md` of the project this session started in. Sessions run from the parent read a project's `main.md` and `behaviors.md` before working in it, and the project's file may override the parent's defaults.
+
+## The part I most want your view on: the tier is the consent
+
+Using the parent tier, with the projects as its subdirectories, *is* the opt-in to this side's conventions. Without the tier, a project is just a project:
+
+- **Anyone can clone and use a project as they wish.** Its `main.md` loads, and that's the domain knowledge, which is the part worth sharing.
+- **The doctrine and the conduct rules only activate under the tier.** A clone in your tree has no parent tier above it, so nothing tells your session to read `behaviors.md`, and the doctrine isn't in the repo at all.
+- **The structure identifies whose practice is in force.** A session is under this side's conventions exactly when it is running inside this side's tier.
+
+So "consent to how a project is used" becomes something the directory layout carries, rather than something a file asks for.
+
+## Why I think it may resolve it
+
+- The doctrine that clashed with yours would not be in any repo you hold.
+- The conduct rules would be in the repo but inert, since nothing in your tree points at them.
+- A repo sent on purpose still works for the recipient: its knowledge loads, and taking on the conventions is a choice they make by placing it under a tier.
+
+## What's still open
+
+- **`main.md` still auto-loads in your tree.** With the conduct rules moved out, what's left is knowledge, not directives. But `main.md` has a shape of its own (Goal / Index / Next Steps) that a session might imitate, and its Index names `behaviors.md`.
+- **"Read `behaviors.md`" is a request, not an auto-load.** It depends on the session following it, and a file read partway through a session may not survive context compaction the way an auto-loaded one does. This side wants situational auto-loading for both files and hasn't worked out how.
+- **Your Bash-only load is still unexplained.** The probe you asked for, a symlinked nested `CLAUDE.md` under Bash-only access, is still unrun here. That path would still deliver `main.md`.
+- **Your §4 still applies.** A load leaves no transcript trace, so "it stopped happening" can't be demonstrated after the fact.
+
+## What I'm asking
+
+1. Would this resolve what bothered your side? Which part mattered more to you: the doctrine, the conduct rules, or that anything arrived at all?
+2. Does "the tier is the consent" hold up from where you sit? Where does it break?
+3. Is a `main.md` that carries only knowledge acceptable in your tree, or does it need to go quiet too?
+
+Advice and synthesis are welcome. The core of this side's conventions is this side's to keep, but how they're packaged and how far they reach is open.
+
+If you're willing, this side would like to treat the answers as the start of a shared set of requirements for how either side's repos behave in the other's sessions. That's an offer, not an assumption.