bbchops/transcription
1
0
Fork 0
generated from john/python-template
Code Issues 4 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Export V4.6 review log and mark the architecture review as historical

Browse Source 
Preserves the traceability the V4.7 plan depends on ahead of starting
implementation in a fresh session. Documentation only.

The V4.6 review log was maintained in a session-scoped database and cited
by number throughout the V4.6, V4.7, and V4.8 planning documents as
"review log [N]". Those citations were unresolvable outside the session
that produced them. The log is now exported verbatim to
docs/ver4.6/review_log_v4_6.md: 70 entries, of which 8 remain open, each
mapped to its disposition (V4.7 phase, accepted risk, or operator
judgement).

The architecture review report is retained rather than deleted. It is the
canonical registry of the 32 finding IDs cited across six documents, so
removing it would orphan every CRIT/HIGH/MED/LOW reference in the planning
corpus. Instead it now carries a status banner marking it as a pre-V4.6
snapshot, warning that its paths, line numbers, and baseline metrics are
stale, recording that all 32 findings were dispositioned in V4.6 with only
MED-14 and HIGH-06 carrying into V4.7, and noting the two recommendations
later revised on evidence - the cancelled services/artifacts.py extraction
and the assumption that job_source and execution_attempt were
complementary rather than duplicated.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
zoltan57
2026-08-18 09:09:26 -05:00
co-authored by Copilot App
parent 4488280097
commit 22d47574f2
4 changed files with 508 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/architecture_code_review_2026-08-17.md
+17
View File
@@ -1,5 +1,22 @@
# Architecture & Code Review Report
> ## Status: Historical Snapshot - Superseded
>
> **This document describes the codebase as it stood on 2026-08-17, before the V4.6 remediation release.** It is retained because it is the canonical registry of the finding IDs (`CRIT-01`, `HIGH-06`, `MED-14`, and so on) cited throughout the V4.6, V4.7, and V4.8 planning documents. Six documents reference it; deleting it would orphan all 32 finding IDs.
>
> **Do not read it as a description of current state.** Every file path, line number, and metric below is pre-V4.6 and most are now wrong. The baseline figures in particular are stale: `ruff check` is clean, `ty check` reports 0 diagnostics, and the suite is at 292 passed / 4 skipped.
>
> **Disposition of all 32 findings:**
>
> | Status | Findings |
> | :--- | :--- |
> | Addressed in V4.6 | All 32 were dispositioned - fixed, consciously accepted, or explicitly deferred. See [V4.6 scope boundary](ver4.6/scope_boundary_v4_6.md) and [V4.6 implementation plan](ver4.6/implementation_plan_v4_6.md). |
> | Carried into V4.7 | `MED-14` (SourceService decomposition) and `HIGH-06` (CI enforcement of the quality gate). See [V4.7 scope boundary](ver4.7/scope_boundary_v4_7.md). |
>
> **Where later thinking supersedes this report:** the [V4.6 review log](ver4.6/review_log_v4_6.md) records the decisions, deviations, and revisions made during implementation. Where this report and a committed planning document disagree, **the planning document wins**.
>
> Two recommendations here were later revised on evidence. `MED-14` proposed extracting a `services/artifacts.py`; V4.7 cancels that in favour of deleting the `ProcessingArtifact` subsystem outright. The report also treats `job_source` and `execution_attempt` as complementary; measurement showed their evidence columns are fully duplicated.
**Repository Target:** `C:\GitHub\transcription\`
**Target Stack:** Python 3.12+ | FastAPI | NiceGUI | SQLModel/SQLAlchemy | Pydantic V2 | asyncio | OpenRouter
**Review Date:** 2026-08-17