Research limitations and implementation risks
Representational limits
Rendered pixels do not determine a unique layout program. Source-backed observations and inferred properties therefore require distinct provenance. The reconstruction experiment can test whether an inferred document supports specified edits or held-out viewports; it cannot prove recovery of unique original source. The reconstruction synthesis provides the relevant source records and evaluation contract.
Behavior portability is limited to declared operations and capabilities. Arbitrary JavaScript, Swift or Dart application behavior is outside the current model. Native controls, font substitution and rendering environments also require separate fidelity judgments. These limits are recorded in the adapter inventory and text conformance research.
Resource preservation has two independent requirements: exact bytes and authorized use. A valid digest or accepted font header establishes neither redistribution permission nor decoder safety. Capture can expose private data; the collection, export, retention and training policies are separate inputs. The applicable implementation limits are defined in security and the resource and reconstruction chapter.
Evidence and adoption risks
Generated round trips can preserve a shared exporter/importer mistake. Independent expected values, separate implementations and externally authored fixtures address different parts of this risk. None is replaced by increasing the generated case count. Research methods describe the distinction.
Visual similarity can conceal loss of structure, text, accessibility or editability. Reconstruction evaluation therefore reports those properties separately. Raw model probabilities remain uncalibrated until measured against held-out outcomes; they cannot promote inferred values to source evidence. See confidence calibration.
A larger semantic core requires more adapter mappings and conformance cases. The project has not measured how this cost affects adoption. The response is to delimit profiles and measure implementation effort, rather than infer an adoption outcome from the complexity of IFC or STEP. External implementer and workflow evidence is required by the standards roadmap.
Implementation boundaries
| Boundary | Current evidence | Required continuation |
|---|---|---|
| Native editor forks | Reviewed Xilem and ui-events revisions, dependency traces and local semantic/render trials | Repeat host graphics checks for fork updates; establish parity before toolkit replacement |
| File output | Staged single-file replacement and injected-write failure tests | Separate multi-file transaction and concurrent-writer requirements if the workflow needs them |
| Release distribution | Unsigned source-built installation and package smoke tests | Platform signing and notarisation where required for the distribution channel |
| Portable resources | Named package, PNG and OpenType fixtures with independent local oracle comparisons | Hosted platform results, broader media matrices and external reproduction |
| Capture | A pinned loopback browser fixture and bounded capture contracts | Licensed real-page evaluation, additional hosts and state/resource combinations |
| Reconstruction | Typed proposals, synthetic metric tests and corpus-integrity checks | Executed OCR/model baselines, held-out accuracy and useful edit outcomes |
The fork evidence and alternatives are documented in the editor fork review. File-output documentation states permission, symlink, hard-link and durability limits. Resource and capture continuations are enumerated in the experiment registry.
Architecture revision criteria
The source-edit design requires revision if common edits within a declared profile repeatedly require regeneration of unrelated source. Opaque preservation requires revision if supported neighboring edits discard unknown payloads. The specification requires revision if an independent implementation cannot derive profile behavior from its requirements and fixtures without consulting Rust internals. Each failure should produce a reduced case and a scoped decision, rather than a compatibility exception without a semantic contract.
Reconstruction scope should narrow if gains in pixel similarity reduce structural or edit-task quality, if confidence does not support useful risk/coverage tradeoffs, or if adaptation fails to outperform the untuned baseline under the same held-out data and budget. These are proposed decision criteria; current synthetic results do not resolve them.