Preserve a conservative view design candidate

[softmarshmallow]

Summary

• preserve one concrete, conservative view design bundle downstream of the neutral problem-space study
• keep the candidate explicitly non-normative and separate from any language proposal or implementation authorization
• make its assumptions, proof obligations, compatibility surface, and unresolved review questions falsifiable

Change classification

• Language-contract-preserving implementation, tooling, documentation, tests, or refactor
• Isolated, opt-in, non-normative pre-1.0 experiment or prototype
• Committee-sponsored RFD draft, review revision, or decision record
• Implementation or specification synchronization authorized by an accepted RFD
• Non-normative working-group study or meeting record
• Governance or contribution-process change

Language-change gate

• Related issue: none yet; this draft preserves a review candidate and does not ask to adopt it as a language problem, RFD, supported contract, or implementation target.
• Language-contract preservation: current Spock behavior remains defined by the v0 specification. This PR changes no syntax, semantics, compiler/runtime behavior, default validation, or normative specification.

Before and after

Before: the neutral view problem-space study contained an evaluation harness, but no concrete candidate bundle was persisted for adversarial review.

After: one deliberately conservative candidate is available to falsify, split, refine, or reject without giving it language authority.

Scope and tradeoffs

The candidate selects a SQL-grounded derived-relation identity, explicit public shape, separate authorization, and narrowly provable field update-through behavior. It intentionally excludes many broader forms. Formal review has not started; a governing issue should be opened before this moves beyond evidence preservation.

Verification

• git diff --check

• verified all local document links and targets

• checked the candidate against the tracked neutral problem-space study and v0 specification boundary

• reviewed the index wording so it does not imply formal review has begun

• I read and followed CONTRIBUTING.md.

• I added or updated focused tests, or explained why no test applies.

• I updated user-facing documentation and the normative specification when authorized behavior changed.

• I kept unrelated changes out of this PR.

• If this is experimental, I prominently marked it and kept it isolated from default behavior, the normative specification, and conformance expectations.

• I have not presented a working-group study or community preference as an accepted language decision.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
spock	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 24, 2026 5:40am

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 941015f5-b2a6-4f15-9742-bb2c7e0b9d13

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch feature/view-design-candidate-study

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}