#!RFC-AI/2;id=10;draft=4;v=0.4.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=82dbffc4dd3c1e91130242003f55fc211bf1fc73f997b58af9d2a863f837528e
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 10 — CLOUD-AUTHORITATIVE DIRECT EDITING AND NO STAGING
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Keep one trustworthy source of record. A corporate worker should directly correct the authorized canonical file through the designated StorageInterface, rather than replacing real work with alternative staging, duplicate masters or merely proposed changes.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Recover the canonical file identity and relevant current objectives, identify the intended real result, make only authorized changes, and rely on the storage interface to verify the committed object. Preservation and rollback evidence are separate from active content.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: StorageInterface, RFC-AI 9 and 38. Investigate the complete relevant context before deciding what the assignment means (see RFC-AI 11). A competent worker may discover, invent and improve the necessary methods during implementation; this guiding AI RFC is not required to repeat low-level APIs, algorithms or technology choices. Previous and legacy systems are research evidence only, never an implementation of this draft.

4. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Use independent DAVG as described in RFC-AI 22 to challenge whether the eventual real-world result meets the objective, not whether the AI RFC looks like a traditional API specification. A missing prerequisite creates an active cross-worker recovery obligation through the worker coordination Interface, not a reason to abandon the task (RFC-AI 20 and 31). Report only verified effects and preserve lessons without reintroducing old operational mistakes.

5. DESIGN CUSTODY
Original subject-specific intended contract: One canonical cloud Drive object per framework resource; direct edits by file ID and revision; no rollout, staging, shadow system, duplicate project, or hidden machine master; preservation is rollback evidence only; verify provider readback.
Implementation tasks, legacy-derived candidate methods, proposed data schemas, tests and open engineering questions are kept with this draft's append-only objectives.txt or the responsible Interface/Standard. This RFC has NOT been implemented; it does not approve a deployment or create a new CEO release gate. Rewritten 2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z.


## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION
Historical context: Local edits, sync caching and cloud upload progress were sometimes treated as successful durable provider commits; Drive and machine views disagreed.
Historical reports have mixed evidence quality; verify primary facts before adopting a claimed root cause. Preserve source provenance and do NOT operationalize retired legacy policies as current RFC authority.

## MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — CEO-DIRECTED PROPOSED FUTURE SYSTEM
MUST-10-01: MUST edit the authorized canonical target directly via StorageInterface. 'Direct' does not mean bypassing its safe transaction logic.
MUST-10-02: MUST never treat local file existence, temporary cache or transport acknowledgement as provider-level verified committed content.
MUST-10-03: MUST preserve the responsible Interface's readback, concurrency, idempotency and authorized rollback protections without demanding duplicate methods in this AI RFC.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Entire RFC-AI system NOT IMPLEMENTED. Historical systems are independent past research material; no test or existing service may be counted as implementing this RFC-AI.

## DESIGN AMENDMENT 2026-11-03 — NO STAGING VERSUS SAFE RECOVERY
REQ-AI-10-CANON-001: Direct editing means one governing canonical destination/ID, not abandoning backups or temporary atomic-write buffers that cannot become competing source authorities. An authenticated preservation copy MAY be retained solely for rollback with source identity and custody recorded; duplicate active masters and unverified ID substitutions MUST NOT be created.
REQ-AI-10-CANON-002: If native provider APIs reject a write, the worker MUST distinguish a technical connector format mismatch from an explicit safety/authorization denial. The latter MUST NOT be bypassed via alternate tool or account; preserve discrepancy and request only genuinely indispensable authorized intervention.