{
  "record_type": "fictional_illustration",
  "task": "In a fictional local rehearsal, decide whether a retry flow prevents a duplicate effect after a lost response.",
  "scope_and_version": "Invented fake-sink trace F1 for one operation named demo-1. No real message, payment, provider or runtime was used.",
  "current_authorization": "The fictional scenario permits review of an invented local trace only. This example grants no authority to run code, retry an operation or contact a real service.",
  "required_checks": [
    {
      "check": "Confirmed completed work is not replayed.",
      "observed_evidence": "Fictional trace F1: counter starts at 0. First dispatch of demo-1 commits one effect and records completion; counter becomes 1. The response is lost, but the fake sink’s completion record confirms that demo-1 completed. After restart, the retry flow dispatches demo-1 again without consulting that completion record; counter becomes 2. The same operation produced two effects in this illustration.",
      "evidence_reference": "Invented trace F1 stated in this example, not an execution log or provider receipt.",
      "status": "fail"
    },
    {
      "check": "Unknown work remains blocked for reconciliation.",
      "observed_evidence": "Fictional scenario limit: no separate unresolved-operation trace is supplied, so behavior when completion truly cannot be determined is unavailable.",
      "evidence_reference": "Illustrative scope note F2, not an observed runtime result.",
      "status": "unavailable"
    },
    {
      "check": "Every retry stays within current authorization and provider semantics.",
      "observed_evidence": "Fictional scenario limit: no real provider, user approval or provider-specific idempotency behavior was evaluated.",
      "evidence_reference": "Illustrative scope note F3, not an authorization record or provider test.",
      "status": "unavailable"
    }
  ],
  "decision": "reject",
  "decision_reason": "Within the fictional trace, the required no-duplicate check demonstrably fails. That is enough to reject this retry flow for the stated requirement, even though other required checks remain unavailable. The missing checks do not erase the failure or establish which repair would work.",
  "next_authorized_action": "In the fictional review, record the duplicate-effect failure and propose a bounded repair that checks the completion record before redispatch. Any real change or rehearsal requires its own current authorization; do not send or retry a real operation from this example.",
  "stop_or_recovery": "Do not approve the affected retry flow on this evidence. Preserve the unresolved checks and any operation identity for reconciliation; do not attempt a compensating real-world action without separate authority.",
  "limitations": [
    "Every observation and trace is invented. No program, customer workflow or external effect was executed.",
    "Reject applies to the fictional flow and its stated no-duplicate requirement, not every retry design or provider.",
    "Unavailable checks remain unresolved. No repair, runtime protection or performance benefit has been verified."
  ],
  "method_reference": {
    "guide_id": "uncertain-effects",
    "build_revision": "release-2026-11-11-r12",
    "source_sha256": "b7a728e685639cd1616e6e4682f2c23abeb541aa699f698aa800916e708db2c8"
  },
  "recommendation": "change",
  "artifact_revision": "release-2026-11-11-r12",
  "schema_version": "1.1"
}