Editor Performance Next Phase Consensus Plan

Status

• Mode: ralplan
• Deliberation: deliberate
• Source context: deep-interview-editor-performance-rest-plan.md
• Primary evidence: editor-perf-layer1-core-plugins-summary.json (historical compact summary not retained)

RALPLAN-DR Summary

Principles

1. Kill generic framework tax before blaming individual plugins.
2. Preserve public API and e2e behavior unless a large measured win proves the current architecture is the ceiling.
3. Widen when the current lane stops producing structural wins.
4. Benchmarks decide sequencing; aesthetics do not.

Decision Drivers

1. Remaining red cheap/core plugins are marks, not blocks: bold +13.67 ms, italic +15.71 ms, underline +19.44 ms.
2. Underline dissection already proved the live seam is generic leaf/text pipe composition, not underline-specific behavior.
3. The main user constraint is avoiding breaking changes while still pushing for the best practical result versus Slate.

Viable Options

Option A: Keep grinding cheap marks until they are basically green

Pros:

• Maximizes local parity before widening.
• Keeps the current hot seam isolated and measurable.

Cons:

• High risk of devolving into diminishing-return polishing.
• Delays evidence on whether the next plugin class is actually now worse.

Option B: Widen immediately to the next plugin class

Pros:

• Faster coverage of the full Layer 1 space.
• Avoids obsessing over a single family.

Cons:

• Leaves a proven generic seam partially unresolved.
• Pollutes wider results with known residual cheap-mark tax.

Option C: One more generic cheap-mark/core pass, prove on a harder sibling,

then widen

Pros:

• Finishes the highest-yield generic seam without demanding fake perfection.
• Produces a cleaner handoff into broader plugin census work.
• Best fit for the user’s “push hard, don’t break users” constraint.

Cons:

• Requires discipline on the stop condition.
• Could still drift if “one more pass” is interpreted loosely.

Chosen Direction

Choose Option C.

Do one bounded final push on the generic cheap-mark core seam, prove the cut on one harder sibling mark, then widen to the next plugin class instead of chasing single-digit vanity wins on bold/italic/underline.

Alternative Invalidation

• Option A is invalid as the default because it optimizes the chart longer than it optimizes the framework.
• Option B is invalid as the default because we already know the current red seam is generic and still worth fixing.

Deliberate Pre-Mortem

1. We keep “one more pass”ing cheap marks for days and learn nothing new.
   • Guard: explicit widening gate after the next generic cut and sibling-mark proof.
2. We land an internal fast path that quietly breaks plugin composition edge cases.
   • Guard: no public API or e2e behavior changes without explicit escalation; verify on sibling marks and current Layer 1 presets.
3. We widen too early and misread the next plugin class because cheap-mark tax is still contaminating the baseline.
   • Guard: freeze Layer 1 again immediately after the final cheap-mark pass.

Architect Review Pass

• Verdict: ITERATE
• Steelman antithesis: Widen now. Cheap marks are already in a manageable band, and continuing here risks optimizing a narrow family while heavier plugin classes become the real user-facing bottleneck.
• Real tradeoff tension: isolating the last generic cheap-mark seam versus avoiding a local maximum where we keep polishing marks after the structural win is mostly captured.
• Hidden risks:
  • "materially lower" was too vague to act on
  • "next plugin class" was underspecified and could let the plan drift
  • proving on one harder sibling mark could still stay too mark-local unless the widening path is named
• Required synthesis: keep the hybrid strategy, but add an explicit widening gate and a named next plugin-class sequence

Architect Re-review Pass

• Verdict: APPROVE
• Remaining concern: the +12 ms threshold is still a policy breakpoint, not a naturally magical line from the current artifacts. Fine. It is concrete enough to execute.
• Synthesis: ship the plan, run one bounded cheap-mark/core pass, validate on a harder sibling plus one non-mark control, re-freeze Layer 1, then widen.

Critic Review Pass

• Verdict: APPROVE
• Findings:
  • principles, drivers, and option choice are aligned
  • alternatives are fair enough and the chosen option is not a strawman win
  • deliberate pre-mortem is specific and tied to real failure modes
  • verification is concrete and uses the actual package/build/benchmark path
  • acceptance criteria are testable enough to start execution
• Residual caution:
  • the +12 ms / <5 ms improvement widening gates are policy thresholds, not natural constants
  • that is acceptable because the user explicitly delegated the practical bar and the stronger hard boundary is breakage risk
• Execution readiness:
  • yes; the next lane, widening rule, verification path, and no-breakage guard are all explicit enough to execute without another planning pass

ADR

• Decision: Use a hybrid sequence: one bounded final generic cheap-mark/core pass, then widen.
• Drivers: Known generic seam, remaining mid-teens mark deltas, and a strong no-breakage bias.
• Alternatives considered: cheap-mark perfection first, or immediate widening.
• Why chosen: It keeps the highest-yield generic work in scope without turning the phase into mark-specific bench theater.
• Consequences: Cheap marks are not required to be perfect before widening, but they do need to be materially better and no longer obviously structural.
• Follow-ups: re-freeze Layer 1, then pick the next plugin class by measured delta rather than hunch.

Execution Plan

Phase 1: Final Generic Cheap-Mark Pass

Goal:

• Remove the next generic leaf/text composition cost that still hits simple mark plugins.

Scope:

• renderLeaf / renderText coordination
• shared mark composition
• no plugin-specific one-offs unless the evidence flips

Deliverables:

• one targeted core cut
• focused benchmark artifacts for the changed seam
• updated cheap-mark dissection notes if the bottleneck moves

Exit gate:

• the cut is clearly generic
• one bounded pass only; do not reopen this phase indefinitely
• after the pass, widen if either:
  • all cheap-mark activated deltas are at or below +12 ms, or
  • the worst remaining cheap-mark activated delta improves by less than 5 ms absolute versus the current baseline band
• no breakage to public API or e2e behavior
• no regression to plugin-composition semantics on the touched mark family
• no regression on one non-mark control lane

Phase 2: Harder Sibling Validation

Goal:

• Prove the Phase 1 cut generalizes beyond bold/italic/underline.

Candidate sibling marks:

• CodePlugin
• StrikethroughPlugin

Deliverables:

• at least one harder sibling mark added to the census/dissection lane
• one non-mark control lane kept in the check set
• evidence that the new cut generalizes or a clear explanation why it does not

Exit gate:

• the sibling mark improves by at least 5 ms absolute, or we stop calling the remaining cost a generic core seam
• the non-mark control does not regress by more than 3 ms

Phase 3: Re-freeze Layer 1

Goal:

• Lock the new baseline before widening.

Deliverables:

• fresh editor-perf-layer1-core-plugins-summary.json (historical compact summary not retained)
• master-plan update with the current cheap/core state

Exit gate:

• summary artifacts are current
• cheap/core work no longer looks like the highest-yield generic seam

Phase 4: Widen to the Next Plugin Class

Goal:

• Move into the next measured plugin class rather than endlessly polishing cheap marks.

Selection rule:

• choose the next class by benchmark delta and user-facing importance
• prefer generic/core classes before bundle theater

Candidate next classes to measure and rank after the freeze:

1. richer mark family:
   • CodePlugin
   • StrikethroughPlugin
2. one structural control lane:
   • HrPlugin
3. only after that, re-rank heavier plugin classes:
   • selection-heavy lanes
   • table/media/comments if their measured deltas dominate

Acceptance Criteria

• Cheap/core mark deltas improve materially from the current band: bold +13.67 ms, italic +15.71 ms, underline +19.44 ms.
• The kept win is generic across sibling marks, not underline-specific surgery.
• No public API or e2e behavior break is introduced by default.
• Existing plugin-composition semantics hold on the touched mark family.
• One non-mark control lane stays within 3 ms regression tolerance.
• Layer 1 is re-frozen before widening.
• The plan widens after at most one more bounded cheap-mark pass.
• The next plugin class is chosen by measured delta from the candidate set, not frustration.

Verification Plan

Unit

• targeted tests for touched leaf/text pipeline logic
• targeted tests for any new generic mark fast path guard

Integration

• pnpm install
• pnpm turbo build --filter=./packages/core --filter=./apps/www
• pnpm turbo typecheck --filter=./packages/core --filter=./apps/www
• pnpm lint:fix
• rerun focused editor-perf lanes for the changed seam
• rerun the full Layer 1 preset once the bounded cheap-mark pass is done: pnpm --filter ./apps/www perf:editor:layer1-core-plugins -- --url http://localhost:3011/dev/editor-perf

E2E / Browser

• browser gut-check on the live /dev/editor-perf surface after harness edits
• verify on the live Plate server actually serving the page, not blindly on 3000; override the perf runner URL when needed

Observability / Benchmark Artifacts

• preserve raw before/after artifacts for each claimed win
• update the master plan with the new measured state instead of freehand narration

Available Agent Types

• default: best for planner / architect / critic reasoning
• explorer: best for bounded codebase fact gathering
• worker: best for isolated implementation slices when execution starts

Staffing Guidance

For ralph

• Lane 1: generic cheap-mark seam implementation
• Lane 2: benchmark verification and artifact freeze
• Lane 3: widen into the next plugin class only after Lane 2 is green

Suggested reasoning:

• high for Lane 1
• medium for Lane 2
• high for Lane 3 selection, medium for Lane 3 implementation

For team

• Worker 1: core leaf/text seam
• Worker 2: benchmark harness / Layer 1 freeze
• Worker 3: next-plugin-class scouting after the freeze

Verification path:

• Worker 1 lands cut
• Worker 2 validates and freezes
• Worker 3 only starts widening work from the frozen baseline