# Work OS V2 - Design Rationale

Date: August 9, 2026
Selected direction: Switchboard structure with Causal Loom focus behavior

## The decision

Build Work OS as one continuous causal field:

`consequence -> proof -> your word -> machine work -> outcome -> receipt`

This is the product described by the authoritative handoff. The earlier Decision
Studio prototype was useful research, but it was a different product shape. It
treated AI work as a workspace to enter. Work OS must instead feel like the
operator already present inside Nathan's working life.

## Why this shape

The handoff requires three things at once:

1. Dense scanning across many consequential objects.
2. A complete explanation of one selected object's causal story.
3. Stable spatial memory with no pages, tabs, or assistant destination.

Switchboard supplies the stable rows and scanning speed. Causal Loom supplies
the selected six-station line. The combined direction avoids the main weakness
of either direction alone:

- a pure switchboard becomes a spreadsheet with buttons;
- a pure loom makes parallel monitoring too slow;
- a live plot overemphasizes time and weakens direct action.

The selected design keeps the field fixed and expands one complete causal line
inside it. The room never asks Nathan to reconstruct a relationship among a
board, a chat, an activity rail, and a result page.

## Coordination with the tightened V1

V2 treats the tightened V1 instrument as the behavioral baseline, not a visual
template.

Carry forward:

- the command line and parse-before-action contract;
- the dense four-band ledger;
- live briefing, runs, gates, and Notion-backed depth;
- local hero verbs;
- the append-only machine register;
- the one-room and fail-closed rules.

Rework:

- join board, rack, and tape through the selected causal line;
- replace the competing rack with local word and machine stations;
- make mobile preserve word, work, failure, and receipt awareness;
- expose people, Dig coverage, and recovery inside the same drawer grammar.

Do not carry forward:

- V1's exact porcelain palette, token file, or composition;
- split causality that requires mental correlation among regions;
- long-page mobile behavior;
- any honest refusal converted into a pretend control.

This lets the tightened V1 continue improving the real substrate while V2
defines the next interaction and visual constitution over it.

## What Mobbin changed

The focused deep search supported several interaction patterns:

- [Relevance AI task timeline](https://mobbin.com/screens/c1486516-90be-4b17-9bb7-f7d5e3290911)
  showed the value of keeping input, background work, and returned result in one
  durable chronology.
- [Manus completed task](https://mobbin.com/screens/f7cc29b0-b12c-4154-b870-8f1cb4410d5a)
  showed that the artifact should be promoted while factual work history remains
  inspectable.
- [Elicit research run](https://mobbin.com/screens/232b3136-ccbb-42e7-a45c-412ea436f330)
  supported named stages and real unit counts instead of invented percentages.
- [Rox email draft](https://mobbin.com/screens/3d205a5d-5ead-4787-af2c-9b0a36ed2fc7)
  and [Notion Mail composer](https://mobbin.com/screens/c76eb3bd-f70d-4235-baf4-f24c06421205)
  supported editable generated work and an explicit review boundary.
- [ChatGPT saved memories](https://mobbin.com/screens/90a8ee61-150e-4cb3-b3af-8c35a451fc82)
  and [Claude style editing](https://mobbin.com/screens/d7fb1246-8be8-44ed-9b8e-bc5e86fefc7d)
  supported inspectable learned state and direct correction.

Work OS borrows those behaviors but rejects their common geography. It does not
split work into chat, activity drawer, source tab, artifact page, and result
screen. The causal chain stays attached to the object that created the work.

## The signature interaction

The product should be remembered for one move: **follow the line**.

Selecting a consequential object reveals:

1. why it matters now;
2. the exact proof or labeled maybe;
3. Nathan's word, if needed;
4. what the machine is doing;
5. what changed;
6. the receipt and deliberate non-actions.

Nothing else in the room moves. Urgency changes emphasis and contents, not
coordinates.

## Why it is not chat

Chat is useful for unconstrained conversation, but it is a poor primary
representation of durable work:

- important objects lose stable addresses;
- current state is buried in chronology;
- approvals separate from the evidence they authorize;
- outcomes compete with explanatory prose;
- users must remember which response superseded which.

Work OS still accepts plain speech through the line and `say it`. The difference
is that words update a causal object, proposal, judgment, or receipt. They do not
create an endless assistant transcript.

## Why it should feel trustworthy

Trust is designed as inspectable state:

- facts use solid proof treatment;
- maybes use dashed treatment and remain maybes after judgment;
- Nathan's words remain verbatim;
- machine interpretation is a separate record;
- progress uses named stages and completed units;
- rejection remains in the effort map;
- corrections append and strike the prior read;
- requested and actual provider states remain separate;
- unavailable actions explain the missing capability;
- external mail stops at a receipted draft.

The product never uses a toast as proof. A claimed action must change the field,
tape, trace, or receipt.

## The deliberate visual risk

The visual risk is the causal line itself. It changes register as it moves
through proof, judgment, work, and receipt. It is not decoration:

- solid means exact proof;
- dashed means judgment or maybe;
- amber means waiting or promised-and-undone;
- red means consequence, conflict, or named failure;
- ink terminates in a receipt.

Everything around that line remains restrained. The design uses a plotting-table
character: daylight-readable grounds, dark machine registers, compact mono
metadata, and dense sans-serif work content.

## What the prototype proves

The clickable prototype proves that one room can contain:

- eight-plus consequential rows;
- a complete selected causal line;
- option answers and unrestricted words;
- editable effort proposals and live effort maps;
- named rejection, stop, and resume;
- actionable topic archaeology with present state, kept and undone promises,
  coverage, exclusions, and source pointers;
- people court state, person changesets, and local verbs;
- inspectable learned arithmetic and correction;
- capability research and expiring one-shot authority;
- draft review with a two-step draft-only boundary;
- weekly close and append-only reopen;
- five-second append-only recovery for reversible local actions;
- raw traces, receipts, and deliberate non-actions;
- keyboard, dark mode, reduced motion, and mobile depth.

It does not prove production integrations, persistence, identity, or provider
effects. Those must be wired to the existing Work OS substrate without creating
a parallel run or memory system.

## Final design principle

Work OS should reduce the amount of software Nathan must manage. It succeeds
when the room answers five questions immediately:

1. What needs me?
2. Why now?
3. What does the machine know versus think?
4. What is it doing?
5. What actually happened?

Any production addition that makes those answers harder should be rejected,
even if the feature is individually useful.
