# Check repeated actions against a declared invariant

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: An external toy acknowledgement action adds an obligation ID to a set and always appends an attempt to the journal. Two attempts acknowledge the same obligation A.

## Decision

After both attempts the acknowledgement set should be {A}, with cardinality one, while the attempt journal can contain two records. Test the declared effect separately from the history volume.

## Owned work

- Declare the repeatable effect
  - Owner role: Model owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Acknowledgements use unique obligation IDs; attempts remain append-only history.
- Replay the same identified action
  - Owner role: Rehearsal owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Both attempts target A, not two different obligations.
- Check effects and logs separately
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Cardinality remains one and both attempts remain visible.

## Workflow

1. Declare the repeatable effect. Check: Acknowledgements use unique obligation IDs; attempts remain append-only history.
2. Replay the same identified action. Check: Both attempts target A, not two different obligations.
3. Check effects and logs separately. Check: Cardinality remains one and both attempts remain visible.

## Judgment

No native API, deduplication mechanism or repeat-submission protection is claimed.


## Filled manual planning note

After both attempts the acknowledgement set should be {A}, with cardinality one, while the attempt journal can contain two records. Test the declared effect separately from the history volume. Set insertion of the same ID twice leaves one unique element. Journal append runs twice and records two attempts by design. Idempotence here concerns the acknowledgement effect, not byte-identical logs. No native API, deduplication mechanism or repeat-submission protection is claimed.


## Workflow questions

### Should the second journal row be deleted?

No. The supplied contract records both attempts; extra history is not an extra acknowledged obligation.

### Does this prove a real endpoint is idempotent?

No. It checks a toy effect contract; persistence, failures and concurrent behavior need real evidence.

## Product connection

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Attempt | Set before | Set after | Cumulative journal records
--- | --- | --- | ---
First ACK A | {} | {A} | 1
Second ACK A | {A} | {A} | 2

### Reasoning

Set insertion of the same ID twice leaves one unique element. Journal append runs twice and records two attempts by design. Idempotence here concerns the acknowledgement effect, not byte-identical logs.

### Bounded result

After both attempts the acknowledgement set should be {A}, with cardinality one, while the attempt journal can contain two records. Test the declared effect separately from the history volume.

### Distinct decision

The artifact tests a repeated effect invariant while preserving allowed attempt-history differences.

### Limits

No native API, deduplication mechanism or repeat-submission protection is claimed.

### Definitions and method context

- NIST: state-based and event-sequence testing context — https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/automated-combinatorial-testing-for-software — General context for state-based and event-sequence testing. All graphs, guards, fixtures and recovery contracts here are original toy definitions; the source does not certify their completeness or product behavior.