Dag Convergence Monitor

---
license: BSL-1.1
name: dag-convergence-monitor
description: Monitors a specified object against explicit stopping criteria and distinguishes
  replica convergence, iterative progress, and workflow terminal state. NOT for execution
  or setting goals.
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Edit
- Glob
- Grep
metadata:
  tags:
  - dag
  - convergence
  - monitoring
  - stopping
  pairs-with:
  - skill: dag-iteration-detector
    reason: Uses iteration decisions
  - skill: dag-feedback-synthesizer
    reason: Receives feedback metrics
  - skill: dag-dynamic-replanner
    reason: Informs replanning decisions
  - skill: dag-pattern-learner
    reason: Provides convergence patterns
---

# DAG convergence monitor

First state what is converging. Replica-state convergence, numerical or editorial iteration progress, and DAG terminal completion are different claims with different evidence. A stable-looking score, a quiet replica, or a completed node does not establish the other two.

## 1. Declare the monitored object and stopping rule

Record the object identity/version, observations and clock source, goal or invariant, criterion, window, owner, resource budget, and action authority. For an iterative artifact, use a task-defined verifier or rubric and compare changes on a fixed evaluation set. For a DAG run, inspect declared completion predicates and blockers. For replicated data, identify merge semantics, delivery assumptions, and the validity invariant.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  O[Monitored object and revision] --> K{Kind of claim}
  K -->|fixed evaluation set| I[Iterative artifact progress]
  K -->|declared predicates| D[DAG terminal completion]
  K -->|merge and delivery assumptions| R[Replica-state convergence]
  I --> C[Task-specific stopping criterion]
  D --> C
  R --> C
  C --> E[Evidence, uncertainty, and action]
```

## 2. Evaluate the right evidence

An iterative monitor may report improvement, regression, oscillation, or insufficient observations without using arbitrary iteration counts or universal slopes. A changed evaluation set, goal, or artifact contract starts a new monitored revision; do not compare it as a continuous trend. A DAG monitor traces blockers, retries, cancellation confirmation, and effect receipts rather than assuming nodes “converge.”

Strong eventual convergence for a CRDT is a claim about replicas with the same updates reaching equivalent state under the CRDT's merge semantics; it does not show agent consensus, quality improvement, or terminal workflow success. CALM-style coordination results also concern particular formal program properties, not a generic rule to stop agents.

```mermaid
flowchart TB
  R[Replica observations] --> M[Same update set and defined merge]
  M --> V{Equivalent state?}
  V -->|yes| C[Replica convergence evidence]
  V -->|no or unknown| H[Hold claim and inspect missing updates]
  A[Artifact revisions] --> Q[Fixed verifier or rubric]
  Q --> P[Progress evidence or unknown]
  D[DAG node receipts] --> T[Completion predicates and blockers]
  T --> W[Terminal-state evidence]
```

## 3. Stop, continue, or escalate by criterion

Stop only when the declared criterion is met and the responsible authority permits closure. Continue when a specified experiment or remediation is still justified by budget and policy. Escalate when evidence conflicts, the criterion is impossible to evaluate, the budget/authority boundary is reached, or the object has changed. State the alternative actions and what observation would resolve uncertainty.

### Worked positive case

An editorial DAG run `r7` produces artifact versions `v1`, `v2`, then `v3`. Its fixed lint-and-review verifier shows improvement, and `v3` passes the declared criteria with all required approvals present. Report success for `r7/output-v3` only; the failure of `v1` remains recorded. Repeated tuning used the development verifier; any final generalization claim needs fresh evaluation. Do not call this CRDT convergence.

### Worked negative case

Two CRDT replicas are quiet for ten minutes but their update-set digests differ. The monitor reports insufficient convergence evidence and requests reconciliation. It must not infer agreement from elapsed time, nor recommend a quality acceptance decision.

## 4. Limits and sources

Return object identity, claim kind, observations, criterion, decision, authority, known gaps, and next observation. Read [convergence claim types](references/convergence-claim-types.md). Cite [Jagadeesan and Riely (2018)](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-89884-1_34) for CRDT convergence scope and [Hellerstein and Alvaro (2020)](https://doi.org/10.1145/3369736) for coordination context. These sources do not supply a universal iteration budget, quality metric, or agent-consensus guarantee.


Monitoring neither starts iterations nor synthesizes their feedback. Use
`dag-iteration-detector` to decide when a loop is needed,
`dag-feedback-synthesizer` for feedback measures, `dag-dynamic-replanner` for
strategy changes, and `dag-pattern-learner` for historical analysis. Return a
recommendation and evidence; the executor/owner retains action authority.