FE-1494: Keep Brunch strategy and control records coherent

[lunelson]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Brunch's current strategy, documentation roles, and Linear ownership rules were spread across overlapping records, which made priorities and issue reachability hard to verify. This pull request sits on the monorepo import and gives those records one compact home each: a current-strategy document, an append-only log of material decisions, and explicit locations for documentation, evaluation assets, and tracker facts.

🔗 Related links

• FE-1494: Keep Brunch strategy and control records coherent (internal)
• Parent in this stack: FE-1437 / #9274
• Documentation protocol: libs/@hashintel/brunch-agent/docs/agents/documentation.md
• Current strategy: libs/@hashintel/brunch-agent/docs/control/STEERING.md
• Decision log: libs/@hashintel/brunch-agent/docs/control/STRATEGY-LOG.md

🚫 Blocked by

• FE-1437: Move brunch-agent into hashintel/hash with its history

🔍 What does this change?

Documents that used to live under effort-shaped planning/ and history/ trees now live under role-based paths: current strategy and the obligation ledger under docs/control/, required behavior under docs/specs/, accepted decisions under docs/adr/, observed proof under docs/evidence/, and settled history under docs/archive/. Executable evaluation cases and runners move out of docs into evaluations/. Incoming Petrinaut net files land in docs/inbox/SDCPNs/. Architecture tests now check that those locations, the strategy log's required fields, and Linear project assignment/lifecycle rules stay coherent.

🏗️ Agent notes

Stacked as main → ln/fe-1437-hash-monorepo-import → this branch → ln/fe-1495-typescript-contracts → ln/fe-1480-resolve-decision.

Commits

• 77860d7d05 Add September steering model
• 0e2d21226b Register incoming SDCPN nets
• 8ffbf2d4b3 Correct SDCPN corpus inventory
• d8d026e1a7 Add strategic steering protocol
• 4ebf3d71f5 precedent doc refinements
• de7046a642 Organize Brunch documentation by role
• 53569fda62 Separate evaluation assets from evidence
• e61b9bf611 Reconcile Brunch control surfaces
• fc42e865d2 Consolidate Brunch strategic controls
• a39ed9c73a Resolve Brunch control audit discrepancies

Placement

docs/agents/documentation.md is the authority for the role topology. docs/INDEX.md is updated atomically with the moves. Retired docs/planning/ and docs/history/ paths must not remain live. Linear and local pointers to moved paths are repaired in the same change.

STEERING.md is the one mutable current-strategy document. STRATEGY-LOG.md is append-only rationale for material strategic choices and is distinct from ADRs. SPEC-LEDGER.md remains a separate obligation ledger. docs/agents/steering.md is the operating protocol for when to run a steering pass.

Evaluation split

Executable cases and protocols live under evaluations/ with local AGENTS.md. Immutable run readouts stay under docs/evidence/evaluations/. The core baseline:run script path follows the moved runner.

Tracker and formatting

scripts/linear-project-graph.ts and linear-project-graph.test.ts check assignment and lifecycle behavior for project issues. control-surfaces.test.ts and docs-index.test.ts check the new control documents and index. Brunch Markdown is excluded from oxfmt and markdownlint because agents create and maintain it.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

Brunch packages remain private. No changeset.

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• require changes to docs which are made as part of this PR

Brunch operating, strategy, and index documentation are the change. No Petrinaut user-guide pages are affected.

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

The core baseline:run script path changes; no turbo.json or workspace identity change.

⚠️ Known issues

None beyond the stack parent: this branch is not meant to merge before #9274.

🐾 Next steps

• FE-1495 / #9312 — scoped Oxlint and TypeScript contract ownership
• FE-1480 / #9313 — projection/realization authority boundary and design-convergence order

🛡 What tests cover this?

• packages/core/test/architecture/docs-index.test.ts — index completeness and retired-path absence
• packages/core/test/architecture/control-surfaces.test.ts — STEERING.md / STRATEGY-LOG.md shape
• packages/core/test/architecture/linear-project-graph.test.ts — assignment and lifecycle checks
• packages/core/test/architecture/baseline-runner.test.ts — runner path after the evaluation move
• packages/core/test/architecture/boundaries.test.ts — path updates

❓ How to test this?

1. Run:

   turbo run test:unit --filter @hashintel/brunch-agent

2. Confirm libs/@hashintel/brunch-agent/docs/planning/ and docs/history/ are absent, and that docs/INDEX.md, docs/control/STEERING.md, and docs/control/STRATEGY-LOG.md exist.

3. Optionally run yarn workspace @hashintel/brunch-agent linear:graph if Linear credentials are available.

📹 Demo

Not applicable — documentation, tracker, and architecture-test changes only.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 8:41am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 8:41am
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 8:41am

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 8:41am

[lunelson]

• FE-1507: Move the repertoire into core behind a guarded prompts subpath #9349 : 2 dependent PRs (#9355 , #9381 )
• FE-1431: Build the plugin authoring surface (cycle two) #9348
• FE-1505: Time each interviewer turn by purpose #9347
• FE-1506: Show captures and completion while a panel elicitation runs #9346
• FE-1504: Run the process-model elicitor from the Petrinaut panel on one owned document #9345
• FE-1431: Build the plugin authoring surface #9337
• FE-1406: Audit the harness-teaching lineage and propose the fixed-key plugin contract (ADR-0007) #9327
• FE-1497: Build the controller read path and the SDCPN plugin package #9325
• FE-1404: Run condition 3 as the walking skeleton #9322
• FE-1403: Assemble and test the CPS interview guidance #9321
• FE-1402: Define and rehearse the elicitation completion contract #9320
• FE-1407: Catalogue elicitor failures that published measures miss #9319
• FE-1480: Project and realize a CPS model as a Petrinaut SDCPN #9313
• FE-1495: Prevent Brunch TypeScript contracts from drifting #9312
• FE-1494: Keep Brunch strategy and control records coherent #9311 👈 (View in Graphite)
• FE-1437: Move brunch-agent into hashintel/hash with its history #9274
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.23%. Comparing base (977123e) to head (35b3307).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9311   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.22%   60.23%           
=======================================
  Files        1430     1431    +1     
  Lines      140558   140561    +3     
  Branches     6609     6609           
=======================================
+ Hits        84658    84663    +5     
+ Misses      54823    54821    -2     
  Partials     1077     1077           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	14.66% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.22% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.24% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-config	100.00% <ø> (?)
rust.hash-graph-api	12.08% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authentication	96.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.33% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	46.78% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.98% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.82% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Large documentation and agent-operating-model change that redirects control surfaces and Linear workflow rules; runtime product code is largely untouched, but architecture tests and prune paths must stay aligned with the new topology.

Overview
Reorganizes Brunch context documentation from effort-shaped docs/planning/ and docs/history/ trees into role-based zones (docs/control/, docs/specs/, docs/evidence/, docs/reference/, docs/archive/), with executable evaluation assets living under evaluations/ and immutable run readouts under docs/evidence/evaluations/.

Strategic control is split into one mutable STEERING.md (current objective, proof frontier, gates, beliefs) and an append-only STRATEGY-LOG.md** (material decisions S-001–S-003 for the September review-and-revise proof). **docs/agents/steering.md** defines when to run a steering pass; **arc-close**, **documentation**, and **issue-tracker** protocols are updated to reconcile **STEERING** instead of retired **COORDINATION`, route inbox promotion by role, and gate Linear writes behind explicit approval.

Agent entry changes: AGENTS.md uses trigger-based protocol loading and points at evaluations/AGENTS.md; README and docs/INDEX.md are rewritten to match new paths (including inbox SDCPN nets). prune.py and markdownlint include the evaluations tree and broader Brunch Markdown exclusions so CI and formatting match the new layout.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 35b3307. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing ln/fe-1494-strategic-controls (35b3307) with main (9bd5b54)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (977123e) during the generation of this report, so 9bd5b54 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.377 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$40.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 360 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$12.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$22.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 200 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.098 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.068 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.959 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.892 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.331 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.623 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$39.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 219 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.106 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 175 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.805 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$31.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.048 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$28.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$37.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 185 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$46.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.176 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$83.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 615 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 170 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$270 \mathrm{ms} \pm 943 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.336 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$9.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.137 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$9.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.877 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$9.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.648 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$9.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$9.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$9.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$9.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$9.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$9.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$9.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.322 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1	$$9.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.949 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$9.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.488 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$10.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$9.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.815 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$9.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$10.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$9.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.652 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$10.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$9.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.025 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$7.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.657 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$60.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 601 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$67.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 460 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.362 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$75.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 464 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.242 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$82.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 631 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 528 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$43.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$68.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 434 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$48.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 255 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.513 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$56.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 264 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.219 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 433 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$58.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 352 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.307 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 737 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 630 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$22.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 130 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$468 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.24 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph