GQ-004 · Best Software Primitive

For a named software primitive, which implementation is best for the stated context, and is it safe and valuable to reuse, vendor, or learn from?

SISO Open Source Foundation

experimental

scoped

Not declared

Define the minimum public-safe question program before scheduling research.

gls:release:037ad734-0cc3-4afb-9dc0-c2b55f1dcee7 · registry-seed-2026-08-01

Not released — the selected Release has no public answer artifact.

corpus

Whether to build, vendor, reuse, or learn from an existing implementation of a named primitive.

Every candidate carries an explicit reason NOT to choose it, as the answer_shape requires — a shortlist without stated downsides is advocacy, not evaluation. · The rights gate is applied and recorded per candidate before any code is vendored or reused, not after. · Interface fit is assessed against the named context's actual call sites, not against the candidate's own documentation. · Adoption cost includes the cost of removing the candidate later, not only of adding it.

A shortlist recommendation is adopted and the stated adoption cost is exceeded by more than 2x, meaning the estimate was not grounded. · Two candidates receive the same evidence grade on materially different amounts of evidence, showing the grade encodes confidence rather than evidence. · The 'best' choice changes when the context is restated slightly, indicating the ranking tracked the phrasing rather than the requirement. · A rights determination made here is later contradicted by the licence text, which would mean the gate is decorative.

No primitive has been evaluated yet. This contract defines what an answer would have to satisfy; it does not report findings. · No rights-gate procedure has been exercised end to end on a real candidate, so its cost and failure modes are unknown.

A candidate changes licence, which can invalidate a rights determination without any code changing. · A candidate is archived or loses maintenance, changing adoption cost without changing interface fit. · The named context's call sites change, which is what interface fit was assessed against.

Foundry capability category selected by the requested primitive · implementation and interface evidence · maintenance, adoption, security, and license evidence · counter-examples across language and scale

A context-specific ranked shortlist with interface fit, evidence grade, rights gate, adoption cost, and explicit reasons not to choose each candidate.

Re-answer when the category gains a high-signal implementation, a selected project materially changes, or security and rights evidence changes.

public metadata only