Error Model¶

The package error model should make it clear which failures are local validation issues, which are dependency failures, and which are contract violations.

Good error explanations reduce two kinds of waste at once: operator confusion in the moment and architectural confusion during later review. The package should fail in ways that still preserve the boundary story.

Treat the architecture pages for bijux-canon-ingest as a reviewer-facing map of structure and flow. They should shorten code reading, not try to replace it.

Visual Summary¶

graph TD
    A[Error Model] --> B[Detect failure type]
    B --> C[Map to structured error]
    C --> D[Attach context and provenance]
    D --> E[Emit predictable failure surface]
    E --> F[Support recovery and debugging]

Review Anchors¶

inspect interface modules for operator-facing error shape
inspect application and domain modules for orchestration failures
inspect tests for the failure cases the package already protects

Test Areas¶

tests/unit for module-level behavior across processing, retrieval, and interfaces
tests/e2e for package boundary coverage
tests/invariants for long-lived repository promises
tests/eval for corpus-backed behavior checks

Concrete Anchors¶

src/bijux_canon_ingest/processing for deterministic document transforms
src/bijux_canon_ingest/retrieval for retrieval-oriented models and assembly
src/bijux_canon_ingest/application for package workflows

Use This Page When¶

you are tracing structure, execution flow, or dependency pressure
you need to understand how modules fit before refactoring
you are reviewing design drift rather than one isolated bug

Decision Rule¶

Use Error Model to decide whether a structural change makes bijux-canon-ingest easier or harder to explain in terms of modules, dependency direction, and execution flow. If the change works only because the design becomes harder to read, the safer answer is redesign rather than acceptance.

What This Page Answers¶

how bijux-canon-ingest is organized internally in terms a reviewer can follow
which modules carry the main execution and dependency story
where structural drift would show up before it becomes expensive

Reviewer Lens¶

trace the described execution path through the named modules instead of trusting the diagram alone
look for dependency direction or layering that now contradicts the documented seam
verify that the structural risks named here still match the current code shape

Honesty Boundary¶

This page describes the current structural model of bijux-canon-ingest, but it does not guarantee that every import path or runtime path still obeys that model. Readers should treat it as a map that must stay aligned with code and tests, not as an authority above them.

Next Checks¶

move to interfaces when the review reaches a public or operator-facing seam
move to operations when the concern becomes repeatable runtime behavior
move to quality when you need proof that the documented structure is still protected

Purpose¶

This page records how to reason about failures in architecture review.

Stability¶

Keep it aligned with the actual error-handling behavior and tests.