1c02b25a07
A plan, not a change: what m3.material.io/foundations asks for as of its May 2026
revision, what these 43 screens actually do, and eight phases ordered so that each
one makes the next mechanical rather than judgemental.
**The spec was read, not remembered.** m3.material.io is a client-rendered SPA --
WebFetch returns an empty `<main>` and the tab URLs 404 on direct navigation -- so
the numbers here came out of a real browser session clicking through the tab
controls. That mattered: the May 2026 revision renamed window size classes to
**breakpoints** and there are now five of them rather than three (compact / medium
/ expanded / large / extra-large, at 600 / 840 / 1200 / 1600dp), renamed responsive
design to adaptive design, and published the spacing system as tokens on an 8dp
scale where `space100 = 8dp`. Writing this from memory of older M3 would have
produced a plan against a vocabulary the current spec no longer uses.
**The palette is fine; the call sites are not.** Every `onX`-on-`X` pair in all six
declared schemes clears 4.5:1, the tightest being `onPrimaryContainer` on
`primaryContainer` at 4.61:1 light and 4.56:1 dark. So the generated scheme is not
the problem and this plan does not propose a repalette. What fails is colour
decided locally, seven pairings of it, and the worst is not visible to a reviewer:
Card(colors = CardDefaults.cardColors(containerColor = primaryContainer)) {
ListItem(colors = ListItemDefaults.colors(containerColor = Color.Transparent),
`cardColors(containerColor = ...)` does derive `contentColor = contentColorFor(...)`,
so `LocalContentColor` inside the card is correct. But `ListItem` does not read
`LocalContentColor` -- its headline comes from `ListTokens.ItemLabelTextColor`,
which is `onSurface` -- and the call site overrides only `containerColor`. In the
light scheme `onSurface` and `primaryContainer` are both `#1B1B1B`. That is
**1.00:1**, and it is applied exactly to `proposal.awaitsYou`, so the proposals
waiting on your signature are the ones rendered invisible. `HomeScreen`'s
`titleContentColor = primary` on `containerColor = primaryContainer` is the same
mistake at 1.22:1. Ratios were computed rather than eyeballed; the script is in the
Phase 0 deliverable.
**Twelve colour roles fall through to Material baseline lavender.** `Color.kt`
never assigns `primaryFixed`, `primaryFixedDim`, `onPrimaryFixed`,
`onPrimaryFixedVariant` or the secondary/tertiary equivalents, so
`lightColorScheme()` defaults them to `ColorLightTokens.PrimaryFixed` ->
`PaletteTokens.Primary90` -> `#EADDFF`. Nothing reads them today, which is why it
has never been noticed; the trap springs the first time an expressive component
does. Read out of the pinned `material3-desktop-1.10.0-alpha05-sources.jar` rather
than assumed.
**Four of the six declared schemes are unreachable.** The medium- and high-contrast
variants are written out in full in `Color.kt` -- 78 colour values -- wired into
`lightColorScheme`/`darkColorScheme` in `Theme.kt`, and then never selected:
`TorchTheme` chooses between `darkScheme` and `lightScheme` only. The work to
honour a platform contrast setting is already done and disconnected.
**10dp and 20dp are not the problem they look like.** They are the two dominant
spacing values (132 and 115 uses) and both are *on* the M3 scale, as `space125` and
`space250`. The plan says so rather than proposing a sweep that would change
nothing. What is wrong is that none of the 520 `.dp` literals records whether it is
padding, a gap or a margin -- the three categories the spec gives different rules
to -- so nothing can be adapted per breakpoint later. About 101 are off-scale
(50dp x 53, 15dp x 14, 5dp x 10 and so on), and `Modifier.height(50.dp)` appears 49
times as the same copied spacer above the same copied error message.
**Findings that were measured and then dropped.** `outlineVariant` reads 1.61:1
against surface and `secondaryContainer` 1.65:1, both of which look alarming and
neither of which is a defect: M3's own baseline sits in the same range, and the 3:1
rule the spec gives is for clustered interactive containers, not dividers or tonal
surfaces. `onSurface.copy(alpha = 0.38f)` is the specified disabled opacity and the
spec exempts disabled states from contrast entirely. Reporting these would have
padded the count and cost the reader trust in the rest.
**The rest of the audit, in counts.** 334 string literals in composables against 2
`stringResource` calls, with title case throughout ("Edit Profile", "New Chat") where
the style guide asks for sentence case. Zero `Snackbar` across 26 `Scaffold`s. 16
copies of `Text("Something went wrong")`, none of which offers a retry. 90 of 240
typography reads on `label*` roles, which are for component text, while `display*`
and `headline*` carry 9 uses between them across 43 screens. 33 bare
`Modifier.clickable` with no minimum target, two of them text-height. Two
`BoxWithConstraints` and no window-size handling at all, on a project with a desktop
target whose own entry point already says so in a comment.
**Eight phases, ordered by what each unblocks.** 0 baseline harness, 1 theme,
2 spacing tokens, 3 accessibility floor, 4 content, 5 states and feedback,
6 adaptive layout, 7 motion, 8 guard rails. Tokens come before the call sites that
consume them; the accessibility floor comes before the adaptive work that would
otherwise double the surface to fix; guard rails come last so they lock in real
state rather than aspiration. Phase 6 is the only one that cannot be done
mechanically and the only one marked not reversible alone.
**What it deliberately does not decide.** Whether the target is
`MaterialExpressiveTheme` or `MaterialTheme` -- the pinned material3 ships the full
expressive set and the code already opts into `ExperimentalMaterial3ExpressiveApi`
in 66 places, but it changes default component shapes and sizes app-wide, so it is a
product call and Phase 1 raises it rather than answering it. Also out of scope:
whether the monochrome palette is right, the per-component specs, iOS (which only
builds on a mac, and whose HIG asks 44dp where M3 asks 48dp), and the three package
namespaces the UI currently lives across.
No code changes. `docs/README.md` gains the row and the closing paragraph's note on
how this one relates to the others.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mantra docs
Notes on the parts of this app whose behaviour is not recoverable by reading the code alone — where the reasoning lives in a protocol, a failure mode that is silent, or a decision that looked arbitrary and was not.
| document | covers |
|---|---|
| shared-key-ceremony.md | ChillDKG over NIP-17: the rounds, the approval gates, the chat transcript, participant ordering |
| shared-key-derivation.md | deriving further keys from the group's threshold key with FROST tweaks — why not BIP32, why no chain code, and the one rule that must not be broken |
| frost-batch-signing.md | signing several events in one ceremony — why one nonce can never cover two messages, and the phased schema, wire and UI work that follows from it |
| marmot-membership.md | how members join an MLS group, and the epoch race that makes a missing member look like a successful invite |
| member-chronicle.md | handing a member added after the work was done the group's signed record — why the events are not on the wire at all, and why the room's id is enough to verify them |
| marmot-direct-messages.md | a one-to-one message inside a group as a stock NIP-59 gift wrap — what its MIP-03 carve-out costs, why the sender cannot read their own, and the one query that would broadcast it |
| mls-skipped-keys.md | why a group event that arrives a moment late is dropped for good, which flows trigger it, the quartz fix, and the partial mitigation in this app |
| long-running-sync.md | the chat subscriptions that stay open instead of pulling once per screen — why the request queue could not simply hold one, and how the group filter follows the room list |
| dead-code.md | code in the sync and relay stack that nothing calls, why each piece is still there, and which of it is a bug rather than a leftover |
| jvm-target.md | what desktop support cost, phased — why the native chain was already done, why an empty source set in our phoenix fork was the real blocker, and why DAO tests need none of it |
| material-design-conformance.md | what the M3 foundations actually require, measured against all 43 screens — the colour pairing that renders the app's own proposals invisible, and eight phases that put the decisions back in the theme |
Start with the ceremony if you are new to this area; the Marmot notes all assume it. Read the skipped-keys note before debugging any "the other device never got it" report — it is silent, and it looks like every other kind of delivery failure. The sync note stands alone, and the dead-code inventory reads as a follow-up to it. The batch-signing note is a phased plan that has been built: read it after the derivation note, whose one rule is the same one it is built around. The member chronicle note is a phased plan that has not been built, and reads as the membership note's unanswered half: what a member who joins late can be given, and the one thing they cannot. The jvm-target note is unrelated to all of them: it is a build and packaging story. The Material Design note is a phased plan that has not been built, and is the only one about what the app looks like rather than what it does; read the jvm-target note first if you want to know why its adaptive-layout phase exists.