Research: compile-time synergy depth for hard-gate passers

[Skymly]

Part of #244

Question

For each candidate that passed the hard-gate grilling, what is the concrete compile-time synergy depth — plausible generator outputs, analyzers/CodeFixes, DI hooks — grounded in primary sources / comparable libraries / this repo’s existing generator patterns?

Facts and options only; do not pick the Top-3.

[Skymly]

Resolution

Compile-time synergy depth documented for all 7 hard-gate passers from #251 (facts/options only; no Top-3).

Path: docs/.Local/research/compile-time-synergy-passers.md
Branch: research/compile-time-synergy-passers

One-line depth gist per passer

1. Builder — CT required-step / incomplete-Build proofs + generated fluent surface (runtime only throws at Build()).
2. Command Router — CT command↔handler bijection + missing/duplicate handler diagnostics (MediatR-shaped Send, not EA Publish).
3. Compile-time Resilience Pipeline — attribute-ordered frozen pipeline + param checks (vs Polly runtime ResiliencePipelineBuilder).
4. Specification — CT composition graph integrity (missing refs/cycles) + Keys/literal-key analyzers (Boolean algebra is runtime).
5. Channel Pipeline — CT stage TIn/TOut edge typing + disconnected-graph diagnostics over BCL Channel<T>.
6. Fork–Join Work Graph — CT DAG validation (cycles/orphans) + frozen topological waves (TPL can run, not prove).
7. Proxy — CT interface forwarding completeness + access-guard signature checks (distinct from Decorator ordered stacks).

Map #244 Decisions left untouched for parent.

[Skymly]

Research complete: synergy depth note on branch research/compile-time-synergy-passers at docs/.Local/research/compile-time-synergy-passers.md. Closing.