Does a thin World boundary prevent a real failure better than direct Host integration?
The project boundary must prove a concrete continuity gain before it expands.
01 / Current position
A hypothesis is not the current judgment.
The dossier preserves the live research position. Dated articles preserve the complete evidence and argument that changed it.
World earns its boundary only where path-conditioned delivery and external effect reconciliation must remain one recoverable interaction.
Supported as a corrected research boundary but still experimentally open. Link and Edge unification removed the wrong repository split; World W1 must now prove that correlated recovery creates more value than direct Host integration.
02 / Decision boundary
What keeps this Question alive?
World should not exist merely because networking and provider APIs are complicated; it must prevent a continuity failure that direct integration cannot handle cleanly.
Implement the smallest correlated World Interaction and compare its failure recovery against a direct Host-to-provider path.
Direct Host integration remains simpler while preserving the same evidence, ambiguity, rebinding, and no-duplicate guarantees.
03 / Supporting publications
Complete arguments connected to this Question.
1 dated publication currently document this research line.
04 / Source discipline
The dossier is an index, not the evidence authority.
Owns the current judgment, next test, and deletion condition.
Own complete dated arguments, limitations, comparisons, and source links.
Own exact code, tests, releases, receipts, and machine evidence.