All five implementation passes plus four security-review hardenings
shipped in PR #435 (squash-merged as d71ef9a). Acceptance numbers
measured on synthetic AETHER-shape data:
- Compare-cost reduction: 8x-30x floor → 43-51x pair-wise (d=512),
12.4x top-K (d=128 n=1024 k=8), 7.6x full pipeline (d=128 n=4096 k=8).
- Top-K coverage: ≥90% floor → 90%+ at prefilter_factor=8 (78.9%
at factor=4 documented as fail; codified in
test_search_prefilter_topk_coverage_meets_adr_084).
- Wire envelope: 28-byte AETHER 128-d (vs 512-byte raw float; 18x
compression).
The third acceptance criterion (`< 1 pp end-to-end accuracy regression`)
needs a real-CSI soak test against a multi-day AETHER trace; that's
post-merge follow-up rather than a merge-blocker. Synthetic-data
acceptance was sufficient evidence to ship.
PR #434 (ADR-086 firmware-side gate) merged separately as 17509a2.
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
This folder contains 44 Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that document every significant technical choice in the RuView / WiFi-DensePose project.
Why ADRs?
Building a system that turns WiFi signals into human pose estimation involves hundreds of non-obvious decisions: which signal processing algorithms to use, how to bridge ESP32 firmware to a Rust pipeline, whether to run inference on-device or on a server, how to handle multi-person separation with limited subcarriers.
ADRs capture the context, options considered, decision made, and consequences for each of these choices. They serve three purposes:
Institutional memory — Six months from now, anyone (human or AI) can read why we chose IIR bandpass filters over FIR for vital sign extraction, not just see the code.
AI-assisted development — When an AI agent works on this codebase, ADRs give it the constraints and rationale it needs to make changes that align with the existing architecture. Without them, AI-generated code tends to drift — reinventing patterns that already exist, contradicting earlier decisions, or optimizing for the wrong tradeoffs.
Review checkpoints — Each ADR is a reviewable artifact. When a proposed change touches the architecture, the ADR forces the author to articulate tradeoffs before writing code, not after.
ADRs and Domain-Driven Design
The project uses Domain-Driven Design (DDD) to organize code into bounded contexts — each with its own language, types, and responsibilities. ADRs and DDD work together:
ADRs define boundaries: ADR-029 (RuvSense) established multistatic sensing as a separate bounded context from single-node CSI. ADR-042 (CHCI) defined a new aggregate root for coherent channel imaging.
DDD models define the language: The RuvSense domain model defines terms like "coherence gate", "dwell time", and "TDM slot" that ADRs reference precisely.
Together they prevent drift: An AI agent reading ADR-039 knows that edge processing tiers are configured via NVS keys, not compile-time flags — because the ADR says so. The DDD model tells it which aggregate owns that configuration.
How ADRs are structured
Each ADR follows a consistent format:
Context — What problem or gap prompted this decision
Decision — What we chose to do and how
Consequences — What improved, what got harder, and what risks remain
References — Related ADRs, papers, and code paths
Statuses: Proposed (under discussion), Accepted (approved and/or implemented), Superseded (replaced by a later ADR).
