Constraint pinning across compaction

What it does

Standing rules the user stated are picked out before compaction and re-attached verbatim after the generated summary, held as a structured field so that the next compaction cannot paraphrase them. Opt-in, because it sends the user's own utterances to a third party.

Source

Outside beads: one of four proposals for using Jev judgments in ganja, carried into the map by its destination (#33, #34, #35).

File and line references in this issue are to main as of 75a7a92.

Against the three criteria

• Direction (README): The README says nothing about compaction, resuming or Jev.
• Today's terminal users: A user in a long session keeps the rules they set after each compaction. Today the summary prompt asks the model to carry constraints and user directives forward, which is paraphrase (crates/ganja-core/src/session.rs:274).
• Evidence: Accuracy is unmeasured, and Jev is weaker on CJK text. Measuring accuracy is part of the work.

Depends on

Blocked by the judge seam and the [evaluate] table of #59. The proposed seam is compact_if_needed (crates/ganja-core/src/session.rs:3124).

Verdict

• Verdict: do
• Size: L — several plans.
• Exception to the probe rule: yes. #36 says an idea that needs a measurement or a probe first is not do; this one is an explicit exception: measuring accuracy is part of the work.
• Date: 2026-09-19
• Verdict ticket: #42

Theme: #56

Start with the README and the referenced compaction logic in crates/ganja-core/src/session.rs, especially compact_if_needed and the current summary prompt. Review the judge seam and [evaluate] table from #59 first, since this issue is blocked on them. Done means standing rules are re-attached verbatim after compaction, remain opt-in, and accuracy is measured, including CJK behavior.