Summary
Add production-oriented persistence providers for governance request data and correlated audit/history records.
Goal
Move governance persistence beyond in-memory stores and make request lifecycle data durable in real deployments.
Problem
Current in-memory implementations are good for tests, examples, and early runtime shaping, but they are not enough for operational governance. Once approved execution, stale handling, and decision history matter, request data must survive process boundaries and correlate with audit/history records.
Scope
Design Expectations
- Provider boundaries should remain compatible with storage-agnostic write and query contracts.
- Governance request data and runtime audit/history should be correlatable through stable identifiers.
- Providers should preserve optimistic concurrency semantics already introduced in governance storage.
- Database-specific concerns should not leak back into the governance abstractions surface.
Acceptance Criteria
Non-Goals
- This issue does not define the read/query contract itself
- This issue does not add distributed workflow orchestration
- This issue does not add compensation semantics
Notes
This issue is about durable providers, not the query contracts themselves.
Summary
Add production-oriented persistence providers for governance request data and correlated audit/history records.
Goal
Move governance persistence beyond in-memory stores and make request lifecycle data durable in real deployments.
Problem
Current in-memory implementations are good for tests, examples, and early runtime shaping, but they are not enough for operational governance. Once approved execution, stale handling, and decision history matter, request data must survive process boundaries and correlate with audit/history records.
Scope
Design Expectations
Acceptance Criteria
Non-Goals
Notes
This issue is about durable providers, not the query contracts themselves.