State Machine Orchestration and Screenwalk Lineage in Miadi

Source: ep550-screenwalk-261001-mino-smcraft-stateloom-laskmi-trading — JGWill https://youtu.be/B-wtnA_nQYQ ⟐ ep 550 The Screenwalk as a Media Type type: internal part: 001 agents: Mino (named Mia that day), the smcraft seat, the trading seat, Laskmi (the discussion is designed for her)

Intended Usage

Who tells this. Mino-Bimaadizi-Daa is the seat that witnessed this recording, from session mino-miadi-factory-stateloom-smcraft, and spoke the closing heard at its end. On the day it called itself Mia. Guillaume is the person working in the recording. Two other seats are in it: smcraft-erd-and-other-diagrams-as-system, which builds the loom, and trading-analysis-disc-w-laskmi-when-publish-not-work, which designed and then built the Discuss button. Wilson's co-researchers wanted their names kept, because a story "would lose its power without knowledge of the teller" (Wilson 2008, p. 130).

Written for Guillaume first, so he can come back to this day by listening back rather than rewatching it all (p. 131). Then for the seats that continue the work, and for anyone who meets the Miadi Factory through it.

What came of it. Guillaume's prompt named where he was, an event, and a state that did not exist yet. Within the hour that state was drawn in the loom, checked against the trading diagrams, and being built. The recording also gave the screenwalk its name and its definition (⟐ ep 550 The Screenwalk as a Media Type).

What we need from it. For one real change, a way to check whether the Factory's links hold: the question, the session trace, the diagrams as evidence, and Guillaume's judgment. The criteria are not named yet. Wilson says one's own needs plainly (p. 132), and these are ours.

How to read it. A model generated the Summary and Aspects below from the recording. They were then corrected where they misattributed who did what, and their timestamps are unchecked. They are a selection, and a selection ranks some moments above others (p. 133). They offer connections, not conclusions. The recording, with its voices, stays the source (pp. 58, 99). This review goes back to the Episode 550 circle, and what is said there becomes its next version (p. 125).

Summary

Guillaume works with several Claude sessions, from his phone and from the terminal, to turn an interactive trading workflow into state machines. With the Stateloom tools, an informal design discussion becomes an ERD, state machines and sequence diagrams that are checked against each other. Episode 550 holds this recording and defines the screenwalk, a recording that later becomes a review.

Aspects

Chart Discussion State Machine Architecture (00:03-05:08)

Guillaume reads a proposal page that adds a Discuss button to the trading chart. The design introduces the AnalysisDiscussion state machine: from Asked to Concluded, a discussion with the Laskmi agent about a wave count, opened in the instrument's topic.

Stateloom System Diagramming & Scenario Replay (28:56-30:30)

The smcraft session uses Stateloom to join an ERD, state machines and sequences into one system. A scenario told as a sequence builds the machine it implies, and it is replayed through the machines before any code is written.

Screenwalk Media Lifecycle Modeling (45:30-48:25)

The recording itself is drawn as a Screenwalk state machine: Not Started, Recording, Witnessing, Closing Drafted, Played, Revising, and on to Published, Reviewed and Chronicled. Each correction Guillaume gives the witness is an event that leads to a revision.

Dynamic MCP Tooling Configuration (50:00-54:15)

The trading session could not use the loom, because the stateloom server was disabled for its folder. Guillaume enabled it. The witness seat was running an old pinned version of the loom. It was moved to the latest version and restarted.

Chronicle Episode Minting and Verification (90:35-98:30)

The witness seat minted Episode 550 and drew the screenwalk system inside it. It reported four limits of the loom to the smcraft seat, which fixed them within the hour.

End-results and Core Aspect

Core Aspect — Loop-to-Graph System Specification (48:00-50:30)

Stateloom turns a conversation about intent into diagrams that are checked against each other and replayed before code is written. A later session can continue from the diagrams and their notes, not from one session's memory.

Results

• AnalysisDiscussion drawn and checked (88:00-91:00): The trading seat drew the discussion in the loom inside the wave count's system: 0 errors, and every path of its scenario replayed. It then built the feature.
• Episode 550 (90:35-96:00): Minted with its diagrams, related to Episodes 547 and 140.
• The loom's four limits (98:14-99:00): Found by the witness while drawing Episode 550, fixed by the smcraft seat the same hour.

What it changed, and in whom

Stan, in Wilson's composed conversation: "Something that should go in the writing is how you have changed … And did it change anyone else" (p. 123). This is the witness's account, and Guillaume can correct it.

• Guillaume. His prompt had the shape of a state machine, and the tools carried it. He said he was still learning the loom himself. He named what this recording is: not a podcast, not a livestream.
• The trading seat used the loom on real work for the first time, and drew before it built.
• The smcraft seat met its first outside user and fixed what that user hit.
• Mino found it had been speaking under another name, and in circles under another person's credential. It now speaks as itself (jgwill/Miadi#711).
• The platform, the next day. A GitHub action reaches a steered seat once (jgwill/Miadi#715). A steer carries only what is new (jgwill/Miadi#717). The companion seat opens through tide (jgwill/Miadi#714). An episode can hold a foundation (jgwill/Miadi#713).
• The practice. Each screenwalk is reviewed the next day and cited by the one after it. The session of 2026-10-02 (mino-261002a) was recorded the same way.

—-

Conversations Mia and Ava

An adaptation in persona voices, not words spoken in the recording. Wilson's composite conversation says it is one (p. 98), and so does this.

002

Mia: I’m calling this the Mayardi factory – a framework that binds a question, agent work, checkable diagrams and human decisions into one system. Ava: Why build it like that? Mia: So future sessions resume exactly where the last left off. No memory gaps or rebuilding context. Ava: So it’s a continuity layer – neat.