docs: Add active project handoff documents

Introduce detailed session handoff documents for Craig's Emacs
configuration project. These provide strategic clarity using the
V2MOM framework and outline current progress, project goals,
recommended actions, and key insights. This addition aims to
streamline handovers and ensure continuity between sessions,
facilitating a systematic approach to addressing identified
challenges and opportunities for improvement.

1 files changed, 107 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/values-comparison.org b/docs/values-comparison.org
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..128c6710
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/values-comparison.org
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+#+TITLE: Values Comparison - Simple vs Reliability
+#+DATE: 2025-10-30
+
+* What Currently Supports Each Value
+
+| Theme/Practice                        | Simple | Reliability |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+| *Code Quality*                        |        |             |
+| Clear naming                          | ✓      |             |
+| Small functions                       | ✓      |             |
+| Good comments (why not what)          | ✓      |             |
+| Abstractions when warranted           | ✓      |             |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+| *Architecture*                        |        |             |
+| Modular design                        | ✓      |             |
+| Extract custom code into packages     | ✓      |             |
+| Good architecture enables evolution   | ✓      |             |
+| Technical debt has real cost          | ✓      |             |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+| *Production Practices*                |        |             |
+| Testing                               | ✓      | ✓           |
+| Documentation                         | ✓      |             |
+| Version control                       | ✓      |             |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+| *Failure Planning*                    |        |             |
+| Rollback capability (localrepo)       | ✓      | ✓           |
+| Error handling                        | ✓      | ✓           |
+| Graceful degradation                  | ✓      | ✓           |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+| *Trust & Stability*                   |        |             |
+| Never use tools you can't trust       | ✓      | ✓           |
+| Uptime matters                        |        | ✓           |
+| Config breakage crushes productivity  |        | ✓           |
+| More packages = more breakage risk    |        | ✓           |
+| Need confidence to refactor           |        | ✓           |
+|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------|
+
+* Key Quotes Supporting Each
+
+** Simple
+- "Config IS production software - treat it as such"
+- "Clear naming, small functions, good comments"
+- "Apply production practices: Testing, modularity, documentation"
+- "Simple means maintainable production software, not minimal or primitive"
+
+** Reliability/Resilience
+- "Never use a tool you can't fully trust"
+- "The impact when it's broken can crush my productivity"
+- "More packages = more potential breakage. Need ability to roll back"
+- "Plan for failure: Rollback capability, error handling, graceful degradation"
+- "Quality matters because uptime matters"
+
+* Analysis
+
+** If Reliability is part of Simple:
+*Simple means:* Maintainable, trustworthy, production-quality code that fails gracefully
+
+*Pros:*
+- Keeps to 3 values
+- Failure planning is a consequence of good engineering (already in Simple)
+- Less redundancy
+
+*Cons:*
+- "Simple" might not clearly convey the "must not break" urgency
+- Rollback/resilience themes could get lost
+
+** If Reliability is its own value:
+*Simple means:* Clear, maintainable code
+*Reliability means:* Never breaks, fails gracefully, always recoverable
+
+*Pros:*
+- Explicit focus on uptime/stability
+- Clear that this is mission-critical (crushes productivity when broken)
+- Resilience practices (localrepo, testing, error handling) have clear home
+
+*Cons:*
+- 4 values instead of 3
+- Some overlap with Simple
+
+* Decision Framework
+
+Ask yourself:
+
+1. When choosing between two approaches, would "reliability" change your decision differently than "simple"?
+
+   Example: Complex caching solution that's faster but harder to debug
+   - Simple says: "Too complex, harder to maintain"
+   - Reliability says: "If it breaks less often and has rollback, worth the complexity"
+
+2. Does "config can't break" deserve equal weight with Fast and Intuitive?
+
+3. Is the "trust" theme strong enough to be its own value?
+
+* Recommendation
+
+If you had to choose, I'd suggest: **Keep Simple, absorb Reliability into it.**
+
+Why? Most of your reliability practices (testing, rollback, error handling) are already listed under "production software practices" in Simple. The "never use tools you can't trust" is already there too.
+
+**But** - you could rename Simple to "**Reliable**" or "**Solid**" if the stability theme is more important than the simplicity theme.
+
+Alternative value names that might capture both:
+- *Solid* - Stable, maintainable, trustworthy
+- *Resilient* - Fails gracefully, recovers easily, maintainable
+- *Dependable* - Simple enough to trust, robust enough to rely on
+
+What resonates?