Record the agreed plan after #18: opt-in slots, a rewalk stretch, Span saying Scale

And the open question beside it: a slot that carries a box rather than a
translation, which would make a move and a stretch of a Scale subtree
one write each. To be measured with chain_cost before it is chosen.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/IRIS_EXTRACTION_HANDOFF.md

@@ -44,35 +44,72 @@ resolve(slot)`, so anything that rewrites a region owes that slot a zero --
 draws. And a stretch is only expressible out of a box with a relative extent;
 a fixed length holds its parts as offsets from its start and keeps no fraction.
 
-### The open question on #18, and the numbers for it
+### The plan after #18, agreed with the owner on 2026-09-14
 
-The owner proposed, and I agree with, **opt-in chaining that `Scroll` would
+Three changes, done together as one slice on top of #18, because each decides
-choose** plus **recalculating rather than repositioning** when a region cannot
+the shape of the others.
-be moved. Neither is implemented. What is settled and what is not:
 
-- **Recalculating rather than repositioning is in**, as the `Remap`
+- **Slots are opt-in, created by the container that re-places children.** A
-  retirement above. It costs the per-axis carry: a box that changed length on
+  draw call asks for one; a widget that did not asks nothing and composes into
-  one axis and not the other is now redrawn rather than remapped. Six of
+  its nearest ancestor's slot. #18 gives every widget a slot, which puts a
-  `tabs`'s fourteen relocations and five of `text`'s sixteen, and one extra
+  primitive's walk at full tree depth for no benefit, since almost every slot
-  redraw per frame on `replace_cost` -- 354,310,889 instructions against
+  is zero. `Span`, `Scroll` and `Aligned` re-place children after drawing
-  354,272,387, noise.
+  them and are the ones that ask. That keeps the chain 2-4 deep, which
-- **Opt-in chaining is not**, and the design question is *who may opt in*. A
+  `chain_cost` measured as free.
-  widget can only move its subtree if its descendants chain through it, so
+- **A stretch is a rewalk from the widget whose box changed, not a flat pass.**
-  opting in has to be done by whoever performs the move. My recommendation on
+  #18's `stretch` takes the top widget's old and new window boxes and rewrites
-  the PR: any container that re-places a child after drawing it (`Span`,
+  every descendant against that one pair, which works only while a composite
-  `Aligned`, `Scroll` all do), not only `Scroll`. That keeps the chain 2-4
+  fraction of the top box is recoverable from a window rel -- and a
-  deep instead of full tree depth, and keeps the slot write for ordinary
+  fixed-length box destroys that for everything beneath it, whatever is
-  re-placement.
+  stored. Instead: keep the parent-relative region -- the argument
-- Giving **every** widget a slot, which is what #18 does and what I read §2 to
+  `widget_within`, `primitive_within` and `set_mask` already receive -- on
-  say, is the thing to change: it puts a primitive's walk at full tree depth
+  each widget, primitive and mask, and recompose it against the new box. For
-  for no benefit, since almost every slot is zero.
+  each child, compute its new window box from its local; the same length on
+  both axes is one slot write where it has a slot and a recomposition where it
+  does not, and a changed length asks that child's `on_resize` and recurses or
+  redraws. Nothing is inverted, so `stretchable`, `UiScalar::stretch`'s
+  division and its debug assertion all go. It also fixes two things #18 gets
+  away with only because nothing but leaves says `Scale`: `try_reuse` asks
+  `on_resize` of the top widget alone, and `stretch` never rewrites
+  `Mask::region`.
+- **Containers say `Scale`.** `Span` on both axes: it hands every child
+  `UiSpan::FULL` on the orthogonal axis, and its aligned-axis placement is
+  written in fractions and offsets of its own box, so the children's local
+  regions do not change when the box does. A child's *length* can, if one
+  without a hint reports differently after a redraw, and that reaches the
+  span through `size_deps` as it does today. The general rule: a widget is
+  `Scale` on an axis unless its draw reads the pixel length of its box on that
+  axis, which is text. The default stays `Redraw`.
+
+**Open, and the owner's to decide: a slot that carries a box instead of a
+translation.** Everything under a slot would store its region relative to
+that box, and the shader would compose the chain with `within` instead of
+adding deltas. A move and a stretch of a `Scale` subtree are then both one
+slot write: no rewalk over primitives, no stored locals, and `Translate` comes
+free, since a glyph at an abs offset from its row's start stays there when
+the row grows. The CPU work on a resize becomes asking `on_resize` down the
+widgets and redrawing the ones that say so -- one ask for a transcript row
+against a few hundred glyph rewrites. It replaces #18's chain rather than
+extending it, and it contradicts LAYOUT.md §2's line that slots carry
+translation only. Before choosing it, run `chain_cost` with a region per slot
+in place of a `Vec2`: the per-level cost was measured as the dependent load
+rather than the arithmetic, so the extra lerps should be free, but that is an
+assumption until the rig says so.
+
+What is settled either way: recalculating rather than repositioning is in, as
+the `Remap` retirement above. It costs the per-axis carry: a box that changed
+length on one axis and not the other is redrawn rather than remapped. Six of
+`tabs`'s fourteen relocations and five of `text`'s sixteen, all single-
+primitive leaves, and one extra redraw per frame on `replace_cost` --
+354,310,889 instructions against 354,272,387, noise. The rewalk restores that
+carry, and generalises it to a subtree.
 
 Measured, so the next attempt is compared rather than argued:
 
 | rig | what it says |
 | --- | --- |
-| `tests/chain_cost.rs` | GPU pass time by chain depth at 200k instances: free to depth 8 (+5%), then ~3 us per level -- +42.6% at 16, +221% at 64. Each step is a storage load addressed by the previous one, so it is the chaining that costs, not the arithmetic at a level; a slot carrying a whole region would measure the same. |
+| `tests/chain_cost.rs` | GPU pass time by chain depth at 200k instances: free to depth 8 (+5%), then ~3 us per level -- +42.6% at 16, +221% at 64. Each step is a storage load addressed by the previous one, so it is the chaining that costs, not the arithmetic at a level; a slot carrying a whole region should measure the same, but has not been. |
-| `tests/replace_cost.rs` | Instructions per frame re-placing 200 rows: 1.98M writing each row's slot, 2.38M rewriting its regions, 7.13M redrawing it. A load for `perf`, not a check. |
+| `tests/replace_cost.rs` | Instructions per frame re-placing 200 rows: 1.98M writing each row's slot, 2.38M rewriting its regions, 7.13M redrawing it. A load for `perf`, not a check. Five primitives per row; the regime that decides whether the chain is worth it is a transcript row of a few hundred glyphs, so re-run it with 200 characters of text per row before concluding. |
 | `tests/draw_cost.rs` | Pre-existing: what recording a frame costs on the CPU by layer count. |
 
 Irrelevant at an example's couple of hundred primitives; a transcript's glyphs
@@ -151,10 +188,11 @@ Other standing instructions from the owner:
 
 ## The next slice
 
-**Nothing, until the owner answers the opt-in question on #18** -- the shape of
+**The plan above, as one slice on #18**: opt-in slots, the rewalk stretch
-the slot set decides what `set_child_offset` even is, so building it first
+over stored locals, and `Span` saying `Scale` -- after the owner has answered
-risks writing it twice. After that: `set_child_offset` and `LazySpan` to finish
+whether a slot carries a box, since that decides whether the locals are stored
-LAYOUT.md §2, then built-in alignment.
+beside window regions or *are* the regions. Then `set_child_offset` and
+`LazySpan` to finish LAYOUT.md §2, then built-in alignment.
 
 The archive is not a patch here: it writes `Widget::draw` against
 `painter.set_size`, which #16 replaced with a returned `Size`, and it writes
@@ -163,9 +201,9 @@ Recreate on today's `Len` and let the dp slice follow.
 
 Still in the target, roughly in dependency order:
 
-- **The rest of the position chain** (LAYOUT.md §2), on top of #18:
+- **The rest of the position chain** (LAYOUT.md §2), on top of the slice
-  `set_child_offset` for a container that moves its children as a group, and
+  above: `set_child_offset` for a container that moves its children as a
-  `LazySpan`.
+  group, and `LazySpan`.
 - **Built-in alignment, and probably size**, after the chain rather than
   before it: the owner reordered the two on 2026-09-14. Reproduced in the
   harness -- `.width(rel(0.5))` inside a `Dir::DOWN` span reports 200 of 400