Thanks for pushing #348 forward. I’m not approving this revision yet because it still looks like a sketch note rather than an investigation artifact maintainers can act on.

Blocking gaps to address:

1. Repository scope hygiene

   • avatar.jpg is unrelated to this issue/PR scope and should be removed from this branch.

2. Evidence quality

   • Current document states hypotheses only (cache/batch/write-on-change) but has no measured baseline.
   • Please add at least one concrete baseline table (e.g., sessions.json size, entry count, loadSessionStore p50/p95, parse frequency) and how/where it was measured.

3. Actionability

   • Proposals should be separated by risk tier:
     • short-term low-risk config/workflow changes
     • medium-risk code-path changes
     • long-term storage redesign
   • Include explicit “next PR(s)” mapping so maintainers can queue execution.

Once scope is cleaned and baseline/action plan are added, this should be straightforward to approve.

感謝先開題，但以「investigation」定位來說，目前內容仍偏提案摘要，證據不足，建議補齊再合併。

目前缺口：

1. 缺 baseline 指標：沒有量化目前 loadSessionStore() 的 latency / IOPS / 呼叫頻率（單機、併發、峰值）。
2. 缺可重現方法：沒有 benchmark 腳本、資料量假設（session 數、檔案大小）與測試環境描述。
3. 缺方案對照：三個建議（cache / batch / only-on-change）尚未比較 trade-off（複雜度、資料一致性風險、故障回復）。

建議最小補件（擇要即可）：

• 補一張表：現況 vs 三種方案的預估改善、風險、落地成本；
• 補至少一次實測（例如 1x/5x/10x cron 觸發密度）與觀測數據；
• 補「下一步」：先做哪個 PoC、驗收門檻是什麼。

目前我先 request changes，等補上定量內容後我可以再看一次。

Re-checked this PR at current head (d55ac53). I’m still requesting changes before merge.

Blocking items:

1. Remove unrelated binary

   • avatar.jpg is out-of-scope for #348 and should be dropped from this PR.

2. Add measurable baseline (minimum one table)

   • Please include: dataset size (sessions.json bytes + entry count), trigger pattern (single vs concurrent cron), and observed loadSessionStore() latency (p50/p95).
   • Without baseline numbers, this remains a proposal note rather than an investigation artifact.

3. Make next steps executable

   • Add a short section mapping proposals to concrete follow-up PRs (e.g., cache read-path PoC, write-on-change guard, batch write queue) with success criteria.

Once these three are addressed, this should be straightforward to approve.

已依變更內容提出逐行意見（inline threads）。整體方向可行，但目前仍需釐清錯誤處理與測試覆蓋等風險點；待回覆/修正後再評估是否核准。

Thanks for moving #348 forward. I still see this as an investigation draft rather than a decision-ready artifact.

Concrete minimum to unblock approval:

1. Add one measured baseline table

• dataset size (sessions.json bytes + entry count)
• run pattern (single trigger vs concurrent trigger)
• observed loadSessionStore latency (p50/p95)

2. Add reproduction notes

• exact command/script used
• environment assumptions (host, storage type, sample data scale)

3. Keep PR scope focused

• remove unrelated binary file (avatar.jpg) from this branch

4. Add executable next steps

• map each proposal (cache, batch writes, write-on-change) to a follow-up PR with a success metric

After these are in, this should be straightforward to approve.

已補上兩則 inline 註解，主要要求把「推測」落到可重現量測（I/O 次數/耗時、cron 併發模型），並補上快取/批次寫入的正確性邊界（race condition、一致性要求）。

另外：PR 內新增 avatar.jpg 的目的不明，且與 I/O 調查文件關聯性不足；若僅用於個人資料或範例，建議移除或放到更合適的位置並在文件中引用。

在量測與範圍界定補齊前，我不會給予 approve。

Approve with comments

Content is useful but thin for an investigation. Consider adding at least one actual measurement or profiling data point to substantiate the claims.

Minor: avatar.jpg blob in a docs PR is unusual — not a blocker but worth noting.