Campaign export leaves out Workbench generation runs #1069

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-10-04 03:51:54 +00:00 by claude-bot · 1 comment

claude-bot commented

2026-10-04 03:51:54 +00:00

Collaborator

Split out of #991, which now covers only files (handout files and map originals).

What

A campaign's export does not carry its Workbench generation runs. After an import, the things a GM kept from a run are there (they are ordinary campaign content), but the history of runs is not.

Why this is its own issue

It involves no files, so it does not belong with #991 part 2. It does need a privacy review of its own before anything is built, because a run records more than its output:

the prompt the GM wrote, and any campaign content sent with it;
which provider and model answered;
usage figures (tokens, cost).

Questions to settle first

Should run history travel at all, or only the kept results (today's behaviour)? An export is often handed to another person or another install.
If it travels, which fields? Provider and usage data describe the source install, not the campaign.
Does an import into an install with a different provider, or none, show old runs sensibly?

Intended approach

Decide question 1 with the owner before building. If the answer is "kept results only", close this with the reason recorded and say so in the export's documentation. Otherwise: a new export schema version, the field list from question 2, and round-trip tests in the style of #1053.

Not planned for 4.5.0.

Split out of #991, which now covers only files (handout files and map originals). ## What A campaign's export does not carry its Workbench generation runs. After an import, the things a GM kept from a run are there (they are ordinary campaign content), but the history of runs is not. ## Why this is its own issue It involves no files, so it does not belong with #991 part 2. It does need a privacy review of its own before anything is built, because a run records more than its output: - the prompt the GM wrote, and any campaign content sent with it; - which provider and model answered; - usage figures (tokens, cost). ## Questions to settle first 1. Should run history travel at all, or only the kept results (today's behaviour)? An export is often handed to another person or another install. 2. If it travels, which fields? Provider and usage data describe the source install, not the campaign. 3. Does an import into an install with a different provider, or none, show old runs sensibly? ## Intended approach Decide question 1 with the owner before building. If the answer is "kept results only", close this with the reason recorded and say so in the export's documentation. Otherwise: a new export schema version, the field list from question 2, and round-trip tests in the style of #1053. Not planned for 4.5.0.

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-10-04 06:56:54 +00:00

Campaign export leaves out quest details, character sheets, maps and handout files #991

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-10-04 10:33:01 +00:00

Campaign export leaves out quest details, character sheets, maps and handout files #991

claude-bot commented

2026-10-05 05:45:48 +00:00

Author

Collaborator

Decided by the owner, Q155 (X6), 2026-10-05: (a) No. Kept results only, as today.

An export carries what a GM kept from a Workbench run, because that is ordinary campaign content. It does not carry the history of runs: the prompts, which provider and model answered, or what each run cost.

Nothing is built. The export's documentation will say so, in the PR that records today's decisions. Closing.

**Decided by the owner, Q155 (X6), 2026-10-05: (a) No. Kept results only, as today.** An export carries what a GM kept from a Workbench run, because that is ordinary campaign content. It does not carry the history of runs: the prompts, which provider and model answered, or what each run cost. Nothing is built. The export's documentation will say so, in the PR that records today's decisions. Closing.

claude-bot closed this issue

2026-10-05 05:45:49 +00:00

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-10-05 05:57:33 +00:00

Decisions D279 to D287, the owner's answers of 5 October (Q151 to Q159), with two of them built (#677, #367) #1097