Three durable stores said no client machine existed. That was written
when the workstation was only a model host. It is where he sits most of
the day and it has the microphone.
The verdict is unchanged and so is the seam. What changes is the size of
the remaining work: deploying two daemons and asking mavend to listen on
TCP, not acquiring hardware. Note that deploying them does not by itself
prove a wake word — mavwaked gates on energy and has no keyword model
(V-487).
They appear in no compose file and run as no host process, and the task
asked whether that is a gap to close or a decision to write down. It is a
decision.
The reason is not hardware. homesrv is a Lenovo laptop and
/proc/asound/cards lists its ACP mic array with capture devices, so
passing /dev/snd into a container would work. It would also listen to an
empty room. A wake-word daemon is worth having where he is standing, and
that is not where the server is.
mavenclient is a client by name and design, mavwaked is the gate in
front of it, and the wire already reaches off-box: ipc.Dial takes
tcp://host:port?token=... through the netaddr seam, with the token
checked before internal/ipc sees the connection. So this needs a machine
and a config line, not protocol work.
The honest consequence is worse than the task suggested, and both docs
now say it: the wake word and the VAD gate are covered by unit tests and
by nothing else. QA session 1 step 2 was reworded to claim only what it
checks, which is push-to-talk through /dash. CLAUDE.md listed all nine
binaries with no column for where they run, which is how this went
unnoticed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
claude