docs: describe the stage pipeline instead of the removed legacy search

README.md

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 # ASAPPlanner
 
-ASAPPlanner turns SQL, PromQL, and MetricsQL query workloads into legal candidate plans that may use Approximate Streaming Analytics Primitives (ASAPs), such as sketches and exact summaries. It normalizes language-specific queries into a shared representation, then enumerates and ranks semantically equivalent alternatives. Downstream systems choose, deploy, and execute a physical plan.
+ASAPPlanner turns SQL, PromQL, and MetricsQL query workloads into plans that may use Approximate Streaming Analytics Primitives (ASAPs), such as sketches and exact summaries. It normalizes language-specific queries into a shared representation, enumerates semantically equivalent alternatives, and selects the cheapest one that meets each query's accuracy target. Downstream systems deploy and execute the physical plan.
 
 ## Start here
 
 - New to the repository? Read the [planner pipeline](docs/design_docs/concepts/planner-pipeline.md), then the [glossary](docs/design_docs/concepts/glossary.md).
 - Want to run a query? Follow [Run and inspect a query](docs/user_guide_docs/run-a-query.md).
 - Embedding Planner? Use the [library API guide](docs/develop_docs/library-api.md).
-- Extending Planner? Start with the [ASAP-aware mapping architecture](docs/develop_docs/asap-aware-mapping-architecture.md), then [extend ASAP-aware mapping](docs/develop_docs/extend-asap-aware-mapping.md).
+- Extending Planner? Start with the [ASAP-aware mapping architecture](docs/develop_docs/asap-aware-mapping-architecture.md).
 - Evaluating a design? Browse the [design documentation](docs/design_docs/README.md), [developer documentation](docs/develop_docs/README.md), and [user guides](docs/user_guide_docs/README.md).
 
 The [documentation map](docs/README.md) gives each audience a complete reading path.

docs/README.md

@@ -19,13 +19,12 @@ Start with [ASAPPlanner input, output, and workflows](design_docs/architecture/i
 for the integration boundary, nested inputs, and choice of planning workflow.
 
 Use [Public library functions and examples](develop_docs/library-api.md) for
-frontend lowering, workload search, ranking, selection and DAG assembly.
+frontend lowering, planning a workload with the stage pipeline, and export.
 
 ## Extend the planner
 
 1. Read the [ASAP-aware mapping architecture](develop_docs/asap-aware-mapping-architecture.md).
-2. Consult [mapping contracts](develop_docs/asap-aware-mapping-contracts.md).
-3. Follow [Extend ASAP-aware mapping](develop_docs/extend-asap-aware-mapping.md).
+2. Read [local logical candidates](develop_docs/local-logical-candidates.md) for Stage 1.
 
 ## Understand a design
 

docs/design_docs/architecture/README.md

@@ -1,50 +1,43 @@
 # ASAPPlanner design overview
 
 ASAPPlanner is a reusable planning library. It converts queries and workload
-requirements into a deployment-independent space of logical Post-ASAP candidates.
-It does not commit, deploy, or execute a physical plan; downstream systems such
-as ASAPQuery-backend bind the candidates to physical alternatives, make the
+requirements into a selected logical Post-ASAP plan, through the #509 stage
+pipeline. It does not deploy or execute a physical plan; downstream systems
+such as ASAPQuery-backend bind the plan to physical operators, make the
 deployment-level decision, and run the selected contract.
 
-For the integration workflow, start with [ASAPPlanner input, output, and
-workflows](input-output-workflow.md). It defines inputs, `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, selection
-and assembly workflows, and future replanning support.
+For the integration workflow, start with the
+[library API](../../develop_docs/library-api.md);
+[ASAPPlanner input, output, and workflows](input-output-workflow.md) defines
+the workload inputs.
 
 ## Planner component flow
 
 ```mermaid
 flowchart TD
     W["PlanningWorkload: query demand + optional data facts"]
     F["Frontend dependencies: SQL catalog or PromQL time"]
-    E["Strategy, accuracy model, and applicable evidence"]
-    PRE["Frontend lowering → canonical Pre-ASAP OperatorNode roots"]
-    SEARCH["Whole-workload candidate search: sharing, legality, accuracy"]
-    SPACE["CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs: compact logical candidate DAG space"]
-    RANK["Optional cost_sorted: ranked inspection view"]
-    SELECT["Optional global_selection + assemble_selected_dag"]
-    DAG["Selected logical Post-ASAP DAG"]
-    BACKEND["Downstream: bind physical alternatives, decide deployment, compile and execute"]
+    M["PlanningModels: accuracy model, calibration, deployment capabilities"]
+    PRE["Frontend lowering → canonical Pre-ASAP roots"]
+    S1["Stage 1: Pass 1 alternatives per target; Pass 2 sharing variants"]
+    S2["Stage 2: physical candidates (materialization)"]
+    S3["Stage 3: accuracy and capability checks, pricing, selection"]
+    PLAN["Selected logical Post-ASAP plan + selection report"]
+    BACKEND["Downstream: bind physical operators, deploy, compile and execute"]
     W --> PRE
     F --> PRE
-    PRE --> SEARCH
-    E --> SEARCH
-    SEARCH --> SPACE
-    SPACE --> RANK --> BACKEND
-    SPACE --> SELECT --> DAG --> BACKEND
+    PRE --> S1 --> S2 --> S3
+    M --> S3
+    S3 --> PLAN --> BACKEND
 ```
 
-`CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs` is the output of logical candidate search. Each target's candidate set holds
-alternatives and rejection reasons, but no materialization decision.
-Choose between two branches: inspect candidates (optionally ranked), or select
-and assemble logical DAGs. Stage 2 materialization (#509) will decide per
-sub-DAG whether to materialize and whether at ingestion or query time; until
-then every summary runs at query time. No branch by itself deploys or executes
-a physical plan.
-Known-invalid evidence rejects a logical candidate. Missing accuracy evidence
-leaves a constructible candidate visible in `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs` but uncertified; default
-selection does not commit it without the required guarantee. Cost evidence can
-rank eligible candidates, but it cannot establish a missing guarantee or turn
-an unsupported physical alternative into a deployable plan.
+Stage 1 lists alternatives without pricing them. Stage 3 rejects a candidate
+whose summary estimate misses its query's accuracy target (or has no accuracy
+model), that needs a capability the deployment lacks, or that exceeds its
+memory budget, and selects the cheapest remaining one. Rejection reasons are
+reported with the selection. Cost evidence can rank valid candidates, but it
+cannot establish a missing guarantee or turn an unsupported physical
+alternative into a deployable plan.
 
 ## Module map
 
@@ -53,7 +46,7 @@ an unsupported physical alternative into a deployable plan.
 | Shared IR | `asap-types` | The unified operator IR (`ir`: one `OperatorNode` before and after ASAP optimization), schemas, workloads, guarantees, and exported plan data |
 | Front-end common | `frontend-common` | Name-based `UnresolvedOp` tree shared by the front ends, and `resolve_root` into the operator IR |
 | Query frontends | `frontend-sql`, `frontend-promql`, `frontend-metricsql` | Parse source languages and produce canonical Pre-ASAP queries |
-| ASAP-aware mapping | `asap-logical-optimizer`, `asap-physical-optimizer`, `asap-plan-selection` | #509 Stages 1–3: candidate generation, CSE, legality and accuracy propagation; physical candidates; costing and selection |
+| ASAP-aware mapping | `asap-logical-optimizer`, `asap-physical-optimizer`, `asap-plan-selection` | #509 Stages 1–3: logical alternatives and sharing; physical candidates; accuracy checks, costing and selection |
 | Planner facade | `asap-planner` | Lowering dispatch, the optimization pass (`OptimizationPass`, `StagePipeline`) and `optimize` |
 | Developer inspection | `devtools` | Expose planner DAGs, alternatives, decisions, and explanations for inspection |
 | End-to-end validation | `integration-tests` | Verify behavior across frontends, mapping, and output IR |
@@ -66,27 +59,18 @@ requirements, the planning horizon, available materialized state, downstream
 capabilities, and complete cost evidence. Missing or stale evidence must remain
 explicit rather than being treated as zero.
 
-The primary output is `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`; `cost_sorted` derives an optional ranked
-view with index-aligned costs. Downstream may inspect compatible choices
-across targets rather than assuming the first candidate is a feasible
-physical workload plan. Candidates carry logical summary algorithms,
-parameters, and guarantees, but no materialization decision. Rejection reasons
-are retained in the candidate space.
+The output is the selected plan: one logical Post-ASAP root per query
+(`PlanOutput`), with the selection report — the priced candidates, the rejected
+ones with their reasons, and whether the selection is guaranteed optimal.
+`plan_stages` also returns Stage 1's alternatives for inspection.
 
-ASAPQuery-backend and other downstream applications translate the candidates
+ASAPQuery-backend and other downstream applications translate the selected plan
 into physical alternatives. They own concrete implementations, storage layout,
 placement, sharding, deployment-level cost and compatibility, final commitment,
 serving, and operational feedback. Their physical planning can reorder
 candidates because it has evidence that the reusable Planner does not, but it
 must not silently change Planner-owned semantics.
 
-`candidate_selection::global_selection` optionally coordinates structural choices across
-targets; `GlobalSelection::assemble_selected_dag` constructs a selected semantic DAG.
-Those APIs do not establish physical feasibility or a
-materialization decision. See the [library guide](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#optional-whole-plan-selection-and-dag-assembly)
-for the distinction. Downstream may consume candidates directly and retains
-responsibility for physical commitment.
-
 ## Further reading
 
 - [Parsing and canonicalization](parse-and-canonicalize.md)

docs/design_docs/architecture/asap-aware-mapping.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # ASAP-Aware Mapping
 
+> **Historical:** this document describes the legacy replacement search
+> (`ReplacementStrategy`, `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `global_selection`), which
+> was removed (#630, #635). The #509 stage pipeline replaced it; see
+> [planner layering](../proposals/planner-layering.md) and the
+> [library API](../../develop_docs/library-api.md).
+
 ## Overview
 
 ASAP-aware mapping decides **whether and how a query intent can be answered using summaries instead of scanning raw data**.

docs/design_docs/architecture/asap-aware-plan-search.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # Candidate Plan Search
 
+> **Historical:** this document describes the legacy replacement search
+> (`ReplacementStrategy`, `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `global_selection`), which
+> was removed (#630, #635). The #509 stage pipeline replaced it; see
+> [planner layering](../proposals/planner-layering.md) and the
+> [library API](../../develop_docs/library-api.md).
+
 ASAP-aware mapping should consider all alternatives holistically rather than optimize prematurely.
 
 Suppose a plan contains several independent-looking decision points:
@@ -91,6 +97,6 @@ order.
 
 The [code architecture](../../develop_docs/asap-aware-mapping-architecture.md)
 describes current discovery and registry behavior; the
-[library guide](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#optional-whole-plan-selection-and-dag-assembly)
+[library guide](../../develop_docs/library-api.md)
 shows selection and its evidence boundaries. Broader optimization dimensions are
 tracked in the [proposal](../proposals/asap-aware-mapping/optimizations.md).

docs/design_docs/architecture/evidence-dependent-candidates.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # Evidence-dependent candidates
 
+> **Historical:** this document describes the legacy replacement search
+> (`ReplacementStrategy`, `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `global_selection`), which
+> was removed (#630, #635). The #509 stage pipeline replaced it; see
+> [planner layering](../proposals/planner-layering.md) and the
+> [library API](../../develop_docs/library-api.md).
+
 Audience: ASAPPlanner library integrators, especially ASAPQuery-backend.
 
 `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs` is a space of constructible logical alternatives, not a list of

docs/design_docs/architecture/input-output-workflow.md

@@ -2,6 +2,17 @@
 
 ## Overview
 
+> **Status:** the candidate-space output and the ranking and selection
+> workflows this document describes (`CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `cost_sorted`,
+> `global_selection`, `CostModel`) were removed with the legacy search (#630,
+> #635). ASAPPlanner now runs the #509 stage pipeline and returns the selected
+> plan: `asap_planner::e2e_plan` returns a `PlanOutput`, and
+> `asap_plan_selection::plan_stages` a `StagePipelineRun` with Stage 1's
+> alternatives and the selection report. See the
+> [library API](../../develop_docs/library-api.md) for the current workflow.
+> The input sections below still describe the current `PlanningWorkload`; the
+> output and workflow sections are kept as a historical record.
+
 This document is for library integrators such as ASAPQuery-backend, not users
 submitting queries through a backend.
 
@@ -17,7 +28,7 @@ Post-ASAP alternatives for the workload.
 | `PlanningWorkload.query_workload` | Query language and one-time/repeating query workloads | Yes |
 | `PlanningWorkload.data_workload` | Data arrival and optional evidence about ingestion, cardinality, and distribution | No implicit default. Set `None` when unavailable for non-PromQL workloads; PromQL requires `Some(DataWorkload)` with a nonzero ingestion interval. |
 | Frontend-specific dependencies (outside `PlanningWorkload`) | `SqlCatalog` for SQL; `now_ms` and, when needed, `HistogramCatalog` for PromQL | `SqlCatalog` is required for SQL lowering; `now_ms` is required for PromQL lowering |
-| Planning models | Candidate cost/ranking and accuracy composition/checking | Used by the relevant APIs; built-in `DefaultCostModel` and `DefaultAccuracyModel` are available |
+| Planning models | Accuracy checking, cost calibration and deployment capabilities (`PlanningModels`) | `PlanningModels::builtin()` uses `DefaultAccuracyModel`, an illustrative calibration and unrestricted capabilities |
 | External evidence and capabilities | Domain facts, measured costs, workload statistics, and runtime support | Supply when available and when the chosen optimization depends on them; absence is not proof |
 
 Frontend lowering and candidate search are stages within this workflow, not
@@ -277,8 +288,8 @@ latter cannot be fabricated by one.
 
 | Input | Where it enters / default | Why it matters |
 |---|---|---|
-| Accuracy model | Target-aware search takes an `AccuracyModel`; `DefaultAccuracyModel` is available. Default strategies also use it for candidate construction. | Composes candidate guarantees and checks them against requested accuracy. The model does not itself provide missing data-domain facts. |
-| Cost model | Candidate strategies and `cost_sorted`/`global_selection` use a `CostModel`; `DefaultCostModel` is available. | Ranks or selects candidates. The built-in model is not a measured deployment cost for every physical implementation. |
+| Accuracy model | `PlanningModels.accuracy`; `DefaultAccuracyModel` by default. Stage 3 checks each summary estimate with it. | Derives each estimate's guarantee and checks it against the requested accuracy. The model does not itself provide missing data-domain facts. |
+| Cost calibration | `PlanningModels.calibration`; `Stage3Calibration::ILLUSTRATIVE` by default. | Stage 3 prices candidates analytically; the built-in calibration is not a measured deployment cost. |
 | Accuracy/domain evidence | `AccuracyEvidenceProvider`; default strategies use `NoAccuracyEvidence` when no provider is supplied. | Input ranges, nonempty populations, Top-K intervals, and similar facts can certify or rule out particular approximations. Missing facts remain unknown. |
 | Measured cost evidence | Supplied through a deployment-specific cost model or physical-evidence provider when cost-based physical comparison is needed. | CPU, memory, and I/O estimates must be comparable before claiming a summary beats raw recomputation. |
 | Runtime capabilities | Checked by deployment-specific providers. | Prevents choosing a maintenance/window operation the intended executor cannot implement. |
@@ -297,7 +308,7 @@ the applicable strategy, accuracy target, and helper; missing evidence is not
 a blanket reason to discard unrelated candidates. For the direct DDSketch
 ratio above, search retains a candidate without a proven root guarantee when
 domain evidence is missing; automatic `global_selection` does not choose it.
-See the [candidate-search reference](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#generate-and-rank-candidates)
+See the [candidate-search reference](../../develop_docs/library-api.md)
 for this backend-selection path.
 
 ---
@@ -414,16 +425,16 @@ the result for one query root.
 |:---:|
 | **Input:** [CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs](asap-aware-plan-search.md) + cost model |
 | ↓ |
-| **Select:** [global_selection](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#what-does-global-selection-mean) chooses compatible alternatives |
+| **Select:** [global_selection](../../develop_docs/library-api.md) chooses compatible alternatives |
 | ↓ |
-| **Assemble:** [assemble_selected_dag(root)](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#api-definition-and-example) connects those choices for each query root |
+| **Assemble:** [assemble_selected_dag(root)](../../develop_docs/library-api.md) connects those choices for each query root |
 | ↓ |
 | **Output:** one selected logical [Post-ASAP DAG](../concepts/post-asap-ir.md) per query root |
 
 Each output DAG specifies the chosen operators, parameters, and accuracy
 guarantees. Its root is an `Rc<OperatorNode>` (the same IR as the input,
 with some nodes now ASAP operators) and carries no execution timing yet; the
-[API reference](../../develop_docs/library-api.md#api-definition-and-example)
+[API reference](../../develop_docs/library-api.md)
 describes the function signatures and return handling.
 
 This path selects how to compute the query, not whether summary state is

docs/design_docs/architecture/updated_interface_with_pluggable_optimization.md

@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ What that buys:
 * A new optimization algorithm can be freely implemented as a trait implementation, rather than a
   rule disguised to fit a two-phase pipeline it does not share.
 
-Unchanged: `CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `cost_sorted`, `global_selection`, and the interface
-[input, output, and workflows](input-output-workflow.md) describes.
+The legacy API (`CandidateLogicalASAPDAGs`, `cost_sorted`, `global_selection`)
+was later removed (#630, #635); the "before" example below uses it.
 
 ```text
 PlanningWorkload ──lowering──▶ ParsedWorkload ──OptimizationPass──▶ PlanOutput
@@ -123,8 +123,8 @@ and the target beneath it. When it fails, it builds every combination if
 there are at most 64, and otherwise flags `Selection::method` as not
 guaranteed optimal.
 
-`ReplacementStrategy` remains a concept of the legacy candidate search, which
-the default pass no longer uses.
+`ReplacementStrategy` was a concept of the legacy candidate search, which has
+been removed (#635).
 
 ### 3.2 Plugging in another pass
 

docs/design_docs/concepts/accuracy-models.md

@@ -130,14 +130,11 @@ another implementation with the same algorithm name. In particular, a named
 empirical calibration is different from an arbitrary benchmark's maximum
 observed error; both its confidence and applicability must remain explicit.
 
-The current interfaces still expose general parameter proposal through
-`CostModel::size_params`. Default sizing is dispatched to the estimator modules through the existing
-public candidate-construction entry point. Accuracy validation is independent of those proposals. The new
-source-contract path centralizes HLL sizing and guarantee derivation in
-Planner's accuracy module, overriding the generic proposal when the applicable
-contract is supplied. It does not yet move every algorithm's sizing interface
-out of CostModel. The design boundary is that parameter proposals never grant
-accuracy authority to the cost model.
+Stage 1 sizes every sketch through the estimator modules
+(`asap_logical_optimizer::pass1::realization::default_size_params`); no cost
+model proposes parameters. Accuracy validation (Stage 3's `AccuracyModel`) is
+independent of sizing. The design boundary is that parameter proposals never
+grant accuracy authority to the cost model.
 
 ## Composing guarantees through a DAG