Git's storage scales; its model for merging parallel work is what strains

In the lab, a proposal for a new protocol to replace git when many AI coding streams produce code in parallel got a first design assessment from Claude. The assessment was prose only: no tools were used and no code was written. Its verdict on the premise: "The premise is half right. Git's object store scales fine. Linux, Chromium, and Meta's monorepo prove that. What does not scale is git's integration model."

The assessment located the problem in how changes land: "Main is a single pointer. Every landing is a compare-and-swap on one ref. Rebase storms grow with contention, not with code volume." It also noted that "Conflicts are not state. Git refuses to store a conflict. It makes a human resolve it synchronously." The goal was reframed as higher integration throughput, meaning verified contributions landed per hour with a low conflict rate and little wasted verification work, rather than being more efficient than git. No protocol design, code or prototype exists yet.