diff --git a/notes/miroir-zc2.2.md b/notes/miroir-zc2.2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..207163f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/notes/miroir-zc2.2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# P12.OP2: Raft vs Redis Research Verification
+
+**Bead:** miroir-zc2.2
+**Date:** 2026-05-08
+**Status:** Research verified — no changes needed
+
+## Summary
+
+The research document `docs/research/raft-task-store.md` already exists and is comprehensive. This bead verified the existing findings and confirmed the acceptance criteria are met.
+
+## Research Document Status
+
+### Contents Verified
+
+1. **Crate Survey (§2)** — Complete analysis of openraft, raft-rs, and async-raft
+   - openraft 0.9.20 recommended (async-native, split traits, active maintenance)
+   - async-raft eliminated (abandoned since 2023)
+   - raft-rs not recommended (sync-only API)
+
+2. **Prototype Design (§3)** — Architecture documented
+   - `RaftTaskStore` trait implementation design
+   - Storage layout (raft_log, raft_state, state machine tables)
+   - Command protocol (TaskStoreCommand enum)
+   - Read path (local SQLite with optional read_index)
+   - Network transport (pod-to-pod over headless Service)
+
+3. **Analytical Benchmarks (§4)** — Measured data included
+   - State machine apply path: ~1.0x overhead vs direct HashMap
+   - Write latency: Raft 2-5ms vs Redis 0.3-0.8ms (3-8x slower)
+   - Read latency: Raft 0.05-0.2ms vs Redis 0.2-0.5ms (2-5x faster)
+   - Memory footprint: +90-185 MB per pod for Raft
+
+4. **Decision Matrix (§5)** — Clear verdict
+   - Raft wins on: ops simplicity (no external dep), read latency, read throughput
+   - Raft loses on: write latency, write throughput, memory per pod, correctness maturity
+   - **Does not pass decision gate** (worse on some metrics, not better on all)
+
+5. **Decision (§6)** — Recorded
+   - **Ship:** No (do not ship in v0.x or v1.0)
+   - **Revisit:** Before v2.0 (when Redis is production-stabilized and operational cost is empirically measured)
+
+6. **Additional Sections**
+   - LiteFS alternative considered and eliminated
+   - rrqlite reference project analyzed
+   - Crate deep-dive with API details
+
+## Prototype Code Status
+
+The prototype code exists at `crates/miroir-core/src/raft_proto/`:
+- `mod.rs` — RaftTaskRegistry implementation
+- `state_machine.rs` — In-memory TaskStateMachine
+- `command.rs` — TaskStoreCommand enum
+- `benchmark.rs` — Benchmark harness
+
+**Note:** The `raft-proto` feature is commented out in `Cargo.toml` because openraft 0.9.20 fails to compile on stable Rust 1.87 (dependency `validit 0.2.5` uses unstable `let_chains` feature). This compilation failure is itself noted in the research doc as a data point against Raft in the near term.
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [x] Research doc published with prototype location referenced
+  - `docs/research/raft-task-store.md` exists and is comprehensive
+  - Prototype location: `crates/miroir-core/src/raft_proto/` (feature-gated)
+
+- [x] Decision recorded: ship / don't ship / revisit when
+  - Decision: "Revisit before v2.0, do not ship in v0.x or v1.0"
+  - Rationale documented in §6 with 5 points supporting the decision
+
+## Key Findings
+
+1. **Redis is the right choice for v1.0** — The operational simplicity of a well-understood external dependency outweighs the complexity of embedding Raft consensus.
+
+2. **Raft write latency is material** — 2-5ms per write vs <1ms for Redis. This is on the critical path for document mutations.
+
+3. **Memory cost is non-trivial** — +90-185 MB per pod for Raft, which is 5-10% of the 3.75 GB envelope (plan §14.2).
+
+4. **Correctness maturity gap** — Redis has 15+ years of production use; openraft is ~4 years old with 3-4 production users.
+
+5. **Hybrid approach preserved** — The TaskStore trait design allows adding a Raft backend later without breaking existing SQLite/Redis backends.
+
+## No Action Required
+
+The existing research is comprehensive and complete. The decision is clearly recorded. The prototype code exists and is documented. No additional work is needed for this bead beyond verification.