67 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
|
# Research protocol
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Status: working method · 2026-09-24
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Research unit
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A unit is a question, an evidence set and a recorded conclusion. Before reading,
|
||
|
|
state the question, current hypothesis, assumptions and what would contradict it.
|
||
|
|
Use [SourceReview](../../templates/SourceReview.md) for extraction and
|
||
|
|
[ArchitectureWalkthrough](../../templates/ArchitectureWalkthrough.md) for application.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Evidence handling
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Prefer original publications, standards, research papers, official documentation
|
||
|
|
and identifiable implementations. Secondary surveys help discovery; trace their
|
||
|
|
substantive claims to primary evidence where possible.
|
||
|
|
2. Record author/publisher, title, exact URL or bibliographic locator, publication
|
||
|
|
date/version and access date. Mark unavailable information as unknown.
|
||
|
|
3. In each source review, assign local claim labels (C01, C02, …). Cite claims by
|
||
|
|
file path plus label. Separate source statements, our interpretations and tests.
|
||
|
|
4. Cite sections, pages or repository revisions. Paraphrase accurately; keep any
|
||
|
|
quotations short and attributed. A source being listed is not evidence of review.
|
||
|
|
5. Record conflicts and negative cases. Multiple sources repeating the same origin
|
||
|
|
are not independent confirmation. An unavailable source stays pending.
|
||
|
|
6. Update `research/catalog/SourceCatalog.md` with the review path and state:
|
||
|
|
queued, extracted or reviewed. These are research workflow labels, not pattern
|
||
|
|
evidence maturity. Do not invent publication details to fill a template.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Pattern synthesis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Extract problem, context, competing forces, recurring configuration, dynamics,
|
||
|
|
resulting context, consequences and failure modes before assigning a pattern name.
|
||
|
|
Compare candidates against existing ones: retain, merge, split, reject or defer,
|
||
|
|
with reasons in `research/catalog/PatternCandidateCatalog.md`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A draft promoted into `patterns/` must satisfy the schema agreed in FEP-WP-0002,
|
||
|
|
include at least two competing forces, evidence locators, a justified relation to
|
||
|
|
another pattern, a failure case and an explicit maturity. Cite two contrasting
|
||
|
|
applications where available; otherwise retain hypothesis status and state the gap.
|
||
|
|
A framework feature alone does not establish recurrence. A directory named `canon`
|
||
|
|
does not confer evidence maturity on its contents.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Generativity test
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Hold the application brief fixed. Record each architectural decision, forces,
|
||
|
|
applicable alternatives, chosen patterns and resulting context. Then vary one
|
||
|
|
constraint (for example offline operation or independent deployment) and explain
|
||
|
|
which decisions change. Compare with a plain architecture narrative written without
|
||
|
|
the pattern catalog. If the language adds only renamed labels, revise it.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Record quality constraints at the start and throughout the walkthrough: accessibility,
|
||
|
|
security, privacy, recovery and performance must influence earlier decisions too.
|
||
|
|
The existing sequence's late quality step is a hypothesis to challenge.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Review and stopping rules
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For every gate, record reviewer, date, artifacts, checks, counterevidence and outcome
|
||
|
|
(pass, revise or defer) in `research/reviews/`. A review passes only if references
|
||
|
|
are traceable, examples resolve their metadata references, and another reader can
|
||
|
|
follow the reasoning. Distinguish synthetic scenarios from observed systems.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Stop broad source collection when the bounded question has sufficient evidence to
|
||
|
|
support or reject the current hypothesis; record remaining uncertainty. Do not
|
||
|
|
stretch source claims to meet a pattern-count target. Preserve superseded conclusions
|
||
|
|
through Git history and link the replacement. Reopen a conclusion when new evidence
|
||
|
|
invalidates a stated assumption.
|