diff --git a/SCOPE.md b/SCOPE.md index be182cd..4ae879f 100644 --- a/SCOPE.md +++ b/SCOPE.md @@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ held-out retrieval and real-repository applicability, subject to its recorded ga review dates and comparable-cycle measurement. Actionable work stays in workplans; this file describes boundaries, not a second backlog. +[WP-0007](workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md) proposes a finite 0.1 research +preview: curated candidate reference paths, two core sequences, scoped mappings and +a candidate export. This is not a declared release or a replacement for M1/M2/M3. + The [2026-09-27 scope–intent assessment](history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md) records the current gaps and recommended priorities. Future assessments should preserve that historical judgment and cite changed evidence. diff --git a/TREE.md b/TREE.md index e9adc5b..c373b85 100644 --- a/TREE.md +++ b/TREE.md @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ canon/Responsibilities.md canon/Scales.md canon/vocabulary.yaml history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md +history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md patterns/README.md patterns/address/README.md patterns/affordance/README.md @@ -509,4 +510,5 @@ workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md workplans/FEP-WP-0005-research-bench-setup.md workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md +workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md ``` diff --git a/history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md b/history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..17ec0e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +# Open workplans and a useful language 0.1 + +Reviewed: 2026-09-27T02:16:59+02:00, Europe/Berlin. Baseline: `5db2d0f`. +Reviewer: Codex, author-model repository audit, not independent validation. + +## Conclusion + +A useful **0.1 research preview** is feasible from this corpus, after a bounded +consolidation and packaging pass. Finishing every research task is neither necessary +nor currently supported by the evidence. Publication version, editorial completeness +and evidence maturity must remain separate. This audit does not declare a release, +close M1/M2/M3, change task status or confer canonical admission. + +The bottleneck is now making the accumulated knowledge navigable and usable: a reader +should be able to start with a problem, follow a short decision sequence, compare +alternatives and reach evidence-qualified candidate guidance. More source collection +alone will not provide that reference surface. + +## Inventory and source of truth + +Six file-owned workplans: two finished (0001, 0005), three active (0002, 0003, 0006), +one proposed (0004). Eighteen task blocks: nine done, four progress, five todo. +The nine open tasks are assessed below. Generated WORK-RECORDS.md and the offline +brief are stale; they omit recent work/status changes. Use source workplans and the +current State Hub reconciliation receipt, not those historical generated summaries. + +Inventory correction: the initial **compact candidate table has 16 seeds**, whereas +[patterns/README.md](../patterns/README.md) contains **59 broader seed names**, already +present at initial commit `2a5dabd`. The earlier 7 developed / 9 undeveloped comparison +applies only to the compact table. It is not coverage of all initial ideas. Neither +list is a release quota. There are still 17 developed candidate records, all hypotheses. + +## Task-by-task disposition + +| Workplan / task | What exists | What prevents honest closure | Recommended handling for 0.1 | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| 0002 T02 — source evidence (progress) | Carniato/local-first reviews, source locators, later conflict/recovery and implementation studies | Initial source records still say extracted; later task notes accumulated storage/receiver/recurrence obligations | Near closure of its original source-review deliverable: write a final source assessment, reconcile statuses and explicitly hand implementation residuals to live tasks. Do not simply mark all evidence work done. | +| 0002 T03 — connected corpus (progress) | Eight connected recovery drafts, VC-01/02 synthetic traces, frozen pilot and submitted model review | M1-SeedReview.md absent; independent human validation/fresh replication still open in task history; usefulness unproven | Produce an honest pass/revise/defer M1 review. Package its supported subset while preserving open validation; no forced M1 pass. | +| 0003 T01 — six streams (progress) | Coverage matrix; documentary material in A–F; extensive B/D/E/F slices and C/D comparison | Independent known uses and complete contracts uneven; bounded Zulip and authority/projection follow-ups remain | Consolidate evidence per stream and name residuals. Further source work only if a release claim depends on it; do not make every interesting follow-up a 0.1 dependency. | +| 0003 T02 — contrasting walkthroughs (todo) | VC-03 and VC-06 provisional; coverage inventory for ten cases | M1 prerequisite open; VC-04/05 absent, VC-03/06 not completed | Keep full M2 coverage post-preview. For 0.1, expose two existing core traces and clearly label provisional/unsupported cases. | +| 0003 T03 — ontology/M2 review (todo) | Seed dispositions, classification mappings and authority/projection decision aid | No M2-CoverageReview.md; case gate open; relation/overlap questions remain | Record a bounded ontology review of the published subset, including Conflict Copy / Explicit Reconciliation. Full M2 stays open. | +| 0004 T01 — metadata/graph (todo) | Schema examples, candidate IDs, classification/evolution checks | Full PatternSchema validation/admitted graph absent; M1 prerequisite open | A candidate-only index/export can support the preview under WP-0007. It must label proposed relations and does not complete this gated canonical task. | +| 0004 T02 — held-out retrieval (todo) | Consumed six-pair development pilot, equal adjudicated totals | M2 prerequisite and fresh held-out comparison unmet; human usefulness unresolved | Defer formal M3 evaluation; perform disclosed development navigation checks for preview usability only. Use llm-connect if live inference is needed. | +| 0004 T03 — real repositories (todo) | Pinned Zulip/Element and feature-example slices | At least two contrasting whole-task applicability studies and M3-EmpiricalReview.md absent | Reuse partial source findings with explicit limits. Do not count file reads or example repos as the completed M3 gate. | +| 0006 T03 — comparable cycles (progress) | Five prospective cycles, protocols, effort, snapshots and report | Five different groups; no comparable trend window; 14 unknown substantive-review dates | Reconcile dates where supported and publish unknowns. Keep longitudinal work live beyond 0.1; do not manufacture cycles to finish a task. | + +WP-0001 and WP-0005 remain finished. No existing open workplan can be declared fully +finished by this audit. In particular, tests and many research receipts do not substitute +for its specified review artifact or independent validation. + +## Proposed 0.1 release contract + +The proposed [WP-0007](../workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md) owns packaging +and release review, avoiding duplicate ownership of empirical tasks. + +A reader should be able to: + +1. Start from a transactional or offline problem and identify assumptions and forces. +2. Follow one of two short decision sequences to a connected core subset of the + existing candidates, with alternatives, resulting contexts and failure boundaries. +3. Find all seventeen drafts through family/scale/responsibility/force indexes; tell + developed candidates from the 16 compact and 59 broader seed inventories. +4. Reach evidence-qualified implementation examples for both core cases without + mistaking a mechanism example for a certified complete implementation. +5. Export stable research identities and proposed relations with provenance and + limitations; inspect current evidence and the history of revisions. +6. See what is unsupported, how to report a counterexample and what changes in later + versions. Hypothesis status remains visible at point of use. + +Release acceptance: references resolve, identities are stable, proposed edges have +rationale and sources/unknowns, source/draft ownership is clear, and development +navigation checks expose no unresolved misleading claims. Existing appropriate tests +pass. The release review identifies reviewer role and evidence limits, pins the +corpus revision, and lists open validation tasks. This is a practical reference +preview—not an empirical claim that the language improves decisions. + +Excluded from the preview gate: all 59 seeds developed, every case complete, canonical +maturity, general framework coverage, proven production guarantees, independent human +usefulness, and diminishing-returns measurement. These exclusions change the preview +boundary, not the acceptance criteria of the existing research milestones. + +## Order of work + +1. Reconcile source/seed/ontology review artifacts against actual evidence; classify + acceptance criteria as pass, revise or defer. Transfer residuals into explicit live + task records before finishing any workplan. No historical evidence rewriting. +2. Curate the existing eight recovery candidates as the initial connected core, with + the remaining nine available as extension hypotheses. Publish decision entry points, + two sequences and scoped technology/example mappings; avoid a new application UI. +3. Add the smallest candidate-reference export and validation needed by those paths. + Inspect selected links and decisions through fixed development queries. Preserve + the frozen pilot; do not call these fresh held-out validation. +4. Review the package as a versioned 0.1 research preview, record remaining limits and + produce release notes. Tag/publish only when that release record supports it. + +The currently pending pinned-application comparison is not automatically the next +priority if consolidation is chosen. It remains live under WP-0003 T01, alongside +the Zulip residual. This audit recommends concentrating on the finite release contract +rather than allowing every new source question to extend it indefinitely. + +## Evidence and limitations + +Based on all six source workplans, [ResearchProgram](../research/plan/ResearchProgram.md), +[ValidationCases](../research/plan/ValidationCases.md), [Admission](../research/bench/Admission.md), +[the evolution report](../research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md), source reviews, +walkthroughs and the reference stubs. State Hub reported no FEP tasks flagged +needs_human; that administrative flag does not mean human validation is complete. +No new external research, inference or application experiment was performed. diff --git a/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md b/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md index 1da9f20..1e1855b 100644 --- a/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md +++ b/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Generated by `python3 scripts/classification_coverage.py`; assessment: 2026-09-2 17 developed drafts; 16 original seeds at `2a5dabd`. 7 original seeds developed, 9 without dedicated drafts, 10 later additions. All current candidates remain hypotheses; classification confers no admission or new evidence. +The original comparison above is the compact 16-entry table. The broader initial [patterns README](../../patterns/README.md) lists 59 seed names; it is a separate discovery inventory, not 59 developed records or a release quota. + Families/scales come from current candidate metadata. Responsibilities and forces are provisional author-model interpretations in [ClassificationCoverage.json](ClassificationCoverage.json), with candidate hashes and per-record rationale. They are separate from canonical metadata. Count a candidate once per assigned label; labels overlap. Responsibilities describe the direct mechanism, not every prerequisite or downstream effect. Forces are selected trade-offs, not exhaustive coverage or measured outcomes. diff --git a/scripts/classification_coverage.py b/scripts/classification_coverage.py index 95c0327..b5f896e 100644 --- a/scripts/classification_coverage.py +++ b/scripts/classification_coverage.py @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ def render(): uncovered = [r[0] for r in seed_rows if r[0] not in covered] lines = ['# Classification coverage', '', 'Generated by `python3 scripts/classification_coverage.py`; assessment: ' + data['assessed_at'] + '.', '', f"{len(records)} developed drafts; {len(seed_rows)} original seeds at `{INITIAL}`. {len(covered)} original seeds developed, {len(uncovered)} without dedicated drafts, {len(records)-len(covered)} later additions. All current candidates remain hypotheses; classification confers no admission or new evidence.", '', + 'The original comparison above is the compact 16-entry table. The broader initial [patterns README](../../patterns/README.md) lists 59 seed names; it is a separate discovery inventory, not 59 developed records or a release quota.', '', 'Families/scales come from current candidate metadata. Responsibilities and forces are provisional author-model interpretations in [ClassificationCoverage.json](ClassificationCoverage.json), with candidate hashes and per-record rationale. They are separate from canonical metadata.', '', data['counting_rule'], '', 'A zero means no assigned direct coverage, not absence of discussion. Force direction describes an intended favorable effect or accepted cost, not a measured result. A classification refresh requires reading changed candidates; do not merely replace hashes.', '', '## Families', '', '| Family | Original seeds | Developed drafts |', '| --- | ---: | ---: |'] diff --git a/workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md b/workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1ea7644 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +--- +id: FEP-WP-0007 +type: workplan +title: "Package a useful language 0.1 research preview" +domain: infotech +repo: frontend-patterns +status: proposed +owner: codex +topic_slug: canon +created: "2026-09-27" +updated: "2026-09-27" +--- + +# Package a useful language 0.1 research preview + +Proposed from the user-requested [workplan audit](../history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md). +This is a finite packaging and editorial review plan, not a declaration of release or +an evidence-gate replacement. Existing M1/M2/M3 and canonical-admission criteria remain +unchanged. The published corpus may contain hypotheses with stable CAND identities; +publication version 0.1 is separate from PatternSchema 0.1 and evidence maturity. + +## Reconcile the release subset and milestone assessments + +```task +id: FEP-WP-0007-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Work with WP-0002 T02/T03 and WP-0003 T03 to produce explicit pass/revise/defer reviews +of source readiness, the connected core and ontology. Start with the eight existing +transactional/local-first recovery drafts; retain other candidates as qualified +extensions. Decide whether Conflict Copy and Explicit Reconciliation need separate +retrieval, with reasons. Record the subset in a release manifest; do not move drafts +into patterns/ or assign FEP IDs without their admission review. + +Done when each core record has context, forces, proposed solution, alternatives, +consequences, evidence and gaps checked, and the milestone review distinguishes +editorial readiness from unmet empirical gates. Do not claim human validation from +model review. Keep source assessment ownership in WP-0002, ontology in WP-0003. + +## Publish the human reference paths + +```task +id: FEP-WP-0007-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +After T01, create a concise starting guide, two decision sequences grounded in VC-01/02, +and at least one evidence-qualified implementation mapping for each core case. Index +all seventeen candidates without presenting unreviewed seed names as developed records. +Document compatible configurations, rejected alternatives and unsupported needs. +Reuse and link existing source/candidate records; avoid divergent duplicate contracts. + +Done when a reader can move from either supported problem to a small configuration, +its implementation options and its failure/evidence limits without reading the research +history. Provisional VC-03/06 remain clearly labeled extensions; no complete coverage +claim for the remaining cases. No standalone frontend application required. + +## Validate candidate reference export and development navigation + +```task +id: FEP-WP-0007-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +After T01/T02, export the smallest useful candidate-reference representation: stable +CAND identities, families/scales, provisional classification, proposed typed relations, +rationale and evidence locators or explicit unknowns. Validate identities, endpoints, +allowed vocabulary and references. Test invalid references and malformed records. +This candidate surface is separate from WP-0004 T01's M1-gated canonical graph. + +Record at least six disclosed development queries across the two supported contexts, +including incompatible constraints, missing context and an unsupported need. Verify +reference paths, alternatives and abstention boundaries; fix misleading claims before +release. These are development checks, not the M2-gated held-out M3 evaluation or +independent human usefulness proof. Use llm-connect for any live inference; model +execution is optional if deterministic/manual checks answer the reference question. + +## Review and record the 0.1 preview + +```task +id: FEP-WP-0007-T04 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +After T01–T03, write a release review and notes, pin the corpus revision and publish +the evidence profile, supported contexts and known limits. Check the human entry +points, exports and applicable test targets. Record reviewer role; zero unsupported +maturity/production/usefulness claims is required. Define how later versions record +corrections and counterexamples. Do not use catalog size as acceptance. + +Only mark the preview ready when the review passes its bounded contract. No tag or +release claim from this proposed plan alone. Existing research work stays open unless +its own criteria are met; before finishing this workplan, hand residual release issues +to explicit live tasks with origin references. The empirical owners remain WP-0002 +T03, WP-0003 T01/T02/T03, WP-0004 T01/T02/T03 and WP-0006 T03.