Audit open work and define a bounded language 0.1 preview

Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9

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.

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
 ```

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.

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.

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 |', '| --- | ---: | ---: |']

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.