Broaden pattern hypotheses across presentation composition and quality

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

SCOPE.md

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ and agent reference, following the preliminary direction in `INTENT.md`.
 
 Research scaffold with an infospace-bench adapter as of 2026-09-26. The adapter
 has deterministic integration tests, completed bounded live investigations through
-llm-connect, and three synthetic architecture walkthroughs (VC-03 provisional). Ten developed research
+llm-connect, and three synthetic architecture walkthroughs (VC-03 provisional). Sixteen developed research
 drafts remain hypotheses; none is canonically admitted. No frontend application runtime exists. See `research/bench/README.md`,
 `REVIEW.md` (the initial review) and `workplans/` for follow-up work.
 

TREE.md

@@ -242,15 +242,21 @@ research/bench/sources/joplin-conflicts.md
 research/bench/sources/kubernetes-stale-writes.md
 research/bench/sources/obsidian-conflicts.md
 research/candidates/ConflictCopy.md
+research/candidates/DerivedState.md
 research/candidates/ExplicitReconciliation.md
+research/candidates/FailureBoundary.md
+research/candidates/FocusReturn.md
 research/candidates/InvalidateAndReproject.md
+research/candidates/IslandsOfInteractivity.md
 research/candidates/LocalCommitBoundary.md
 research/candidates/LocalDraftState.md
 research/candidates/MutationOutcomeTracking.md
 research/candidates/PendingSynchronization.md
+research/candidates/PresentationModel.md
 research/candidates/ProgressiveEnhancement.md
 research/candidates/URLAddressableState.md
 research/candidates/VersionCheckedMutation.md
+research/candidates/VerticalFeatureSlice.md
 research/cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md
 research/cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md
 research/catalog/PatternCandidateCatalog.md
@@ -364,6 +370,7 @@ research/reviews/MatrixRecoveryExperiment.md
 research/reviews/NavigationCoverage.md
 research/reviews/NavigationRenderingEvidence.md
 research/reviews/ObsidianConflictScreen.json
+research/reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md
 research/reviews/RecoveryReviewMetrics.json
 research/reviews/RecoveryWalkthroughReview.md
 research/reviews/ResearchOptimization.md

research/README.md

@@ -43,3 +43,8 @@ Current follow-up: [shared guidance corrections](reviews/SharedGuidanceRevision.
 and [navigation/rendering evidence](reviews/NavigationRenderingEvidence.md), with
 [provisional VC-03](walkthroughs/VC03-ContentPublication.md). Ten developed hypotheses;
 M1 remains open and the broader M2 evidence gate is not satisfied.
+
+Latest expansion: [six broader candidates and decision probes](reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md)
+cover presentation logic, derived state, feature organization, client activation,
+failure containment and modal focus. Current total: sixteen developed hypotheses;
+previous counts above describe earlier slices. No additional runtime or model runs.

research/candidates/DerivedState.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: Derived State
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [projection, affordance]
+scales: [L3, L6]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Derived State
+
+Context: totals, filters and enabled states can be calculated from existing inputs.
+Keeping separate mutable copies risks disagreement; repeated computation costs time.
+
+Proposed solution: identify the authoritative inputs and derive a read-only result
+from a coherent input snapshot. Cache expensive results only with explicit dependency
+and invalidation rules. An independently editable proposal is a new input, not a
+computed value to overwrite when its source changes.
+
+Result: fewer mutable synchronization obligations, at the cost of computation and
+cache bookkeeping. Deriving from stale input does not make the output fresh. Time,
+locale and access context must be represented when they influence the result.
+
+Evidence: B02 locates Redux selector guidance. This is a documented mechanism,
+not a requirement to adopt Redux or a global store. Alternative: a maintained
+materialized view when recomputation is too expensive, with its consistency contract.
+Historical snapshots and user overrides must retain their distinct meanings.
+
+Proposed relations: supplies [Presentation Model](PresentationModel.md); refreshing
+inputs through [Invalidate and Reproject](InvalidateAndReproject.md) is conditional.
+
+Next test: change a filtered record and its filter together; verify list and total
+use the same snapshot, then challenge a cached result with a changed locale.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/candidates/FailureBoundary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: Failure Boundary
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [quality, composition]
+scales: [L5, L6]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Failure Boundary
+
+Context: a failing region should not remove unrelated useful work. Continuity
+competes with the cost of partial-state recovery and boundary coordination.
+
+Proposed solution: define which failures a boundary contains, replace the affected
+region with usable feedback, and give recovery an explicit reset/retry contract.
+Keep required navigation and recoverable intent outside the failing subtree when
+appropriate. If containment itself fails, define the next enclosing recovery path.
+
+Result: some work can continue; shared state corruption or global runtime failure
+may still cross the boundary. Resetting presentation does not undo remote effects.
+Never replay a write merely because a region remounted. Distinguish expected domain
+rejection and network errors from uncaught rendering faults.
+
+Evidence: B05 locates React's rendering-error boundary and documented exclusions;
+this proposal does not claim it catches every asynchronous or event-handler error.
+Alternative: fail the entire task when partial continuation would mislead users.
+A fallback is a product state that needs accessible controls, not just logging.
+
+Proposed relations: [Mutation Outcome Tracking](MutationOutcomeTracking.md) handles
+uncertain writes separately; [Focus Return](FocusReturn.md) applies to modal dismissal,
+not automatically to every error replacement.
+
+Next test: inject render, event-handler, network and fallback failures separately;
+record which are contained and whether retry duplicates an accepted operation.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/candidates/FocusReturn.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+title: Focus Return
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [quality, affordance]
+scales: [L6]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Focus Return
+
+Context: a modal task temporarily interrupts another keyboard workflow. Closing it
+can leave users without a meaningful continuation point. Continuity competes with
+changing document structure and the next task's needs.
+
+Proposed solution: retain the invocation context and choose a meaningful focus
+location inside the modal. On closing, return focus to the invoker when appropriate;
+if it disappeared or completion changes the next step, choose a logical surviving
+target. Define ownership for nested dialogs so an obsolete close callback cannot
+move focus out of the current task.
+
+Result: interruption has an explicit return path, but dynamic targets need lifecycle
+handling. Do not steal focus on unrelated background updates or apply modal focus
+containment to ordinary page regions. This narrow candidate does not claim complete
+accessibility conformance; labeling, inert background and keyboard behavior remain
+part of the containing dialog contract.
+
+Evidence: B06 locates APG's modal focus guidance and return exceptions. Generalizing
+to route transitions requires separate evidence. Alternative: inline interaction
+when modal interruption adds no value. Defer merging this into a broader accessible
+interaction pattern until contrasting cases support that scope.
+
+Proposed relation: can support [Explicit Reconciliation](ExplicitReconciliation.md)
+when comparison uses a modal; reconciliation does not require a modal.
+
+Next test: close nested dialogs, delete the invoking row, and complete a task that
+creates the next target; verify keyboard and assistive-technology behavior.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/candidates/IslandsOfInteractivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+title: Islands of Interactivity
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [projection, execution]
+scales: [L3, L5]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Islands of Interactivity
+
+Context: a document contains a few interactive regions surrounded by readable
+content. Client execution cost competes with interaction readiness and coordination.
+
+Proposed solution: deliver useful document content, then activate selected regions
+with separately scoped client behavior and an explicit loading policy. Declare what
+works before activation and how regions exchange shared state, if needed.
+
+Result: the execution surface can shrink, but delayed activation, shared dependencies
+and cross-region state introduce complexity. A region is not a security sandbox or
+proof of fault containment. Loading several runtimes can erase the intended savings.
+A dense application with tightly coupled interactions may benefit from one client
+root instead; measure before claiming faster delivery.
+
+Evidence: B04 locates Astro's client-island mechanism. Server islands are a separate
+mechanism and are not generalized here. No application benchmark or independent
+full-pattern recurrence is established by this documentation.
+
+Proposed relations: can complement [Progressive Enhancement](ProgressiveEnhancement.md)
+but does not guarantee a no-script task; [Failure Boundary](FailureBoundary.md)
+requires its own contract.
+
+Next test: fail one region's script download and delay another; verify document
+reading, pre-activation controls, focus continuity and cross-region consistency.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/candidates/PresentationModel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+title: Presentation Model
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [composition, affordance]
+scales: [L4, L6]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Presentation Model
+
+Context: a screen contains presentation decisions that are difficult to exercise
+through widget APIs. Testability and reuse compete with binding complexity.
+
+Proposed solution: represent presentation state and decisions independently of the
+concrete controls; adapt that model into the view and translate interaction back
+into intents. Domain authority stays outside presentation decisions. Specify the
+binding direction and ownership of each editable value to avoid feedback loops.
+
+Result: logic can be tested without mounting the full interface, but model/view
+synchronization becomes another failure surface. This is broader than Local Draft
+State: a presentation model may contain selection and enablement without any draft.
+Do not create a second editable copy of every domain object by default.
+
+Evidence: B01 locates Fowler's named pattern and its synchronization trade-off.
+The source is a historical draft, not a verified deployment in this research.
+Alternative: keep a trivial screen's logic in its view; another controller style
+may be sufficient. Full-pattern recurrence here remains unverified.
+
+Proposed relations: may contain [Local Draft State](LocalDraftState.md) and compute
+[Derived State](DerivedState.md); neither is mandatory.
+
+Next test: edit, refresh and change selection; verify ownership of draft versus
+server observation and ensure a binding update does not trigger duplicate commands.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/candidates/VerticalFeatureSlice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: Vertical Feature Slice
+status: draft
+maturity: hypothesis
+families: [composition]
+scales: [L4]
+admission: research-candidate-only
+---
+
+# Vertical Feature Slice
+
+Context: one product change spans UI, state and service interaction scattered across
+technical folders. Change locality competes with reuse and cross-feature coordination.
+
+Proposed solution: group the frontend parts of a cohesive capability behind an
+explicit public interface. Declare permitted dependencies and compose capabilities
+at a higher boundary. Put shared primitives where their ownership is clear; do not
+hide cross-feature workflows inside another feature's private modules.
+
+Result: a capability can evolve internally, but interface design and shared concepts
+need maintenance. A folder or barrel export does not enforce isolation. This is a
+source-code boundary, not proof of independent deployment, team autonomy, security
+isolation or an end-to-end backend service boundary.
+
+Evidence: B03 locates Feature-Sliced Design's product-oriented grouping and public
+API rules. The proposed pattern abstracts those mechanisms without adopting its
+entire layer taxonomy. Full-pattern application recurrence remains unverified.
+Alternative: technical layers for a small cohesive application; extract shared
+behavior only when its ownership and consumers justify the new coupling.
+
+Proposed relation: may contain [Presentation Model](PresentationModel.md); feature
+boundaries need not coincide with [Failure Boundary](FailureBoundary.md).
+
+Next test: change one capability's storage adapter; inspect imports and consumer
+contracts. Change only deployment cadence next and identify new obligations.
+
+Evidence locators: [breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or admitted graph edges.
+The next test is planned, not executed. Known uses of the complete proposed contract
+have not been verified in this investigation.

research/catalog/PatternCandidateCatalog.md

@@ -103,3 +103,22 @@ documentation mechanisms do not establish full-pattern recurrence or decision be
 Six existing drafts received [shared guidance corrections](../reviews/SharedGuidanceRevision.md)
 outside the frozen pilot. Stop adding drafts for this slice; next gather implementation
 evidence and challenge the proposed contracts.
+
+## Broader decisions — 2026-09-26
+
+The user's request to broaden supersedes the previous slice's pause on candidate
+addition. Six further developed hypotheses bring the current total to **sixteen**:
+
+| Draft | Family / scale | Decision |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| [Presentation Model](../candidates/PresentationModel.md) | composition, affordance / L4, L6 | Separate presentation decisions from widget APIs |
+| [Derived State](../candidates/DerivedState.md) | projection, affordance / L3, L6 | Compute values instead of maintaining competing mutable copies |
+| [Vertical Feature Slice](../candidates/VerticalFeatureSlice.md) | composition / L4 | Organize a capability behind a public module interface |
+| [Islands of Interactivity](../candidates/IslandsOfInteractivity.md) | projection, execution / L3, L5 | Activate selected document regions |
+| [Failure Boundary](../candidates/FailureBoundary.md) | quality, composition / L5, L6 | Contain a declared failure class and define recovery |
+| [Focus Return](../candidates/FocusReturn.md) | quality, affordance / L6 | Resume keyboard work after modal interruption |
+
+[Breadth review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md) records primary claims,
+non-overlap, counterexamples, synthetic probes and deferred candidates. Initial seed
+rows above are historical inventory, not additional developed records. No canonical
+admission, proven recurrence or demonstrated presentation benefit is claimed.

research/catalog/SourceCatalog.md

@@ -93,3 +93,19 @@ independent application. [Review](../reviews/MatrixRecoveryExperiment.md).
 
 Living pages accessed 2026-09-26, exact revisions unknown; no runtime checks.
 [Claim locators, dispositions and limits](../reviews/NavigationRenderingEvidence.md).
+
+## Presentation, composition and quality expansion — 2026-09-26
+
+| ID | Primary source | Scope / revision |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| SRC-0023 | [Fowler: Presentation Model](https://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PresentationModel.html) | 2004-07-19 historical draft; presentation/view synchronization |
+| SRC-0024 | [Redux: Deriving Data with Selectors](https://redux.js.org/usage/deriving-data-selectors) | Minimal stored state and computed views |
+| SRC-0025 | [FSD slices/segments](https://github.com/feature-sliced/documentation/blob/6691676119fc998b6d58a2b32582c0074a072f2d/src/content/docs/docs/reference/slices-segments.mdx) | Pinned revision 6691676119fc998b6d58a2b32582c0074a072f2d; product grouping and public interfaces |
+| SRC-0026 | [Astro islands](https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/islands/) | Client activation boundaries |
+| SRC-0027 | [React Component](https://react.dev/reference/react/Component#catching-rendering-errors-with-an-error-boundary) | Rendering-error fallback and exclusions |
+| SRC-0028 | [WAI APG modal dialog](https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/dialog-modal/) | Focus entry/return and exceptions |
+
+All accessed 2026-09-26; exact revisions unknown unless stated. Bounded documentary
+review, no runtime or deployment validation. [Claims B01–B06 and dispositions](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md).
+These sources address different mechanisms and do not establish independent
+recurrence of any one complete candidate.

research/plan/OpenQuestions.md

@@ -71,3 +71,11 @@ are 18/24 for each condition after four corrections. No presentation benefit is
 established; equal totals do not establish equivalence. Worksheet declares model
 authorship and prior aggregate-result exposure. Q04 remains open; future rubrics
 should split compound obligations before execution.
+
+## Breadth update — 2026-09-26
+
+[Six-candidate review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md) extends Q03/Q05/Q06.
+Q06 separates module interfaces, client activation, fault containment and independent
+release contracts. Q05 asks when modal focus/lifecycle requirements must shape
+composition. Q03 still lacks verified recurrence for these complete contracts;
+Q04 still lacks demonstrated decision benefit. Synthetic probes do not close cases.

research/reviews/NavigationCoverage.md

@@ -4,13 +4,15 @@ WP-0003 T01 working matrix. Entries mark located evidence, not completed streams
 
 | Stream | Current evidence | Key gap / disagreement |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| A — GUI architecture | No dedicated primary-source comparison yet | Presentation/domain separation and competing historical models |
+| A — GUI architecture | [B01/B02](PatternBreadthExpansion.md): Presentation Model and selectors | Independent application uses and comparison with other controller/state models |
 | B — Navigation/hypermedia | [N01–N04/N06](NavigationRenderingEvidence.md): htmx, SvelteKit and browser history | Framework examples versus pinned application behavior; direct entry versus transient state |
-| C — Rendering/execution | [N05](NavigationRenderingEvidence.md): SvelteKit HTML/client options; existing SRC-0001 interpretation | Pre-rendering, hydration, islands and streaming lack comparable implementation coverage |
+| C — Rendering/execution | [N05](NavigationRenderingEvidence.md): SvelteKit HTML/client options; existing SRC-0001 interpretation | [B04](PatternBreadthExpansion.md) adds client-island docs; implementation comparisons and performance evidence remain missing |
 | D — Authority/synchronization | [Transactional evidence](TransactionalEvidenceExpansion.md), [frontend recovery](FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md), [Matrix experiment](MatrixRecoveryExperiment.md) | Synthetic receiver cannot prove production durability/deduplication; canonical admission remains open |
-| E — Composition/organization | Seed catalog only | Independent feature/deployment boundaries and their operational cost |
-| F — Quality | Retention/recovery guidance; navigation resilience requirements | No accessibility/performance validation; no-script support is narrower than resilience |
+| E — Composition/organization | [B03](PatternBreadthExpansion.md): feature grouping and public interfaces | Independent feature/deployment boundaries and their operational cost |
+| F — Quality | Retention/recovery guidance; [B05/B06](PatternBreadthExpansion.md): rendering failures and modal focus | No accessibility/performance validation; no-script support is narrower than resilience |
 
-Next slice is implementation evidence for B/C, not expansion of the candidate count.
+The user subsequently requested broader coverage: six drafts and documentary probes
+were added in the breadth review. Implementation evidence for B/C remains pending.
+All six streams now have some documentary material; none is thereby complete.
 VC-01/02 are synthetic reviewed drafts; VC-03 is provisional; VC-04–10 remain planned.
 No source count is used as a recurrence score or evidence-gate substitute.

research/reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Pattern breadth expansion — 2026-09-26
+
+Status: editorial source review and synthetic decision probes by Codex, under
+WP-0003 T01. The user explicitly requested broader pattern coverage after the
+navigation slice. This supersedes its immediate pause on adding candidates, while
+preserving the open evidence gates and pending implementation tests.
+
+Six drafts cover decisions absent or implicit in the previous ten: presentation
+logic placement, derived-value ownership, feature boundaries, selective execution,
+rendering-failure containment and return from modal interaction. They are research
+hypotheses, not six new inventions or canonical admissions. Most develop existing
+program targets. Focus Return deliberately narrows the broad accessibility seed.
+No additional live inference was run; future live execution remains on llm-connect.
+
+## Primary claims before normalization
+
+Accessed 2026-09-26. Except the dated Fowler article and pinned FSD document, these
+are living pages with exact revisions/publication dates unknown. Documentation
+examples are not observed production deployments. No application was executed.
+
+| Claim / source | Locator | Source observation | Proposed interpretation and limit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| B01 / SRC-0023 | [Fowler: Presentation Model](https://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PresentationModel.html), How it Works / When to Use It; 2004-07-19, author-marked draft | Presentation decisions can live outside GUI controls; synchronizing model and view adds work | Develop Presentation Model as a particular separation mechanism, not a universal controller architecture |
+| B02 / SRC-0024 | [Redux: Deriving Data with Selectors](https://redux.js.org/usage/deriving-data-selectors), Deriving Data / Calculating Derived Data | Compute additional values from minimal stored state; selectors encapsulate lookups and calculations | Develop Derived State independently of the library; editable overrides and historical snapshots require different ownership |
+| B03 / SRC-0025 | [FSD: Slices and segments, pinned source](https://github.com/feature-sliced/documentation/blob/6691676119fc998b6d58a2b32582c0074a072f2d/src/content/docs/docs/reference/slices-segments.mdx), Slices / Public API rule | Product-oriented groups expose public interfaces and constrain imports | Develop Vertical Feature Slice; module organization alone says nothing about release independence |
+| B04 / SRC-0026 | [Astro: Islands architecture](https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/islands/), What is an island? / Client Islands | Client islands activate selected components separately; regions can communicate and share state | Develop selective client execution; do not infer security isolation, fault containment or measured speed |
+| B05 / SRC-0027 | [React: Component](https://react.dev/reference/react/Component#catching-rendering-errors-with-an-error-boundary), Catching rendering errors | Rendering boundaries show a fallback; exclusions include event handlers, SSR, boundary-self errors and ordinary async callbacks; documented transition exception exists | Develop a boundary with a stated failure scope, not a catch-all recovery guarantee |
+| B06 / SRC-0028 | [WAI APG: Modal dialog](https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/dialog-modal/), Keyboard Interaction, notes 1–2 | Focus enters the dialog and normally returns to its invoker; removed invokers and subsequent workflow steps justify another target | Develop Focus Return narrowly around modal tasks, not arbitrary route changes or a conformance certification |
+
+Source integrity note: the rendered FSD page contained unrelated footer links. The
+substantive grouping/interface claims were checked against the project's pinned
+repository source above; footer material was excluded. This corroborates the text,
+not an independent implementation or publisher.
+
+## Distinct decisions and counterexamples
+
+| Candidate | Decision newly made explicit | Counterexample / overlap boundary |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| [Presentation Model](../candidates/PresentationModel.md) | Where does presentation behavior live independently of widgets? | A trivial page needs no extra object; Local Draft State concerns intent lifetime instead |
+| [Derived State](../candidates/DerivedState.md) | Which values can be recomputed rather than independently changed? | A user override or historical snapshot is not merely a cache; derivation does not establish freshness |
+| [Vertical Feature Slice](../candidates/VerticalFeatureSlice.md) | Which changes belong behind one module interface? | A coupled backend/API contract can still force coordinated releases |
+| [Islands of Interactivity](../candidates/IslandsOfInteractivity.md) | Which document regions need client activation? | A tightly coupled editor may justify one runtime root; enhancement and fault isolation remain separate |
+| [Failure Boundary](../candidates/FailureBoundary.md) | Which failure can this region contain, and how does it recover? | Partial continuation can be unsafe; rendering recovery cannot reverse a payment |
+| [Focus Return](../candidates/FocusReturn.md) | Where does keyboard work continue after a modal closes? | Returning to a deleted invoker is invalid; ordinary background updates should not move focus |
+
+## Synthetic probes — not full validation cases
+
+These are author-generated design traces, not runtime observations or an independent
+comparison with a baseline. They provide provisional links to planned cases without
+marking VC-04–10 covered or complete.
+
+| Probe | Baseline decision in plain language | Candidate contribution / changed constraint |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Dense workspace, relevant to VC-08 | Keep selection, editable intent and server data distinct; compute visible totals | Presentation Model organizes the decisions; Derived State avoids another mutable total. Add user override: store the override as an explicit input instead of recomputing it away |
+| Publication with one calculator, extension of VC-03 | Deliver readable content and activate the calculator separately | Islands describe activation placement. Change to tightly coupled whole-page editing: reconsider the split; no automatic performance advantage |
+| Two feature teams, relevant to VC-06 | Keep capability internals private and compose through interfaces | Vertical Feature Slice explains module boundaries. Change to independent releases: add compatibility/version/deployment contracts; the slice alone is insufficient |
+| Optional dashboard panel, relevant to VC-05 | A rendering fault shows a local fallback while other panels remain usable | Failure Boundary makes the caught failure class explicit. Change the fault to a rejected network request: handle request state separately; do not assume the render boundary caught it |
+| Reconciliation dialog over a record list, extension of VC-01 | Closing should restore a usable keyboard continuation | Focus Return identifies invocation ownership. Remove the invoking row during the task: choose the next logical surviving target, with a nested-dialog ownership check |
+
+These baseline narratives already express the decisions. Naming them has not been
+shown to improve outcomes. Each draft records a concrete next test and an alternative.
+
+## Dispositions and unresolved questions
+
+Retain six separate hypotheses for now, giving sixteen developed drafts. Keep
+Presentation Model distinct from its optional Derived State and Local Draft State;
+keep module, activation and failure boundaries distinct even when they coincide.
+Focus Return may ultimately belong inside a broader interaction pattern, but its
+current evidence only supports a narrower investigation.
+
+Defer Independent Feature Boundary until deployment evidence is located; defer
+Persistent Subscription and Conflict-Free Merge until ordering/reconnect or merge
+semantics are studied. No need to add those names just to populate every family.
+
+Q03 recurrence and Q04 usefulness remain open. Q06 now has an explicit counterexample:
+a source module boundary can exist within a single coordinated deployment. Q05 gains
+a question: should interruption/focus contracts shape composition before components
+are selected? Neither question is closed by these documentary probes.
+
+[WP-0003](../../workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md) owns the next evidence:
+inspect a pinned application for feature imports and release boundaries; execute
+rendering versus request-failure probes; exercise modal return with a removed invoker.
+Keep the earlier navigation runtime checks and WP-0002 human-validation obligation
+open. Evidence gaps do not prevent this authorized exploratory expansion, and the
+expansion does not satisfy the M1/M2 gates.

workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md

@@ -65,3 +65,19 @@ Next bounded action under T01: select and pin one implementation, test direct lo
 no-script navigation, history misses and full/fragment cache behavior. Under T02,
 independently review the trace and resolve the offline availability gap before
 calling it complete. T03 remains todo; keep M1 human validation in WP-0002 T03.
+
+## User-directed pattern broadening — 2026-09-26
+
+The user explicitly requested broader pattern coverage, superseding the previous
+slice's candidate-count pause. T01 remains progress: reviewed SRC-0023–0028 and
+added six hypotheses (Presentation Model, Derived State, Vertical Feature Slice,
+Islands of Interactivity, Failure Boundary, Focus Return). Sixteen drafts now exist;
+M1's original seed cap describes its initial subset, not a global admission quota.
+See research/reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md for B01–B06, five synthetic decision
+probes, counterexamples and deferred candidates. No new runtime/inference calls.
+
+T02/T03 remain todo: probes do not complete VC-04–10 or M2. Next evidence under T01:
+pin an application and inspect feature imports versus release coupling; exercise
+render versus request failures and modal focus after invoker removal. Previous
+navigation/history/cache checks remain open. WP-0002 retains independent-human
+validation. No frozen-pilot edits, canonical promotion or evidence-gate completion.