Establish phased research program with evidence and validation gates

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

research/plan/ResearchProgram.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # Frontend Patterns Research Program
 
+Status: planned · Program established: 2026-09-24
+
+Start with [Research Protocol](ResearchProtocol.md), then the
+[validation cases](ValidationCases.md). Source families and pattern names below
+are a research agenda, not completed evidence.
+
 ## 1. Objective
 
 Develop a coherent Alexander-style pattern language for frontend architecture and design that is useful to both human practitioners and software agents.
@@ -316,56 +322,44 @@ The infospace should eventually support prompts such as:
 
 This requires graph-friendly metadata and stable identifiers.
 
-## 10. Initial milestones
+## 10. Execution and review gates
 
-### M0 — Scaffold
+The phases are ordered by evidence dependencies, not calendar deadlines. A failed
+review gate returns to the relevant research question; it does not force promotion.
+Workplan files own execution status. This table defines intended outcomes.
 
-- repository structure,
-- intent,
-- responsibility model,
-- force vocabulary,
-- relation vocabulary,
-- pattern schema,
-- research method.
+| Phase | Work record | Deliverable and exit criterion |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| M0 — Scaffold | FEP-WP-0001, finished | Intent, repository structure and State Hub integration exist. |
+| M1 — Seed investigation | [FEP-WP-0002](../../workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md), ready | Reconciled schema; first source case and local-first contrast; 6–10 connected draft patterns; two completed case walkthroughs with evidence and counterexamples. |
+| M2 — Broaden and challenge | [FEP-WP-0003](../../workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md), proposed | Evidence from all six streams; coverage matrix for all ten application types; revise, merge or reject candidates; complete at least four further contrasting cases. |
+| M3 — Retrieval and empirical use | [FEP-WP-0004](../../workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md), proposed | Validated metadata and graph export; held-out retrieval cases; at least two real repository studies tied to revisions; publish limitations. |
 
-### M1 — Seed corpus
+M1 does not require a large catalog. Six to ten patterns is a working scope cap,
+not a maturity score. Expand toward the original 20–30 candidate ambition only
+when additional patterns explain decisions the seed corpus cannot express.
 
-- source catalog,
-- Carniato case analysis,
-- historical GUI architecture review,
-- local-first review,
-- rendering architecture review.
+### First research cycle
 
-### M2 — First canonical language
+1. T01 of FEP-WP-0002 resolves the metadata contradictions in `REVIEW.md` with
+   worked examples. Source extraction can begin while that contract is explored.
+2. T02 completes the Carniato case and an independently sourced local-first case.
+   Use the source-review template and record claims before normalizing vocabulary.
+3. T03 selects a connected subset around authority, addressability, projection,
+   local interaction, mutation and reconciliation. Walk through VC-01 and VC-02.
+4. Review the evidence and question ledger. Record rejected patterns, missing
+   responsibilities and ordering failures as carefully as supporting examples.
+5. Write an M1 review under `research/reviews/` with pass/revise/defer for each
+   criterion and links to artifacts. Hand unresolved work into the next workplan.
 
-- 20–30 candidate patterns,
-- reviewed force vocabulary,
-- relation graph,
-- first architecture decompositions.
+### Working rhythm and ownership
 
-### M3 — Generative sequences
-
-- general web application,
-- content site,
-- transactional application,
-- collaborative application,
-- local-first application.
-
-### M4 — Agentic reference surface
-
-- normalized metadata,
-- stable identifiers,
-- pattern graph export,
-- query examples,
-- retrieval/evaluation fixtures.
-
-### M5 — Empirical refinement
-
-- test language against real repositories,
-- collect pattern co-occurrence,
-- identify missing forces,
-- identify misleading or redundant patterns,
-- revise maturity levels.
+The executing repository agent owns artifact updates and State Hub synchronization;
+`owner: codex` does not imply a scheduled or autonomous background run. Each research
+session takes one bounded question or case, records evidence, updates the question
+ledger and task status, and commits and syncs the result. Review at every phase gate
+and whenever contradictory evidence changes the ontology. Review roles are explicit
+in the resulting review document; a self-review must be identified as such.
 
 ## 11. Open research questions