Update scope and assess alignment with language intent

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

SCOPE.md

@@ -1,32 +1,94 @@
 # SCOPE
 
-## Purpose
+Reviewed: 2026-09-27 · Scope: ongoing research and a versioned knowledge base.
+
+## Purpose and deliverable
 
 Develop a framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human
-and agent reference, following the preliminary direction in `INTENT.md`.
+and agent reference, following [INTENT.md](INTENT.md). Its intended practical
+outcome is an explainable path from a frontend problem and its forces to compatible
+patterns and implementation options.
+
+The deliverable is a versioned Markdown knowledge base with structured metadata,
+traceable evidence and transparent revision history. The language evolves through
+bounded investigations and review gates; it has no final completion date. Completing
+an experiment or milestone does not establish a mature language.
 
 ## In scope
 
-- `canon/`: responsibilities, forces, scales, relations and the pattern schema.
-- `patterns/`: patterns with context, evidence, trade-offs and failure modes.
-- `research/`: sources, interpretations, candidate concepts and counterexamples.
-- `sequences/` and `architectures/`: decisions and configurations through patterns.
-- `technologies/`: descriptive mappings to implementation options.
-- `templates/`: authoring structures and future metadata validation.
+- `canon/`: responsibilities, forces, scales, relations and the metadata contract,
+  including testing whether the proposed vocabulary explains contrasting cases.
+- `research/`: identifiable sources, claim-level interpretations, candidate patterns,
+  counterexamples, pinned implementation studies and bounded executable experiments.
+- `patterns/`: evidence-qualified canonical records when admission is justified;
+  research candidates remain separately identified until then.
+- `sequences/` and `architectures/`: decision ordering, compatible configurations,
+  alternatives and resulting contexts, exercised through contrasting walkthroughs.
+- `technologies/`: descriptive mappings from patterns to implementation approaches,
+  including their constraints and limits.
+- `templates/`, `scripts/` and the infospace-bench adapter: authoring, metadata checks
+  and reproducible research evaluation. Live model execution uses llm-connect.
+- `research/evolution/` and `history/`: evidence profiles, immutable snapshots,
+  prospective questions and effort, supersession, learning outcomes and dated
+  assessments. Track applicability, trustworthiness, usefulness, coherence,
+  maintainability and learning efficiency separately.
 
-## Out of scope
+These areas include intended capabilities; directory presence is not evidence that
+the corresponding capability is implemented or validated.
 
-- Building or operating a frontend application or framework.
-- Ranking frameworks or prescribing a universal architecture.
-- Treating candidate lists or unsourced interpretations as established evidence.
+## Current capabilities and limits
 
-## Current state
+As of 2026-09-27, seventeen developed research candidates remain draft hypotheses;
+none is canonically admitted. Sources and claim-level reviews, metadata contract
+checks, an infospace-bench adapter and bounded runtime research fixtures exist.
+Four walkthroughs are synthetic drafts or provisional studies, not validated
+architecture recipes. Six further validation cases remain planned.
 
-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 four synthetic architecture walkthroughs (VC-03 and VC-06 provisional). Seventeen 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.
+The frozen development pilot scored 18/24 in each presentation condition after
+submitted model-review adjudication. It establishes neither a naming benefit nor
+equivalence; independent human validation and decision-time measurement remain open.
+
+Evolution profiles, a baseline, learning ledger, snapshots and a generated report
+are implemented. Four effort-accounted prospective cycles belong to four different
+comparison groups: there is no comparable window for a diminishing-returns claim.
+Evidence types, implementation families and review provenance remain distinct.
+Static source mechanisms and authored runtime fixtures do not establish complete
+pattern recurrence, production fitness or independent human confirmation.
+
+Canonical admission, M1/M2 acceptance, demonstrated generativity, full graph export,
+held-out retrieval evaluation and developed technology mappings remain open.
+There is research runtime code, but no maintained frontend application or framework
+is offered as the product. See the [evolution report](research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md)
+for current counts and evidence limits; [REVIEW.md](REVIEW.md) preserves the initial
+2026-09-23 review and is not a current capability inventory.
+
+## Research boundaries and exclusions
+
+- Do not build or operate a general frontend application, framework, router or
+  release platform as the deliverable. Fixtures exist to investigate claims.
+- Do not rank frameworks, prescribe a universal architecture or turn the language
+  into a component cookbook or collection of tool-specific idioms.
+- Do not treat candidate counts, source counts, passing assertions or model agreement
+  as maturity, independent recurrence or proof of usefulness.
+- Do not infer accessibility conformance, production guarantees or upstream defects
+  from bounded DOM experiments or partial source inspection.
+- Do not combine viability dimensions into a maturity percentage, infer historical
+  effort from commits, or pool incomparable studies to claim learning saturation.
+
+## Work ownership and review boundaries
+
+[WP-0002](workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md) owns seed evidence,
+connected-corpus validation and M1. [WP-0003](workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md)
+owns contrasting streams, broader walkthroughs, ontology decisions and M2.
+[WP-0004](workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md) is proposed follow-up for graph,
+held-out retrieval and real-repository applicability, subject to its recorded gates.
+[WP-0006](workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md) owns ongoing learning visibility,
+review dates and comparable-cycle measurement. Actionable work stays in workplans;
+this file describes boundaries, not a second backlog.
+
+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.
 
 ## Registration
 

TREE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Repository file inventory
 
-Project files, including pilot receipts and reviews; updated 2026-09-26.
+Project files, including pilot receipts and reviews; updated 2026-09-27.
 
 ```text
 .custodian-brief.md
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ canon/Relations.md
 canon/Responsibilities.md
 canon/Scales.md
 canon/vocabulary.yaml
+history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md
 patterns/README.md
 patterns/address/README.md
 patterns/affordance/README.md

history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# SCOPE.md versus INTENT.md — assessment
+
+Assessment started: 2026-09-27T01:02:37+02:00 (Europe/Berlin),
+2026-09-26T23:02:37Z. Assessor: Codex, author-model review; not independent validation.
+Evidence baseline: repository commit `aee2971732b2f91b959db70d03f4a146ae63228b`.
+Comparison: unchanged [INTENT.md](../INTENT.md) against [SCOPE.md](../SCOPE.md) as
+updated in the commit containing this assessment. This is a point-in-time judgment,
+not a new empirical research cycle or a canonical-admission decision.
+
+## Overall assessment
+
+The updated scope is aligned with the intent: a framework-independent, contextual,
+evidence-aware language that evolves indefinitely. There is no need to expand the
+product boundary to close the main gaps. The central gap is between the intended
+ability to construct an explainable architecture and the demonstrated capability:
+we have a substantially stronger research process, but usefulness and generativity
+remain unproven.
+
+The previous scope understated current work: it called metadata validation future
+work, omitted evolution measurement and said no frontend runtime existed. Research
+fixtures now execute frontend behavior; operating a frontend product remains outside
+scope. The update distinguishes these facts, preserves non-goals and makes planned
+reference capabilities explicit. It does not promote candidates or close gates.
+
+## Alignment with the intended properties
+
+| Intent | Current evidence and scope coverage | Assessment |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Generative and contextual | Seventeen candidates describe forces and consequences; four synthetic/provisional walkthroughs trace decisions. | Contextual authoring exists; reliable construction of architectures is unproven. |
+| Relational and multi-scale | Metadata contract and vocabulary exist; candidate connections and walkthrough sequences are provisional. | Connected canonical corpus, validated relation semantics and cross-scale applicability remain open. |
+| Evidence-aware | Source identities, claim reviews, pinned static studies, runtime receipts and qualified profiles exist. | Strong process alignment; evidence strength varies and complete recurrence remains unassessed. |
+| Technology-independent | Candidates express contracts across several tools; mappings are intended deliverables. | Independence is a design discipline, not yet established across the full range of schools. |
+| Agent- and human-readable | Markdown, metadata examples and a research adapter exist. | Retrieval, practitioner usability and benefit from naming/relations remain unvalidated. |
+| Evolvable | Baseline, ledger, snapshots, profiles, prospective protocols and deterministic report exist. | Change is transparent; learning trends and maintenance effectiveness are not yet measurable from this sample. |
+
+## Most relevant gaps, in priority order
+
+### 1. Demonstrated usefulness and generativity — highest priority
+
+**Intent:** A person or agent should derive a small, compatible pattern configuration
+and map it to implementation options from a problem description.
+
+**Evidence:** Four walkthroughs remain synthetic/provisional. The frozen pilot's
+adjudicated scores are 18/24 named and 18/24 prose. Its submitted review was model
+review, not independent human review. Equal totals establish neither equivalence nor
+a benefit from the pattern language; decision time is unknown. The six briefs are
+consumed development cases, not fresh held-out tasks.
+
+**Consequence:** More mechanism evidence can improve advice without demonstrating
+that the language itself helps architecture decisions. This is the largest distance
+from the mission's success condition.
+
+**Next evidence:** Complete independent review of a small connected configuration,
+including rejected alternatives, missed constraints and implementation mapping.
+Design fresh, preregistered usefulness tasks at the appropriate gate, measuring
+selection quality, unsupported claims and decision effort. Preserve the frozen pilot.
+Owners: WP-0002 T03; WP-0003 T02; later WP-0004 T02.
+
+### 2. Independent recurrence and admission — high priority
+
+**Intent:** Pattern recommendations should have traceable known uses and justified,
+reversible maturity judgments.
+
+**Evidence:** All 17 candidates remain hypotheses; independent full-contract-use
+counts are unassessed for all 17, and independent human profile reviews are 0/17.
+The latest twelve-file Zulip study supplies partial static mechanisms and a useful
+correction toward effect-specific applicability. It does not execute Zulip, establish
+complete pattern recurrence or validate a suspected race. Repeated authored trials
+remain one implementation family.
+
+**Consequence:** A tested mechanism can be mistaken for a reusable pattern if the
+pattern's complete context, forces and consequences are not checked elsewhere.
+
+**Next evidence:** Retain the bounded caller/transport/test follow-up already in
+WP-0003 T01, then assess a small seed subset against independent implementations and
+explicit admission criteria. Record partial matches, contradictions and unknowns;
+retain hypothesis status where needed. M1/M2 reviews must explain judgments rather
+than infer them from counts. Owners: WP-0002 T02/T03; WP-0003 T01/T03.
+
+### 3. Breadth of contexts and conceptual coherence — high priority
+
+**Intent:** Reconcile architectural schools into a coherent, multi-scale vocabulary.
+
+**Evidence:** The report records four of ten cases as drafted/provisional and six
+planned. Recovery, navigation, focus and release boundaries have received detailed
+investigations, while several other candidates have documentary support only.
+Coherence metrics are unmeasured; Conflict Copy versus Explicit Reconciliation is
+an explicit unresolved overlap. The adequacy of the responsibility model remains an
+open intent question.
+
+**Consequence:** Depth in recent threads may bias the vocabulary toward their forces.
+Seventeen names do not establish balanced coverage or that the concepts are distinct.
+
+**Next evidence:** Choose a contrasting case from the existing validation plan using
+the stream coverage gaps, and record which concepts fail, overlap or are missing.
+Resolve retain/merge/split/reject questions before expanding terminology solely to
+increase coverage counts. Owners: WP-0003 T01/T02/T03, respecting M1 dependencies.
+
+### 4. Usable relational reference and implementation mappings — medium priority
+
+**Intent:** Humans and agents should retrieve applicable patterns, conflicts,
+prerequisites, resulting contexts and implementation options.
+
+**Evidence:** Metadata contract checks exist, but no admitted canonical corpus or full
+graph export is available; developed technology mappings and held-out retrieval
+validation remain future work. WP-0004 is proposed and gated. Early source studies
+are valuable but do not complete its later real-repository applicability review.
+
+**Consequence:** Much of the usable knowledge remains distributed across reviews and
+candidate prose, requiring an informed reader to reconstruct the connections.
+
+**Next evidence:** Use an evidence-qualified connected subset to identify the smallest
+useful relation/export and mapping surface. Check unresolved targets and relation
+justifications, then evaluate fresh retrieval cases after the recorded gates. Avoid
+building a large reference UI before the content contract survives review.
+Owners: WP-0002 T03; WP-0004 T01/T02/T03.
+
+### 5. Comparable learning and maintenance evidence — medium priority
+
+**Intent:** Make ongoing learning and diminishing returns visible without treating
+the language as finished or collapsing viability into a score.
+
+**Evidence:** Four prospective effort-accounted cycles are in four different comparison
+groups. No group has the minimum three comparable cycles for trend review. Fourteen
+profiles have unknown last substantive review dates; coherence metrics and decision
+time are not measured. Historical effort remains unknown.
+
+**Consequence:** The process can explain what changed and why, but cannot yet support
+claims about saturation, improved efficiency or freshness across the whole language.
+A revision-per-hour figure from one short cycle is not an optimization target.
+
+**Next evidence:** Reconcile review dates from original artifacts; keep unknowns where
+necessary. Accumulate comparable cycles only when their questions are useful, retain
+corroboration value and assess trends within a stable protocol. Add coherence and
+usefulness observations through the reviews above rather than manufacturing counts.
+Owner: WP-0006 T03, with usefulness evaluation under WP-0004 T02.
+
+## Recommended allocation of the next work
+
+Keep the authored navigation fixture paused. Finish only the already-bounded Zulip
+applicability question needed to qualify its source interpretation, then prioritize
+independent seed/usefulness review and a contrasting case. Continue lightweight
+measurement throughout. This balances broadening with structural improvement:
+targeted evidence and coherence work should guide expansion; a large tooling rewrite
+or another round of similar fixture tests is not the present bottleneck.
+
+These recommendations map to existing live or proposed workplans. They do not change
+task status, bypass M1/M2, schedule background work or authorize upstream changes.
+The language can remain an ongoing learning project while individual reviews close
+with explicit evidence and residual questions.
+
+## Evidence consulted
+
+- [Evolution report](../research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md): candidate profiles,
+  case coverage, review provenance, comparison groups and measurement gaps.
+- [Pilot adjudication](../research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/submitted-review-01/adjudication.md):
+  bounded usefulness evidence and reviewer limitations.
+- [Navigation thread review](../research/reviews/NavigationThreadReview.md) and
+  [Zulip navigation study](../research/reviews/ZulipNavigationSourceStudy.md):
+  fixture pause, independent source contrast and remaining limits.
+- [WP-0002](../workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md),
+  [WP-0003](../workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md),
+  [WP-0004](../workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md) and
+  [WP-0006](../workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md): ownership and gates.
+- [Initial review](../REVIEW.md): historical findings, not a current status report.
+
+Method: local repository review only. No new external source verification, live
+inference, runtime experiment or independent human assessment was performed.

workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md

@@ -130,3 +130,13 @@ defect. T02 retains independent human/AT and offline-case obligations. WP-0006 T
 retains remaining review dates and comparable-window work; this static protocol is
 not pooled with runtime cycles. No M1/M2 closure. See
 research/reviews/ZulipNavigationSourceStudy.md and ZulipNavigationSources.json.
+
+## Scope–intent assessment — 2026-09-27
+
+Updated SCOPE.md to distinguish current research capabilities, intended reference
+capabilities and exclusions. The timestamped assessment in
+[history/](../history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md) prioritizes usefulness,
+independent recurrence, contrasting coverage/coherence, reference access and
+comparable learning evidence. Recommendations map to existing WP-0002/0003/0004/0006
+tasks; statuses and M1/M2 gates are unchanged. This documentation assessment is not
+a measured empirical cycle. T03 retains review-date and comparable-window work.