diff --git a/SCOPE.md b/SCOPE.md index 4ae879f..be182cd 100644 --- a/SCOPE.md +++ b/SCOPE.md @@ -86,10 +86,6 @@ 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 c373b85..e9adc5b 100644 --- a/TREE.md +++ b/TREE.md @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ 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 @@ -510,5 +509,4 @@ 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 deleted file mode 100644 index 17ec0e4..0000000 --- a/history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,108 +0,0 @@ -# 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 1e1855b..1da9f20 100644 --- a/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md +++ b/research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md @@ -4,8 +4,6 @@ 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 b5f896e..95c0327 100644 --- a/scripts/classification_coverage.py +++ b/scripts/classification_coverage.py @@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ 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 deleted file mode 100644 index c4acb53..0000000 --- a/workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,105 +0,0 @@ ---- -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" -state_hub_workstream_id: "1682a82f-3c70-530f-a444-78752deb0ff6" ---- - -# 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 -state_hub_task_id: "3417824a-1416-58d0-841b-7ec0ccbb7021" -``` - -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 -state_hub_task_id: "e71c2f74-dbea-5ab0-ae8c-4b247ec0f38f" -``` - -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 -state_hub_task_id: "94010e3e-eddf-56c7-996a-fc70d7c56e38" -``` - -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 -state_hub_task_id: "a554e327-972b-580b-8dec-151d7a38bda6" -``` - -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.