---
id: FEP-WP-0002
type: workplan
title: "Validate the seed frontend pattern language"
domain: infotech
repo: frontend-patterns
status: ready
quality_dor: DoR-Ok
quality_dor_at: "2026-09-24"
quality_dor_by: codex
quality_dor_note: "Self-review against work-item-dor; see readiness assessment below."
reviewed_at: "2026-09-24"
reviewed_against_commit: "c161369ad58782ff0a13429c61cc7c8efc36e33d"
owner: codex
topic_slug: canon
created: "2026-09-23"
updated: "2026-09-24"
state_hub_workstream_id: "3350b7f2-375a-54e8-8f7c-3bf7c7c3af71"
---

# Validate the seed frontend pattern language

First executable cycle of `research/plan/ResearchProgram.md`, following `REVIEW.md`
and FEP-WP-0001. Readiness review on 2026-09-24: scaffold is present, source and
walkthrough templates exist, VC-01/VC-02 are defined, and deliverables below are
bounded. No research execution or evidence gate is claimed complete.

T01 and source extraction in T02 can proceed independently. T03 requires both.
Use `research/plan/ResearchProtocol.md`; track Q01–Q04 in the question ledger.

## Reconcile the metadata contract

```task
id: FEP-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "e59295dd-a087-5dbc-9bb2-230488c48e96"
```

Resolve relation spelling, force and pattern IDs, prerequisite target types,
multi-scale representation and editorial status versus evidence maturity.
Done when schema and template agree and a worked example resolves every reference.

## Establish traceable source evidence

```task
id: FEP-WP-0002-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0eb32b3e-07d6-5e16-a735-7d75d9dace83"
```

Complete the first source case and a contrasting local-first source review.
Record source identity, URL, date/version, claim references, interpretations and
counterexamples. Reconcile README maturity claims with the evidence.

## Validate a connected seed corpus

```task
id: FEP-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "54940b04-1d0f-5bff-98d4-be290eca8048"
```

Author a small connected pattern set and exercise it in server-authoritative and
local-first scenarios. Show forces, alternatives, ordering rationale, resulting
contexts and failure modes. Record gaps, then define the minimum metadata
validator and graph export needed by these examples.


## Phase acceptance

Produce 6–10 connected draft patterns, complete VC-01 and VC-02, and write
`research/reviews/M1-SeedReview.md` with evidence for each M1 criterion. Include
rejected or merged candidates and any source-access limitations. Retain hypothesis
maturity where evidence is incomplete. Handoff broader investigations to FEP-WP-0003;
metadata tooling and empirical evaluation are tracked in FEP-WP-0004.


## Readiness assessment

Self-reviewed by codex against State Hub `policies/work-item-dor.md` on
2026-09-24. Outcome: DoR-Ok for the plan structure; child tasks remain to be
assessed before execution.

- Scope: metadata reconciliation, two contrasting source reviews, 6–10 draft
  patterns and VC-01/VC-02. Broad coverage, tooling implementation and real-repo
  validation are outside this cycle and belong to FEP-WP-0003/0004.
- Owner and repository: codex in frontend-patterns. No external intake; this follows
  the repository review and the user's research-program instruction.
- Dependencies: scaffold and templates are committed. No known blocker prevents
  T01 or source discovery. T03 depends on T01/T02; inaccessible sources must be
  reported and alternatives assessed rather than evidence invented.
- Execution boundary: documentation and read-only public-source research, with
  ordinary Git/State Hub synchronization. Deployments, purchases and third-party
  messaging are outside scope. This plan does not schedule background execution.
- Verification: schema/template agreement, traceable claims and references, two
  walkthrough reviews, explicit counterevidence and the M1 acceptance review.
- Done-condition: the phase acceptance section above; hypotheses may be rejected
  or deferred with reasons rather than falsely confirmed to close a task.