frontend-patterns/templates/LearningCycle.md
tegwick d8d3a22b54 Audit prospective comparison readiness and retain effort gaps
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6.1-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a1045b-933d-7aa1-b2db-104557487a79
2026-10-04 03:02:53 +02:00

1.7 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Learning cycle —

Status: planned; register before execution. One bounded question per cycle.

  • Date and owner:
  • Stream (A–F or cross-stream):
  • Comparison group and shared protocol (question size, evidence tier, evaluation, and effort accounting must match; use a new group when they change):
  • Prior cycle/protocol references and why this question is useful (a group label or reaching the three-cycle review trigger is not justification):
  • Question and affected CAND identities:
  • Previous belief and expected decision:
  • Observation that would contradict the belief:
  • Evidence/contexts to inspect; what remains outside scope:
  • Effort budget and recording method (active research versus execution, overlaps):
  • Review provenance and acceptance criteria:

Outcome (complete after execution)

  • Evidence references, retained failures and counterexamples:
  • Changed understanding and applicability limits:
  • Disposition: revision | corroboration | rejection | merge | inconclusive
  • Why this is one outcome, not a count of assertions/files:
  • Remaining uncertainty and live workplan/task:
  • Superseded ledger entries, if any:
  • Active research minutes / execution minutes (unknown if not measured):
  • Accounting gaps or recorded zero time and their effect on comparison (retain the cycle; never reconstruct missing effort or silently remove it from a window):
  • Reported tokens / cost USD, with receipts (unknown if not measured):
  • Reviewer name, role and independence:

Append an entry to research/evolution/ledger.json with recording: prospective and protocol_ref pointing here. Update profiles, run evolution checks, then snapshot at the agreed review boundary. No automatic maturity promotion.