frontend-patterns/research/bench/Admission.md

Admission from experimental artifacts

The runner never writes to canon/ or patterns/. A model critique is evidence for a reviewer, not approval to promote. The working 0.1 metadata contract is in canon/PatternSchema.md; apply it at admission and retain hypothesis maturity wherever evidence is incomplete.

Experimental representation	Repository representation
source/source.md plus SHA-256 and bibliography	SourceCatalog entry and source-review record
Claim C01 scoped by workspace and source	Claim citation: review path + C01 + original locator
Candidate P01 scoped by workspace	CandidateCatalog row; reviewed stable FEP ID only upon admission
Candidate Definition/Solution sections	PatternSchema prose with reviewed frontmatter
Relation proposal between local candidate IDs	Canonical typed relation between stable pattern IDs
Generated critique pass/revise/unknown	Input to a named reviewer; not evidence maturity

For each promotion, write a review under research/reviews/ with:

• reviewer, date and whether it is a self-review;
• source workspace, digests and source claim locators;
• candidate IDs mapped to existing/new stable FEP IDs, with merge/split/reject reasons;
• checks against the current pattern schema and at least two competing forces;
• known uses and counterexamples, marking missing evidence explicitly;
• relation endpoints, direction and rationale; prerequisites kept distinct;
• evidence maturity, quality constraints and unresolved questions;
• disposition and links to the changed catalog/pattern files and follow-up tasks.

Synthetic fixtures cannot establish known uses or satisfy evidence admission. Do not infer recurrence from one source. Draft patterns may retain hypothesis maturity; do not silently raise it because a model gave a favorable critique. Cross-source patterns should retain all source-specific candidate mappings.

For later bench graph inspection, materialize reviewed candidates as kind: entity artifacts with a Definition section and a preserved canonical ID, and relations as typed Subject/Predicate/Object artifacts whose endpoints resolve. This graph-export adapter remains part of FEP-WP-0004; proposal tables are not a graph export.

Structural screening before editorial review

python3 scripts/research_admission.py research/bench/infospaces/WORKSPACE

Exit 1 means blocked or unreadable input. Exit 0 means only that the candidate ledger and relation structure pass; admission is always not_granted and semantic review remains required. Save the JSON report with the editorial review, outside immutable run receipts. It includes hashes of the artifacts screened.

The current prompts request fenced JSON. Screening also accepts one unambiguous terminal JSON document without fences; it never repairs JSON or extracts a ledger from prose. Multiple documents and trailing text are rejected.

The current prompts require one candidate JSON ledger with candidates, unique local Pnn IDs, known_uses (implementation plus source locator) and recurrence (unknown or supported). Supported recurrence requires at least two distinct located implementations. Relations use one JSON array with candidate endpoints; empty candidate and relation arrays are valid negative findings.

The checker cannot verify whether a citation is true, whether implementations are independent, or whether prose contradicts the ledger. It does not parse prose known uses, establish recurrence, validate the complete PatternSchema, or approve semantic relations. Those remain explicit editorial checks. Existing runs predate this format and may fail its contract; do not rewrite them to make a check pass.