T03: research control plane

H-001..H-005 with explicit falsification conditions, E-001..E-003, the
Concept-Implementation Fitness Map, findings log and ID convention. Plain
files, no tooling.

- fitness map corrects Improvement Loop section 13 levels downward: nothing
  exceeds C1 without implementation
- H-005 (Energy) dormant by decision - events captured, no scoring written
- H-001 gets a genuine control arm so the semantic-action thesis is not
  trivially true
- E-003 added: deliberately attacks the safety boundary rather than only
  sampling benign cases

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1629012@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 78d4fb13-8a1e-474b-87a3-9b9261c49a39

research/concepts/fitness-map.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Concept ↔ Implementation Fitness Map
+
+**Updated:** 2026-08-22 (TD-WP-0002-T03)
+
+Traces each important concept to the implementation, experiment and evidence that
+support it. **Unsupported entries are the point of this map** — a concept with no
+implementation and no evidence is not a gap to be embarrassed about, it is the
+current honest state, and hiding it defeats the map's purpose.
+
+Support levels follow `TestDriverImprovementLoop.md` §13:
+`C0 Idea` · `C1 Hypothesis` · `C2 Experimentally Supported` ·
+`C3 Practically Validated` · `C4 Architectural Invariant`
+
+## Current state
+
+At the time of writing there is **no implementation**, so no concept can honestly
+exceed `C1`. The initial classifications in §13 of the Improvement Loop
+(`Actor Isolation C2`, `Independent Oracles C2`) are corrected downward here: they
+were aspirational, not evidenced.
+
+| Concept | Level | Implementation | Experiment | Evidence | Open question |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `C-use-case` | C1 | — (T04) | — | — | Is a use case expressible without leaking mechanics? |
+| `C-actor-isolation` | C1 | — (T04) | E-001 | — | Isolation is asserted by construction; unverified. |
+| `C-semantic-action` | C1 | — (T04) | E-001 | — | Does identity survive restructuring better than a recorded sequence? (H-001) |
+| `C-oracle-independence` | C1 | — (T04) | E-001, E-003 | — | Independence of components ≠ independence of belief. (H-004) |
+| `C-evidence-pack` | C1 | — (T04) | — | — | What is the minimum sufficient for replay? |
+| `C-observation-channel` | C1 | — (T05) | — | — | **D-07** — required of every system under test. Adoption cost unknown. |
+| `C-adaptation` | C1 | — (T08) | E-001 | — | (H-002) |
+| `C-classification` | C1 | — (T08) | E-001, E-003 | — | Decision table is total on paper; unexercised. |
+| `C-crystallization` | C1 | — (T09) | E-002 | — | (H-003) |
+| `C-intent-provenance` | C1 | — (T04) | E-003 | — | Constrains provenance, not quality. Accepted residual. |
+| `C-lineage` | C0 | — | — | — | Parent pointer only in the spike. |
+| `C-energy` | C0 | events only (T04) | — | — | Dormant by decision. (H-005) |
+| `C-temperature` | C0 | — | — | — | Deferred. No implementation planned in TD-WP-0002. |
+| `C-confidence` | C0 | — | — | — | Deferred. |
+| `C-campaign` | C0 | — | — | — | Deferred. |
+| `C-metabolism` | C0 | — | — | — | Deferred. Depends on C-energy. |
+| `C-retirement` | C0 | — | — | — | Deferred. Depends on C-energy. |
+| `C-security-mutation` | C1 | — | E-003 | — | Catalogue exists; no derivation mechanism. |
+
+## Orphan check
+
+**Conceptual orphans** — concepts with no planned implementation in `TD-WP-0002`:
+`C-temperature`, `C-confidence`, `C-campaign`, `C-metabolism`, `C-retirement`.
+
+All five are deferred *by explicit decision*, not oversight. They are the group
+most at risk of being built because they are easy and satisfying, and never
+validated. They are revisited at T10, where the question is not "when do we build
+these" but "does the evidence justify keeping them in the model at all".
+
+**Implementation orphans** — none yet; there is no implementation.