Make the repository ready to publish: checked sources, review record, provenance

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+# Changelog
+
+Protocol versions are recorded here with the changed rule, the observation that motivated it, and what remains hypothesis (`protocol/06` §9). Repository changes that do not change the protocol are not listed.
+
+## Unreleased
+
+- Research references checked against publisher and index records, with unconfirmed fields marked; review record, change-proposal disposition, hypothesis register and analogy records published (see `docs/review/`, `research/`).
+
+---
+
+## v0.2 — from v0.1
+
+The section below is the change record written when v0.2 was produced, kept as written. "This package" refers to the private working package the repository was derived from; see [`docs/provenance.md`](docs/provenance.md).
+
+### Why v0.2 exists
+
+v0.1 was intentionally packaged once the conceptual discovery had reached a coherent baseline.
+
+Two later inputs materially changed that baseline:
+
+1. a full meta-retrospective of the session that created v0.1;
+2. focused research on Shared Conceptual Language and AI terminology anchoring.
+
+The changes below are therefore treated as a genuine protocol revision, not an appendix-only documentation update.
+
+---
+
+### 1. New core principle — Progressive Commitment
+
+v0.1 already distinguished:
+
+`PROBE ≠ CANDIDATE ≠ RECOMMENDATION ≠ DECISION ≠ COMMITMENT`
+
+v0.2 generalizes the underlying mechanism:
+
+> **AI may externalize tentative structure early, but the protocol must preserve the distinction between a useful proposal and an accepted model commitment.**
+
+This applies not only to solutions.
+
+It also applies to:
+
+- problem frames,
+- conceptual models,
+- terminology,
+- interpretations,
+- research-derived hypotheses,
+- recommendations,
+- downstream decisions.
+
+Examples:
+
+```text
+Candidate term → Working term → Canonical-for-now
+
+Solution probe → Candidate → Recommendation → Decision → Commitment
+
+Working frame → Accepted frame for current decision horizon
+```
+
+---
+
+### 2. Shared Language becomes first-class
+
+New normative concern:
+
+> **Shared conceptual language should be negotiated progressively, not silently normalized by AI.**
+
+v0.2 adds `protocol/04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md`.
+
+Key changes:
+
+- human source meaning may need to be preserved;
+- AI-generated model-bearing terms begin as proposals;
+- unresolved consequential ambiguity should trigger semantic clarification;
+- candidate terminology can be used as a semantic probe;
+- important terms should be tested in actual scenarios/use before stabilization;
+- "canonical" means `canonical-for-now-and-context`;
+- terms may be reopened, split, merged, renamed or deprecated;
+- no mandatory full glossary or separate terminology phase is introduced.
+
+---
+
+### 3. `Meaning before naming` → `Meaning before commitment`
+
+The research challenged a strict rule that AI must delay naming until a concept is already fully understood.
+
+Early labels can help articulation, memory, distinction-making and reasoning.
+
+The revised rule is:
+
+> **Early naming is allowed. Early implicit model commitment is not.**
+
+---
+
+### 4. Human Contribution Model retained, with one refinement
+
+The five current human contributions remain:
+
+1. Situated Grounding
+2. Framing & Meaning
+3. Independent Position / Authorship
+4. Judgment & Exceptions
+5. Commitment & Accountability
+
+Shared Language is **not** a sixth contribution.
+
+It is a cross-cutting coordination mechanism connecting these contributions to shared state and later handoff.
+
+`Independent Position / Authorship` now explicitly includes **framing-bearing terminology** where AI naming could erase a useful human distinction.
+
+---
+
+### 5. State model expanded
+
+The working state may now maintain lightweight `concepts` / `shared_language` entries for model-relevant language.
+
+Minimum candidate fields:
+
+- current term,
+- meaning,
+- status,
+- context,
+- optional human source expression,
+- example/boundary,
+- optional provenance,
+- open issue,
+- meaningful rename history.
+
+This is intentionally selective.
+
+The trigger is not "new word".
+
+The trigger is:
+
+> **Would a different interpretation change requirements, decisions, boundaries, responsibilities, priorities or handoff meaning?**
+
+---
+
+### 6. New interaction distinction — structure for exploration vs convergence
+
+Evidence Case 02 showed that AI structure has two different roles:
+
+#### Structure for exploration
+- provisional,
+- explicitly criticizable,
+- exposes assumptions,
+- invites counterexamples,
+- can be replaced cheaply.
+
+#### Structure for convergence
+- consolidates evidence,
+- compares alternatives,
+- stabilizes current decisions,
+- can become a reference baseline.
+
+The protocol should not render an exploratory structure with the rhetorical certainty of a converged model.
+
+---
+
+### 7. New Analogy Boundary Check
+
+Evidence Case 02 showed a failure mode when the prior `Turn` model was initially mapped too directly onto Discovery.
+
+Whenever a prior framework, architecture, product or methodology is imported as precedent, v0.2 now requires a lightweight check:
+
+1. What original problem did it solve?
+2. What is genuinely similar?
+3. What important assumptions differ?
+4. What mechanisms transfer?
+5. What must explicitly not transfer?
+
+---
+
+### 8. Research now produces Model Delta
+
+After focused research, the discovery should not stop at "here is what the literature says".
+
+Record what changed:
+
+- `REINFORCED`
+- `REFINED`
+- `CHALLENGED`
+- `NEW`
+- `NO CHANGE`
+
+Also record:
+- what became more uncertain;
+- what decision became possible;
+- what hypothesis should remain experimental.
+
+---
+
+### 9. Final stable/public baseline needs whole-package adversarial review
+
+v0.1 was packaged after focused research but without one independent adversarial review of the whole protocol.
+
+v0.2 adds this as a pre-release recommendation:
+
+- contradiction search,
+- evidence/overclaiming review,
+- missing-boundary review,
+- handoff fitness test,
+- public-source/citation review.
+
+---
+
+### 10. Evidence architecture improved
+
+This package now separates:
+
+- normative protocol;
+- curated research synthesis;
+- retrospective evidence cases;
+- raw research inputs.
+
+This separation is important for later cumulative method development.
+
+A claim in a normative file is not evidence for itself.

README.md

@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ A protocol that forces the two apart:
 - **Status changes only through a recorded transition.** Never through repetition, never through a polished restatement.
 - **The commitment act** — a commitment exists only with its rejected alternative, its rationale, and the condition under which it should be reopened. Anything else is a draft, however confident it sounds.
 - **Decision rights** — what the AI may do alone, what it may draft, what it may only advise on, and what stays with the human.
+- **Meaning before commitment** — a term the AI coins starts as a candidate. Fluent vocabulary is not shared understanding until it has been tested against cases.
+- **Challenge before convergence** — a model is not ready to commit to until it has survived a deliberate attempt to break it. (Accepted after review; the protocol text follows in v0.2.1.)
 
 The governing rule is inverted from most AI tooling: it optimises for the **next valuable human contribution**, not for the completeness of the AI's answer.
 
@@ -41,20 +43,38 @@ It assumes one human, one AI, and a discovery that ends in a handoff. Teams, mul
 | `capabilities/` | what an adapter would have to do, and how each capability is evaluated |
 | `research/` | the synthesis, including a standing section for evidence **against** the premise |
 | `tools/` | the lint that keeps the protocol layer vendor-free |
+| `examples/` | one real commitment and one overruled challenge, recorded in the protocol's shape |
+| `docs/review/` | the adversarial review of v0.2 and what happened to each of its change proposals |
 
 No adapter. No instrumented run. The conformance matrix — which capability is realisable where — is empty because filling it with guesses would be worse than leaving it blank.
 
 Start with [`docs/overview.md`](docs/overview.md).
 
+## Using it today
+
+There is nothing to install. What you can do now:
+
+- **Use the protocol as a checklist** against your own AI-assisted discovery: does every commitment have a rejected alternative and a revisit condition, did the AI's vocabulary become yours without anyone deciding it?
+- **Read [`examples/naming-decision.md`](examples/naming-decision.md)** to see the two central records on a real decision.
+- **Attack it.** Open an issue with a contradiction, an unfalsifiable rule, or a discovery where this would have cost more than it returned.
+
+## How it was developed
+
+Two discoveries done with an AI, each analysed afterwards as an evidence case; four focused research reports; a protocol revised once on their basis; an [adversarial review](docs/review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md) of that revision with 25 findings and 15 change proposals, each proposal [dispositioned](docs/review/disposition.md); then an observation model and a capability catalogue so that the protocol's claims can be measured at all. [`docs/provenance.md`](docs/provenance.md) has the timeline and says what is still private and why.
+
+## What's next
+
+Phase 1 finds out what can actually be observed before anything steers: first, whether a conversational turn can be recorded automatically in Claude Code, then state across sessions, skipped capabilities and the cost of enforcement. The instrument for the first question is built; the run is pending. See [`docs/phase-1-feasibility.md`](docs/phase-1-feasibility.md).
+
 ## What the evidence actually says
 
 Two retrospective cases, the second derived from the first, so recurrence between them is dependent rather than replicated. No independent case yet.
 
-The study closest to this protocol's target task — LLM support for problem framing, N=280 — found no improvement in frame quality, a widened gap between experienced and inexperienced practitioners, and lower perceived agency among novices. So the honest claim is not that research supports this:
+The study closest to this protocol's target task — LLM support for problem framing, N=280 ([Shin et al., CHI 2025](https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713273)) — found no improvement in frame quality, a widened gap between experienced and inexperienced practitioners, and lower perceived agency among novices. So the honest claim is not that research supports this:
 
 > earnedshape is a bet that the **design of the interaction** — not the presence of the AI — decides the outcome. The bet is plausible, unproven, and the project is built so that it can lose.
 
-Open findings against this baseline, including two reported by the project's own lint against its own protocol, are in [`docs/known-findings.md`](docs/known-findings.md).
+Every source the research synthesis relies on is listed and checked in [`research/REFERENCES.md`](research/REFERENCES.md), including where the support is thinner than the wording. Open findings against this baseline, including two reported by the project's own lint against its own protocol, are in [`docs/known-findings.md`](docs/known-findings.md).
 
 ## Contributing
 

capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Conformance Matrix
 
 > **Owns:** per surface, which capabilities are realized, by what mechanism, and whether their effect is observable.
-> **Status:** Honestly empty. Every `?` is a question for the Phase 1 feasibility spikes. A filled-in guess here would be the most expensive kind of wrong.
+> **Status:** Honestly empty. Every `?` is a question for the [Phase 1 feasibility spikes](../docs/phase-1-feasibility.md). A filled-in guess here would be the most expensive kind of wrong.
 
 ## How to read it
 

capabilities/catalogue.md

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 
 > **Owns:** the capabilities derived from the protocol, what each requires, what each must emit, and how each is evaluated on both levels.
 > **Status:** Draft. The Core/Extended split is the proposal from change proposal CP-11 and is not yet an accepted protocol decision.
+> **References:** change proposals (`CP-nn`) and their current status are in [`docs/review/disposition.md`](../docs/review/disposition.md); review findings (`F-nn`) in [`docs/review/`](../docs/review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md); the Case 01 and Case 02 codes point into unpublished retrospectives and are explained in [`docs/provenance.md`](../docs/provenance.md). Phase 1 is described in [`docs/phase-1-feasibility.md`](../docs/phase-1-feasibility.md).
 > **Vendor-free by construction:** no entry names a harness, a hook, a skill or a file format. `initial_form` is `?` everywhere until the Phase 1 spikes report what is reachable.
 
 ## How to read an entry
@@ -164,7 +165,7 @@
 **eval L1** Influential precedents used with no record.
 **eval L2** Whether a recorded non-transferable assumption is later caught being imported anyway.
 **falsified by** Records are produced and no import error is ever caught by one.
-**note** The protocol does not currently apply this to its own imports (finding F-18). The capability should be exercised on those four first — the cheapest possible test, on material already at hand.
+**note** The protocol does not currently apply this to its own imports (finding F-18). The capability should be exercised on those four first — the cheapest possible test, on material already at hand. Done by hand as change proposal CP-09: [`research/analogy-records.md`](../research/analogy-records.md) — each of the four records produced a finding, none of them cosmetic.
 
 ---
 

docs/known-findings.md

@@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ The rule is about citation provenance, not about one product. A technology-indep
 **Proposed fix:** move section B out of `protocol/` into project documentation, leaving `07` with protocol decisions and open protocol questions.
 **Status:** open, and the more consequential of the two.
 
+## KF-3 · `research/` states some claims more strongly than their sources support
+
+The citation check of September 2026 ([`research/REFERENCES.md`](../research/REFERENCES.md)) found every cited work (a few bibliographic fields remain unconfirmed and are marked there), and found that several items under "strongly supported" in `research/01` §2, and a few statements in `research/02`, rest on practitioner literature, a single study, or the project's own inference. The clearest cases: *language and model can co-evolve* (method literature only), *AI is valuable for articulation, search, synthesis and critique* (articulation and drafting are supported, synthesis rests on one preprint, search and critique are not covered), and *human situated input is epistemically special* (a normative reading of requirements research).
+
+**Proposed fix:** a v0.2.1 pass over `research/01` §2 that moves these items out of "strongly supported" or narrows their wording, with the change recorded here and in the changelog.
+**Status:** open. The claims are marked in place and listed in full in `REFERENCES.md`; the wording itself is unchanged until that pass.
+
 ## What this file is not
 
 It is not a bug tracker and not a backlog. It holds findings against the *published baseline* that a reader would otherwise have to discover for themselves — the ones an honest reviewer would raise on first reading. Findings that get fixed leave this file and appear in the changelog instead.