Skip to content

ONB — TFW-41 / Phase C: Research Templates — Embedded Dimensional Analysis

Date: 2026-04-20 Author: Executor (AI) Status: 🟠 ONB — Awaiting answers Parent HL: HL-TFW-41 TS: TS__PhaseC__research_templates.md

1. Understanding

Phase C embeds dimensional analysis into the three research stage templates (Gather, Extract, Challenge) and the connecting research workflow. The goal is to make morphological decomposition emerge naturally from the stage sequence — researchers fill sections because the cross-stage dependency forces them to, not because a methodology is mandated. A parallel terminology origin note in conventions.md traces the native TFW terms (Dimension, Configuration Space, Consistency Check) back to Zwicky's GMA — but this is maintainer-facing only and must never appear in researcher templates. 5 file modifications, 0 new files.

2. Entry Points

File Current State Action
.tfw/templates/research/gather.md 25 lines — Findings + Checkpoint Add ## Dimensions before ## Findings
.tfw/templates/research/extract.md 25 lines — Findings + Checkpoint Add ## Configuration Space before ## Findings
.tfw/templates/research/challenge.md 25 lines — Findings + Checkpoint Add ## Consistency Check before ## Findings
.tfw/workflows/research/base.md 129 lines — Step 5 has OODA loop Add dimensional analysis paragraph in Step 5 (≤6 lines)
.tfw/conventions.md 430 lines — §14 ends at line 390 Add terminology origin note after §14 anti-patterns

3. Questions (blocking — cannot proceed without answers)

# Question Answer
— No blocking questions. —

4. Recommendations (suggestions, not blocking)

  1. Conventions insertion point: TS §6 Technical Guidance says "After §14 anti-patterns, before §15 Role Lock (or as subsection of §14 / new §14.1)." I recommend adding it as ## 14.1 (a subsection of §14) rather than a free-floating paragraph between §14 and §15. This keeps the section numbering intact and makes it discoverable to maintainers scanning the §14 block. Will proceed with ## 14.1 unless directed otherwise.

  2. Checkpoint sufficiency item wording (AC-1): TS says "Dimensions identified? (if ≥3 independent decision factors exist)". The conditional phrasing (if ≥3 independent decision factors exist) signals graceful degradation at the checkpoint level. I will render this as a conditional checkbox: - [ ] Dimensions identified? _(skip if <3 independent factors — use comparison matrix instead)_ — more actionable than the raw AC phrasing.

5. Risks Found (edge cases, potential issues not in TS)

  1. Overflow protection wording in Extract: AC-2 specifies "If >30 combinations, list only configs where ≥1 dimension differs from the first-listed alternative." This is a correct pruning heuristic but may confuse researchers who don't know what "first-listed alternative" means in context. Will add a brief inline example in the section instruction to anchor it.

  2. base.md Step 5 token budget: The existing Step 5 already contains the OODA loop. Adding a dimensional analysis paragraph at the start risks pushing Stage Checkpoint content below context-comfortable depth. Will keep the thread to ≤5 lines and place it at the START of Step 5 as an introductory thread before the OODA heading — not embedded inside the OODA block — to minimize disruption.

6. Inconsistencies with Code (spec vs reality)

No inconsistencies found. All 5 target files exist at the paths specified in TS §4. Template sizes match TS §6 Technical Guidance (gather/extract/challenge: 25 lines each; base.md: 129 lines).

7. Knowledge Citations

HL §7.2 has 4 citations. Verified below.

# HL §7.2 ref Read? Applied / N/A Notes
1 conventions.md §14 — Anti-patterns list ✅ N/A (Phase C adds a terminology origin note, not anti-patterns — those were Phase A's scope) Confirmed §14 ends at line 390. Insertion point confirmed after existing anti-patterns.
2 conventions.md §3 — TS definition ✅ N/A for Phase C scope Confirms TS is self-contained. Orthogonal to template modifications.
3 glossary.md — Scope Budget ✅ Applied: 5 modifications, 0 new files — well within budget Budget ceiling: 14 files, 1200 LOC. This phase: ~60 LOC delta. Safe.
4 README.md Values — "The thinking is the product" ✅ Applied: Dimensions/Configuration Space/Consistency Check force thinking by decomposition before synthesis Executor-as-engineer principle — enforced via cross-stage structural dependency

New PV items found: - HL §7 S6: "Instructions produce compliance, heuristics produce analysis" — directly informs section wording. Sections use guiding questions ("Can X coexist with Y?"), not mandates ("MUST list all combinations"). Applied in all three template sections. - HL §7 S7: "Cross-stage dependencies are natural enforcement" — the Configuration Space section references Gather's Dimension column headers by design, making it structurally impossible to fill without prior decomposition.

ONB — TFW-41 / Phase C: Research Templates — Embedded Dimensional Analysis | 2026-04-20