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

Date: 2026-04-20 Author: Coordinator (AI) Status: 🟡 TS_DRAFT — Awaiting approval Parent HL: HL-TFW-41

1. Objective¶

Embed dimensional analysis into the research stage templates (Gather, Extract, Challenge) so that morphological analysis emerges naturally from the stage sequence — not as a named methodology to comply with. Add a 4-line thread to the research workflow connecting the three stages. Add terminology origin note to conventions. This prevents the "first viable option" problem (Problem #10) while avoiding the "simulation" trap (HD-19).

2. Scope¶

In Scope¶

Modify gather.md template — add ## Dimensions section
Modify extract.md template — add ## Configuration Space section
Modify challenge.md template — add ## Consistency Check section
Modify research/base.md workflow — add dimensional analysis thread in Step 5
Modify conventions.md — add terminology origin note

Out of Scope¶

TS/HL template changes (Phase A — done)
Workflow gate changes (Phase B — done)
Glossary terms (Phase D)
GMA/Zwicky terminology in any researcher-facing template

3. Principles Check¶

#	Principle (from HL §7)	Enforced by	Gate
P1	Gates over guidelines	AC-1, AC-2, AC-3	Cross-stage dependency = structural gate (Extract needs Gather dimensions)
P2	Requirements, not implementation	All ACs	ACs specify WHAT sections contain, not exact wording
P5	Executor as engineer, not copier	AC-4	Workflow thread gives connecting logic, not copy-paste instructions
P6	Domain-agnostic by default	AC-1, AC-2, AC-3	Templates use native terminology (Dimension, Configuration Space, Consistency Check), not methodology names

4. Affected Files¶

File	Action	Description
`.tfw/templates/research/gather.md`	MODIFY	Add `## Dimensions` section before `## Findings`
`.tfw/templates/research/extract.md`	MODIFY	Add `## Configuration Space` section before `## Findings`
`.tfw/templates/research/challenge.md`	MODIFY	Add `## Consistency Check` section before `## Findings`
`.tfw/workflows/research/base.md`	MODIFY	Add dimensional analysis thread in Step 5
`.tfw/conventions.md`	MODIFY	Add terminology origin note (Zwicky reference, non-researcher-facing)

Budget: 0 new files, 5 modifications. Defaults: max 14 files, max 8 new, max 1200 LOC.

5. Acceptance Criteria¶

AC-1: Gather template — `## Dimensions` section¶

Research problems often have multiple independent decision factors. Gather decomposes the problem into these dimensions before collecting findings.

[ ] gather.md has ## Dimensions section placed BEFORE ## Findings
[ ] Section instruction: identify independent decision factors; each dimension gets a table with ≥3 alternatives
[ ] Instruction explicitly says: do NOT mark any alternative as "recommended"
[ ] Checkpoint sufficiency adds: - [ ] Dimensions identified? (if ≥3 independent decision factors exist) Gate: Read gather.md → Dimensions section exists before Findings, no "recommended" marking

AC-2: Extract template — `## Configuration Space` section [depends: AC-1]¶

Extract constructs the full solution space by cross-referencing Gather's dimensions. This makes visible what the researcher doesn't see until enumeration.

[ ] extract.md has ## Configuration Space section placed BEFORE ## Findings
[ ] Section instruction: build cross-reference table using Gather's dimensions (one column per dimension, one row per viable combination)
[ ] Instruction explicitly says: "Do NOT evaluate yet — list all combinations that are not obviously contradictory"
[ ] Overflow protection: "If >30 combinations, list only configs where ≥1 dimension differs from the first-listed alternative" Gate: Read extract.md → Configuration Space section exists, references Gather dimensions, no evaluation instruction

AC-3: Challenge template — `## Consistency Check` section [depends: AC-2]¶

Challenge eliminates inconsistent combinations through pairwise comparison. The output is surviving configurations and unexpected survivors.

[ ] challenge.md has ## Consistency Check section placed BEFORE ## Findings
[ ] Section instruction: take each pair of dimensions, ask "Can Alternative X coexist with Alternative Y?"
[ ] Instruction: mark incompatible pairs, remove configurations containing them
[ ] Instruction: note unexpected survivors (configurations that survived but weren't initially favored) Gate: Read challenge.md → Consistency Check section exists, pairwise instruction present

AC-4: Research workflow — dimensional analysis thread [depends: AC-1]¶

The workflow needs a connecting thread explaining how the three sections work together across stages.

[ ] research/base.md Step 5 has a dimensional analysis paragraph (≤6 lines)
[ ] Thread explains: Gather decomposes into dimensions, Extract builds configuration space, Challenge eliminates inconsistencies
[ ] Includes graceful degradation: "If <3 independent dimensions, use comparison matrix instead"
[ ] Does NOT use GMA/Zwicky terminology Gate: Read research/base.md → dimensional analysis thread exists in Step 5, no methodology names

AC-5: Conventions — terminology origin note¶

The conventions should document that the dimensional analysis terminology originates from Zwicky's General Morphological Analysis, but this reference is for framework maintainers — not researchers.

[ ] conventions.md has a note (in §-numbering or as addendum) stating terminology origin
[ ] Note says: Dimension, Alternative, Configuration Space, Consistency Check, Surviving Configuration are TFW-native terms derived from Zwicky's GMA
[ ] Note explicitly says this reference is for maintainers, not for inclusion in researcher-facing templates Gate: Read conventions.md → origin note present, explicitly maintainer-facing

6. Technical Guidance¶

Reference material, not instructions. Executor MAY deviate with justification in RF.

Template sizes: gather.md (25 lines), extract.md (25 lines), challenge.md (25 lines). Target: ~35-40 lines each after additions.
Workflow size: research/base.md (129 lines). Dimensional analysis thread adds ~5-6 lines. Target: ~135 lines.
Stage character alignment: Dimensions → "What do we NOT know?" (decomposing unknowns). Configuration Space → "What do we NOT see?" (making invisible combinations visible). Consistency Check → "What do we NOT expect?" (finding unexpected constraints/survivors).
Cross-stage dependency mechanism: Extract's Configuration Space table references Gather's Dimension table by column headers. This makes it structurally impossible to fill Configuration Space without having done dimension decomposition — natural enforcement without a checkpoint gate.
RES iter2 DR12: Graceful degradation for <3 dimensions → comparison matrix (pros/cons format). This is a single instruction in the workflow, not template complexity.
conventions.md insertion point: After §14 anti-patterns, before §15 Role Lock (or as a subsection of §14 / new §14.1). Keep concise — 3-4 lines.

7. Definition of Failure¶

❌ Any template uses "Zwicky", "GMA", "morphological box", or "morphological analysis" in researcher-facing text → reject RF
❌ Configuration Space section does NOT reference Gather dimensions → no cross-stage dependency → reject RF
❌ Dimensions section allows marking alternatives as "recommended" → defeats systematic exploration → reject RF
❌ Workflow thread exceeds 8 lines → violates conciseness budget → reject RF

8. Phase Risks¶

Risk	Mitigation
Template additions look like "another box to fill" → simulation risk	Sections are embedded in existing stage flow, not standalone. Cross-stage dependency forces genuine decomposition
Researchers skip Dimensions for simple problems	Graceful degradation: <3 dimensions → comparison matrix. Checkpoint item is conditional
conventions.md origin note leaks into templates	DoF explicitly rejects GMA terminology in researcher-facing text

9. Cross-Phase Modifications (multi-phase only)¶

File	Also modified in	Coordination note
`.tfw/conventions.md`	Phase A (anti-patterns, §14), Phase B (no changes)	Phase C adds terminology origin note — different section than Phase A's anti-patterns. No conflict.

Cross-references: HL-TFW-41 §4 Phase C, DR7-DR13 (embedded dimensional analysis), RES iter2 FC4 (instructions vs heuristics), FC5 (cross-stage dependencies), S6 (instructions produce compliance), S7 (natural enforcement).

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