title: "Gather — "What do we NOT know?"" source: "tasks/TFW-52__tfw_light_v1/research/iter1/2_gather.md"

Gather — "What do we NOT know?"¶

Mindset: Explorer — map the space before selecting an answer. Parent HL: tasks/TFW-52__tfw_light_v1/HL-TFW-52__tfw_light_v1.md Goal: Map the product-spine, edition-topology, migration, selection, guidance, and consolidation decision space for H5–H8 without prematurely collapsing alternatives.

1. Source and method boundary¶

This stage used three deep-research loops:

Historical-content loop: inspect early repository trees and artifact bodies, not commit subjects, then compare them with TFW-51 and current Full.
Guidance/consolidation loop: audit TFW-51 and INNO-6/8/12/13 separately for scaffolding, practice, retrieval, and durable-memory mechanisms.
Topology/challenge loop: map independent topology, governance, migration, selection, and pedagogy dimensions; add external evidence and explicit counter-evidence.

Required local evidence was read from:

early TFW artifacts at commits 45fd1b0, 6afc8b5, d297fec, and the first .tfw generation around 85e4217;
current .tfw, especially .tfw/README.md, .tfw/conventions.md, and .tfw/workflows/knowledge.md;
tasks/TFW-51__tfw_light_ru/ (HL, starter README.md, AGENTS.md, TASKS.md, and memory/PROJECT.md);
D:/projects/research/innoforce-ai-first/tasks/INNO-6*/HL*.md;
D:/projects/research/innoforce-ai-first/tasks/INNO-8*/HL*.md;
D:/projects/research/innoforce-ai-first/tasks/INNO-12*/HL*.md;
D:/projects/research/innoforce-ai-first/tasks/INNO-13*/HL*.md.

The local evidence set exceeds the stage's 15-file soft limit because the four specified INNO HLs, the full TFW-51 starter, and multiple historical transitions are mandatory and cannot be represented faithfully by commit metadata alone.

2. Historical invariant audit: artifact contents, not commit subjects¶

2.1 What early artifacts actually contained¶

Historical state	Artifact-body evidence	What it establishes	What it does not establish
`45fd1b0` — `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `TASK.md`, `STEPS.md`	`README.md` frames chat knowledge evaporation and files as durable traces. `TASK.md` defines objective, DoD, risks, and the `Context → Analysis → Action` loop. `STEPS.md` is a compact iteration/progress log. `AGENTS.md` defines context intake, working modes, trace-first conduct, and continuation summaries.	Purpose/context, bounded and checkable work, persisted trace/progress, and continuation by a later session are present from the beginning.	No formal knowledge-candidate workflow, no edition topology, no named Working Backwards mechanism, and no invariant artifact names beyond that version.
`6afc8b5` — adds `AI_ENTRY_POINT.md`	The entry point reads canon and materializes chat-specific `AGENTS.md`, `README.md`, `TASK.md`, and `STEPS.md`; it limits onboarding questions and specifies a summary protocol.	Portability and guided bootstrapping were explicit early concerns.	Materializing duplicate control files is not evidence that duplication is a desirable current topology; it is historical counter-evidence about drift and ambiguity.
`d297fec` — v2 meta conventions and HL/TS/RF	`00_meta/HL_conventions.md` states reproducibility, traceability, continuation, a minimum artifact set, strict read order, quality/safety rules, and introduces HL/TS/RF.	The semantic spine survives while artifact richness increases.	The file is itself truncated mid-heading, showing that a prescribed structure can be incomplete and that file presence is not proof of operational guidance. Formal consolidation still is not an early invariant.
`85e4217` era — first `.tfw` tree	The tree moves conventions, glossary, templates, and workflows under `.tfw` while legacy root files still coexist.	A managed framework/runtime boundary emerges, with more formal roles and lifecycle stages.	Coexistence demonstrates migration ambiguity: multiple readable control surfaces can compete unless authority and precedence are explicit.

2.2 Cross-generation semantic matrix¶

Legend: strong = explicit and operational; partial = present but lightly specified; absent = no meaningful mechanism found.

Candidate invariant	Early v1	v2	TFW-51 Light prototype	Current Full	Gather inference
Human-readable purpose and current context	strong	strong	strong	strong	Stable semantic invariant.
Bounded work with an observable completion condition	strong (`TASK`, DoD)	strong (`HL`/`TS`)	strong (task board, criteria, validation)	strong (HL/TS/RF/REVIEW)	Stable semantic invariant; exact artifact is variable.
Persisted trace of work, decisions, or progress	strong (`STEPS`)	strong	strong (task-local `TRACE.md`)	strong (artifact chain and evidence)	Stable semantic invariant; trace depth is variable.
Later-session continuation from files	strong	strong	strong	strong	Stable semantic invariant.
Reusable project context beyond one task	partial	partial	strong (`memory/PROJECT.md`)	strong (`KNOWLEDGE.md`, topic files/state)	Stable direction, but storage and verification differ.
Source/verification discipline	partial	stronger	strong by domain and checklist	strong and role-gated	Important common capability, not identical mechanism.
Formal knowledge consolidation	absent	absent	partial, task-close instruction only	strong, separate candidate/consolidation workflow	Not an early invariant; higher-discipline mechanism.
Formal roles, WAIT gates, review separation	absent	partial	absent/light	strong	Edition-specific assurance mechanism.
Working Backwards as the named task method	absent	absent	absent as a named invariant	available in current planning practice, not the whole historical spine	Not demonstrated as a historical invariant.
Exact filenames or one directory layout	changes between generations	changes	changes	changes	Not an invariant.

2.3 Historical core that remains defensible¶

The content evidence supports a name-neutral core:

purpose/context → bounded, checkable work → persisted trace/outcome → reusable continuation context

This is narrower and better supported than H6's literal goal → Working Backwards task → trace → knowledge formulation. Working Backwards, formal knowledge promotion, role separation, and gates remain plausible edition mechanisms, but the early artifact bodies do not justify calling them universal historical invariants.

Counter-evidence retained:

v1 had continuation summaries and traces but no formal consolidation layer;
v2 added structure yet included a truncated convention file;
the first .tfw generation coexisted with legacy root controls;
therefore, additive files alone do not guarantee coherent authority, completeness, or operational compatibility.

3. Independent decision dimensions¶

No recommendation is made in Gather. Alternatives below remain live unless marked as contradicted by direct evidence; none is eliminated solely for being less convenient.

Dimension A — Product-spine granularity¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
A1. Exact named sequence	`goal → Working Backwards task → trace → knowledge` is the shared contract.	Strongly legible product narrative; aligns with the TFW-52 draft thesis.	Working Backwards and formal knowledge are absent from early artifact bodies. It overstates history and may force Light to contain Full concepts.	Show that every edition can enact each named stage without semantic dilution.
A2. Name-neutral semantic contract	Shared contract is purpose/context, bounded/checkable work, persisted trace/outcome, and reusable continuation context.	Present in every inspected generation. Preserves the actual historical invariant while allowing different artifacts.	May be too abstract to constrain migration or compatibility.	Define observable obligations and prove that different edition artifacts satisfy them.
A3. Compatibility/schema contract	Common spine is a machine- or checklist-readable manifest mapping purpose, task, trace, outcome, and knowledge fields.	Could support mechanical migration and validation across layouts.	No such schema exists in early evidence; risks designing infrastructure before product comprehension.	Prototype a small mapping and measure ambiguity/failure cases.
A4. Independent edition contracts	Each edition is independently coherent; only documentation links them.	Maximizes local simplicity and permits different operating models.	Weakens H6, makes migration and shared evolution expensive, and increases semantic drift.	Estimate duplicated maintenance and cross-edition mapping cost.

Dimension B — Source topology¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
B1. Same repository, visible `editions/<edition>/`	Light, Assisted, and Full live as visible sibling trees.	One history and review surface; easy cross-edition comparison; consistent with a product-line asset view.	Users may confuse source packages with the active installed runtime; repository growth and release coupling remain.	Test install/upgrade clarity and active-runtime detection.
B2. Same repository, hidden root siblings	`.tfw-light/`, `.tfw-assisted/`, `.tfw/` coexist at root.	Directly mirrors runtime naming and may simplify copying.	Multiple hidden control trees create precedence ambiguity; historical legacy/current coexistence already shows this failure mode.	Define and test unambiguous authority and adapter behavior.
B3. Separate repositories/packages	Each edition has independent versioning and distribution.	Clean release/access boundaries and smaller installations; separate lifecycle when products diverge.	Cross-edition drift, duplicated fixes, harder atomic migrations, and fragmented history.	Compare release independence needs with synchronization cost.
B4. Hybrid modules/submodules/generated packages	Common source plus independently delivered edition packages.	Could combine shared change control with independent release surfaces. Git submodules explicitly preserve separate histories while composing repositories.	Adds tooling and contributor complexity; generated output may obscure authorship and source of truth.	Prototype contribution, release, and upgrade flows, not just repository layout.

Dimension C — Variant governance and evolution¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
C1. Clone-and-own	Copy a baseline, then edit each edition independently.	Fast start; each edition remains locally understandable.	External empirical work reports increasing maintenance and reuse-tracking difficulty as variants grow. Fix propagation becomes manual.	Model three representative cross-edition changes and count touches/conflicts.
C2. Canonical shared core plus overlays	One common semantic/asset core; editions add or override explicit variable parts.	Product-line research treats shared assets and controlled propagation as the central evolution problem.	Overlay rules can become implicit and hard to debug; a shared core can bloat to lowest-common-denominator abstractions.	Define variation points and demonstrate transparent composition.
C3. Generated editions from a schema/template model	Edition trees are produced from one declarative model.	Strong consistency and mechanical validation/migration potential.	Generation infrastructure may exceed Light's product value; generated files can become hostile to manual maintenance.	Build the smallest generator and evaluate edit/review ergonomics.
C4. Independent artifacts with compatibility checks	Keep hand-authored editions, enforce only a cross-edition contract/test suite.	Preserves clarity in each edition while detecting semantic divergence.	Tests can lag or validate only surface compatibility; shared fixes are still duplicated.	Specify behavioral compatibility tests and their maintenance owner.

Dimension D — Migration contract¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
D1. Pure additive copy	Add new edition files/directories; never rename or reinterpret old content.	Lowest destructive risk; matches H6's intuitive promise.	Historical coexistence shows that additive controls can create competing authorities. Additive structure is not necessarily additive semantics.	Run migrations on representative Light and legacy fixtures and inspect ambiguity.
D2. Explicit one-time converter/map	A versioned mapping identifies old sources, transforms fields, and records decisions/conflicts.	Makes semantic changes auditable; supports validation and rollback planning.	Converter ownership and long-term support add cost; automated mappings may encode wrong assumptions.	Define failure classes and require conflict surfacing instead of silent conversion.
D3. Neutral interchange manifest	Editions import/export a small common representation of purpose, tasks, traces, and durable context.	Decouples topology from semantic portability.	New abstraction is not evidenced historically and may omit edition-specific meaning.	Round-trip fixtures across all three editions without material loss.
D4. New workspace plus linked archive	Do not mutate in place; initialize target edition and link/import selected old traces.	Strong rollback and preservation; avoids ambiguous mixed runtimes.	More user effort, possible fragmented continuity, and weaker "mechanical" migration claim.	Measure transfer completeness and operator burden.

Dimension E — Edition selection signal¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
E1. Person/team maturity labels	Beginner → Light, growing → Assisted, mature → Full.	Easy to communicate and superficially intuitive.	Conflates capability with work needs; can stigmatize users and misroute experts doing low-risk work.	Cross-department vignette test with people of equal skill but different work.
E2. Work-characteristic score	Select by repeatability, participants/hand-offs, error cost, assurance need, and knowledge lifetime.	NASA tailoring explicitly varies required process/products by project type, complexity, and risk rather than operator identity.	Multi-factor scoring may impose decision burden before users understand the framework.	Test whether a short scorecard yields stable choices across departments.
E3. Observable escalation triggers	Start light; escalate after repeated failures, coordination load, audit need, or long-lived knowledge demand.	Avoids premature process; connects added discipline to experienced pain.	Reactive selection may escalate only after preventable loss; trigger thresholds can be subjective.	Define measurable triggers and test them on historical tasks.
E4. Required-outcome/assurance tier	Choose the smallest edition that produces the evidence, review independence, and continuity required by the work.	Directly ties artifacts to outcome obligations and is domain-neutral.	Users may not know assurance needs in advance; can reproduce compliance jargon.	Translate tiers into plain-language scenarios and observe choice accuracy.

Dimension F — Learning sequence¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
F1. Explain all four mechanics, then practice	Present the whole model first.	Provides a stable conceptual map; INNO-8 explicitly says "terminology first."	High abstraction and working-memory load; delayed value; conflicts with INNO-6/13 artifact rhythm.	Compare first successful trace time and delayed recall.
F2. Bounded attempt → name mechanism → guided repeat → compare trace	Experience a small problem before formal explanation, then consolidate immediately.	Productive-failure evidence supports problem solving before instruction under designed conditions. INNO-13 uses experience/analogy before precise terms inside a mapped topic.	Productive-failure results have learner/age/prior-knowledge boundaries; minimal guidance can fail.	Specify timebox, scaffold, consolidation, and fallback; test across prior-knowledge levels.
F3. Mental model/terms → demo → hands-on → review/retrieval	Give a compact map, show the behavior, let users practice, then retrieve and review.	Directly matches INNO-8 and INNO-13; INNO-12 supports explicit retrieval.	Can still become lecture-heavy if the map/demo expands; "experience first" is no longer literal.	Cap orientation time and require an observable artifact plus delayed retrieval.
F4. Diagnostic/adaptive sequence	Prior knowledge or task condition chooses F2 or F3, with shared guided practice and retrieval.	Reconciles productive-failure boundary conditions and mixed INNO designs.	Adds onboarding complexity and needs a reliable diagnostic.	Test a two- or three-question routing diagnostic against observed performance.

Dimension G — Reinforcement and consolidation¶

Alternative	Definition	Supporting evidence	Risk / counter-evidence	What would distinguish it later
G1. Task-close transfer only	At closure, move durable facts/decisions into project memory.	TFW-51 explicitly instructs this and keeps the starter compact.	No candidate state, contradiction handling, deduplication, staleness, or proof that transfer occurs.	Close several tasks and audit omission/duplication rates.
G2. Immediate retrieval plus trace review	Quiz/restate mechanics and compare the saved artifact immediately.	INNO-12's strongest field-reported block was a live control quiz; INNO-13 adds recall/review/trace.	Immediate success does not prove delayed retention or correct future use.	Add a delayed follow-up check.
G3. Spaced retrieval plus periodic consolidation	Revisit mechanics later and periodically promote verified task knowledge.	Retrieval-practice research shows delayed retention advantages; current `.tfw/workflows/knowledge.md` supplies candidate, dedupe, contradiction, verification, and staleness machinery.	Too heavy for Light if copied intact; scheduled routines can become ceremony.	Design a minimal cadence and compare value with overhead.
G4. Artifact-only reinforcement	Producing the trace is sufficient; no formal recall or consolidation loop.	Lowest overhead and consistent with learning by doing.	INNO-12/13 and retrieval research provide direct counter-evidence: production and immediate familiarity do not establish retention.	Delayed unaided reproduction test.

4. Guidance and consolidation audit¶

4.1 TFW-51 starter¶

Area	Evidence found	Strength	Gap / counter-evidence
First-run guidance	`AGENTS.md` supplies read order, no-more-than-three onboarding questions, a full task cycle, and a complete trace template.	strong	It relies on the agent following prose; no structural verification of onboarding behavior.
In-task scaffolding	Source rules vary by task domain; validation and completion checklists are explicit.	strong	Guidance is broad rather than exercised through a worked end-to-end example.
Observable output	`TASKS.md` status flow plus task-local `TRACE.md`; README states that work is incomplete until the result is saved in files.	strong	Board and trace consistency remain manual.
Durable context	`memory/PROJECT.md` separates project card, agreements, confirmed knowledge, decisions, and open questions, with source/date columns.	medium/strong	No candidate/confirmed state transition beyond prose, and no systematic contradiction or staleness process.
Consolidation	Agent is told to transfer durable knowledge when a task closes.	partial	This is aspirational/manual: no cadence, ownership gate, deduplication, contradiction handling, provenance sufficiency test, or evidence that transfer happened.

4.2 INNO HL evidence¶

Source	Guidance/scaffolding found	Consolidation/retrieval found	Implication and counter-evidence
INNO-6	Live demos, executive language, a decision matrix, playbook, A4 materials, modular/self-contained blocks, and concrete artifacts. Starter files support autonomous continuation.	Continuation pack and saved artifacts; no explicit longitudinal retrieval loop.	Strong evidence for show-and-do guidance and artifact continuity. Weak evidence for durable learning consolidation.
INNO-8	Three-week progression: mechanics/language → management/delegation → build/prove. Every exercise must state goal, input, expected output, criteria, and fallback. Friday theory, Saturday workshop, Sunday homework/support.	Supported homework, recordings, and final assistant/pet project.	Direct counter-evidence to a universal "experience first" claim: this HL explicitly requires terminology first. It still supports repeated guided production.
INNO-12	Reuses a proven seminar and formalizes its strongest observed live block. Supplies terms policy, canonical answers, procedure, and fallback.	NotebookLM control quiz requires participants to retrieve and speak an answer; retained terms are a success condition.	Strongest field-based support for immediate retrieval, but only a single immediate check; delayed retention is unproven.
INNO-13	Daily sequence is `RECALL → MENTAL MODEL → DEMO → HANDS-ON → REVIEW → DECISION/TRACE`. Participants act every 20–35 minutes. Terms are mapped before depth; within a topic, experience/analogy ends with precise naming and retrieval.	Daily recall/review/trace, saved artifact every day, and a later feedback/evidence phase.	Strong support for a hybrid sequence, not pure discovery. It is still an HL/pilot design, so efficacy is a hypothesis until execution evidence exists.

4.3 Guidance/consolidation synthesis¶

The required local sources converge on four distinct functions that should not be collapsed:

Orientation: a compact terminology or mental-model map prevents blind exploration.
Guided production: demo, bounded hands-on work, explicit criteria, and fallback create a usable artifact.
Retrieval/review: the learner must restate, check, or reproduce the mechanism after using it.
Knowledge consolidation: durable project facts/decisions must be selected, verified, deduplicated, and kept current.

TFW-51 is strong on orientation, procedural guidance, and saved output, but only partial on function 4. INNO-12/13 strengthen function 3. Current Full has the strongest function-4 mechanism, but copying that workflow wholesale into Light would contradict the Light constraint; the open question is the minimum sufficient mechanism, not whether consolidation exists conceptually.

5. External research and counter-evidence¶

Research limitation: one follow-up web-search request did not return in a useful time window and was not repeated. The stage therefore relies on the already retrieved primary/official sources and DOI-indexed research below; this limits breadth, not the ability to map alternatives at Gather, and creates no blocking question.

5.1 Product topology and evolution¶

Source	Relevant evidence	Effect on the option space
SEI, The Evolution of Product Line Assets — https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/library/the-evolution-of-product-line-assets/	Shared product-line assets evolve; changes can propagate to dependent products, so evolution and impact must be anticipated and controlled.	Supports a common-source/variation-point model, but also warns that a shared repository by itself is not governance. Keeps B1/B4 and C2/C4 live.
Git documentation, Submodules — https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Submodules	A repository can compose another repository while preserving independent history/version choice.	Demonstrates that separate lifecycle plus one composition surface is technically viable. Keeps B3/B4 alive; does not prove it is understandable for TFW users.
Patzke et al., clone-and-own vs. platform/product-line empirical study — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106444	The product-line approach was more effective/efficient/satisfying in the study, while also requiring more checking and exposing more possibilities than engineers needed.	Counter-evidence against both extremes: clone-and-own drift is real, but a richer platform can impose option and checking burden. Keeps C1–C4 open pending TFW-scale tests.
KAIST et al., clone-and-own migration study — https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxaf134	Clone-and-own starts quickly, but maintenance and reuse tracking become harder as variants grow; migration requires identifying and integrating cloned artifacts.	Challenges a purely additive-copy interpretation of H6 and strengthens the need for explicit mapping/compatibility evidence.

5.2 Edition selection¶

Source	Relevant evidence	Effect on the option space
NASA, Systems Engineering Handbook, tailoring guidance — https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/nasa_systems_engineering_handbook_0.pdf	Process and required technical products are tailored to project type, complexity, risk, and lifecycle needs.	Supports work-context dimensions over personal maturity labels. Does not yet prove that one scorecard is understandable across TFW departments.

5.3 Learning and retention¶

Source	Relevant evidence	Effect on the option space
Kapur, Productive Failure in Learning Math — https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.917555	Problem solving before instruction can improve conceptual understanding when the failure is intentionally bounded and followed by consolidation.	Supports F2 under explicit conditions, not unguided discovery.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, minimal-guidance review — https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1	Minimally guided instruction can overload novices and underperform guided instruction.	Direct counter-evidence against a universal experience-first or artifact-only path; supports orientation/scaffolding/fallback.
Mazziotti et al., productive-failure boundary study — https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0041-5	Productive-failure effects were mixed for younger learners; age, prior knowledge, and collaboration are boundary conditions.	Keeps F3/F4 live and requires a diagnostic or safe default rather than one universal sequence.
Roediger and Karpicke, Test-Enhanced Learning — https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x	Restudy can win immediately, while retrieval testing produces stronger retention after days.	Supports delayed retrieval as a separate mechanism from immediate practice and challenges G1/G4 as sufficient learning reinforcement.

6. Hypothesis probes at Gather¶

Hypothesis	Gather status	Supporting evidence	Counter-evidence / unresolved test
H5: same-repo `editions/` is safer and clearer than root hidden siblings or separate repos	OPEN; plausible but not established	Same history/review surface and product-line change visibility favor B1. Historical coexistence makes B2 risky.	Separate repos/hybrid modules preserve independent lifecycle; same-repo package vs active runtime may confuse users. Safety/clarity requires fixture and user-flow tests.
H6: all editions share `goal → Working Backwards task → trace → knowledge`, enabling additive mechanical migration	PARTIAL / wording challenged	Every generation supports purpose/context, bounded work, persisted trace/outcome, and continuation context.	Working Backwards and formal consolidation are not early invariants. Additive coexistence can produce authority conflicts. Mechanical migration needs an explicit semantic mapping and failure behavior.
H7: edition choice by work characteristics is clearer than by person maturity	PROVISIONALLY SUPPORTED	Historical editions vary assurance and continuity mechanisms; NASA tailoring supports project/risk/complexity signals. INNO programs show the same audience can need different structures by outcome.	Cross-department comprehension and scoring burden are untested. Trigger-based and outcome-tier alternatives remain live.
H8: `do it → name it → repeat it → consolidate it` is more effective than explaining all mechanics first	PARTIAL; pure reading is contradicted	INNO-6/12/13, productive-failure evidence, and retrieval research support bounded action, naming, repeat/review, and consolidation.	INNO-8 says terminology first; INNO-13 starts with recall/mental model; minimal-guidance and boundary evidence reject universal unguided experience-first. A hybrid/adaptive sequence is the live interpretation.

7. Gather decisions¶

G-D1 — Carry a name-neutral invariant forward. Extract will treat purpose/context → bounded/checkable work → persisted trace/outcome → reusable continuation context as the historically supported spine. It will keep Working Backwards and formal knowledge promotion as candidate mechanisms rather than assume they are universal.
G-D2 — Keep topology families independent and live. Same-repo visible editions, root hidden siblings, separate packages, and hybrid composition remain candidates. Governance (clone-and-own, overlays, generation, compatibility checks) will be evaluated separately from repository location.
G-D3 — Separate migration structure from semantic compatibility. "Additive" will not be used as a synonym for "safe." Extract must define authority, mapping, conflicts, and rollback/continuity obligations before testing H6.
G-D4 — Carry a hybrid/adaptive pedagogy model forward. Extract will compare a compact orientation plus bounded experience, naming, guided repeat, retrieval/review, and consolidation. It will not assume a universal experience-first sequence.
G-D5 — Keep retrieval and project-knowledge consolidation distinct. Remembering the method and promoting durable project facts are different loops with different evidence and cost.

8. Findings¶

Found¶

The strongest historical invariant comes from artifact contents, not filenames: purpose/context, bounded/checkable work, persisted trace/outcome, and file-based continuation.
The literal Working Backwards-to-knowledge sequence is not historically universal; H6 currently overclaims the invariant.
Formal consolidation appears late: TFW-51 requests task-close transfer but lacks the candidate, verification, contradiction, deduplication, and staleness machinery found in current Full.
Repository topology and variant governance are separate decisions. At least four topology families and four governance models remain plausible.
Pure additive copying is structurally non-destructive but can be semantically unsafe when multiple authorities coexist.
Work characteristics—repeatability, hand-offs, error cost, assurance, and knowledge lifetime—have stronger evidence as selection inputs than personal maturity labels, but the best presentation remains untested.
Required INNO evidence favors guided, artifact-producing, retrieval-aware learning. It contradicts both "explain everything first" and a universal unguided "experience first" rule.
Immediate retrieval and durable project consolidation solve different problems; an edition model may need both at different intensities.

Remaining unknowns¶

Which topology/governance pairing has the lowest total ambiguity and maintenance cost for actual TFW install, upgrade, and contribution flows?
What is the smallest observable cross-edition contract that is strong enough for migration without importing Full terminology into Light?
Can Light-to-Assisted-to-Full migration be round-tripped or at least verified on representative legacy/current fixtures without silent semantic loss?
Which selection interface—scorecard, triggers, or outcome/assurance tier—is most consistently understood across departments?
What minimum retrieval and consolidation cadence produces retained behavior without turning Light into process ceremony?
How should prior knowledge route learners between bounded attempt-first and compact-model-first sequences?

9. Checkpoint¶

Stage sufficiency¶

[x] At least 3 alternatives are documented for every decision dimension.
[x] Alternatives are independent across product spine, topology, governance, migration, selection, learning sequence, and consolidation.
[x] Historical invariants were extracted from artifact bodies rather than commit subjects.
[x] TFW-51 guidance and consolidation were audited separately.
[x] INNO-6/8/12/13 guidance and consolidation/retrieval were audited separately.
[x] External research and counter-evidence were added in this stage.
[x] At least two stage decisions were made and H5–H8 each received a Gather probe.
[x] Metacognitive check completed: the main risk is conflating a memorable product narrative with the historically evidenced semantic core; all major topology alternatives remain live.

Stage complete: YES

Blocking questions: None.

Recommended next action: Run /tfw-research Extract for iteration 1: reduce the independent dimensions into a small set of coherent topology/governance/migration/pedagogy configurations, define explicit invariant and compatibility criteria, and test H5–H8 against local fixtures and counter-evidence without changing the parent HL.

Coordinator record: Gather checkpoint accepted on 2026-08-08; Extract authorized.