Summary
Fill the 5 open theory gaps in semiotic-endeavor (v0.6.0) identified in the gap analysis text, using directions from decision 0005 and research from existing repo content. This completes the level 2 description: what an endeavor IS.
Motivation
semiotic-endeavor describes organizational levels, method/practice, aspects, closure conditions, and lifecycle. But 5 theory gaps remain open (per gap analysis text). Completing them is a prerequisite for stabilizing the spec — you can’t move past draft if the theory is incomplete.
Steps
- Temporality (#2): derive from the repo’s own temporal structures (sessions, cycles, phases, git history). Decision 0005: use repo content, not external philosophy. Research the time-related triage content, then write.
- Multi-agent coordination (#3): check relationality slop per decision 0005. How do multiple agents coordinate within an endeavor? The anarchic governance section touches this but doesn’t address the coordination problem.
- Method vs habit (#4): articulate the distinction between the j operator (habit-formation) and method (codified convention). Method is explicit and revisable; habit is implicit and persistent. The spec uses j for both without distinguishing them.
- Endeavor identity (#9): what makes two moments of activity part of the same endeavor? The stability condition under which an endeavor persists through change.
- Method evolution (#11): the dynamics of method change. How does revision work? The lifecycle of method components is level 3 content (already in the spec); the theory question is what drives method change and what constrains it.
Inter-endeavor relationships (#10) is deferred — it requires more than one endeavor to reason about, and we have only one.
Done when
- Each gap has a section in semiotic-endeavor addressing it
- Each section is grounded in repo content or formal structure (not invented from scratch)
- The gap analysis text is updated to mark gaps as addressed
Dependencies
None, but benefits from plan 0033 (which tracks the spec family) and decision 0005 (which gives directions on each gap).
Log
2026-03-08 — Created from gap analysis. These gaps were identified but not planned. Per emsenn: plan unplanned work before doing it.
2026-03-08 — Completed. All 5 theory gaps addressed in semiotic-endeavor v0.7.0. Research agents searched triage/, slop/, and published content for grounding material per decision 0005. Sections written:
-
Endeavor identity: Four continuities (repository, method, closure conditions, governance) whose conjunction is the identity criterion. Grounded in platform invariants (persistence of history) and policy 005 (accrete don’t replace).
-
Method and habit: Habit is any closure-stable regularity (implicit, individual). Method is codified, coherent, prescriptive, revisable habit. Progressive automation (policy 001) is the direction from habit to method. Grounded in Peirce’s habit concept and j operator properties.
-
Method evolution: Drivers (method-practice gap, emergent patterns, compositional pressure), constraints (continuity, coherence, closure compatibility, evidence), dynamics (feedback loop converging under monotone satisfaction deficit).
-
Temporality: Time as iteration toward fixed points, not clock-time. Four scales (session, cycle, phase, duration), two modalities (always/eventually from fixed-point structure), time as semantic constraint. Grounded in PM cycle specification and platform invariants.
-
Multi-agent coordination: Coordination as mathematical property (non-interference on disjoint regions), governance without hierarchy (method as coordination mechanism), shared carriers (repository as communication channel), calibration (residuated sufficiency). Grounded in ASR theory and relationality material.
Gap analysis text updated to mark all 5 as addressed.