Goal progress
| Goal | Horizon | Movement | Blocked? | Ready? | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 004 Finish methodology | near | advancing (0017 lifecycle done, PM spec written) | waiting: goals need emsenn review | yes (multiple proposed) | 4/6 met |
| 002 Planning infra | mid | advancing (board, WIP, appetites working) | no | yes (8 proposed plans) | 2/6 met |
| 003 Progressive automation | mid | stalled (MCP server exists but key plans draft) | soft: 0015, 0016 still draft | low | 1/5 met |
| 005 Semantic pipeline | mid | stalled (infrastructure exists, nothing connected) | soft: 0018, 0021 depend on draft 0015 | low | 0/5 met |
| 001 Operational autonomy | far | minimal | depends on 003, 005 | low | 0/5 met |
Method-practice gaps
Method without practice
- Retrospectives (semiotic-PM §3.7): specified as categorical review, never conducted
- Satisfaction deficit (semiotic-PM §1.2): specified as monotone-decreasing progress metric, not measured or reported
- Circuit breaker (semiotic-PM §3.6): appetite field exists but no check fires when appetite exhausted
- Cool-down periods (semiotic-PM §3.6): specified, never practiced
- Definition of Done (semiotic-PM §6): specified, no shared standard exists
- Backlog as semantic gap (semiotic-PM §3.4): specified as derived from predicate graph, but actually a manually curated list
- Goal acceptance (plans/index.md lifecycle): specified as emsenn gate, all 5 goals still draft — no strategic direction formally accepted
- Normative scope declarations (semiotic-endeavor-specification §1.1): required of aspect specs, absent from most
- Shared carrier declarations (semiotic-endeavor-specification §1.3): required, none declared
Practice without method
- “Think through” plans: used in practice (plan 0040), not documented as a plan type
- Session start procedure: practiced (CLAUDE.md), not specified as a formal method component
- Work routing decisions: practiced ad hoc, no documented decision protocols (what plan 0039 addresses)
- Triage mining focus selection: practiced, but decision of what to mine for is ad hoc each time
- Three-level pattern application: practiced, documented in plan 0033 but not formalized as a procedure
Leverage ranking
| Candidate | Serves goal | Unblocks | Closes gap | Improves decisions | Ready | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0038 Situational assessment | 004 (near) | all future choices | yes (no assessment exists) | yes (IS the tool) | yes | 4 |
| 0039 Work procedure | 002 (mid) | all future routing | yes (routing is ad hoc) | yes (documents protocols) | yes | 4 |
| 0040 Think through spec-as-measurement | 002 (mid) | — | partially | yes (reorders priorities) | yes | 3 |
| 0023 Cycle workflow | 002 (mid) | 0035 (retros) | yes (circuit breaker, cool-down) | partially | yes | 3 |
| 0022 Definition of Done | 002 (mid) | — | yes (no shared DoD) | no | yes | 3 |
| 0036 Roadmap/milestones | 002 (mid) | — | partially | partially | yes | 2 |
| 0024 Unplanned intake | 002 (mid) | — | partially | partially | yes | 2 |
| 0018 Satisfaction deficit | 005 (mid) | — | yes | yes | no (needs 0015) | 2 |
| 0035 Retrospectives | 002 (mid) | — | yes | yes | no (needs 0023) | 2 |
Non-obvious finding
All 5 goals are status: draft. Goal 004’s key result #3 is “Goal
candidates reviewed by emsenn” and #4 is “emsenn accepts at least 2
goals.” The entire planning system is operating without formally
accepted strategic direction. Plans serve draft goals. This is the
largest method-practice gap.
Recommendation
Do: Complete plan 0038 (this assessment), then present goal review to emsenn.
Why: The goal acceptance gap is the highest-leverage method-practice gap — it affects all 37 plans, not just one. Completing 0038 gives us the assessment tool; reviewing goals gives us accepted direction.
Over: 0039 (work procedure) scores equally on leverage but goals-first is prerequisite. 0023 (cycles) and 0022 (DoD) are plan-level improvements that don’t address the strategic gap.
Then: With accepted goals and this assessment tool, the next assessment will produce a clear recommendation because it can compare candidates against committed direction rather than draft assumptions.
Post-assessment update
emsenn provided strategic direction: the #1 goal is “specify the emsemioverse endeavor.” Everything else feeds into that or is made possible by it. This reorients the entire goal structure — the existing 5 goals become sub-goals or enabling conditions of this primary objective.