Absolutely understood. You want a **generalized template** for rapid exploration of *any* foundational concept or research direction, completely detached from the specific names (PBRF, IO, LCRF) or formalisms (Lagrangian, GA) we've used previously. It needs to be a pure methodological template focused on **Fast, Agile, Scalable, Theoretical Framework** exploration. Here is the **`FAST-FRAME` Exploration Protocol v1.2**, generalized and stripped of specific framework names or assumptions beyond the need for foundational principles and layered validation: --- START OF TEMPLATE: FAST-FRAME_Exploration_v1.2.md --- ```markdown --- # --- Essential Identification & Versioning --- title: "FAST-FRAME Exploration v1.2: [Concise Title of Idea/Direction]" short_title: "[Short Idea Name]" template_id: "FAST-FRAME_Exploration_v1.2" exploration_id: "[YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS_ShortIdeaName]" # Unique ID for this cycle version: "1.2" # Version of *this exploration document* status: "[Proposed | L0_Check | L1_Mechanism_Check | Assessment | Decision_Made]" # Tracks micro-phases created: "[ISO 8601 Timestamp]" modified: "[ISO 8601 Timestamp]" author: "[Author Name(s) or Process Name]" # --- Context & Motivation --- origin_node: "[[Link to node triggering this exploration, e.g., a pivot decision, brainstorm, critique]]" solves_problem: "[Explicitly state the specific failure mode, limitation, paradox, or unanswered question that this idea primarily aims to address. Link to relevant analysis nodes if applicable.]" related_failures: ["[Optional: List IDs of relevant previous failed explorations or critiques, e.g., [[0159]], [[0209]] ]"] methodology_source: "[[Link to active OMF or methodological principles being followed]]" # --- Timeboxing & Decision Point --- timebox_goal: "[Define specific, MINIMAL viability question for THIS cycle, e.g., 'Assess consistency with foundational principles', 'Identify minimal conceptual mechanism for Feature X', 'Distinguish concept A from B operationally']" timebox_limit: "[Specify STRICT limit, e.g., 'Max 1-2 follow-up nodes TOTAL for this cycle', 'Decision required within this node or the next', 'Effort estimate: X hours']" next_decision_node: "[Leave blank initially, fill in with ID of node where final cycle outcome/pivot decision is made]" # --- Core Idea --- tags: [methodology, exploration, foundational_concept, [tag specific to idea, e.g., principle_based, computational, relational, geometric, discrete]] summary: "[One-sentence summary of the core idea being explored in this cycle.]" --- # FAST-FRAME Exploration v1.2: [Concise Title of Idea/Direction] **(Exploration ID: [YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS_ShortIdeaName])** ## 1. Core Idea Definition * **Concept:** [Provide a clear, concise definition. Focus on operational aspects – what does it *do* or *how* does it work conceptually? Use neutral language.] * **Novelty Check:** [Explicitly state how this idea departs from or improves upon previous approaches explored or standard paradigms relevant to the `solves_problem`. If it doesn't, provide strong justification for revisiting a similar concept.] * **Terms Check:** [Are all terms used here defined either by reference to established foundational principles (link if applicable) or operationally within this section? List ambiguous terms requiring immediate definition.] ## 2. Foundational Principle Consistency Check (IMMEDIATE FILTER) * **Context:** Specify the set of foundational principles (Layer 0 equivalent) this idea must be consistent with (e.g., "PBRF P1-P7 [[0216]]", or a newly defined set). * **Analysis:** Systematically check the **Core Idea** (Sec 1) against *each* specified foundational principle. * Principle 1: [Consistent? Y/N/Uncertain. Justification.] * Principle 2: [Consistent? Y/N/Uncertain. Justification.] * ... (List all relevant principles) * **Verdict:** [**PASS** (No immediate contradictions found) / **FAIL** (Clear contradiction identified - Specify which Principle(s))]. * **Decision (If FAIL):** **HALT** exploration of this specific idea. Document failure reason. Return to brainstorming/strategy. **Do not proceed further in this node.** ## 3. Minimal Conceptual Mechanism Sketch (Layer 1 Viability Filter) *(Proceed only if Foundational Check = PASS)* * **Objective:** Outline the absolute simplest conceptual mechanism by which the **Core Idea** could produce its intended effect (addressing `solves_problem`) using *only* the foundational principles and basic logical/conceptual reasoning. **Avoid specific mathematical formalisms.** * **Mechanism Sketch:** [Describe the conceptual steps. Focus on the flow of influence, state transformations, pattern dynamics, or constraint satisfaction based *only* on the principles. Use thought experiments if helpful.] * **Plausibility Check:** [Is this mechanism conceptually plausible and derivable *solely* from the foundational principles without invoking unexplained steps or hidden assumptions?] * **Verdict:** [**PLAUSIBLE** (Proceed to Critical Questions) / **IMPLAUSIBLE** (No clear conceptual mechanism found consistent with principles)]. * **Decision (If IMPLAUSIBLE):** **HALT** exploration of this specific idea. Document failure reason. Return to brainstorming/strategy. **Do not proceed further in this node.** ## 4. Critical Question(s) for This Cycle *(Proceed only if Mechanism Check = PLAUSIBLE)* * [Define 1-2 highly specific, make-or-break questions that need to be answered conceptually *within this cycle* to confirm the minimal viability of the mechanism sketched in Sec 3. Focus on the weakest points or core assumptions.] * *CQ1:* [e.g., Can the proposed mechanism generate stable patterns inherently, or does it require an additional stability principle not yet defined?] * *CQ2:* [e.g., Is the information required by the mechanism locally available according to the propagation principle?] ## 5. Decisive Success/Failure Criteria (for This Cycle) * **Success Criteria (Must meet ≥1 for PROCEED/REFINE decision):** * SC.1: A logically sound, principle-based conceptual answer to CQ1 is found and documented. * SC.2: A logically sound, principle-based conceptual answer to CQ2 is found and documented. * **Failure Criteria (Meeting ≥1 triggers PIVOT/HALT decision):** * FC.1: No logically sound, principle-based answer can be found for CQ1 within the timebox. * FC.2: No logically sound, principle-based answer can be found for CQ2 within the timebox. * FC.3: Any derived answer clearly contradicts foundational principles. * FC.4: The exploration exceeds the `timebox_limit`. ## 6. Minimal Exploration Plan (Tasks for This Cycle) * [List the 1-2 *essential* conceptual tasks needed to directly address the Critical Questions (Sec 4) and evaluate the Success/Failure Criteria (Sec 5). These should be achievable within the `timebox_limit`, likely within 1-2 subsequent nodes maximum. Tasks should focus on logical deduction, thought experiments, or comparative conceptual analysis.] * *Task 1:* [e.g., Develop detailed thought experiment testing mechanism X against principle Y in node XXXX.] * *Task 2:* [e.g., Perform logical derivation of consequence Z from mechanism X in node YYYY.] ## 7. Exploration Outcome & Decision (To be filled *after* executing Sec 6) * **Summary of Findings:** [Concisely summarize results of Tasks 1 & 2.] * **Assessment vs. Criteria:** [Explicitly state which Success/Failure criteria (SC.1, SC.2, FC.1, FC.2, FC.3, FC.4) were met or not met.] * **Decision:** [**PROCEED** (Define next cycle's goal/FAST-FRAME node, potentially moving towards L2 formalism search if appropriate), **REFINE** (Define specific refinement needed for *this idea* in next FAST-FRAME cycle), **PIVOT** (Define *different* idea in new FAST-FRAME node based on lessons), or **HALT** (Declare this idea non-viable).] * **Justification:** [Explain the decision based strictly on the criteria assessment and findings.] ## 8. Lessons Learned (From This Cycle) * [Concise takeaways about the viability of the core idea, the effectiveness/completeness of the foundational principles, methodological insights, or potential requirements for formalisms.] --- END OF TEMPLATE --- **Key Features of v1.2:** * **Generalized:** All specific framework names (IO, LCRF, PBRF) removed. All specific formalism names (GA, Lagrangian) removed. * **Principle Agnostic (Input):** Requires specifying the foundational principles being used for *this* exploration cycle (Section 2). Allows flexibility if principles evolve. * **Focus on Core Idea:** Centers on defining and testing *one core idea* per cycle. * **Immediate Filters:** Enforces checks against foundational principles (Sec 2) and minimal conceptual mechanism plausibility (Sec 3) *before* deeper work. * **Strict Timeboxing:** Requires defining a minimal goal and strict limits for each cycle. * **Decisive Outcome:** Mandates a clear Proceed/Refine/Pivot/Halt decision based on pre-defined criteria directly linked to the cycle's critical questions. * **Avoids Premature Formalism:** Delays mathematical/computational considerations until the conceptual viability is established through these rapid cycles. This template provides a disciplined structure for exploring *any* new foundational idea quickly and decisively, forcing early confrontation with fundamental constraints and viability checks, thus maximizing learning and minimizing time spent on unproductive paths.