Run a measured dogfood cycle and use its findings to select the next app work

[dvdgdn]

The next app priorities should follow observed constraints on the three commons' work. A completed feature or a larger reasoning graph is not sufficient evidence that the software is helping.

Work

• After the Reason Commons goal and provisional throughput are agreed, choose a small set of consequential real questions and record what improvement is expected from the app.
• Include one app-development decision using selected GitHub issues and one Research Group handoff to the movement model.
• Record contribution, review and correction effort, assistance required, ability to recover reasons on return, and qualifying throughput observations. Use the ordinary GitHub/document workflow as a descriptive comparison; do not claim causal proof from a small founder trial.
• Include a participant who does not already know the implementation or LTP vocabulary.
• Verify existing public-reading and export capabilities before adding replacements: app code already has a public-space route exception, YAML export and a .reason-commons JSON projection.
• Check actual viewer compatibility and source/deep links against Get trees (2R tree and maybe D+R tree) into a machine-readable git repo #23 and [inbox] UX ideas about the Reason Commons app(s) #24; keep any remaining work in those existing issues.
• Review results inside the Reason Commons commons and select the next intervention against the observed constraint.

Acceptance criteria

The review links to actual decisions, observations, friction and unresolved objections. It distinguishes delivered model updates, completed software work and the app-development commons' own throughput. The next proposed work has an explicit connection to the agreed goal, an expected effect and a date or condition for checking it.

Expected benefit and check

David and Rufus can explain why the next development task is more valuable than alternatives using recorded experience. A return session tests whether reasons and dissent are recoverable without the original facilitator.

Broader Discord integration, continuous ingestion and presentation expansion remain candidates to prioritize from evidence, not prerequisites for this cycle.

[dvdgdn]

Placed in the Reason Commons model for this repository as t-e-37-action, a transition action in reason-commons.ltp.yaml (PR #39). Why it sits there, what the model says it should change, and what it does not claim: report — Issue #37.

The model is a candidate until it is ratified in the Reason Commons commons for this project; nothing about this issue changes. When that commons is connected to this repository the app projects accepted actions as managed issues of its own (title = the action's statement, labelled rc:*) and cannot yet adopt an existing issue as that action — that is #35 — so the connection waits for #35, and until then this comment is how to find the model from here.