CHANGELOG.adoc

Changelog

All notable changes to the Wayfinder project will be documented in this file.

The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/), and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html) where applicable.

Philosophy

We maintain this changelog with the same values as the project: - Transparency: Document all significant changes - Clarity: Explain the "why" not just the "what" - Honesty: Include mistakes and lessons learned - Attribution: Credit contributors

[Unreleased]

Planned

• First example investigation (to be determined based on beta tester feedback)

• Simple website (GitLab Pages or similar)

• Beta tester recruitment (5-10 journalists)

• Level 2A materials (Process Documentarian)

• Level 2B materials (Uncertainty Communicator)

[0.2.0-alpha] - 2026-02-07

Added - Infrastructure & Week 1 Materials

Test Infrastructure

• Validation test suite: Framework, documentation, and installation tests

• validate-framework.sh: Verifies PROMPT framework, boundary objects, learning pathway integrity

• validate-documentation.sh: Checks author attribution, licenses, SPDX headers, consistency

• validate-installation.sh: Validates workflows, directory structure, scanning integrations

• run-all-tests.sh: Master test runner for full validation

• Justfile commands: test, rsr-check, verify-scanning, validate

Bot Directives (.bot_directives/)

• 8 bot configurations for gitbot-fleet integration:

• rhodibot: RSR compliance and repository operations

• echidnabot: Framework consistency verification (PROMPT, boundary objects)

• glambot: Documentation quality and WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility

• sustainabot: Community health and sustainability monitoring

• seambot: Integration and tooling (Hypatia, gitbot-fleet)

• finishbot: Milestone tracking and STATE.scm updates

• robot-repo-automaton: Automated fixes with confidence thresholds

• Protection for core frameworks: All bots configured to preserve PROMPT and heutagogic design

Level 1 Learning Materials (materials/level-1/)

• README.adoc: Complete Evidence Mapper learning pathway

• 5-step process (4-8 hours total)

• PROMPT framework detailed explanation

• Claim selection criteria (good vs. bad examples)

• Common mistakes and fixes

• Completion checklist

• Pathways to Level 2A/2B

• PROMPT-Worksheet.adoc: Evidence evaluation template

• Structured scoring for 6 dimensions (Provenance, Relevance, Objectivity, Methods, Perspective, Timeliness)

• Space for multiple evidence pieces

• Convergence/divergence analysis

• Meta-cognitive reflection prompts

• Epistemic honesty emphasis

• Evidence-Map-Template.adoc: Ecosystem mapping guide

• Visual and textual mapping options

• Evidence quality matrix

• Gap identification

• Multi-stakeholder navigation guide (activists, policymakers, skeptics, academics, affected communities)

• Synthesis sections (known/uncertain/unknown)

RSR Compliance Improvements

• Complete .machine_readable/ structure: All 6 SCM files (STATE, META, ECOSYSTEM, AGENTIC, NEUROSYM, PLAYBOOK)

• Full workflow suite: 17 workflows (added instant-sync, npm-bun-blocker, ts-blocker, jekyll)

• License corrections: Updated all SPDX headers to PMPL-1.0-or-later

• Duplicate cleanup: Removed .md duplicates (kept .adoc), removed capitalized Justfile

Documentation Updates

• CITATIONS.adoc: Corrected author and license (Jonathan D.A. Jewell, PMPL-1.0-or-later)

• ROADMAP.adoc: Updated with actual Wayfinder milestones and 4-week plan

• STATE.scm: Project status updated (15% → 30% completion)

Changed - Integration Verification

Hypatia & gitbot-fleet

• Verified Hypatia scan: Active on push, PR, weekly schedule

• Confirmed gitbot-fleet integration: Automatic finding submission

• Bot directives active: All 8 bots configured and ready

• Neurosymbolic CI/CD: Intelligence layer operational

Technical Decisions

Why Test Infrastructure First?

• Rationale: Documentation projects need validation too

• Framework integrity: PROMPT dimensions must remain consistent

• Formalism checks: Ensure conceptual coherence

• Regression prevention: Changes don’t break core frameworks

Why Bot Directives Now?

• Rationale: Protect conceptual frameworks from automated changes

• Learning: robot-repo-automaton must understand PROMPT is sacred

• Sustainability: finishbot tracks milestones, sustainabot monitors health

• Integration: seambot ensures Hypatia and gitbot-fleet stay connected

Why Level 1 First?

• Rationale: Heutagogic pathway requires self-directed entry point

• Professional output: Beta testers need immediate value (4-8 hours)

• Foundation building: Level 2A/2B depend on PROMPT framework mastery

• Test case: Real journalists will validate design assumptions

Status

Current Phase: Proof-of-concept (Week 1 in progress)

Completion: 30% overall - ✅ Conceptual frameworks complete - ✅ Test infrastructure complete - ✅ Bot directives complete - ✅ Hypatia/gitbot-fleet verified - ✅ Level 1 materials complete

Week 1 Remaining: - Create first example investigation - Share with 3 journalist friends - Begin beta tester recruitment

Next Milestones: - Week 2: Feedback from initial testers - Week 3: GitLab Pages website - Week 4: First 5-10 participants start Level 1

Lessons Learned

What Worked

• Test-driven documentation: Validation tests caught outdated licenses, inconsistent attribution

• Bot directives early: Protecting frameworks before automation starts prevents future fixes

• Heutagogic design: Level 1 materials produce professional output (not just learning badges)

• Boundary objects: Evidence map template serves multiple stakeholder needs

What We’re Watching

• Beta tester recruitment: Will demoralized journalists engage?

• Level 1 time estimate: Is 4-8 hours realistic or optimistic?

• PROMPT scoring: Will journalists find 0-1 scale intuitive?

• Evidence mapping: Hand-drawn vs. tool-based (Obsidian/TiddlyWiki/Notion)?

Contributors

• Project development: Jonathan D.A. Jewell

• AI assistance: Claude Sonnet 4.5

Thank You

To the test infrastructure that caught bugs, the bot directives that will protect frameworks, and the journalists who will test Level 1 materials.

---

[0.1.0-alpha] - 2025-11-23

Added - Project Foundation

Documentation

• README.md: Project overview, mission, learning pathway, quick start

• claude.md: Comprehensive documentation for AI assistants and deep project context

• LICENSE.txt: Dual MIT + Palimpsest v0.8 licensing

• CONTRIBUTING.md: Contribution guidelines aligned with heutagogic principles

• CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md: Community standards emphasizing epistemic virtues

• SECURITY.md: Security policy covering source protection, data handling, platform security

• MAINTAINERS.md: Governance model and maintainer responsibilities

• CHANGELOG.md: This file

Core Frameworks

• PROMPT Framework: Six-dimension claim evaluation

• Provenance, Relevance, Objectivity, Methods, Perspective, Timeliness

• Boundary Objects Theory: Integration as conceptual foundation

• Enables coordination without consensus

• Multiple entry points for different communities

• Data → Knowledge → Intelligence → Wisdom Pipeline: Four-layer architecture

• Bio-Psycho-Social-Technical Systems Analysis: Cognitive science integration

Learning Pathway (Heutagogic Design)

• Level 1: Skeptical Journalist → Evidence Mapper (4-8 hours)

• Level 2A: Methodological Journalist → Process Documentarian (8-12 hours)

• Level 2B: Statistical Journalist → Uncertainty Communicator (6-10 hours)

• Level 3: Interactive Journalist → Knowledge Architect (20-40 hours)

• Level 4: Systems Journalist → Epistemic Infrastructure Builder (ongoing)

Cognitive Science Integration

• Progressive disclosure architecture (avoid cognitive overload)

• Meta-cognitive prompts (make thinking visible)

• Empathy-first contradictory evidence (reduce defensiveness)

• Transparent navigation analytics (show exploration patterns)

• Trust calibration mechanisms

Design Principles

• Face-saving architecture (never "you were wrong")

• Identity-safe framings (Kahan’s cultural cognition)

• Multiple entry points (serve different communities)

• Collaborative investigation features

• Accessibility-first (WCAG 2.1 AA minimum)

Context - Why This Project Exists

This project emerged from recognition that: 1. We’re not in "post-truth" but in transition from pre-truth to truth 2. Data is outpacing knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom 3. Journalists are demoralized, seeing "the end of journalism" 4. Current approaches fail: Ground News’s algorithmic both-sidesism isn’t enough 5. Interactive documentaries (i-docs) naturally address post-truth pathologies

Influences and Inspiration

Theoretical Foundations

• Nico Carpentier: Participatory communication theory, PhD supervision

• Susan Leigh Star: Boundary objects theory

• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Late work on language games (vs. early truth-value semantics)

• Dempster-Shafer Theory: Uncertainty quantification

• Granger Causality: Temporal influence without mechanistic causation

Media and Methodology

• i-Docs Research Network: Interactive documentary frameworks

• Korsakow: Non-linear documentary software (SNUs - smallest narrative units)

• Notable i-docs: Out My Window, Hollow, Welcome to Pine Point, Prison Valley

Philosophy and Literature

• De Man and Derrida: Irony and the map-territory gap

• David Foster Wallace: New Sincerity movement

• Profilicity vs. Authenticity: Contemporary debates

• Oxford OAR Group: Inventive Methodologies (anecdotes as legitimate knowledge)

Cognitive Science

• Cowan (2001): Working memory limits (~4 chunks)

• Schwartz: Choice paralysis

• Rozenblit & Keil: Illusion of explanatory depth

• Kahan: Cultural cognition and identity-protective reasoning

• Nickerson: Understanding disagreement reduces polarization

Professional Practice

• National Union of Journalists (NUJ): Professional journalism standards

• ProPublica: Transparent methodology journalism

• Knight Foundation, Omidyar Network: Investigative journalism funding models

Technical Decisions

Why Dual Licensing?

• MIT: Maximum compatibility, enables wide adoption

• Palimpsest v0.8: Values alignment, ensures transparency and epistemic justice

• Both apply; users choose which governs their use

Why This Documentation Structure?

• README.md: Quick orientation for humans

• claude.md: Deep context for AI assistants

• Separate guides: CONTRIBUTING, CODE_OF_CONDUCT, SECURITY, etc.

• Allows targeted reading

• Easier to maintain

• Clearer separation of concerns

Why "Wayfinder"?

• Captures both journalist role (guide) and reader experience (navigator)

• Signals hope to demoralized journalists

• Works as boundary object name (different communities hear what they need)

• Gamification-friendly (Apprentice/Journeyman/Master Wayfinder)

• Memorable, pronounceable, googleable

Lessons Learned

What Worked

• Delaying specific advice: Asking questions before prescribing solutions

• Cognitive science integration: Design mitigations for known problems

• Heutagogic approach: Self-determination + results (not points/badges)

• Boundary objects framing: Solves "coordination without consensus" problem

What We’re Watching

• Production cost: 10x more work than traditional journalism initially

• Learning curve: Both journalists and audiences need new capabilities

• Business model: No obvious revenue source yet

• Measurement: How to prove this works?

Open Questions

• Which complex story for first prototype?

• Obsidian vs. TiddlyWiki vs. Notion for Phase 1?

• How to recruit first 5-10 beta testers?

• What metrics actually matter for "success"?

Status

Current Phase: Conceptual design complete, moving to proof-of-concept

Next Milestones: 1. Week 1: Level 1 materials, evidence mapping template, one example investigation 2. Week 2: Share with 3 journalist friends for feedback 3. Week 3: Build simple website (GitLab Pages) 4. Week 4: First 5-10 participants start Level 1

4 weeks to proof-of-concept.

Contributors

• Project inception and design: [Name to be added]

• [Additional contributors as they join]

Thank You

To everyone who influenced this thinking: - The demoralized journalists who need hope - The academics who built the theoretical foundations - The i-docs practitioners who proved the concept - The open source community who model transparency - The cognitive scientists who reveal how we actually think

---

Versioning Scheme

For Pre-Release (0.x.x)

• 0.x.0: Major conceptual changes

• 0.0.x: Documentation updates, minor fixes

For Release (1.x.x and beyond)

• Major (x.0.0): Breaking changes to methodology or platform

• Minor (0.x.0): New features, new levels, significant enhancements

• Patch (0.0.x): Bug fixes, documentation, minor improvements

Special Versions

• alpha: Conceptual design, not yet tested

• beta: Testing with small group

• rc: Release candidate, ready for wider use

• (no suffix): Stable release

---

How to Use This Changelog

For Contributors

• Check Unreleased to see what’s coming

• Check your version to know what features are available

• See Attribution to find who to thank or ask

For Maintainers

• Update Unreleased as you work

• Move to versioned section when releasing

• Always explain why, not just what

• Credit contributors generously

For Users

• See what’s new in each version

• Understand why changes were made

• Know what’s planned next

• Track project evolution

---

This changelog embodies our commitment to transparency. Every significant change is documented with reasoning. Every contributor is credited. Every lesson is shared.

See also: [README.md](./README.md), [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md)