A02 — Structured framework extraction and redesign

• Input [inference]: An existing framework and a task scenario in which it is applied (inferred from "redesigns" being compared on task outputs; theory doc Observation 2).
• Operation [direct]: Add structure that strengthens evidence use, traceability, and uncertainty handling; the emergent design heuristic further states structure should be added "only enough... to solve the identified weakness" (emergent-design-laws, Law 7).
• Output [direct]: A redesigned framework variant evaluated against task outputs, per the theory doc's description of FE-011A as testing "framework redesign structure and output quality."
• Scope conditions [direct]: Framework characterization and improvement; current evidence is drawn from one internal pilot (FE-011A).
• Failure conditions [direct]: The theory doc's falsification criteria state the theory weakens if "redesigned frameworks do not improve outputs." Hypothesis 4 further allows that observed gains "may come from structure in general rather than from Framework Engineering specifically."
• Predicted effect [direct]: "Structured redesign can improve traceability and evidence handling, but it also tends to add complexity" (Theory v0.1 claim 2). The strongest FE-011A pattern was "stronger reasoning traceability, clearer evidence linkage, and better uncertainty handling in more structured variants, with added verbosity and process overhead" (Observation 2).
• Measurement [direct]: Traceability, evidence linkage, uncertainty handling, verbosity, and process overhead, as named in Observation 2.
• Implementation test [absent]: No masking procedure, evaluator protocol, or scenario design is described in the permitted canonical set; only the outcome pattern is summarized.
• Decision rights [absent]: No canonical authority for approving a redesign is named.
• Uncertainty handling [inference]: The prediction that redesign "will usually improve traceability, but not always net usefulness" implies uncertainty about usefulness must be preserved rather than assumed away; this is an inference from the prediction's own hedged wording.
• Verification [direct]: The theory doc's Next Required Work calls to "Re-run FE-011A with stronger blinding and independent evaluation."
• Provenance [absent]: No canonical statement on what artifacts (packet, scenario, output) must be retained is present in the permitted set.
• Implementation cost [direct]: "Added verbosity and process overhead" is stated directly as a cost of structured variants (Observation 2).
• Limitations [direct]: The theory doc explicitly flags that FE-011A evidence is internal, that redesign gains may reflect generic structure rather than a Framework-Engineering-specific effect (Hypothesis 4), and that stronger, more independently blinded follow-on work is required.

Statement basis

• Direct: Operation heuristic, output form, failure/falsification condition, predicted effect, measurement dimensions, verification requirement, cost, and limitations.
• Inference: Input framing and the uncertainty-preservation implication of the hedged prediction.
• Proposal-only: The "add only enough structure" heuristic is itself labeled a provisional design tendency, not accepted doctrine, in emergent-design-laws-v0.1.md.
• Absent: Implementation test procedure, decision rights, provenance rule.