A08 — Integrated characterization-to-reassessment workflow

• Input [inference]: A knowledge artifact and the evidence generated about it as it moves through the program's stages.
• Operation [direct]: Framework Engineering is defined as "a research program for characterizing, comparing, redesigning, and testing frameworks and adjacent knowledge artifacts" (theory doc, Core Definitions). The research constitution requires evidence runs to "declare which hypotheses it tests before execution" and to "pass through an Evidence Decision Record before any hypothesis review or queue decision" (Rules 8–9).
• Output [inference]: A sequence of characterization, redesign, test, and evidence-review outputs, consistent with CURRENT_STATE.md's "Current Goal": review evidence, assess kill conditions, approve qualitative updates, and select the next research action.
• Scope conditions [direct]: Hypothesis 1 frames the program as becoming "a disciplined method for framework characterization and redesign before it becomes a reliable framework-generation discipline"; current evidence supports it "as a characterization and improvement methodology, not yet as a full engineering discipline."
• Failure conditions [inference]: A downstream action is selected without first passing through review (violating Rules 8–9), or redesign does not improve outputs (the A02 falsification criterion the bundle depends on) — inferred as complements of stated governance rules, not a bundle-specific failure statement.
• Predicted effect [absent]: No interaction or sequencing effect for the bundle as a whole is stated anywhere in the permitted canonical set.
• Measurement [absent]: No bundle-level metric is defined.
• Implementation test [absent]: No procedure for producing every stage artifact from a frozen input is described.
• Decision rights [direct]: "Confidence may not be updated directly from an evidence run"; every evidence run "must pass through an Evidence Decision Record before any hypothesis review or queue decision" (Rules 9–10).
• Uncertainty handling [direct]: Ideas "remain provisional" until they accumulate evidence and survive "meaningful challenge" (CONSTITUTION.md, Knowledge Promotion).
• Verification [direct]: Next Required Work lists further independent re-runs of each contributing stage (FE-008, FE-011A, FE-012A, FE-012B) as still required.
• Provenance [inference]: Implied by the Evidence Decision Record requirement (Rule 9), linking an evidence run to the review that acts on it; no bundle-wide provenance schema is stated.
• Implementation cost [inference]: A multi-stage process of this kind is consistent with the general observation that structured redesign work "tends to add complexity" (Theory v0.1 claim 2), applied here by inference.
• Limitations [direct]: Current theory does not yet show Framework Engineering "can reliably design superior frameworks"; Open Questions ask which redesign gains are specific to Framework Engineering versus generic scaffolding. No record shows the four stages interacting as a bundle beyond each being separately, provisionally evidenced.

Statement basis

• Direct: Program definition, scope framing, decision-rights governance rules, uncertainty rule, and verification requirement.
• Inference: Input/output framing, failure-condition complement, provenance implication, and cost.
• Proposal-only: None identified beyond the provisional theory status already noted.
• Absent: Bundle-level predicted effect, measurement, and implementation test.