import live www.sillylaird.ca webrootHEADmain

1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.agents/skills/obsidian-project-memory/references/PAPERS-TO-WRITING.md b/.agents/skills/obsidian-project-memory/references/PAPERS-TO-WRITING.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e4b8237
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/obsidian-project-memory/references/PAPERS-TO-WRITING.md
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Papers -> Experiments -> Results -> Writing
+
+Use this as the default durable research pipeline inside the project knowledge base.
+
+## Why this pipeline matters
+
+The vault should not treat literature, experiments, results, and writing as isolated folders.
+
+Default expectation:
+1. `Papers/` produces hypotheses, reusable methods, baselines, and evaluation criteria.
+2. `Experiments/` turns those into actionable test plans or updates an existing experiment line.
+3. `Results/` captures the durable findings that survive beyond one run or one day.
+4. `Writing/` turns those findings into external-facing synthesis: literature review, proposal text, draft claims, slides, rebuttal notes.
+
+`Daily/` is the staging area for temporary work and chronology, not the final destination for durable research objects.
+
+## Default handoff rules
+
+### Papers -> Experiments
+
+Promote from `Papers/` to `Experiments/` when a paper note yields:
+- a testable hypothesis,
+- a method variation worth implementing,
+- a baseline worth reproducing,
+- an ablation worth adding,
+- an evaluation protocol or metric worth adopting.
+
+Default action:
+- update the existing canonical experiment note if the idea belongs to an existing experiment line,
+- otherwise create one new experiment note for the distinct experiment line,
+- add a short back-link from the paper note to that experiment note.
+
+Do not stop at “this paper is relevant”; push at least to “what should we test because of it?” when the turn supports that level of specificity.
+
+### Experiments -> Results
+
+Promote from `Experiments/` to `Results/` when an experiment yields:
+- a stable comparison,
+- a repeatable failure pattern,
+- a durable negative result,
+- a mechanism insight,
+- a decision-changing observation.
+
+Default action:
+- keep transient run noise in `Daily/` or inside the experiment note,
+- create or update a result note only when the observation is stable enough to cite later,
+- link the result note back to the experiment note and vice versa.
+
+Do not create a result note for every run. Create one when the finding survives beyond raw logs.
+
+### Results -> Writing
+
+Promote from `Results/` to `Writing/` when a result yields:
+- a claim that belongs in a paper, report, slide, or proposal,
+- a useful comparison matrix,
+- a project narrative update,
+- a conclusion that should appear in a literature review or discussion section.
+
+Default action:
+- update an existing writing note when the output object already exists,
+- otherwise create one writing note per external object (review, proposal, draft section, slide outline, rebuttal block),
+- keep links back to the result notes and key paper notes that support the claim.
+
+Do not let writing drift away from evidence. Every durable writing claim should link back to supporting results, and when useful, to the motivating papers.
+
+## Folder-by-folder default questions
+
+### For a paper note
+Ask:
+- What is the main reusable idea?
+- Does it change what we should test?
+- Which existing experiment line should absorb it?
+- Does it belong in the active writing narrative yet?
+
+### For an experiment note
+Ask:
+- Which paper or prior result motivated this experiment?
+- What decision would this experiment change?
+- What evidence would justify promotion into `Results/`?
+- What writing object would benefit if this experiment succeeds or fails?
+
+### For a result note
+Ask:
+- What is the durable claim?
+- What evidence supports it?
+- Which experiments and papers does it connect?
+- Which writing artifact should absorb this claim next?
+
+### For a writing note
+Ask:
+- Which result notes support this text?
+- Which paper notes provide context or comparison?
+- Is this writing object current, or should it be updated from newer results?
+
+## Main anti-patterns
+
+Avoid these weak workflows:
+- paper notes that never produce experiment decisions,
+- experiment notes that never clarify what finding would count as durable,
+- result notes that never feed any writing object,
+- writing notes that drift away from linked evidence,
+- keeping durable insights in `Daily/` instead of promoting them.
+
+## Default promotion heuristic
+
+When unsure, use this order:
+1. update the existing paper note,
+2. if it changes what should be tested, update or create the experiment note,
+3. if it changes what is now believed, update or create the result note,
+4. if it changes what should be said externally, update the writing note.
+
+This is the default durable research path unless the user clearly wants a narrower operation.