Playbook · Part F Open Questions & Research Agenda
What's still unknown. The honest version, dated.
The methodology is a working document. Its claim to credibility depends on naming what it can defend, what it cannot, and what's actively under construction. Part F is the open record.
The construct's empirical depth is still narrow.
The SRD source paper v0.3 refines the construct against two prospective applications (KAP Industrial Holdings, federated holding company; OMBank, tier-2 South African bank) and a structured peer-review pass. v0.3 strengthens the construct's falsifiability standard but does not yet carry the empirical weight a v1.0 release should.
Commitments
- v0.4 (2026-Q3 target). Empirical depth broadens with a third anchor application — sector and scale variation prioritised.
- v0.5 (2026-Q4 target). Structured Cohen's κ inter-analyst measurement applied to at least one engagement; agreement metrics reported.
- v1.0 (2027 target). Cumulative empirical record of at least five completed applications with consequentiality follow-up.
Two lineages flagged for absorption.
v0.4 absorption candidate: System Dynamics (Forrester 1961; Sterman 2000). The argument: the SRD framework is structurally System-Dynamics-in-disguise — the t-state space is stocks; the t-intervals are delays; the diagnostic matrix is a phase plane. Absorption would reframe SRD's theoretical lineage with System Dynamics as primary anchor. v0.4 candidate flagged in the source paper; absorption pending evaluation against engagement application.
v0.5 absorption candidate: High-Reliability Organisations (Weick & Sutcliffe 2007; LaPorte & Consolini 1991; Weick & Roberts 1993). Detection-side antecedents of t₀→t₁ under uncertainty. Flagged in Olivier 2026 §3 as a v0.4+ workstream; absorption pending an application context that surfaces high-reliability or crisis-response framing.
Theoretical extension is engagement-driven. Lineages get absorbed when an application surfaces a gap the current theory cannot explain.
Open questions the Playbook does not yet have a position on.
-
Cross-cultural validity
All applications to date are South African. Whether the diagnostic protocol holds in cultures with materially different decision cadences — Japanese ringi, Northern European consensus, US-public-company quarterly — is empirically open.
-
AI-era window-contraction parameters
§A.3 places signals against a window. How fast windows are actually contracting in different sectors is unmeasured. The Triad assumes contraction; quantification is pending.
-
Sector specificity
Financial services applications dominate the empirical record. Sector-specific calibration libraries are not yet built; the Playbook treats this as a v0.8+ workstream.
-
Single-analyst confidence intervals
Most engagements run with one analyst. The relationship between single-analyst measurement and the inter-analyst reproducibility standard in Part C is named but not yet quantified.
Two doors.
Contact Soaring Wings
For research, peer review, methodology partnerships, pattern submissions, or critical readings. Practitioners who apply the diagnostic and surface where the protocol fails or surprises are particularly welcomed.
contact@soaringwings.ai → Consulting applicationWork with AJ Olivier
For live SRD diagnostics, transformation architecture, advisory work, or commercial application of the methodology in a specific engagement context.
ajolivier.com →