<!-- source: openspec/open-questions.md -->

# Open Questions

> Bootstrap copy created by `define-design-system-spec-convention`. Promotes to `openspec/open-questions.md` at archive (Phase 5 → Phase 7).
>
> **Schema:** `| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |`. No Date column.
>
> **ID prefix is per-capability:** `Q-<CAPABILITY>-N`. For design-system: `Q-DS-N`. Numbers are dense — never skip.
>
> **Lifecycle:** an open question is closed by either (a) registering a `D-<…>-N` decision that resolves it, or (b) marking the question `withdrawn` with rationale. Questions are not edited in place once posted; resolutions are appended.

---

## Design-system

| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-DS-1 | low | Pavel | TBD | Should `decisions.md` carry a Date column, or is registry-line dateless and dates live in capability frontmatter only? | `define-design-system-spec-convention/design.md § 4.1` |
| Q-DS-2 | low | Pavel | TBD | Should DTCG composite types (`typography`, `border`, `transition`) be required for composite tokens, or is the 13-atomic-type baseline sufficient? | `define-design-system-spec-convention/design.md § 6` |
| Q-DS-3 | **closed** | Pavel | — | The deck typography ramp (`--text-display-deck` etc.) is typography, not motion — does it live in `design-tokens.md § Typography › Deck ramp`, or in a separate `design-tokens.md § Surface-specific typography` block? Closed by **D-DS-5** — placement stays at `§ Typography › Deck ramp`. | `current/design-system.md § Depth tokens — Deck type ramp` |
| Q-DS-4 | **closed** | Pavel | — | The light `--bg-3` value is forward-looking with no current consumer. Keep declared, or remove until a consumer exists? Closed by **D-DS-6** — kept declared (variant-portable invariant). | `current/design-system.md § Light-mode token strategy` |
| Q-DS-5 | medium | Pavel | TBD | Investigator Agent role-shape: separate Claude session in Code-mode with read-only tools, or sub-tool inside Code Agent? Current leaning: separate session with read-only tools. | `_methodology/design-system-operating-model.md § 1` |
| Q-DS-6 | medium | Pavel | TBD | Quarterly audit trigger: (a) calendar-fixed (Q1=Mar, Q2=Jun, Q3=Sep, Q4=Dec); (b) rolling 90 days from prior audit; (c) event-triggered (90 days since last design-system spec merge). Current leaning: (c). | `_methodology/design-system-audit-protocol.md § 1` |
| Q-DS-7 | low | Pavel | TBD | Templates versioning scheme — closed in this change as semver via inline header, with breaking-change criteria stated. Recorded for traceability; further amendment is a breaking-change-criteria call. | `_methodology/templates/design-system/*.template` headers |
| Q-DS-8 | medium | Pavel | TBD | Mirror policy — is the Anthropic preview workspace (design-system deliverable for visual review) a maintained mirror of the production corpus, a one-shot artefact, or a hand-off destination for a hired icon specialist? Sync direction, refresh trigger, and source-of-truth disambiguation all undefined. | bootstrap: Design Agent ↔ Code Agent protocol, 2026-05-19 |

<!-- Add Q-DS-N entries via change folder, not direct edit. -->

---

## Other capabilities

<!-- Placeholder sections — populated by their own future changes. -->

---

## Positioning

> Added 2026-05-13 from change `lock-positioning-trajectory` (Phase 2.4 + Phase 2 close). These are the medium-priority Q-POS-N questions deferred at Phase 0 per `tasks.md § 0.7` and `design.md § 6.1`.

| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-POS-4 | medium | Pavel | S2 signal | What is the specialist intake mechanism at Stage 1? Default: invite-only. Rolling intake when S2 transition signal fires (Discovery shipping ≤2-week cadence for 6 weeks without Pavel as sole lead). Until then, no public application surface — specialists are invited directly. If Q-POS-4 is ratified before S2, add `§ Intake` to `_methodology/specialist-network.md` and a `/network` CTA decision to `current/web.md`. | `lock-positioning-trajectory/tasks.md § 0.7`; `design.md § 6 Q-POS-4`; `positioning-decision-framework.md § 6 Q-POS-4 → deferred` |
| Q-POS-6 | medium | Pavel | First engagement complete | What is the `/work` case study format? Default when ready: hybrid (problem → approach → outcome + 1–2 visuals + quote + named team credits). "Named team credits" is a brand-asset commitment from `platform.md § Brand boundaries` and should not be optional. Ratify when first engagement completes and the first case study is drafted — the format emerges from real material. | `lock-positioning-trajectory/tasks.md § 0.7`; `design.md § 6 Q-POS-6`; `positioning-decision-framework.md § 6 Q-POS-6 → deferred` |
| Q-POS-2 | **gated** | Pavel | `add-funding-strategy` archive | What is the pricing floor for a full engagement at Stage 1? Options: €30k / €50k / €80k / differentiated by track. Hard dependency on `add-funding-strategy` D-FUND-* (bootstrapped vs investor-targeted posture). Close trigger: `add-funding-strategy` archives. Registration here is for visibility; the operative note is in `_methodology/rapoport-studio-engagement.md § Engagement model — Stage 1 § Pricing floor`. | `lock-positioning-trajectory/tasks.md § 0.3`; `design.md § 6 Q-POS-2`; `positioning-decision-framework.md § 6 Q-POS-2 → pending D-POS-PRICE` |

<!-- Q-POS-1, Q-POS-3, Q-POS-5, Q-POS-7 are closed: see positioning-decision-framework.md § 6 for D-POS-PRIORITY-1, D-POS-DISCOVERY-1, D-POS-VOCAB-1, D-POS-ENGAGEMENT-1. -->
<!-- Q-POS-8, Q-POS-9, Q-POS-10 are explicitly out of scope per lock-positioning-trajectory/proposal.md § Out of scope. -->

---

## Product-model

> Added 2026-05-19 from change `define-studio-product-model` (RAP-1123). Prefix `Q-PM-N`. Companion doc: `openspec/_methodology/product-anatomy.md § Rendering — open`. D-PM-1 … D-PM-7 ratify the surrounding model; this question is the only one left open.

| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-PM-1 | medium | Pavel | User-research with real founders reading real Specs | How does the platform render a large Spec adaptively? A Spec is one markdown source; the platform may render it as document, diagram, timeline, dependency graph, state machine, comparison/diff, candle/sparkline for time-series content, 3D for spatial content, or other shapes per the content's structure. The choice of render shape depends on what is in the Spec, not on the reader's preference. Resolution is gated on user-research, not assumption. Distinct from the in-document-navigation concern, which is solvable surface work tracked as a deferred capability slug `add-spec-navigator`. Partial precedents: `<EntityCard>` density variants (`add-entity-system`), multi-file capability shape (`current/db/`, `current/forge/`, `current/agents/`), `<canvas-preview-mode>` (`add-canvas-preview-mode`), `<DiffView>` + chart system (`define-chart-system`). | `define-studio-product-model/design.md § Q-PM-1`; `_methodology/product-anatomy.md § Rendering — open` |

---

## Methodology

> Added 2026-05-18 from change `add-sdd-methodology-positioning` (RAP-1078). Prefix `Q-MTH-N`. Companion doc: `openspec/_methodology/sdd-positioning.md`. All four were resolved within the change; registered here for traceability.

| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-MTH-1 | **closed** | Pavel | — | Should the studio adopt the industry-standard term "spec gap" for spec↔code drift, or keep bespoke internal language? Closed/adopted — "spec gap" is industry-standard and is the default vocabulary across the corpus from now on. | `add-sdd-methodology-positioning/design.md` |
| Q-MTH-2 | **closed** | Pavel | — | Is OpenSpec framed as a peer methodology or as the studio's upstream/parent methodology? Closed — resolved by **D-MTH-2**: OpenSpec is the upstream/parent methodology the studio uses and extends. | `add-sdd-methodology-positioning/design.md` |
| Q-MTH-3 | **closed** | Pavel | — | Does the SDD positioning doc stay internal in `_methodology/`, or get a public surface (e.g. a `/lab` page)? Closed — stays internal in `_methodology/`; no public page. | `add-sdd-methodology-positioning/design.md` |
| Q-MTH-4 | **closed** | Pavel | — | When does Tabish (OpenSpec maintainer) outreach happen? Closed — after Hari Krishnan peer-review of the methodology completes (see `notes/community-pointers.md`). | `add-sdd-methodology-positioning/design.md` |

<!-- Add Q-MTH-N entries via change folder, not direct edit. -->

---

## Forge

> Prefix `Q-FORGE-N`. Numbers are dense — never skip.

| ID | Priority | Owner | Due | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-FORGE-1 | low | Pavel | TBD | Should Forge support a Beads-style in-repo `.forge/state/` task graph for offline / air-gapped client engagements (legal/audit work where the client repo cannot reach Linear)? Registered only — not designed or scheduled. | `add-sdd-methodology-positioning/design.md` |

<!-- Add Q-FORGE-N entries via change folder, not direct edit. -->
