# 08 — Gaps and Open Questions

**Version** v0.33.64 · 7 September 2026
**House rule** Published unresolved. Questions go to `/admin/comms.html`.

---

## Gaps

**G1 — Four Explorer roles have no definition**: advocate, alchemist, ambassador, sherpa. Directories exist, `ROLE.md` does not. Town Planner's librarian is likewise missing. Publish as gaps; do not write them for the website (`07__` §5).

**G2 — The Explorer→Villager transition trigger is undocumented.** Nothing states when a component moves from build to harden, or who decides. The Cartographer's Genesis/Custom/Product/Commodity classification is the obvious mechanism, but that link is this pack's inference, not the corpus's statement. It is the highest-value thing the founder could write next.

**G3 — No `SKILL.md`-to-role mapping exists.** 40 skill files and 39 role files, with no index of which roles hold which skills. Both sites need it; it is the natural shared artefact and the cleanest way to prove the capability/composition seam works.

**G4 — The workflows are implicit.** The founder asked for *"highly effective agentic workflows"*. What the corpus holds is 25 `## Core Workflows` sections inside role files, plus 130 comms files showing workflows in action — but no standalone workflow documents. Whether the site should extract them into first-class pages, or keep them role-scoped, is an editorial decision (Q6).

**G5 — Effectiveness is asserted, not measured.** 18 role files have a `## Measuring Effectiveness` section, but no measurements appear anywhere in the corpus. The site cannot claim these roles work; it can only show they are defined, used, and revised. Say so plainly.

**G6 — Only three learnings were recovered.** The archaeology in `05__` found three high-signal changes across seven months. There are 4,335 commits; a deeper pass over `team/comms/` and `.issues/` would likely surface more, and the changelog tree (`changelog/03/` through `changelog/08/`) is unexamined.

**G7 — The sg-playwright team was counted, not read.** Six role files in a second product, used here as evidence for the portable core. Their content has not been compared against the main team's — which is the actual test of whether the roster is reusable.

## Open questions for the founder

**Q1** — Is Explorer/Villager/Town Planner deliberately Wardley PST, or did it emerge from practical context limits and get named afterwards? Both are good answers; the site should tell the true one (`03__` §5).

**Q2** — The failure-condition Central Claim (*"…the Librarian has failed"*) versus the newer descriptive form: agreed that the older one is better and should be restored? If so, the site can publish rewrites of the seven descriptive claims as a build item.

**Q3** — What moves a component from Explorer to Villager, and who decides? (G2 — the biggest gap.)

**Q4** — `translator` exists only in the Villager team, and `accountant` only in Town Planner. Deliberate, or accident of when they were written?

**Q5** — Should the comms protocol get an acknowledgement mechanism — a way to tell a read brief from an unread one? (`04__` §5.)

**Q6** — Workflows: extract as first-class pages, or keep them inside the role definitions where they currently live? (G4.)

**Q7** — Are there roles you *tried and removed*? A `status: retired` entry with the reason would be the most useful page on the site for anyone composing their own team — and nothing in the git history shows a deletion, so if it happened it happened before 11 February 2026.

---

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).