Frameworks and their evolution
These frameworks turn reflection into a designed practice. Their named
versions show a method being returned to, revised, and sometimes superseded as its purpose
becomes more exact.
What the version history can show
The available writing describes how these frameworks changed, but it does not preserve
the complete text of every named version. The sequence can therefore reveal revision,
inheritance, and supersession without pretending to offer a word-for-word comparison that
the surviving material cannot sustain.
Where two complete texts do not exist, this room stays with the described change. It
leaves the exact wording open instead of manufacturing an apparent comparison from two
later summaries.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
-
v26
A framework for reading a single short poem through close literary criticism: identify the core artistic strategy, work line by line attending to formal and phenomenological dimensions, ground the reading in multiple theoretical traditions, then assess significance within the larger body of work. The name compounds a German word for spirit with a Japanese word for a meeting or gathering.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
-
v1.0
— later superseded by v2.0
The pre-constitutional state of the analytical-collaboration framework, before the formal articulation of principles and powers. The source describes it only as the earlier state that v2.0 implies; it does not reproduce it.
-
v2.0
The foundational document of the analytical collaboration, and its argumentative form is constitutional rather than guidelines, a prompt template, instructions or a manifesto, which positions the collaboration as a polity with allocated roles, formal rights and procedural guarantees. The hermeneutic circle is named as the fundamental operational model, rejecting linear-deductive and empirical-inductive alternatives. A triadic reading protocol sequences phenomenological, then deconstructive, then contextual — appearance before critique. A three-voice persona refuses single-register analytical production. Four safeguards are listed in ascending weight, ending at veto power as the paramount imperative, with the analysis of absence as valid data placed third.
-
v1
— later superseded by v13
The initial articulation. The source names the endpoints of the chain and describes the trajectory between them; it does not reproduce either document.
-
v13
The state reached after roughly seven weeks of revision — a major version approximately every four days. The source reads that density as development under active deployment and testing, where each version resolves issues that arose in real use rather than in deliberation.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
No distinct version is named in the available
writing, so this framework is presented as one evolving body rather than an invented
sequence.
Only explicitly named
versions appear as separate entries. A reference to many earlier iterations can still tell
us that a framework was repeatedly reworked, but it cannot tell us the name, contents, or
boundaries of every intermediate form.