Type: Section index
Editorial status: Draft — implementation review pending
Epistemic status: Conceptual — editorial synthesis; not a validation result
Evidence scope: Project sources and page-specific references; cross-links do not supply independent corroboration
Last reviewed: 2026-09-16 — AI-assisted editorial check
Human reviewed: Human content-review pending for this revision
Version: v0.2
Last synthesized: 2026-09-15
Open tensions: Local evidence vs generalisation; tacit knowledge vs reproducibility; AI interpretation vs human authority
What should happen when reality contradicts the map?
This section explains how experience can become inspectable evidence, and how evidence can justify a bounded proposal for change. A conversation, a fluent synthesis, or agreement between Pyragogy projects does not automatically validate a claim.
Preserve the context that makes an incident informative: what the structure said should happen, what people attempted, what actually happened, and what remains unknown. Compare interpretations and seek counterexamples before proposing a wider claim.
Too little abstraction leaves an anecdote. Too much can manufacture a universal pattern. Transferability remains a question about mechanisms and boundary conditions, not a property conferred by a compelling story.
Review may accept, revise, contest, defer, or reject a proposal. Rejected or unresolved material should remain traceable without silently changing the map. The responsible human decision and its reasons belong in the revision record.