# Research notes

Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys,
tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach
before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where
the *thinking* lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a
decision record is where a settled choice lives (see
[`../README.md`](../README.md) for picking between them).

Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a
neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a
durable record of why it went the way it did.

## Naming

`kebab-case-topic.md`, named by subject and **not** numbered (unlike
PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was
investigated: `bash-vs-python-vs-go.md`, `pipelock-assessment.md`,
`issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md`.

## Shape (freeform)

There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question.
In practice most notes share a loose shape:

- **Open with the question** — a sentence or two on what's being
  investigated and why it came up.
- **Lead with the verdict** — a `## Summary` near the top stating the
  conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole
  thing.
- **Then the analysis** — whatever the argument needs: comparison
  tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that
  actually matter.
- **End with a recommendation** when the note exists to drive a
  decision.

Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link
files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over
generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a
Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the
resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the
"why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.
