Un programa de investigación

Un programa inventado, para mostrar la forma: por qué los equipos de ingeniería distribuidos pasan tanto de la semana en reuniones, y qué las reduce de verdad.

La misma maquinaria que el ejemplo de software. Palabras distintas para cada parte.

El árbol

DirectorioProgramme/
- README.md
- Directorio_eidos/
  - Directorioshapes/
    frame.question.md
    frame.prior-work.md
    frame.method.md
    frame.ethics.md
    investigation.full.md
    investigation.note.md
  - Directorioroles/ framework-owner, researcher, reviewer, sponsor
    …
  - Framework.md
  - me.md personal, en gitignore
- Directorioframes/
  - index.md
  - question.md
  - prior-work.md
  - method.md
  - ethics.md
- Directorioinvestigations/
  - index.md
  - Directoriomeasurement/
    what-counts-as-a-meeting.md
    calendar-data-reliability.md
  - Directoriointerventions/
    no-meeting-wednesdays.md
    default-30-to-25-minutes.md
- protocol.md un documento de nivel superior

Qué encuadra

La colección de encuadre es donde este Framework más diverge del de software, y la divergencia es justo la idea:

Frame	Qué zanja
question	Qué pregunta el programa, y por qué importa
prior work	Qué se sabe ya, y dónde se sitúa esto frente a ello
method	Cómo lo sabría cualquiera: el estándar de evidencia
ethics	A quién afecta, a qué consintió, qué podría salir mal

Qué declara el Framework

### investigations

The programme's units, one per question, grouped by strand.

- **Leaf:** [investigations/index.md](../investigations/index.md)
- **Flavors:**
  - [full](shapes/investigation.full.md) — the complete shape (default).
  - [note](shapes/investigation.note.md) — Intent, Open Questions, Claims,
    Out of Scope; grow into full.
- **Canvas:** card from `## Intent`
- **Strands:**
  - **measurement** — establishing what we're even counting.
  - **interventions** — things a team can change, and whether they work.

El shape de investigation

## Intent → ### Assumptions → ## Open Questions → ## Claims & Evidence → ## What Would Change Our Mind → ## Out of Scope → ## Dependencies → ## Method → ## Notes & Decisions.

Dos secciones no tienen equivalente en una spec de software:

## Claims & Evidence ocupa el lugar que tienen los criterios de aceptación en una spec: qué afirmas, y qué lo respalda.

## What Would Change Our Mind no tiene análogo ninguno. Es la condición de falsación, escrita por adelantado para que un resultado no pueda racionalizarse a posteriori.

Sus propiedades personalizadas

Nombre	Tipo	Applies To	Significado
`status`	Text	all	Draft / Open / Running / Answered / Inconclusive / Abandoned
`strand`	Text	`investigations`	La agrupación, coincidiendo con la subcarpeta
`depends_on`	List	`investigations`	Investigaciones, datos o aprobaciones necesarios antes

Fíjate en los valores del ciclo de vida. software va de Draft a Done; este va hasta Answered / Inconclusive / Abandoned, porque un estudio que no devuelve nada es un resultado legítimo en lugar de un fallo. Mismo nombre de propiedad, vocabulario distinto, enteramente elección del Framework.

Un Blueprint real

---
id: no-meeting-wednesdays
title: No-Meeting Wednesdays
summary: whether a protected weekday actually reduces meeting load, or displaces it.
strand: interventions
status: Running
depends_on:
  - "[What Counts as a Meeting](../measurement/what-counts-as-a-meeting.md)"
tags: [intervention, calendar]
---

# No-Meeting Wednesdays

## Intent

The most commonly recommended fix for meeting load is a protected weekday.
It's cheap to announce and popular in retrospectives, and we have no idea
whether it removes meetings or simply moves them to Tuesday. If it displaces
rather than reduces, teams are paying a coordination cost for nothing.

### Assumptions

Assuming calendar data is a fair proxy for meeting load — see
[Calendar Data Reliability](../measurement/calendar-data-reliability.md).
If it isn't, every intervention in this strand is unmeasurable.

## Open Questions

- Over what window would displacement even be visible — a week, a month?
- Do teams that adopt it differ from those that don't in ways that explain
  the result?

## Claims & Evidence

- **C1:** Adopting teams reduce total weekly meeting hours, not just
  Wednesday hours. *Evidence: calendar export, 12 weeks pre/post, 9 teams.*
- **C2:** The reduction persists past the first month.
  *Evidence: same series, months 2 and 3.*

## What Would Change Our Mind

Total weekly hours flat while Wednesday drops to zero. That's displacement,
and it would make the intervention cosmetic — we'd report it as such.

## Out of Scope

- Whether meetings are *useful*. This measures load, not value, and the two
  are separate programmes.
- Synchronous chat. It may absorb displaced coordination, but we have no
  reliable way to measure it.

## Method

Difference-in-differences across adopting and non-adopting teams, 12 weeks
either side. Pre-registered before the first export is pulled.