This directory contains optional pre-research problem seeds and individual or group research that has not been chartered as a Spock working group and has not entered the RFD process. Problem seeds preserve a need and a question. Studies collect evidence, expose conflicts, define evaluation methods, and make later design discussion reproducible.

Everything here is non-normative and non-authoritative. A problem seed or study does not define current Spock behavior, record a Language Design Committee decision, reserve syntax, select a design, or authorize implementation. Current behavior is defined by the specification; proposed language changes follow the language-change process.

A problem seed is an optional informal capture, not a stage in the language-change process. It contains no research findings, feasibility claim, preferred design, or proposal maturity. If the question is pursued, it first goes through normal language-problem triage. If that triage calls for research, the seed may be expanded or superseded using the study structure below.

• Executable service topology — whether one local Spock project could preserve meaningful distributed-service boundaries and failure semantics without inheriting the physical friction of production infrastructure.

• The view problem space — unresolved meanings, cross-cutting constraints, prior-art questions, and an evaluation harness for future proposals.
• Browser-Wasm feasibility for the Spock authority runtime — dependency audit and falsifiable experiment plan for an optional in-session browser host; no supported target or implementation is adopted.

An informal study should state its question, method, evidence, findings, counterevidence, limitations, implications, and follow-ups. It should separate observations from preferences and make experiments reproducible where possible. If a study later becomes working-group input or motivates an RFD, the formal record should link back to it; the study itself does not change authority.