Run a measured dogfood cycle and use its findings to select the next app work

Nobody has claimed this yet.

The next app priorities should follow observed constraints on the three commons' work. A completed feature or a larger reasoning graph is not sufficient evidence that the software is helping.

## Work

- After the Reason Commons goal and provisional throughput are agreed, choose a small set of consequential real questions and record what improvement is expected from the app.
- Include one app-development decision using selected GitHub issues and one Research Group handoff to the movement model.
- Record contribution, review and correction effort, assistance required, ability to recover reasons on return, and qualifying throughput observations. Use the ordinary GitHub/document workflow as a descriptive comparison; do not claim causal proof from a small founder trial.
- Include a participant who does not already know the implementation or LTP vocabulary.
- Verify existing public-reading and export capabilities before adding replacements: app code already has a public-space route exception, YAML export and a .reason-commons JSON projection.
- Check actual viewer compatibility and source/deep links against #23 and #24; keep any remaining work in those existing issues.
- Review results inside the Reason Commons commons and select the next intervention against the observed constraint.

## Acceptance criteria

The review links to actual decisions, observations, friction and unresolved objections. It distinguishes delivered model updates, completed software work and the app-development commons' own throughput. The next proposed work has an explicit connection to the agreed goal, an expected effect and a date or condition for checking it.

## Expected benefit and check

David and Rufus can explain why the next development task is more valuable than alternatives using recorded experience. A return session tests whether reasons and dissent are recoverable without the original facilitator.

Broader Discord integration, continuous ingestion and presentation expansion remain candidates to prioritize from evidence, not prerequisites for this cycle.

Start by verifying the existing public-reading route exception, YAML export, and .reason-commons JSON projection, then check viewer compatibility and source/deep links against #23 and #24. Run the agreed dogfood cycle with recorded questions, effort, recovery, throughput, observations, and objections. Done means the review links evidence to decisions and names the next intervention, expected effect, and check date or condition.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.