On this page
Overview
IMPLEMENTAUDIT adopts useful engineering properties into native controls. It does not install Lean, Agile, or Waterfall as runtime modes.
Property lineage, not methodology conformance
The public vocabulary is visible because terms such as Gemba, Andon, Hansei, PDCA, verification, and acceptance are useful compact handles for native engineering controls. Their names do not establish historical purity or a branded programme. The result is native engineering, not methodology conformance.
Why this lineage is public
IMPLEMENTAUDIT is meta-engineering: it engineers how an agent plans, executes, verifies, recovers, reviews, dogfoods, publishes, and learns from repository work. Some of its controls have documented historical relationships to Lean, Agile, plan-driven assurance, safety, quality, reliability, and software-delivery traditions. Explaining those relationships helps a reader distinguish a protected engineering property from a familiar label or ceremony.
Most visibly, Gemba means inspect the real work, Andon means stop on abnormality, and Hansei means reflect on a failure and qualify a countermeasure. In IMPLEMENTAUDIT those are executable obligations attached to owner/source, evidence, stopping, and closure. They are native engineering controls, not claims of Toyota authenticity or a Lean implementation.
How to read the evidence
The source classes are primary history, authoritative current guidance, empirical evidence, criticism, and exact repository implementation. Each class carries its own claim boundary.
| Evidence class | What it can support | Claim boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Primary history | What an original paper, participant, or institution recorded. | Not neutral outcome proof and not proof that every descendant preserved the same mechanism. |
| Authoritative current guidance | A maintained definition or domain obligation. | Not universal causal evidence or a requirement for unrelated domains. |
| Empirical evidence | A bounded association, mechanism, cost, or failure population. | The population, method, and contrary evidence remain attached to the claim. |
| Repository implementation | What an exact source tree, checker, fixture, package, and installed route establish. | Research lineage never substitutes for current implementation evidence. |
Evidence custody
Three denominator-backed frozen audits examined 106 properties: 40 Lean, 28 Agile, and 38 Waterfall/plan-driven assurance properties. Their durable repository work-order owners are R37 / #186, R38 / #187, and R39 / #188. Those issues preserve evidence integration and denominator custody; an issue number is not a runtime mode or proof that a mapped capability ships.
Representative primary and authoritative sources are linked on the Lean, Agile, and Waterfall pages. Each citation states a claim boundary rather than using source volume as authority.
Genealogy rules
- Direct lineage requires an evidenced historical relationship.
- Shared ancestry means two systems draw from an earlier tradition.
- Hybridisation combines mechanisms from more than one tradition.
- Reaction addresses a defect exposed in an earlier system.
- Convergent engineering reaches a similar property through a materially independent route.
- Analogy is not lineage and cannot authorise an implementation claim.
Evidence limits
This repository dogfoods the method on its own engineering. The frozen research and self-dogfood are not universal validation and are not universally validated across agents, repositories, hosts, or skill ecosystems. They do not establish causal superiority of a whole methodology, an optimal process for every domain, or broad external adoption. Expected portability remains an evidence-bounded design claim until independently demonstrated elsewhere.
The cross-method synthesis is on Evolved-LAW. It separates properties that were already native from those sharpened in the current source family, context-specific residuals, and prescriptions that were rejected or not adopted.