Deciding what is worth pursuing
Wenjie begins with a distinction: an unusual topic is not automatically worth pursuing. A question must connect uncertainty in current knowledge, the team's available capabilities and the needs or values it can address. Hilbertforge frames this judgement through a research mission, resource boundaries and a time horizon. Question certificates record why the opportunity matters now, what the nearest work already resolves and whether failure would remain informative.
Compiling opportunities into question certificates
The architecture feeds evidence coverage and knowledge, capability and value snapshots into question generators. These examine contradictions, assumptions, measurement needs, negative results and newly available capabilities. Candidates face prior-work collisions and preflight checks for a discriminating experiment, followed by independent review. Portfolio selection considers Pareto trade-offs, diversity and correlated risks. Selected questions move to EulerForge with solution space still open. Teaching supports understanding; review owns assessment.
From design contracts to a vertical prototype
The existing package contains an architecture specification, question-card schema, event state machine and review contracts. These define fields, permissions and stopping conditions for implementation. Its first proposed vertical slice runs from mission definition and coverage certificates through generation, preflight, blind review and portfolio selection. This is a design and protocol foundation, not evidence that the complete platform is live. Historical time slices, real probes and independent outcomes remain necessary for calibration.
Conversations & next steps
I welcome discussions about the design of this tool and where it may be useful.