A plain-English view of what is changing in the civic design intelligence repository, what has recently been learned, and what is likely to happen next.
The repository has moved from structural setup into cautious research ingestion. The first bounded primary-research ingestion slice has been merged and is paused for team review before more research objects are added.
The next work is to test whether evidence-linked needs, pain points, behaviours and civic implications can help teams see when delivery reality should change problem framing, outcome strategy or service response.
These are progress chunks, not finished product releases. The work is still an MVP, and research objects remain governed by status, evidence and review metadata.
Captured the next set of modelling questions as lightweight documentation rather than schema requirements.
Created a small evidence-linked set of draft objects from one parent/carer evidence item about pathway navigation burden.
Stabilised how structured notes should be named, linked and checked so future work does not create avoidable migration debt.
Defined how public secondary sources should be handled without turning the structured repository into a raw document archive.
Improved the repository as an Obsidian-first workspace while preserving GitHub as the audit trail.
Published the first public overview page and generated repository statistics from Markdown object folders and frontmatter.
Established the repository rules, safety model and contribution approach.
Use team feedback to check whether the new parent/carer navigation-burden objects are framed at the right level and linked to the right evidence.
Select the next small source or extract only after the team has reflected on the first slice and any template, wording or relationship issues it reveals.
Use the next examples to see whether learning about needs changes the problem framing, intended outcome or service response.
The project is avoiding heavier structure until worked examples show what is genuinely useful.
Further filename, link or metadata migrations should happen only when validation, Obsidian use or research review reveals a concrete problem.
Research objects should not be marked reviewed or validated until human review has happened and the evidence basis supports it.
API, database, sync, automation and generated-view work should wait until the Markdown-first workflow has been tested with more real examples.
This page summarises progress for people who need a quick orientation. The repository remains the detailed record.