Notes.

A note that inverts, with the symmetry-completing move by which de Broglie derived matter waves, the asymmetry whereby science and its meta-science measure only the production of knowledge and treat loss as accident or noise. The inversion says that the vanishing of knowledge (undiscovery) is a process dual to discovery, with its own mechanisms and a measurable rate of loss. Agnotology, the study of deliberately manufactured ignorance, serves as the 'light quantum' shown on one side; the completion extends loss into a general, rate-bearing process and binds production and loss into a single ledger. This symmetrization is offered not as an established fact but as a falsifiable hypothesis, with two predictions: a measurable undiscovery rate and a loss-adjusted progress metric. Novelty is strictly limited to the symmetrization itself and the loss-adjusted meta-science; the description of individual loss phenomena is prior art and is credited by name. 22 references (20 confirmed, 2 with unreached full text flagged for primary verification).

A note that takes one asymmetry quietly assumed by the learning sciences and expertise research, namely that development is a monotonic climb from novice to expert while unlearning and regression are degradations to be minimized, and inverts it with the same move by which de Broglie derived matter waves: completing a symmetry. The inversion says that unlearning is a developmental process symmetric to learning, and that expertise is not a one-way ladder but a reversible, frame-relative state. The Einstellung effect and design fixation are the 'light quanta,' the side where this asymmetry has already been shown to break empirically. The inversion is offered not as an established fact but as a falsifiable hypothesis: a controlled experiment can test whether deliberate unlearning interventions outperform 'learning more' for adaptation to a changed environment. Novelty is strictly limited to the ontological inversion that treats unlearning as a developmental stage symmetric to learning, and to the reversibility of expertise. 17 references (16 with confirmed bibliography, 1 pending primary verification).

A single deep argument that inverts one asymmetry creativity and design quietly assume, namely that addition (multiplying options, adding elements) is generative while subtraction (removing, withholding, not-making) is a secondary work of convergence, using the same symmetry-completion move by which de Broglie derived matter waves. The inversion says subtraction is a first-class generative operation symmetric to addition, and that absence and the un-made carry structure not reducible to filtering. This is offered not as a settled fact but as a falsifiable hypothesis, testable by comparative experiments and tool audits. The additive bias has already been demonstrated on the problem-solving side (Adams, Converse, Hales & Klotz 2021, Nature); the core proposal treats that as the 'photon shown on one side' and moves the target to the symmetry of generative operations in design theory. Novelty is strictly limited to two points: the theoretical symmetrization that raises subtraction to a first-class generative operation, and the methodological audit of the additive bias in creativity metrics and authoring tools. 24 references (20 with confirmed bibliography, 4 flagged for primary verification).

A single deep argument that inverts one asymmetry AI evaluation quietly assumes, namely that a model 'has' a capability while measurement merely 'reveals' it, using the same symmetry-completion move by which de Broglie derived matter waves. The inversion says there is no context-independent 'true capability': measurement does not reveal capability, it brings it into being. This is offered not as a settled fact but as a falsifiable hypothesis, testable by whether capability measurement exhibits non-classical contextuality. The sheaf-theoretic apparatus has already been applied at scale to LLM word meaning with non-classicality measured empirically (Lo, Sadrzadeh & Mansfield 2025, Proc. R. Soc. A); the core proposal is to move the target from meaning to capability. Novelty is strictly limited to three points: the ontological inversion that drops realism, the transfer of the contextuality test from meaning to capability, and the unification of scattered phenomena under one ontology. 22 references (19 with confirmed bibliography, 3 flagged for primary verification).

An essay that searches for AI's unexplored territory not through the open problems surveys enumerate (deductive gap-finding) but through the leap of reframing, inverting a field's taken-for-granted premises (the abduction-2 of Dorst and Peirce). It raises seven frames—stationarity, research reflexivity, ecology, the asymmetry of non-knowledge, cognitive diversity, the monism of epistemology, and the field's own blind spots—and presents the gap each frame reveals as a conditional hypothesis. In every section it names existing partial research (model collapse, emergent norms in LLM populations, decolonial AI, the systematization of the reproducibility crisis) to narrow each gap precisely, from 'wholly unexplored' to 'the absence of an integrative methodology' or 'an asymmetry of institutionalization.' 45 references (36 with confirmed bibliography, 9 carrying a primary-source-verification caveat for partial bibliography or unreached full text).

A literature map organizing the methodological foundations of knowledge generation through artifacts and practice-based research, drawing on established public sources. Five themes—case study design (Eisenhardt 1989, Yin 2014), Research through Design and constructive design research (Frayling 1993, Zimmerman et al. 2007/2010, Koskinen et al. 2011), securing validity and reliability (Cook & Campbell 1979, Lincoln & Guba 1985), generalizing from cases (Flyvbjerg 2006, Yin's analytic generalization), and integrating quality and quantity in mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie 2010, Creswell & Plano Clark 2011)—are described not to advocate one position but to show how these frameworks divide the labor of answering. 10 references (all in English).

A single map of the published literature on how to design interventions that support learning and the development of expertise. It runs from scaffolding and the zone of proximal development (Wood, Bruner & Ross 1976; Vygotsky 1978), through cognitive apprenticeship and fading (Collins, Brown & Newman 1989), legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger 1991), reflective practice (Schön 1983, 1987), collaborative learning and intrinsic motivation (Dillenbourg 1999; Johnson & Johnson 1989; Deci & Ryan 1985; Ryan & Deci 2000), the general theories that treat artifacts as mediators (Latour 2005; Callon 1984), to the psychometric scales and interaction analyses that measure interventions (Dennis & Vander Wal 2010; McLain 2009; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Fairclough 2003). 16 references (6 verified, 10 to be confirmed).

A neutral literature map that answers the normative question of why design should be democratized, using only established published sources. The Nordic lineage of participatory design shows process democratization as practice; Arrow and Hess & Ostrom's work on knowledge as a public good gives it an economic foundation. The capability approach of Sen and Nussbaum, Rawls's distributive justice, and Fraser's theory of recognition ground democratization at the level of desirability. Finally, Fischer's meta-design and Wenger's communities of practice show the redefinition of the expert's role and the conditions for sustained participation. 12 references.

Is design a profession in the same sense as medicine or law? This note maps that question neutrally against the sociological theory of professions. It builds on Larson's (1977) account of professionalization as market closure, Abbott's (1988) theory of jurisdiction and inter-professional competition, and Freidson's (2001) professionalism as a third logic, and it positions Schön's (1983) reflective practice, Cross's (2001) disciplining of design, Buchanan's (1992) wicked problems, Star & Griesemer's (1989) boundary objects, and Fischer & Scharff's (2000) meta-design. Design carries practical knowledge and a disciplinary basis, yet it has reached the present without the institutional conditions of entry licensure and jurisdictional monopoly. 8 references.

A neutral survey, drawing only on established published literature, of the claim that design produces value across several dimensions rather than one. It ranges from instrumental usability (Norman 1988; Nielsen 1993), through learning from experience and meaning-making (Kolb 1984; Bruner 1990), the distinctive stance of designing (Cross 1982; Michlewski 2008), and relational value in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998), to the ontological dimension of recognition (Honneth 1995). Practice theory (Bourdieu 1977; Schatzki 2002; Reckwitz 2002) offers a lens that reads these dimensions as socially formed practices rather than individual traits. 12 references.