Adds the two research-track questions to the front of the queue, where
they belong for a reader whose publication line maps directly onto our
research-track roadmap entries.
briefing.md gains two new sections:
* Research alignments — a 6-row table mapping the reader's research
threads (decorated DCE, canonical tessellations, hyperideal
rigidity, optimal cone placement, polygon Laplacian, Schläfli
machinery) onto concrete phases of the roadmap, with the closest
published line cited generically (year + venue only).
* What's new on this snapshot — the 6 new porting phases + 9 new
citations + Phase 9f (RESEARCH, no Java parent) + output_uv_map
extension to Inversive-Distance.
questions.md restructures the question set from 5 to 7:
* Q1 (NEW) — research-track alignment: which of 9d.2 / 9f / 10c /
10c′ would unblock concrete experiments?
* Q2 (NEW) — decorated-DCE API surface: A/B/C named parameter vs
new solver vs property-map auto-detect?
* Q3 — Phase 9b-analytic (was Q2)
* Q4 — Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive (was Q1)
* Q5 — GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship (was Q5)
* Q6 — CGAL submission packaging (was Q4)
* Q7 — The "no" question (was the trailing section)
Also drops Q3 from the previous list (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map),
since that question is now answered (Phase 9c, runtime error today,
on the deferred list — no reviewer input needed).
Adds a final "After the meeting — would you collaborate?" block so
the post-meeting collaboration options (acknowledgement / co-author /
cadence / PRs) do not surprise the reader on the day.
agenda.md reorders §2 to match the new question order; the timing
shifts Q1/Q2/Q3 (research) to the front and Q4/Q6 (project
management) to the back. Memo template at the bottom now has 7
named answer slots instead of 5 numbered ones.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replaces the "Springborn / Bobenko alumnus" placeholder in the reviewer
materials (briefing, questions, agenda, README) and in
locked-vs-flexible.md with a research-profile description:
active researcher in the decorated-DCE / Penner-coordinates /
canonical-tessellations / hyperideal-polyhedra line, treated as a
peer most likely to USE conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure
for their own future experiments — not merely to evaluate it.
Citations to the published literature (Springborn 2020 paper, etc.)
remain untouched. Only personal references to the prospective
reviewer were anonymised.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three reviewer-meeting deliverables in one commit.
(1) output_uv_map for the two remaining DCE entries
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
* Discrete_inversive_distance.h: full implementation. After Newton,
reconstruct effective Euclidean edge lengths from the converged
log-radii via the Bowers-Stephenson identity
`ℓᵢⱼ² = rᵢ² + rⱼ² + 2·Iᵢⱼ·rᵢ·rⱼ`, populate a temporary
EuclideanMaps with `lambda0 = log(ℓᵢⱼ²)`, and reuse the existing
`euclidean_layout(mesh, 0, eucl)` priority-BFS. Per-vertex
Point_2 coordinates written into the user-supplied pmap.
Optional `normalise_layout(true)` applies the canonical PCA
centroid + major-axis rotation, same as the other 3 entries.
* Discrete_circle_packing.h: throws std::runtime_error with a
clear pointer to Phase 9c rather than silently producing
nonsense. CP-Euclidean is face-based; the faithful output is a
per-face circle packing in ℝ², not a per-vertex Point_2 map.
A true layout requires BPS-2010 §6 (~150 lines, on the porting
roadmap as Phase 9c). Failing loudly is the honest default.
Tests: 2 new cases in test_cgal_phase8b_lite.cpp
(OutputUvMap_InversiveDistance_PopulatesPmap;
OutputUvMap_CPEuclidean_ThrowsClearly). Both green.
Suite total now 259 (was 257, +2). CGAL subtotal: 234 → 236.
(2) Reviewer meeting documents
──────────────────────────
New directory doc/reviewer/ with three files:
* briefing.md — one-page orientation for the reviewer.
What the project is, where to look first
(https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/), the headline
evidence (tests/coverage/sanitizers/license), what we want from
them, what's deferred and why, and the 5 questions in a separate
file.
* questions.md — the 5 concrete decisions we want their second
opinion on:
Q1 Phase 9c (port-literal vs re-derive)
Q2 Phase 9b-analytic (worth ~2 weeks for ~6× speedup?)
Q3 CP-Euclidean output_uv_map (build now or defer?)
Q4 CGAL submission strategy (one package or five?)
Q5 geometry-central cross-validation co-authorship
Plus an explicit "what would you say no to?" question at the
bottom — negative feedback is the highest-value information.
* agenda.md — my own internal playbook (NOT to be sent).
60-min flow: 5-min thank-you, 10-min architecture tour,
30-min for Q1-Q5 in the order Q4-Q1-Q2-Q5-Q3, 5-min "no"
question, 5-min wrap-up. Includes post-meeting memo template
to fill out in the 30 min after.
* README.md — index for the directory; says which file goes
to whom and when to send.
(3) locked-vs-flexible.md known-limitations update
─────────────────────────────────────────────
"output_uv_map covers 3 of 5 entries" → "covers 4 of 5".
CP-Euclidean's throws-clearly behaviour documented as a Phase 9c
deliverable rather than a passive gap.
Bonus: extended .codespellrc ignore list (acknowledgement, the
British-English spelling I used in agenda.md).
Verifications on this commit:
259/259 tests pass (0 skipped)
scripts/check-test-counts.sh: OK (23 + 236 = 259)
scripts/quality/license-headers.sh: OK (66/66 SPDX)
python3 scripts/quality/cgal-conventions.py: OK (0/6 violations)
scripts/quality/codespell.sh: OK (0 typos)
scripts/quality/shellcheck.sh: OK (0 findings)
python3 scripts/check-markdown-links.py: OK (143/143)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
