Implementation specification for livingarchitecturelab.org, synthesizing the EA-LAL-SITE-01 blueprint with Assembly Chorus perfective review (PRAXIS/DeepSeek, TECHNE/Kimi, LABOR/ChatGPT, SOIL/Muse Spark, ARCHIVE/Gemini). Load-bearing perfective: The blueprint's archival-density compression order is correct as compression but wrong as public-site sequence. The site must lead with wonder, substantiate with structure, defend with metadata. Public sequence: wonder → material practice → Alice → scales → projects → principles → garden → journal/music → atlas → disambiguation. Not: archive → giant deposit registry. Resolved decisions: Stack = Astro (over Next.js or 11ty); Phase 1 = 12 pages (over 7 stubs or 28 stretched); Three registers kept separate (public/poetic/archival); Garden as Phase 1 trust engine; Alice page work-first identity-second; Disambiguation courteous not paranoid; Standard Schema.org over exotic meta properties; The fourth content layer (projects) added between scales and atlas as concrete shareable surfaces. Phasing: Phase 0 infrastructure (days 1-3); Phase 1 kernel (days 4-10, 12 pages); Phase 2 institutional (days 11-25, 16 more pages); Phase 3 atlas (days 26-45, strain map + DOI registry); Phase 4 living surfaces (month 2+, conversational interface). 90-day BDR target: ~0.95. Outstanding decisions for MANUS / Alice: trans-identity placement on /about/alice; garden photo permissions; erratum timing (waits for ORCID); TSE editorial-line tone; conversational interface compute budget; stack confirmation; adjacent-domain forwarding. Companion deposit: EA-LAL-SITE-01 Site Blueprint (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19855903). Document classification: EA-LAL-WORKPLAN-01Hex: 11.LAL.INFRASTRUCTURE.WORKPLAN.01 ∮ = 1
Lee Sharks (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: