Viability Studies: A Method for Comparing Pattern-Claims Across Fields

Viability Studies is proposed as a method field for comparing pattern-claims across fields: claims about how forms arise, persist, change and exit, at stated resolutions. It starts from one premise, adopted as an axiom: reality exhibits recurrent but non-identical configurations, and whether differences between instances are distinguishable and consequential depends on the resolution of enquiry. From this it draws three consequences of different kinds: a logical one (a pattern restricts the descriptions that fit), a methodological commitment (that restriction is grounds to investigate causal constraint) and an empirical question (whether instances vary in ways that matter at the chosen resolution). Enquiry is itself part of what it studies. The field does not own its phenomena. Like statistics, it would supply methods and standards that domain specialists use on their own material. Its proposed instrument has two required parts: a resolution specification (grain, extent, boundary and identity criterion), and a record stating that X affects Y under conditions C and breaks when B, with the relationship type and evidential status declared. A state grammar, which tags records with the states of a form in which they act, is offered as an optional layer and tested separately, so the instrument does not stand or fall with one classification scheme. The instrument is versioned, corrigible and keeps failed correspondences as results. The Working Repository is one instance of the instrument, organised around candidate dynamics and capacities that the author derived from the foundational reasoning. Other instances may organise differently. An author-led prima facie check of the grammar across seven domains, using general knowledge, found that it fits easily, which is uninformative, and that several domains need distinctions within persistence and within exit, which may be informative. A companion paper specifies a controlled test of whether cross-domain comparison adds anything beyond a conventional review. No specialist pilot is reported.