Deep-Research Directions — Scaffolding, Not Resolution

Prepared from the PR conversation of 2026-08-13 (miadisabelle × jgwill). Purpose: decompose what the summary to Nicolas leaves open, so it can be explored by deep-research passes (see skills/deep-research/SKILL.md) rather than resolved prematurely. The intention is drafted; the destination is not yet fixed — this document holds the directions.

The Pipeline, Visualized

Where the interactive-book layer (Twee/Twine) sits: a means to the film, and the place where the medicine wheel cycle closes.

flowchart LR
    subgraph Capture["🎬 Capture (West — action)"]
        A[Belt-device recording<br/>director intent, ambient,<br/>relational moments]
    end
    subgraph Processing["🧩 Processing (South — structure)"]
        B[Transcription] --> C[Narrative Cluster<br/>Processor]
        C --> D[Thematic structures +<br/>annotated editing briefs]
    end
    subgraph Memory["📖 Episodic Memory (North — wisdom)"]
        E[Chronicle<br/>episodic memory schema] --> F[Twee/Twine<br/>interactive book]
    end
    subgraph Outcomes["✨ Outcomes (East — vision renewed)"]
        G[Experimental<br/>documentary short]
        H[Relational Production<br/>Protocol - reusable]
    end
    A --> B
    D --> G
    A -.session record.-> E
    F -.revisit the relationship,<br/>transmit to next generations.-> G
    C -. method .-> H
    F --> H

flowchart TB
    Q["Nicolas's question:<br/>what concrete final result,<br/>what type of audiovisual production?"]
    Q --> R1["Answered in reponse-fr.md:<br/>documentary short + reusable protocol,<br/>with the interactive-book layer named<br/>as a means, not hidden"]
    Q --> R2["Still open (below):<br/>how the interactive layer relates<br/>to the film academically,<br/>and what to ask Nicolas"]

Decomposition of What Remains Open

The conversation surfaced a real tension worth holding rather than collapsing:

1. Ends vs. means — The film is the end. The Twee/Twine interactive book is a means: it turns the episodic memory schema (chronicle) into a form where the relationship lived during creation can be revisited and transmitted. Yet "the whole cycle of the medicine wheel ends there" — the means carries ceremonial weight of its own. How do we speak of it without either hiding it or inflating it into a second objective?
2. What type of film, and how — the summary names "experimental documentary short," but the how (an edit that emerges from agent-supported narrative clustering, possibly with interactive companion form) is where a cinema researcher would engage.
3. Grounding what we ask Nicolas — questions to him must rest on academic foundations, not be invented to look good.

Deep-Research Prompts (Ready to Run)

Each prompt is scoped for one research pass. Run with today's date injected; prefer peer-reviewed and practitioner-recognized sources.

DR-1 — Interactive documentary (i-docs) as academic field

Research the scholarly field of interactive documentary (i-docs): key frameworks (Aston & Gaudenzi's modes of interactivity; Korsakow and Florian Thalhofer's non-linear documentary practice), main venues (i-Docs conference/Bristol, Studies in Documentary Film), and how interactive companion works relate to a linear film in existing productions. Goal: locate where "documentary short + interactive episodic-memory book" sits in this field, and which Concordia-relevant researchers work in it.

DR-2 — Twine/Twee in research and pedagogy

Research the use of Twine (Twee format) in academic and pedagogical contexts: digital humanities, game studies (e.g., Anna Anthropy's Rise of the Videogame Zinesters), electronic literature, and autoethnographic or memory-work uses. Goal: academic grounding for turning an episodic memory schema (chronicle of creative sessions) into an interactive book, and precedents for "process documentation as interactive narrative."

DR-3 — Indigenous nonlinear storytelling and digital forms

Research Indigenous storywork and digital storytelling scholarship relevant to nonlinear/interactive forms: Jo-ann Archibald's Indigenous Storywork, Jennifer Wemigwans' A Digital Bundle, NFB Indigenous interactive works (e.g., their interactive documentary catalogue), and medicine wheel as a narrative/pedagogical cycle. Goal: ground the claim that the interactive book is where "the cycle closes" — transmission to next generations as ceremonial completion — in existing scholarship, not just our intuition.

DR-4 — Agent-supported editing and creative AI in film scholarship

Research current scholarship and practice on AI-assisted editing and computational documentary (automated logging, semantic shot clustering, AI-generated editing briefs), and the critiques of extractive creative AI. Goal: sharpen Section V of ../draft.md and identify which claims a film department would push back on.

DR-5 — Questions we could responsibly ask Nicolas

Given DR-1 through DR-3 findings, draft 3–5 questions for Nicolas Renaud that are grounded in the literature (not speculative): e.g., whether he sees the interactive companion as belonging to the work or to its method; which cinema department researchers work on i-docs or process-as-work; how his own practice (Onyionhwentsïio') relates to nonlinearity. Each question must cite the grounding that makes it fair to ask.

Outreach Integration (Future Direction)

app/outreach/n-renaud-concordia/ already exists. A future pass could extend that profile so navigating the IAIP shows this vessel's summary, the pipeline diagram, and the open questions — decomposition made visible in the platform itself, as suggested in the PR conversation.

What This Document Deliberately Does Not Do

• It does not rewrite the reply into a longer manifesto — reponse-fr.md stays a short paragraph, as Nicolas asked.
• It does not answer DR-1…DR-5 — those are for deep-research passes.
• It does not commit to the interactive book as a stated objective — the conversation settled it as a means, and the reply names it as such.