Each question becomes a versioned registry entry with its wording, required scope, data dependencies, metric definition, state level, maturity policy, answer template, refresh rule and intended decision. The catalog defines what to investigate; it does not claim the data currently answers every question.
Sources: CAT = official product records; HIS = historical snapshots; REV = original reviews; ERP = transaction/specification records; DOC = purchase documents, tech packs and independent verification; MILL = mill/process capability records; BRAND = dated brand statements and supplier disclosures.
Policies: F = scoped fact; D = descriptive aggregate; T = historical trend; R = review pattern; L = commercial link; C = capability; O = opportunity; P = prediction. Definitions appear in the framework. A combined policy means all applicable requirements must pass.
1. Brand direction and assortment
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q01 | Which categories increased their share of the observed assortment? | HIS, CAT | Category shares and comparable-period changes / L3 | T |
| Q02 | Which product families persist across seasons? | HIS | Family survival and observed gaps / L2 | T |
| Q03 | Which families appear newly introduced or discontinued? | HIS, BRAND | First/last observed dates; confirmed vs apparent exits / L2 | F + T |
| Q04 | Which end uses gain emphasis in product offerings? | HIS, CAT | End-use mix within comparable cohorts / L3 | T |
| Q05 | How does assortment differ by market and gender? | CAT, HIS | Scoped population comparison / L3 | D |
| Q06 | Is assortment growth new families or added variants? | HIS | Decomposed change in family/model/variant counts / L3 | T |
| Q07 | Which material platforms recur across categories? | CAT, HIS | Component-specific platform/category matrix / L3 | D |
| Q08 | Which apparent shifts can be explained by collection gaps? | HIS | Sensitivity and missing-cohort report / L3 | D + T |
2. Material and construction direction
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q09 | What is the observed face-fabric fiber mix by category? | CAT | Fiber-family share, denominator and unknowns / L3 | D |
| Q10 | Where are woven, knit and non-textile components used? | CAT | Construction distribution by component / L3 | D |
| Q11 | Which products explicitly state recycled content? | CAT, DOC | Stated content and separately verified claims / L1 | F |
| Q12 | Is recycled-polyester face-fabric adoption increasing? | HIS, CAT | Comparable-cohort percentage-point change / L3 | T |
| Q13 | Where is stretch mechanical, elastomeric or unspecified? | CAT, DOC | Mechanism and evidence for each classification / L1–L3 | F + D |
| Q14 | What yarn-denier and fabric-weight ranges are documented? | CAT, DOC | Unit/basis-specific ranges with unknowns / L3 | D |
| Q15 | Which layered constructions recur? | CAT, DOC | Face/membrane/backer combinations / L3 | D |
| Q16 | Which fabric platforms persist through model refreshes? | HIS, DOC | Version-linked platform continuity / L2 | T |
3. Performance requirements
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q17 | Which use cases explicitly prioritize abrasion resistance? | CAT, DOC | Stated requirement map / L1–L3 | F + D |
| Q18 | Where is packability or low weight emphasized? | CAT | Claim prevalence; fabric vs garment distinction / L3 | D |
| Q19 | Which products have measured breathability requirements? | CAT, DOC | Test method, unit, target and component / L1 | F |
| Q20 | What waterproofing targets are stated or tested? | CAT, DOC | Method-specific targets; stated vs verified / L1 | F |
| Q21 | Which products require wind resistance or air permeability? | CAT, DOC | Requirement and metric map / L1–L3 | F + D |
| Q22 | Where are softness, noise or next-to-skin feel important? | CAT, REV | Stated and reported preferences kept separate / L3 | D + R |
| Q23 | Which requirements compete within a use case? | CAT, REV, DOC | Tradeoff hypotheses for trial design / L4 | R + O |
| Q24 | Which requirements can greige design address directly? | DOC, MILL | Greige/finishing/garment/shared/unknown responsibility / L5 | C |
4. Consumer experience
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q25 | Which fabric-related complaints recur in the review corpus? | REV | Theme counts, denominators and unknown attribution / L3 | R |
| Q26 | Which fabric attributes receive repeated praise? | REV | Theme frequency by observed product group / L3 | R |
| Q27 | Are pilling complaints concentrated in particular families? | REV, CAT | Matched-family review comparison / L2–L3 | R |
| Q28 | Do complaints change across product revisions? | REV, HIS | Version-linked review comparison / L2 | R + T |
| Q29 | Which performance problems are reported under particular activities? | REV | Reported activity/problem association / L3 | R |
| Q30 | Which complaints cannot reliably be attributed to fabric? | REV, DOC | Garment/finish/fabric/unknown classification / L1–L3 | R |
| Q31 | Which themes differ by language, market or review source? | REV | Stratified results and selection limitations / L3 | R |
| Q32 | Which review findings warrant a laboratory or sample test? | REV, DOC, MILL | Ranked investigation hypotheses / L6 | R + O |
5. Commercial persistence and positioning
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q33 | Which platforms appear in long-lived core families? | HIS, CAT | Persistence-weighted platform coverage / L3 | T |
| Q34 | How does material mix differ across retail price bands? | CAT | Currency/market/date-scoped association / L3 | D |
| Q35 | Do material changes coincide with price changes? | HIS | Within-family observed association / L3 | T |
| Q36 | Which platforms span multiple markets or product segments? | CAT, HIS | Reuse breadth without variant double counting / L3 | D |
| Q37 | Which families expand variants after launch? | HIS | Variant trajectories under fixed collection coverage / L2 | T |
| Q38 | Which apparent innovations remain short-lived in the observed catalog? | HIS, BRAND | Introduction/persistence history; no assumed commercial failure / L3 | T |
| Q39 | Are stated sustainability goals reflected in advertised materials? | BRAND, HIS | Goal-to-observation comparison; explicit measurement limits / L4 | F + T |
| Q40 | What future material shifts can be forecast with validated skill? | HIS, ERP, DOC | Target/horizon forecast or insufficient-evidence result / L4 | P |
6. ERP and observed supply relationships
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q41 | Which fabrics were purchased, sampled or merely quoted? | ERP, DOC | Separate commercial-stage inventories / L1–L3 | L + D |
| Q42 | Which brand product-to-fabric links have direct documentation? | DOC, ERP, CAT | Exact used-in links and unresolved candidates / L1 | L |
| Q43 | Which customer codes map to the same ERP fabric revision? | ERP, DOC | Versioned accepted identity mappings / L1 | L |
| Q44 | Which maker transactions can be attributed to the brand programme? | ERP, DOC, BRAND | Confirmed/proposed/unresolved programme links / L1 | L |
| Q45 | Which fabrics show repeat bulk purchasing? | ERP | Repeat activity by item and defined period / L3 | L + D |
| Q46 | How do sample-to-bulk transitions vary by fabric family? | ERP, DOC | Cohort conversion with censoring and follow-up period / L3 | L + D |
| Q47 | Which supplied fabrics have recorded claims or returns? | ERP, DOC | Transaction-linked issues with quantities and scope / L3 | L + D |
| Q48 | Where do catalog demand signals and supplied platforms diverge? | CAT, HIS, ERP | Observed gap hypotheses with relationship limits / L4–L5 | D + O |
7. Mill capability and qualification
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q49 | Which mills have verified capability for the target construction? | MILL, ERP, DOC | Capability evidence and current constraints / L5 | C |
| Q50 | Which required ranges are inside demonstrated production capability? | MILL, DOC | Per-dimension pass/fail/unknown / L5 | C |
| Q51 | Which finishes or laminations require external partners? | MILL, DOC | Responsibility and partner dependency map / L5 | C |
| Q52 | Which required certifications are current and scope-matched? | MILL, DOC | Issuer, scope, expiry and verification status / L5 | C |
| Q53 | Which mills have repeat production evidence for adjacent platforms? | ERP, MILL | Historical adjacency with exact scope / L5 | C + L |
| Q54 | Where are documented quality or lead-time issues relevant? | ERP, MILL, DOC | Observed exceptions, denominator and recency / L5 | C + D |
| Q55 | Which capabilities are unknown rather than absent? | MILL, DOC | Missing mandatory evidence by candidate / L5 | C |
| Q56 | What sampling or tests would qualify a candidate platform? | MILL, DOC | Requirement-to-validation checklist / L5–L6 | C + O |
8. Opportunity and knowledge management
| ID | Business question | Sources | Output / state | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q57 | Which fabric platforms deserve development attention first? | Mature demand and capability states | Ranked development hypotheses with gaps / L6 | O |
| Q58 | Which existing mill items are credible starting points? | ERP, MILL, CAT, DOC | Eligible candidates and adaptation requirements / L5–L6 | C + O |
| Q59 | Which gaps prevent a recommendation from being actionable? | State gates and evidence graph | Blocking requirements, owner and next evidence / L6 | O |
| Q60 | Which new evidence would most change the current decision? | State dependencies and available actions | Transparent investigation priority / L6 | O |
| Q61 | Which mature conclusions are stale or contradicted? | State graph, new sources and review events | Refresh and conflict queue / all levels | F |
| Q62 | Why does the system believe this particular conclusion? | Immutable state versions and leaf evidence | Reproducible evidence and gate trace / all levels | F |
| Q63 | Which business questions are still unanswerable, and why? | Registry and coverage matrix | Missing sources, joins, fields or validation / all levels | D |
| Q64 | Did prior recommendations lead to verified useful outcomes? | Outcomes, trials and analyst review | Cohort outcome evaluation with selection limits / L6 | O + P |
Required scope and metric fields
Every registry entry specifies:
- Brand, category, activity, gender/audience, market, component and applicable product identity granularity.
- Valid period, snapshot selection rule and knowledge cutoff.
- Counting unit: family, model, SKU, review, order line or quantity; no silent substitution.
- Numerator, denominator, missing-value treatment and duplicate/dependence grouping.
- Material terms and thresholds, such as the explicit definition of "polyester-dominant."
- Required inputs, optional corroboration, and forbidden inferences.
- Semantic question packs, deterministic computations and policy version.
- Refresh trigger, expiration rule, business owner and intended decision.
First vertical slice: Q09
Proposed pilot scope: Mammut / insulated jackets / face fabric / a single declared market and snapshot / distinct product models. Confirm these dimensions against available records before execution.
The output is the share of observed eligible models with known polyester-dominant face fabric, alongside known-composition coverage and an all-eligible missingness bound. Define dominance as polyester exceeding 50% of that component's stated fiber composition. Do not treat an unspecified "polyester" mention elsewhere in the garment as a face-fabric result.
Code parses explicit percentages, resolves deterministic cases and computes the numerator and denominators. Jev only evaluates ambiguous component references or material wording. Unresolved cases remain unknown. One corrected source must update the observation, aggregate, state version and answer without duplicate evidence.
Refresh defaults
These are proposed review intervals, not scheduled automations:
| Question family | Trigger | Starting freshness rule |
|---|---|---|
| Current assortment/material facts | New official snapshot or corrected record | Review after 30 days for current-use answers |
| Historical trends | New comparable season or backfill/correction | Recompute on input changes; retain historical as-of scope |
| Review themes | New batch or corrected product link | Review after 30 days for current-use answers |
| ERP commercial links | New/corrected transaction or document | Refresh current activity on daily import; historical event remains date-scoped |
| Capability/certification | New verification, changed mill process or document expiry | Hard expiry at document expiration; otherwise proposed 90-day review |
| Opportunities | Any required premise changes or expires | Inherit the earliest premise refresh/expiry deadline |
Freshness does not erase a historical record. It limits use of that record to make present-tense recommendations.