Clarity is a working framework, not a closed theory.
The point of research here is to identify where the framework fails, where it becomes too heavy, and what parts can be made more useful without becoming vague.
What environments break Clarity?
Some settings may move too quickly, fragment ownership too heavily, or operate with constraints that make explicit belief work hard to sustain.
Can confidence debt be measured?
If confidence debt matters, the framework should eventually say something practical about how to observe it.
How should systems thinking integrate?
Beliefs do not sit alone. They interact across teams, incentives, feedback loops, and institutional structures.
What is the simplest version that still works?
A framework that demands too much ceremony will not survive real organizational use.
The research direction is intentionally open. The framework should remain easy to revise as stronger language, better measures, and clearer failure cases emerge.