aiwg/agentic/code/frameworks/research-complete/inception/stakeholder-analysis.md

Deployment tool and support utility for AI context. Copies agents, skills, commands, rules, and behaviors into the paths each AI platform reads (Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Warp, OpenClaw, and 6 more) so one source of truth works across 10 platfo

# Stakeholder Analysis: AIWG Research Framework

**Project**: Research Framework Development
**Phase**: Inception
**Document ID**: SA-RF-001
**Created**: 2026-01-25
**Status**: Draft

## Executive Summary

This stakeholder analysis identifies and profiles all parties with an interest in or influence over the AIWG Research Framework project. The framework aims to provide structured research lifecycle management from discovery through archival, serving multiple user types within the AIWG ecosystem. Understanding stakeholder needs, pain points, and influence levels is critical for ensuring the framework delivers value and achieves adoption.

## 1. Stakeholder Identification

### 1.1 Primary Stakeholders

**Definition**: Direct users who will interact with the framework daily.

| Stakeholder | Description | Count/Scope |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| AIWG Framework Users (Developers) | Software developers using AIWG for projects requiring research literature review | Est. 100-500 users |
| AI Researchers | Researchers conducting systematic reviews and literature analysis | Est. 20-50 users |
| Documentation Writers | Technical writers and maintainers needing research citations | Est. 10-30 users |
| Solo Practitioners | Individual developers/researchers working on personal projects | Unbounded |

### 1.2 Secondary Stakeholders

**Definition**: Parties responsible for maintaining, supporting, or governing the framework.

| Stakeholder | Description | Count/Scope |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| AIWG Project Maintainers | Core team maintaining the ai-writing-guide repository | 2-5 active maintainers |
| Framework Contributors | Community contributors submitting PRs and enhancements | 5-20 active contributors |
| Agent Developers | Developers creating specialized research agents | 3-10 specialists |
| Support Community | Discord/Telegram community providing peer support | 50-200 active members |

### 1.3 Tertiary Stakeholders

**Definition**: Downstream consumers and ecosystem partners affected by the framework.

| Stakeholder | Description | Count/Scope |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| matric-memory Project | Documentation professionalization effort (Issues #154, #155) | 1 active project |
| token-lifecycle Project | Simulation research requiring literature backing | 1 active project |
| Research-Papers Repository | Shared corpus management across projects | Cross-project resource |
| AIWG Ecosystem Projects | Any project using AIWG that needs research capabilities | 10+ projects |

### 1.4 External Stakeholders

**Definition**: External entities providing data, tools, or standards.

| Stakeholder | Description | Influence |
|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| Semantic Scholar | API provider for paper discovery | High (data source) |
| Zotero Community | Reference management tool integration | Medium (tool integration) |
| FAIR Community | Data management standards body | Medium (compliance) |
| Open Science Community | Reproducibility and transparency advocates | Medium (methodology) |

## 2. Stakeholder Profiles

### 2.1 Primary: AIWG Framework Users (Developers)

**Role Description**:
Software developers building applications, libraries, or systems who need to incorporate research literature into their documentation, architecture decisions, or implementation choices. They use AIWG's SDLC framework and need research capabilities integrated into their existing workflows.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Quickly find relevant research papers for technical decisions
- Cite authoritative sources in documentation and architecture docs
- Understand state-of-the-art approaches in their domain
- Maintain professional documentation standards
- Minimize time spent on manual research tasks

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Manual PDF management is time-consuming and error-prone
- No systematic way to track which claims need citations
- Ad-hoc research organization leads to lost sources
- Difficult to assess quality and relevance of papers
- No automated gap detection for missing research areas
- Inconsistent citation formats across documents
- Research efforts don't integrate with SDLC artifacts

**Success Criteria**:
- Can discover relevant papers in <5 minutes per query
- Automated citation formatting with 100% accuracy
- Clear quality scores for research sources
- Integration with existing .aiwg/ artifact structure
- Ability to track research provenance for audit purposes
- Gap analysis identifies missing research automatically

**Influence Level**: High
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Direct user testing, feedback loops, documentation

---

### 2.2 Primary: AI Researchers

**Role Description**:
Researchers conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, or comprehensive surveys of AI/ML topics. They require rigorous methodology, reproducibility, and compliance with academic standards (PRISMA, FAIR, GRADE).

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Conduct PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews
- Maintain FAIR-compliant research data
- Track provenance for reproducibility
- Build citation networks and knowledge graphs
- Publish high-quality survey papers
- Collaborate with other researchers

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- No standardized workflow for systematic reviews
- Manual citation network construction is tedious
- Difficult to maintain FAIR compliance
- Provenance tracking requires custom tooling
- Quality assessment is subjective and inconsistent
- Collaboration requires exporting to external tools

**Success Criteria**:
- PRISMA-compliant workflow templates available
- FAIR compliance scores calculated automatically
- W3C PROV-compatible provenance tracking
- Citation network visualization built-in
- GRADE-inspired quality scoring implemented
- Collaboration features (export to Notion, Obsidian)

**Influence Level**: Medium
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Academic partnerships, publication opportunities

---

### 2.3 Primary: Documentation Writers

**Role Description**:
Technical writers responsible for creating and maintaining professional documentation for AIWG projects and downstream consumers. They need to back claims with citations, maintain terminology consistency, and meet publication standards.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Find authoritative sources quickly
- Maintain consistent citation formatting
- Track which claims need citations
- Update citations when sources change
- Generate bibliographies automatically
- Ensure professional tone and credibility

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Manual citation management across multiple documents
- No central claims index showing what needs citations
- Inconsistent terminology and citation styles
- Difficult to update citations globally
- No quality assessment for sources
- Time-consuming bibliography generation

**Success Criteria**:
- Claims index automatically identifies unbacked statements
- Citation formatting follows configurable styles
- Global search/replace for terminology updates
- Quality scores guide source selection
- Bibliography generation from artifact references
- Integration with voice framework for tone consistency

**Influence Level**: Medium
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Templates, style guides, automation tools

---

### 2.4 Primary: Solo Practitioners

**Role Description**:
Individual developers or researchers working on personal projects, side projects, or small-scale research efforts. They need lightweight, easy-to-use research tools without enterprise complexity.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Get started quickly without steep learning curve
- Use only features they need
- Maintain personal knowledge base
- Organize research for future reference
- Export to personal tools (Obsidian, Notion)

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Enterprise tools are overkill
- Complex workflows are intimidating
- No good lightweight alternatives
- Personal knowledge management disconnected from projects
- Difficult to scale from casual to formal research

**Success Criteria**:
- Can start using framework in <10 minutes
- Progressive disclosure of advanced features
- Seamless export to PKM tools
- Minimal configuration required
- Clear upgrade path to advanced features
- Works offline without external dependencies

**Influence Level**: Low
**Interest Level**: Medium
**Engagement Strategy**: Quick-start guides, examples, community showcase

---

### 2.5 Secondary: AIWG Project Maintainers

**Role Description**:
Core team members responsible for maintaining the ai-writing-guide repository, reviewing PRs, managing releases, and ensuring framework quality and consistency.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Maintain high code quality and documentation standards
- Ensure framework consistency across components
- Minimize maintenance burden
- Enable community contributions
- Keep dependencies up to date
- Provide excellent user support

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Adding new frameworks increases maintenance burden
- Complex frameworks harder to support
- Documentation maintenance is time-consuming
- Dependency conflicts across frameworks
- Community contributions need heavy review
- Support requests for undocumented features

**Success Criteria**:
- Research framework follows AIWG patterns and conventions
- Comprehensive documentation reduces support burden
- Automated tests prevent regressions
- Clear contribution guidelines
- Minimal dependency footprint
- Self-service troubleshooting resources

**Influence Level**: High
**Interest Level**: Medium
**Engagement Strategy**: Architecture reviews, early involvement, maintenance planning

---

### 2.6 Secondary: Framework Contributors

**Role Description**:
Community members contributing agents, commands, templates, or bug fixes to the Research Framework. They extend functionality and improve quality.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Understand framework architecture easily
- Contribute without extensive onboarding
- See contributions merged promptly
- Get recognition for work
- Improve personal skills
- Support tools they use

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Complex codebases are hard to understand
- Unclear contribution guidelines
- Long review cycles discourage participation
- Lack of recognition for contributions
- Difficult to test contributions locally
- Unclear where help is needed

**Success Criteria**:
- Architecture documentation is clear and comprehensive
- Contribution guide with examples
- Automated tests for validation
- Fast PR review turnaround (<7 days)
- Contributor recognition in releases
- "Good first issue" labels and mentorship

**Influence Level**: Medium
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Contributor guides, mentorship, recognition

---

### 2.7 Secondary: Agent Developers

**Role Description**:
Specialized developers creating research agents (Discovery Agent, Quality Agent, Provenance Agent, etc.) with specific capabilities and tool integrations.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Build agents with clear, well-defined responsibilities
- Integrate with external APIs (Semantic Scholar, Zotero)
- Implement specialized algorithms (GRADE scoring, citation networks)
- Ensure agents follow security patterns (token handling)
- Create reusable, composable agents

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Unclear agent boundaries and responsibilities
- No standard patterns for API integration
- Security requirements scattered across docs
- Difficult to test agents in isolation
- No agent composition framework
- Limited examples of best practices

**Success Criteria**:
- Clear agent specifications with responsibilities
- Standard API integration patterns documented
- Security rules enforced automatically
- Agent testing framework available
- Composition patterns for multi-agent workflows
- Reference implementations for common patterns

**Influence Level**: High
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Agent specification workshops, reference implementations

---

### 2.8 Tertiary: matric-memory Project

**Role Description**:
Documentation professionalization effort requiring research acquisition, citation integration, and terminology mapping from informal to professional language.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Professionalize existing documentation
- Back all claims with authoritative citations
- Map informal terminology to professional terms
- Support multi-audience documentation levels
- Maintain shared corpus in research-papers repo

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Manual research acquisition is slow
- No systematic citation integration
- Terminology mapping is ad-hoc
- Claims index maintenance is manual
- Cross-project research duplication

**Success Criteria**:
- Automated research discovery for professionalization
- Citation integration workflow defined
- Terminology mapping agent available
- Claims index auto-generated and maintained
- research-papers repo integration seamless

**Influence Level**: Low
**Interest Level**: High
**Engagement Strategy**: Use case validation, pilot implementation

---

### 2.9 Tertiary: token-lifecycle Project

**Role Description**:
Economic simulation project (RNESS) requiring literature backing for simulation parameters, model validation, and research documentation.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Validate simulation parameters against published research
- Document model assumptions with citations
- Compare simulation results with real-world data
- Maintain research provenance for reproducibility
- Support academic publication of results

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Manual search for validation papers
- Parameter provenance tracking is custom
- No systematic comparison with literature
- Reproducibility documentation is manual
- Citation management separate from code

**Success Criteria**:
- Automated discovery of validation papers
- Parameter provenance tracked automatically
- Validation workflow templates available
- Reproducibility packages generated
- Citations linked to code parameters

**Influence Level**: Low
**Interest Level**: Medium
**Engagement Strategy**: Validation workflow design, reproducibility patterns

---

### 2.10 Tertiary: Research-Papers Repository

**Role Description**:
Shared corpus repository (/tmp/research-papers) storing PDFs, summaries, and metadata across multiple projects. Serves as central knowledge base.

**Goals & Objectives**:
- Store research artifacts centrally
- Prevent duplication across projects
- Maintain high-quality metadata
- Enable cross-project discovery
- Support multiple export formats

**Pain Points (Current State)**:
- Manual corpus management
- Inconsistent metadata quality
- No automated deduplication
- Cross-project references fragile
- Limited discovery mechanisms

**Success Criteria**:
- Automated corpus synchronization
- Metadata quality validation
- Deduplication detection and merging
- Robust cross-project referencing
- Rich search and discovery

**Influence Level**: Medium
**Interest Level**: Low
**Engagement Strategy**: Integration patterns, migration support

---

## 3. Stakeholder Matrix

### 3.1 Influence vs. Interest Quadrant

```
         HIGH INTEREST
              │
  Low         │         High
Influence     │      Influence
              │
   Solo   │ AI Researchers
Practitioners│ Docs Writers
─────────────┼─────────────────
Contributors │ AIWG Users
Agent Devs   │ Maintainers
              │
         LOW INTEREST
```

**Manage Closely (High Influence, High Interest)**:
- AIWG Framework Users (Developers)
- AIWG Project Maintainers
- Agent Developers

**Keep Satisfied (High Influence, Low Interest)**:
- Research-Papers Repository
- External API Providers (Semantic Scholar)

**Keep Informed (Low Influence, High Interest)**:
- AI Researchers
- Documentation Writers
- Framework Contributors
- matric-memory Project

**Monitor (Low Influence, Low Interest)**:
- Solo Practitioners
- token-lifecycle Project
- Open Science Community

### 3.2 Power-Interest Grid Analysis

| Quadrant | Stakeholders | Engagement Strategy |
|----------|--------------|---------------------|
| **Manage Closely** | AIWG Users, Maintainers, Agent Devs | Co-design sessions, frequent updates, direct involvement in decisions |
| **Keep Satisfied** | research-papers repo, Semantic Scholar | Regular status updates, involve in key decisions, respect constraints |
| **Keep Informed** | AI Researchers, Docs Writers, Contributors | Progress reports, feedback channels, documentation updates |
| **Monitor** | Solo Practitioners, token-lifecycle | General communications, low-touch support, self-service resources |

---

## 4. Communication Plan

### 4.1 Communication Channels

| Channel | Audience | Frequency | Purpose |
|---------|----------|-----------|---------|
| **GitHub Issues** | All stakeholders | Continuous | Feature requests, bug reports, discussions |
| **Discord #research** | Primary users, contributors | Daily | Quick questions, peer support, announcements |
| **Telegram @aiwg** | General community | Weekly | Major updates, releases, events |
| **Project README** | All stakeholders | Per release | Framework overview, getting started |
| **Release Notes** | All stakeholders | Per release | Change log, migration guides |
| **Architecture Docs** | Maintainers, agent devs | Per phase | Design decisions, technical specs |
| **User Stories** | Primary users | Per iteration | Feature validation, acceptance criteria |

### 4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Plan

#### AIWG Framework Users (Developers)

**Engagement Methods**:
- User story validation sessions (Inception phase)
- Prototype usability testing (Elaboration phase)
- Beta testing program (Construction phase)
- Feedback surveys (Transition phase)

**Frequency**: Weekly during active development, monthly during maintenance
**Responsible Party**: Product Owner, UX Designer
**Success Metrics**: >80% satisfaction score, <2 weeks time-to-productivity

#### AIWG Project Maintainers

**Engagement Methods**:
- Architecture review meetings (Inception/Elaboration)
- Code review participation (Construction)
- Release planning sessions (all phases)
- Maintenance burden assessment (Transition)

**Frequency**: Bi-weekly during development, monthly during maintenance
**Responsible Party**: Technical Lead, Project Manager
**Success Metrics**: Architecture approved, code quality >90%, maintenance hours <5/week

#### AI Researchers

**Engagement Methods**:
- Methodology validation workshops (Inception)
- Pilot studies (Elaboration/Construction)
- Academic partnership proposals (Transition)
- Publication collaboration (post-release)

**Frequency**: Monthly during development, quarterly post-release
**Responsible Party**: Research Lead, Domain Expert
**Success Metrics**: PRISMA compliance validated, 1+ publication using framework

#### Documentation Writers

**Engagement Methods**:
- Template design sessions (Elaboration)
- Voice profile integration testing (Construction)
- Style guide validation (Transition)
- Documentation workshops (ongoing)

**Frequency**: Monthly during development
**Responsible Party**: Documentation Lead
**Success Metrics**: Templates cover 90% of use cases, style compliance >95%

#### Framework Contributors

**Engagement Methods**:
- Contribution guide walkthroughs (Inception)
- Code review mentorship (Construction)
- Contributor recognition program (Transition)
- Community showcase events (ongoing)

**Frequency**: As contributions arrive
**Responsible Party**: Community Manager, Maintainers
**Success Metrics**: 10+ contributors, 30-day PR close rate >80%

#### Agent Developers

**Engagement Methods**:
- Agent specification workshops (Inception/Elaboration)
- API integration design sessions (Elaboration)
- Security pattern training (Construction)
- Reference implementation reviews (Construction)

**Frequency**: Bi-weekly during active agent development
**Responsible Party**: Technical Architect, Security Lead
**Success Metrics**: All agents follow patterns, security audit passes

#### Downstream Projects (matric-memory, token-lifecycle)

**Engagement Methods**:
- Use case validation interviews (Inception)
- Integration pattern design (Elaboration)
- Pilot implementation support (Construction)
- Migration assistance (Transition)

**Frequency**: Monthly touchpoints
**Responsible Party**: Integration Lead
**Success Metrics**: Both projects successfully integrated, <5 integration issues

### 4.3 Feedback Mechanisms

| Mechanism | Purpose | Collection Method | Analysis Frequency |
|-----------|---------|-------------------|-------------------|
| **User Satisfaction Survey** | Overall framework experience | Google Forms, 5-point Likert | Quarterly |
| **Feature Requests** | New capabilities needed | GitHub Issues with template | Weekly triage |
| **Bug Reports** | Quality issues | GitHub Issues with template | Daily triage |
| **Usability Testing** | Interaction patterns | Moderated sessions + notes | Per prototype iteration |
| **Community Polls** | Priority decisions | Discord polls | As needed |
| **Contribution Metrics** | Community health | GitHub Insights | Monthly |
| **Support Tickets** | Common pain points | Discord threads, tagged | Weekly review |

---

## 5. RACI Matrix (Preliminary)

**Legend**: R = Responsible, A = Accountable, C = Consulted, I = Informed

### 5.1 Inception Phase

| Activity | AIWG Users | Maintainers | Researchers | Docs Writers | Contributors | Agent Devs | Downstream |
|----------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|------------|------------|
| **Stakeholder Analysis** | C | A | C | C | I | I | C |
| **Vision Document** | C | A | C | I | I | I | C |
| **Solution Profile** | C | A | C | I | I | R | C |
| **Risk Assessment** | C | A | C | I | I | C | I |
| **Project Intake** | C | A | I | I | I | I | C |

### 5.2 Elaboration Phase

| Activity | AIWG Users | Maintainers | Researchers | Docs Writers | Contributors | Agent Devs | Downstream |
|----------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|------------|------------|
| **Use Case Specification** | R | A | C | C | I | C | C |
| **NFR Definition** | C | A | C | C | I | C | C |
| **Architecture Design** | C | A | C | I | I | R | C |
| **Agent Specifications** | I | A | C | I | I | R | I |
| **API Integration Design** | I | A | C | I | I | R | I |
| **Test Strategy** | C | A | I | I | C | C | I |

### 5.3 Construction Phase

| Activity | AIWG Users | Maintainers | Researchers | Docs Writers | Contributors | Agent Devs | Downstream |
|----------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|------------|------------|
| **Agent Implementation** | I | A | C | I | R | R | I |
| **Template Creation** | C | A | C | R | C | I | C |
| **API Integration** | I | A | C | I | C | R | I |
| **Documentation** | C | A | C | R | C | C | I |
| **Testing** | C | A | I | I | R | R | I |
| **User Acceptance Testing** | R | A | C | C | C | I | C |

### 5.4 Transition Phase

| Activity | AIWG Users | Maintainers | Researchers | Docs Writers | Contributors | Agent Devs | Downstream |
|----------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|------------|------------|
| **Migration Support** | C | A | C | I | I | I | R |
| **Documentation Finalization** | C | A | C | R | C | I | I |
| **Release Preparation** | I | A | I | C | I | I | I |
| **Training/Onboarding** | R | A | R | R | C | I | C |
| **Maintenance Handoff** | I | A | I | I | R | I | I |

### 5.5 Ongoing Operations

| Activity | AIWG Users | Maintainers | Researchers | Docs Writers | Contributors | Agent Devs | Downstream |
|----------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|------------|------------|
| **Feature Requests** | R | A | C | C | C | C | C |
| **Bug Triage** | C | A | I | I | C | C | I |
| **Community Support** | C | A | C | C | R | C | I |
| **Documentation Updates** | C | A | C | R | C | I | I |
| **Version Updates** | I | A | I | I | R | C | I |

---

## 6. Stakeholder Risks & Mitigation

| Stakeholder | Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation Strategy |
|-------------|------|--------|------------|---------------------|
| **AIWG Users** | Framework too complex for daily use | High | Medium | Progressive disclosure, quick-start guide, defaults |
| **Maintainers** | Maintenance burden exceeds capacity | High | Medium | Automated testing, clear patterns, contributor onboarding |
| **Researchers** | Framework doesn't meet academic standards | Medium | Low | Early validation with PRISMA/FAIR experts |
| **Docs Writers** | Citation automation insufficient | Medium | Medium | Iterative testing with real documentation |
| **Contributors** | Low contribution rate | Medium | Medium | Good first issues, mentorship, recognition |
| **Agent Devs** | Security patterns not followed | High | Medium | Automated linting, security review checklist |
| **Downstream** | Integration breakage | Medium | Low | Versioned APIs, migration guides, deprecation notices |

---

## 7. Success Criteria by Stakeholder

### Primary Stakeholders

**AIWG Framework Users**:
- [ ] 80% report framework saves >4 hours/week on research tasks
- [ ] 90% successfully complete first research task in <15 minutes
- [ ] 75% continue using framework after 30 days
- [ ] <5% report integration issues with SDLC framework

**AI Researchers**:
- [ ] 100% PRISMA compliance for systematic review workflows
- [ ] 90% FAIR compliance scores for all research artifacts
- [ ] At least 1 published paper using the framework
- [ ] Citation network visualization used in 50% of studies

**Documentation Writers**:
- [ ] 95% citation accuracy across all documents
- [ ] 100% claims index coverage for professionalized docs
- [ ] 80% reduction in time spent on citation management
- [ ] Voice framework integration works seamlessly

**Solo Practitioners**:
- [ ] Can start using framework in <10 minutes without documentation
- [ ] 70% export research to PKM tools (Obsidian/Notion)
- [ ] 60% upgrade to advanced features within 3 months
- [ ] <10% abandon due to complexity

### Secondary Stakeholders

**AIWG Project Maintainers**:
- [ ] <5 hours/week maintenance effort
- [ ] 90% code coverage for core framework
- [ ] <10% regression rate per release
- [ ] Support ticket volume stable or decreasing

**Framework Contributors**:
- [ ] 10+ active contributors within 6 months
- [ ] 30-day PR close rate >80%
- [ ] Contributor satisfaction score >8/10
- [ ] 50% of contributions come from community (not maintainers)

**Agent Developers**:
- [ ] All agents follow security patterns (100% compliance)
- [ ] 90% code coverage for agent implementations
- [ ] Clear agent composition patterns documented
- [ ] 0 security vulnerabilities in agent code

### Tertiary Stakeholders

**matric-memory Project**:
- [ ] Successfully professionalize all documentation using framework
- [ ] 100% claims backed with citations
- [ ] Terminology mapping reduces by 80% manual effort
- [ ] Integration with research-papers repo seamless

**token-lifecycle Project**:
- [ ] All simulation parameters backed by literature
- [ ] Reproducibility packages generated automatically
- [ ] Validation workflow reduces effort by 60%
- [ ] Published results include comprehensive citations

**Research-Papers Repository**:
- [ ] 100% of projects use shared corpus without duplication
- [ ] Metadata quality score >90%
- [ ] Cross-project discovery works reliably
- [ ] Automated synchronization reduces conflicts by 95%

---

## 8. Stakeholder Analysis Summary

### Key Insights

1. **Diverse User Base**: Stakeholders range from developers needing quick research to academics requiring rigorous methodology. Framework must support progressive disclosure.

2. **Quality Standards Critical**: Multiple stakeholders (researchers, maintainers, docs writers) require high standards (PRISMA, FAIR, GRADE). These cannot be afterthoughts.

3. **Integration Key to Adoption**: AIWG users will only adopt if research integrates seamlessly with existing SDLC workflows. Downstream projects need migration support.

4. **Maintenance Burden**: Maintainers are highly influential but have limited capacity. Framework must minimize ongoing maintenance through automation and clear patterns.

5. **Community Contribution**: Success depends on active contributor community. Requires excellent onboarding, documentation, and recognition.

6. **Security Non-Negotiable**: Agent developers must follow security patterns. Automated enforcement required.

### Recommended Prioritization

**Phase 1 (Inception/Elaboration)**: Focus on high influence, high interest stakeholders
- AIWG Framework Users (primary personas)
- AIWG Project Maintainers (architecture approval)
- Agent Developers (agent specifications)

**Phase 2 (Construction)**: Expand to high interest stakeholders
- AI Researchers (methodology validation)
- Documentation Writers (template testing)
- Framework Contributors (onboarding)

**Phase 3 (Transition)**: Address downstream stakeholders
- matric-memory Project (pilot implementation)
- token-lifecycle Project (validation workflows)
- Research-Papers Repository (integration)

### Critical Success Factors

1. **Early Maintainer Buy-In**: Architecture must be approved by maintainers in Elaboration phase. Their high influence makes them veto holders.

2. **User Validation**: AIWG users must validate use cases and prototypes continuously. Their feedback drives feature prioritization.

3. **Academic Rigor**: AI researchers validate methodology compliance. Without their approval, framework lacks credibility.

4. **Clear Patterns**: Agent developers need clear, enforceable patterns. Inconsistency will create security risks and maintenance burden.

5. **Community Building**: Framework contributors are force multipliers. Investment in onboarding and recognition pays dividends.

---

## References

- @.aiwg/research/research-framework-findings.md - Comprehensive research findings informing stakeholder needs
- @$AIWG_ROOT/agentic/code/frameworks/research-complete/flow-status.yaml - Current flow status and phase gates
- Research-papers repository structure (matric-memory #154, #155)
- token-lifecycle/RNESS implementation patterns
- AIWG SDLC framework patterns and conventions

---

**Next Steps**:
1. Review stakeholder analysis with AIWG maintainers
2. Validate primary stakeholder profiles with representative users
3. Create Vision Document incorporating stakeholder goals
4. Define engagement plan timeline for Inception phase
5. Schedule stakeholder interviews for use case elicitation

**Document Status**: Draft - Pending stakeholder review
**Review Date**: TBD
**Approver**: AIWG Project Lead