MCF 2.2 – Explanatory·Last updated: 2026-02-13

Epistemic Stages

This page explains the canonical epistemic stage concepts without prescribing workflows, phase gates, or delivery sequences.

Purpose

Clarify how MCF 2.2 stages represent states of epistemic resolution, not mandatory process steps or linear progression.

What this explains

• How epistemic stages differ from workflow phases.
• What it means to progress, pause, or regress.
• How evidence quality changes stage readiness.
• How parallel activity can occur across stages.

Derived from Canon

• Canon -> Epistemic model
• Canon -> Stage mechanics
• Canon -> Definitions

How to use this page

• Use it to interpret stage language in Book chapters.
• Use Canon pages when you need formal definitions or constraints.
• Treat stages as epistemic states, not workflow steps.

Epistemic Stages (Explanatory)

In MCF 2.2, an epistemic stage is a statement about what is known well enough to justify a decision under defined constraints. It does not describe how teams work, which activities they perform, or in what order tasks must occur. Activities may run in parallel, but the decision state only changes when evidence meets the threshold defined in Canon (Kelly, 2006).

Stages are therefore reversible. New evidence can weaken or invalidate a claim, requiring a decision to move backward. This prevents false certainty and protects teams from scaling or committing resources on unsupported assumptions (Steup, 2005).

Evidence may also decay over time as context changes. When prior evidence no longer supports the decision threshold, revalidation is required before maintaining or advancing the stage.

Stage Progression Signals

Progression requires evidence that:

• addresses the specific assumption or claim under evaluation
• is strong enough to change the decision state
• remains valid within Canon-defined constraints

If evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, the stage should pause. If evidence invalidates the current claim, the stage should regress. Progress without meeting an explicit threshold constitutes epistemic drift.

Epistemic Stages Overview (MCF 2.2)

Figure placeholder

Figure X. Epistemic stages as decision states in MCF 2.2.
This figure illustrates epistemic stages as reversible states governed by evidence thresholds, not as linear workflow steps. Evidence quality determines progression, pause, or regression between states.

(Diagram to be added: canonical MCF 2.2 epistemic stages overview — states, thresholds, reversibility, and decay.)