PHYGITAI · PUBLIC RESEARCH TOOLKIT
This public Toolkit supports selected instruments within PhygitAi’s proposed methodology, developed as part of an ongoing interdisciplinary design research initiative. The methodology remains revisable and awaits empirical evaluation. Begin with a consequential decision, examine where intelligence participates, and identify what remains for human judgment, evidence and revision. Investigate possible failures before production and reconsider decisions when new evidence emerges.
Begin with a consequential decision
The Six Gates are revisitable inquiry prompts, not six mandatory approvals. The Intention–Behavior Record (IBR) can preserve one important decision episode. Proportionate use matters: not every design adjustment requires a complete dossier.
An interactive orientation · No project data is sent or saved
Choose a research direction, then select a gate. The prompts adapt to what you are investigating. They are starting questions, not automated assessments or judgments.
State the problem, affected people and assumptions before accepting generated alternatives. Which parts of the brief come from evidence, and which remain your interpretation?
Record what you know, what is uncertain and what would justify revising the intention.
This demonstration does not collect responses or determine whether a design is safe, effective or responsible.
Illustrative application · Book II
LUMA 01 is an early concept for an adaptive reading lamp. The shared-room disagreement below is a hypothetical teaching and research scenario, not an observation from a physical prototype.
Two occupants repeatedly reverse brightness adjustments in a stipulated shared-use situation. The issue may concern the original intention, the automation rule, or unresolved human interests.
What this case records
Proposed rules address Manual priority, output limits, uncertainty, consent, data boundaries and unverified external commands. None is implemented or independently verified.
An optional person-selected activity tag may inform later preference estimation. It adds no new sensor, cannot trigger a change in Manual mode, and remains a route for investigation.
Retain accessible physical control; reject AI ranking and occupant tracking; investigate localized illumination. P09 physical recency remains pending, not approved.
The E01–E08 events are constructed reasoning prompts. The record has no physical prototype, measured comfort, recruited occupants or demonstrated effectiveness. DEC-01 and DEC-02 are provisional conceptual directions.
The complete research inventory · Books I, II and III
The reference below preserves the distinct research families and their identifiers. This is an orientation to the initiative's developing framework and instruments; the three books carry fuller arguments, context, source details and limitations.
M06 assembles a bounded case; M07 examines and records a consequential episode. Both remain distinct procedures. Their efficiency and added value require study.
M07's twelve-step gate-to-IBR procedure remains a separately documented method; the full controlled procedure is not reproduced in this public orientation.
Each dossier requires its own disciplinary evidence and specialist review. The cases are constructed or hypothetical; they do not demonstrate field-tested effectiveness.
E01 proposes fourteen weeks and 42 contact hours. E04–E06 are progressive studio exercises; E07 is the culminating dossier; E08 proposes five equally weighted assessment components. These are educational proposals, not a validated course. Book III also examines AI-free, AI-supported and AI-primary teaching choices.
These hypotheses are proposed questions, not demonstrated educational results. Human discoveries outside AI remain part of the future-of-design inquiry.
All are proposed investigations. No comparative effectiveness or real-world validation is implied.
Critical comparison · Research in development
Different research purposes should not be confused with identical functions. The Toolkit may complement existing practices, but it has not been shown to outperform them.
When the central question is how a user-facing AI system should behave and communicate, begin with the relevant Microsoft HAX guidance and UX research. Use PhygitAi to examine a specific consequential decision, its authorization, evidence and possible later revision.
Where safety, human control, standards or technical verification matter, apply appropriate engineering and governance practice. A PhygitAi gate or completed IBR does not certify a product or replace specialist evidence.
Compare purpose, function, structure, unit of analysis, outputs and evidence. Ask whether PhygitAi clarifies decisions or preserves information with acceptable effort, including the possibility that a capable existing workflow performs equally well.
See the Research Atlas comparison for close prior work, evidence boundaries and future comparative testing. Distinct names and Gates are not in themselves proof of methodological originality.
Book III · Educational inquiry
The horizons are parallel educational questions, not three inevitable eras or additional PhygitAi Gates. They connect curriculum decisions with the development of independent human competence.
Introduce AI deliberately into existing design learning, with clear objectives, independent foundations, source checking and visible human judgment.
When AI use becomes routine, rethink how authorship, competence, refusals, creative development and consequential decisions are evaluated.
Investigate what design and education may become beyond current categories, including intelligent systems and unforeseen material, cultural and technological transformations.
Human intelligence may also generate unforeseen material, scientific, artistic and social transformations independently of AI. Design education should develop the ability to question present categories and investigate futures that cannot yet be predicted.
Choose your next step
Learn the vocabulary, two directions, sources and limits of the inquiry.
Explore existing screening workflows for ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, with platform-specific limitations.
Review Book III learning ideas and the developing UAiPN participation–negotiation proposal. Neither is a validated curriculum.
The Toolkit is a developing public research interface within PhygitAi | Beyond Phygital, an ongoing interdisciplinary research initiative originated by Abbas Sibai, PhD. It is not the whole initiative, a certification, an automated approval system, a replacement for professional methods, or a claim of superiority over Microsoft HAX or other established approaches.