feat: add Current Status sections to 6 edition-drift anchors, batch 2 (#603)

Six anchors whose referent has editions or successors now state what is
current, which edition an LLM's training-data prior most plausibly
serves, and how to disambiguate in prompts. Every fact and link was
researched and fetch-verified by parallel research agents:

- OWASP Top 10: 2025 edition is current (finalized around the turn of
  2025/26); bare category IDs are ambiguous across editions
- ISO/IEC 25010: 2023 revision has nine characteristics (Safety added,
  Usability and Portability renamed); the prior serves the withdrawn
  2011 model
- MADR: 4.0.0 current; the prior reproduces the 2.x-era template
- Effective Go: deliberately frozen since 2009 (golang/go #28782);
  predates generics and modules
- Bloom's Taxonomy: 1956 nouns vs 2001 verbs; priors blend both
- Cockburn Use Cases: Use-Case 2.0 anchors on its own; the official
  Use Case 3.0 ebook (2024) exists but its prior is thin

Also establishes the contribution convention: every new anchor requires
a criticism / edition-drift research step (CONTRIBUTING EN+DE, anchor
template, CLAUDE.md checklist) — and fixes the batch-1 Wolf Schneider
source to the concrete Sprachlog post naming Schneider directly.

Refs #603

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: raifdmueller

CLAUDE.md

@@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ The AgentSkill enables AI agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, etc.) to recognize
 **Checklist for new anchors:**
 - [ ] Add anchor to `docs/anchors/<name>.adoc`
 - [ ] Update `skill/semantic-anchor-translator/references/catalog.md` with the new entry
+- [ ] Research documented criticism and edition drift; if found, add a `== Criticism` / `== Current Status` section (EN + DE) with named, fetch-verified linked sources (see CONTRIBUTING and issue #603)
 
 **Future (Post-Phase 3):**
 1. User creates GitHub Issue via template

CONTRIBUTING.adoc

@@ -183,6 +183,15 @@ Each anchor is stored as an AsciiDoc file with metadata attributes:
 * `:tags:` - Keywords for search (optional but recommended)
 * `:related:` - Related anchor IDs (optional)
 
+*Criticism and Current Status (research required, include when found):*
+
+The catalog is a lexicon, not a list of endorsements — inclusion means the term works as a precise pointer, not that we recommend the practice. For every new anchor, research whether documented criticism or drift exists, and add the finding as a section:
+
+* `== Criticism` — the method itself is contested. Only named, citable critique (critic + linked source), never vibes like "nobody uses this anymore". The section reports the discourse; it does not adjudicate. Where the discourse names alternatives, name them too.
+* `== Current Status` — the method stands, but the training-data prior and the present have drifted apart: a newer edition exists (name the edition the prior likely points to), a successor emerged, or adoption faded.
+
+Verify every linked source by actually fetching it before committing. If the research finds nothing citable, omit both sections — an empty section is noise. See https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors/issues/603[#603] for the full-catalog triage behind this convention.
+
 == Counter-Examples
 
 These are *NOT* semantic anchors:
@@ -262,6 +271,7 @@ For *new semantic anchors*:
 . All required metadata attributes present (`:categories:`, `:roles:`, `:proponents:`)
 . AsciiDoc format correct (`[%collapsible]` block, proper attribute syntax)
 . Anchor tested with LLM prompt (see <<testing-anchor,Testing Your Semantic Anchor>>)
+. Documented criticism / edition drift researched — and captured in a _Criticism_ or _Current Status_ section with named, fetch-verified sources where found
 
 For *code changes*:
 

docs/anchors/_template.adoc

@@ -33,4 +33,18 @@ Key Proponents:: Author Name ("Book Title"), Another Author
 
 * <<related-anchor-1,Related Anchor Name>>
 * <<related-anchor-2,Another Related Anchor>>
+
+// Research documented criticism and edition drift for every new anchor (see
+// CONTRIBUTING "Criticism and Current Status"). Include the sections below
+// only when the research finds citable sources — delete them otherwise.
+
+[discrete]
+== Criticism:
+
+* Named critic, https://example.org["Linked, fetch-verified source"] (year) — what the critique says; name the alternative the discourse proposes, if any
+
+[discrete]
+== Current Status:
+
+* Newer edition / successor / adoption shift, with linked source — and which version the training-data prior most plausibly serves
 ====

docs/anchors/blooms-taxonomy.adoc

@@ -59,4 +59,11 @@ Key Proponents:: Benjamin Bloom et al. ("Taxonomy of Educational Objectives", 19
 * <<feynman-technique,Feynman Technique>> — explaining-it-back is a concrete check at the Understand level; Bloom names the levels above it
 * <<socratic-method,Socratic Method>> — questioning drives learners up the levels; Bloom labels where they are
 * <<diataxis-framework,Diátaxis Framework>> — documentation types map loosely to cognitive levels (tutorial → Apply, explanation → Understand)
+
+[discrete]
+== *Current Status*:
+
+* Two versions circulate: the original 1956 framework (Bloom et al.) uses *nouns* — Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation — while the 2001 revision described above uses *verbs* and puts Create at the top. The standard citable summary of the differences is Krathwohl, https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/blooms_taxonomy.pdf["A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview"] (Theory Into Practice 41(4), 2002)
+* An LLM's training-data prior plausibly *blends both versions* — material on each is abundant, and many secondary sources mix the level names — so an unqualified "Bloom's Taxonomy" can anchor to either category set
+* Name the version explicitly: "revised Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson/Krathwohl 2001)" or "original Bloom's taxonomy (1956)"
 ====

docs/anchors/blooms-taxonomy.de.adoc

@@ -59,4 +59,11 @@ Key Proponents:: Benjamin Bloom et al. („Taxonomy of Educational Objectives",
 * <<feynman-technique,Feynman Technique>> — Zurückerklären ist ein konkreter Check auf der Understand-Stufe; Bloom benennt die Stufen darüber
 * <<socratic-method,Socratic Method>> — Fragen treiben Lernende die Stufen hinauf; Bloom etikettiert, wo sie stehen
 * <<diataxis-framework,Diátaxis Framework>> — Doku-Typen bilden grob auf kognitive Stufen ab (Tutorial → Apply, Explanation → Understand)
+
+[discrete]
+== *Aktueller Stand*:
+
+* Zwei Versionen sind im Umlauf: Das Original von 1956 (Bloom et al.) verwendet *Substantive* — Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation — die oben beschriebene Revision von 2001 dagegen *Verben*, mit Create an der Spitze. Die zitierfähige Standardübersicht der Unterschiede ist Krathwohl, https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/blooms_taxonomy.pdf["A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview"] (Theory Into Practice 41(4), 2002)
+* Der Trainingsdaten-Prior eines LLM *vermischt plausibel beide Versionen* — Material zu beiden ist reichlich vorhanden, und viele Sekundärquellen mischen die Stufennamen — ein unqualifiziertes „Bloom's Taxonomy" kann also auf beide Kategoriesätze ankern
+* Nenne die Version explizit: „revidierte Bloom-Taxonomie (Anderson/Krathwohl 2001)" oder „Original-Taxonomie (1956)"
 ====

docs/anchors/cockburn-use-cases.adoc

@@ -59,4 +59,11 @@ Key Proponents:: Alistair Cockburn (_Writing Effective Use Cases_, Addison-Wesle
 == *Further Reading*:
 
 * link:#/training-data-vs-practice[Anchors and Training Data] - why this anchor reflects Cockburn's craft rather than Jacobson's later Use-Case 2.0/3.0, and what that reveals about how anchors depend on training data.
+
+[discrete]
+== *Current Status*:
+
+* _Writing Effective Use Cases_ (2001) never had a second edition and remains the canonical craft text — and the densest, most reliably activated LLM prior for use-case writing
+* Jacobson's successor exists and works as an anchor of its own: https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/white-papers/use-case-20-e-book[Use-Case 2.0] (Jacobson, Spence & Bittner, free ebook, 2011) adapts use cases to iterative delivery via *use-case slices*
+* https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/use-case-30-ebook[Use Case 3.0] (de Mendonca & Jacobson, v1.0, 2024) *does* exist — but it is too young to be an anchor: LLMs hold no dense prior for it (see _Further Reading_ above), so supply its definition in the prompt if you want 3.0 semantics. Jacobson and Cockburn realigned their craft in https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3631182["Use Cases are Essential"] (ACM Queue, 2023)
 ====

docs/anchors/cockburn-use-cases.de.adoc

@@ -59,4 +59,11 @@ Schlüsselvertreter:: Alistair Cockburn (_Writing Effective Use Cases_, Addison-
 == *Weiterführend*:
 
 * link:#/training-data-vs-practice[Anchors and Training Data] - warum dieser Anker Cockburns Handwerk abbildet und nicht Jacobsons spätere Use-Case 2.0/3.0, und was das über die Abhängigkeit von Ankern von den Trainingsdaten verrät.
+
+[discrete]
+== *Aktueller Stand*:
+
+* _Writing Effective Use Cases_ (2001) hat nie eine zweite Auflage bekommen und bleibt der kanonische Handwerkstext — und der dichteste, am zuverlässigsten aktivierte LLM-Prior für das Schreiben von Use Cases
+* Jacobsons Nachfolger existiert und trägt als eigener Anker: https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/white-papers/use-case-20-e-book[Use-Case 2.0] (Jacobson, Spence & Bittner, freies Ebook, 2011) passt Use Cases über *Use-Case Slices* an iterative Lieferung an
+* https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/use-case-30-ebook[Use Case 3.0] (de Mendonca & Jacobson, v1.0, 2024) existiert *tatsächlich* — ist aber zu jung für einen Anker: LLMs halten dafür keinen dichten Prior (siehe _Weiterführend_ oben); wer 3.0-Semantik will, liefert die Definition im Prompt mit. Jacobson und Cockburn haben ihr Handwerk in https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3631182["Use Cases are Essential"] (ACM Queue, 2023) neu zusammengeführt
 ====

docs/anchors/effective-go.adoc

@@ -43,4 +43,11 @@ Key Proponent:: The Go Authors (https://go.dev/doc/effective_go)
 * Explaining Go idioms that differ from other languages (e.g. error handling, interfaces)
 * Prompting an LLM to produce idiomatic, production-quality Go code
 
+[discrete]
+== *Current Status*:
+
+* Dated by its own admission — https://go.dev/doc/effective_go[the document] opens with: "This document was written for Go's release in 2009 and is not actively updated. While it remains a good guide for using the core language, it does not cover significant changes to the language (generics), ecosystem (modules), or libraries added since." The Go team has deliberately frozen it (https://go.dev/issue/28782[golang/go #28782], still open)
+* It predates the entire modern toolchain era — modules (2018/19) and generics (Go 1.18, 2022) — so its guidance is *silent* on these topics rather than wrong about the core language
+* Modern complements: the curated https://go.dev/wiki/CodeReviewComments[Go Code Review Comments] (self-described "supplement to Effective Go") and Google's maintained https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/[Go Style series] (Guide, Decisions, Best Practices)
+
 ====

docs/anchors/effective-go.de.adoc

@@ -43,4 +43,11 @@ Schlüsselvertreter:: The Go Authors (https://go.dev/doc/effective_go)
 * Erklärung von Go-Idiomen, die sich von anderen Sprachen unterscheiden (z.B. Fehlerbehandlung, Interfaces)
 * LLM-Prompting für idiomatischen, produktionsreifen Go-Code
 
+[discrete]
+== *Aktueller Stand*:
+
+* Nach eigener Auskunft veraltet — https://go.dev/doc/effective_go[das Dokument] beginnt mit dem Hinweis: "This document was written for Go's release in 2009 and is not actively updated. While it remains a good guide for using the core language, it does not cover significant changes to the language (generics), ecosystem (modules), or libraries added since." Das Go-Team hat es bewusst eingefroren (https://go.dev/issue/28782[golang/go #28782], weiterhin offen)
+* Es stammt aus der Zeit vor der gesamten modernen Toolchain-Ära — Modules (2018/19) und Generics (Go 1.18, 2022) — seine Ratschläge *schweigen* zu diesen Themen, statt beim Sprachkern falsch zu liegen
+* Moderne Ergänzungen: die kuratierten https://go.dev/wiki/CodeReviewComments[Go Code Review Comments] (Selbstbeschreibung: "supplement to Effective Go") und Googles gepflegte https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/[Go-Style-Reihe] (Guide, Decisions, Best Practices)
+
 ====

docs/anchors/gutes-deutsch-wolf-schneider.adoc

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Key Proponents:: Wolf Schneider ("Deutsch für Profis", 1982; "Deutsch! Das Hand
 [discrete]
 == *Criticism*:
 
-* Descriptive linguists (e.g. Anatol Stefanowitsch in the https://scilogs.spektrum.de/sprachlog/sprachkritik/[Sprachlog "Sprachkritik" series]) criticise Schneider's tradition of Sprachkritik for presenting personal style preferences as objective norms of German and for framing language change as decline
+* Descriptive linguists reject the Sprachkritik tradition Schneider stands for — presenting personal style preferences as objective norms of German and reading language change as decline; Anatol Stefanowitsch (Sprachlog) called Schneider the "Sprachpapst" and https://www.sprachlog.de/2012/12/07/sprachbrocken-49-2012/["oberster Sprachnörgler der deutschsprachigen Journaille"] (2012)
 * Schneider's polemics beyond craft advice are contested: his campaign against anglicisms ("Speak German!", 2008) and his co-initiation of the 2019 appeal "Schluss mit dem Gender-Unfug!" drew https://www.wz.de/panorama/mit-vollgas-in-die-vergangenheit-kritik-an-gender-unfug-aufruf_aid-37331153[broad criticism from academic linguists] — on these points his norms diverge from current usage
 * The core craft rules (short sentences, verbs over nouns, concrete words) remain largely uncontested in journalism training; the criticism targets the claim of general validity, not the toolbox — the English-language parallel is the linguists' critique of <<plain-english-strunk-white,Strunk & White>>
 ====