Add PERT semantic anchor

[Copilot]

PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) is a well-established stochastic project scheduling method developed in 1958 for the US Navy's Polaris programme. It was missing from the anchor catalog despite being widely used for effort estimation under uncertainty.

Added files

• docs/anchors/pert.adoc — English anchor covering three-point estimation, the PERT formula (E = (O + 4M + P) / 6), standard deviation (σ = (P − O) / 6), network diagrams, critical path, and probabilistic scheduling
• docs/anchors/pert.de.adoc — German translation

Updated catalog/data

• website/public/data/anchors.json — PERT entry under strategic-planning; roles: product-owner, business-analyst, team-lead, consultant, educator; related: moscow, user-story-mapping, impact-mapping
• skill/semantic-anchor-translator/references/catalog.md — PERT entry added to Strategic Planning section so agents can discover and suggest it

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>[Anchor Proposal]: PERT</issue_title>
<issue_description>### Proposed Term

PERT

Context (Optional)

PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) is a stochastic network-based project planning method that handles schedule uncertainty by requiring three time estimates per activity. It was developed in 1958 by D.G. Malcolm and colleagues at Booz Allen Hamilton for the US Navy's Polaris submarine missile program.
It is a well-established method to estimate development efforts.

Pre-submission Checklist

• I have searched existing anchors and this term is not already included
• This term refers to a well-established concept (not something I invented)</issue_description>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

• Fixes [Anchor Proposal]: PERT #347

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

[JThoennes]

@rdmueller Looks good to me! 👍

[JThoennes]

@raifdmueller How is PERT related to the category "Statistical Methods" in the Semantic Anchors repository?

[raifdmueller]

Analysis of Proposed Anchors

Evaluated against the quality criteria: Precise, Rich, Consistent, Attributable.

Summary

PR	Anchor	Tier	Recommendation	Rationale
#354	P.A.R.A. Method	3	⚠️ Discuss	Rich and attributable (Tiago Forte), but knowledge management — not SE methodology. Extends catalog scope.
#355	PERT	2	✅ Accept	Classic estimation technique (1958), precise formula, well-established. Tier 2 is correct — useful but niche.
#356	Spec-Driven Development	3	⚠️ Discuss	Relevant to our workflow doc, but is it an established anchor or an emerging practice? Proponents listed (Swagger, Thoughtworks) are not the originators of the term.
#357	Explicit Contract Surface	3	❌ Reject	Not an established term — it's a combination of existing patterns (ACL, DTOs, contract-first). Proponents listed (Evans, Martin, Fowler) didn't coin this term. Fails "Attributable" criterion.
#358	Vertical Slice Architecture	3	✅ Accept	Well-established (Jimmy Bogard), precise, rich. Tier 3 is justified — complements Clean/Hexagonal Architecture.
#359	GRASP	3	✅ Accept	Classic OO patterns (Craig Larman), 9 well-defined patterns. Tier 3 justified — foundational, widely taught.
#360	KISS	1	⚠️ Discuss	Tier 1 is correctly assigned by Copilot! KISS lacks definition depth — "keep it simple" is a directive, not a methodology. Same problem as YAGNI (also Tier 1). But it's so widely referenced that excluding it feels wrong.

Detailed Analysis

#354 P.A.R.A. Method — ⚠️ Discuss

• Precise: Yes — four clear categories (Projects, Areas, Resources, Archive)
• Rich: Moderate — primarily an organizational framework, less rich than Diataxis
• Consistent: Yes — well-defined by Forte
• Attributable: Yes — Tiago Forte, "Building a Second Brain"
• Concern: Extends catalog beyond SE into personal productivity. Is that in scope?

#355 PERT — ✅ Accept

• Precise: Very — concrete formula (O+4M+P)/6, network diagrams, critical path
• Rich: Yes — connects estimation, scheduling, probability, risk
• Consistent: Yes — 65+ years of established usage
• Attributable: Yes — Malcolm, Roseboom, Clark, Fazar (1958)
• Tier 2 correct: Useful but specialized (project planning, not daily coding)

#356 Spec-Driven Development — ⚠️ Discuss

• Precise: Moderate — the term is used differently by different people (API-first vs. formal specs vs. our workflow doc)
• Rich: Yes — connects to BDD, TDD, contract-first, verification
• Consistent: Weak — no single canonical definition
• Attributable: Weak — Swagger/Thoughtworks are not the originators; the term is emergent
• Concern: We have a whole workflow document about this. Making it an anchor could create circular references. Also, our evaluation showed EARS (similar domain) scores poorly.

#357 Explicit Contract Surface — ❌ Reject

• Precise: Moderate — describes a pattern but the name is not established
• Rich: Yes — connects ACL, DTOs, mapping, DIP
• Consistent: No — this is not a recognized term in the literature
• Attributable: No — Evans/Martin/Fowler did not coin this term
• This is a design practice, not a semantic anchor. It combines existing anchors (Clean Architecture, DDD, SOLID DIP) but doesn't add a new activation.

#358 Vertical Slice Architecture — ✅ Accept

• Precise: Yes — clear distinction from layered architecture
• Rich: Yes — connects to CQRS, feature cohesion, screaming architecture
• Consistent: Yes — Jimmy Bogard's talks and blog posts are canonical
• Attributable: Yes — Jimmy Bogard
• Tier 3 justified: A well-known alternative to Clean/Hexagonal that LLMs should know

#359 GRASP — ✅ Accept

• Precise: Very — 9 named patterns with clear definitions
• Rich: Yes — foundational OO design patterns, connects to SOLID, GoF
• Consistent: Yes — Craig Larman's "Applying UML and Patterns" is canonical
• Attributable: Yes — Craig Larman
• Tier 3 justified: Standard curriculum material, widely taught

#360 KISS — ⚠️ Discuss

• Precise: Low — "keep it simple" is a directive, not a methodology
• Rich: Low — doesn't activate multiple interconnected concepts
• Consistent: Mixed — everyone agrees on the principle but not on what "simple" means
• Attributable: Yes — Kelly Johnson (Lockheed Skunk Works)
• Tier 1 correctly assigned: Same tier as YAGNI and TIMTOWTDI. Copilot got this right!
• Question: We reference KISS in the workflow doc (AGENTS.md conventions). Rejecting it would be inconsistent.

[raifdmueller]

Good question! PERT uses statistical concepts (three-point estimation, beta distribution, standard deviation σ = (P−O)/6) but its primary purpose is project scheduling, not statistical analysis. The PR correctly places it under strategic-planning.

The connection to statistical-methods is real but secondary — PERT applies statistics to estimation, while our statistical anchors (Control Chart, Nelson Rules, SPC) are statistical methods. Think of it as: PERT is a consumer of statistics, not a statistical method itself.

A :related: link to spc or control-chart-shewhart could make the connection explicit without miscategorizing the anchor.