Bootstrap .planning/ for Paper A v4.0 milestone

Hand-written minimal GSD scaffolding (PROJECT.md / REQUIREMENTS.md /
ROADMAP.md / STATE.md) without running /gsd-ingest-docs because:

  * 51 pre-existing markdown files exceed the v1 50-doc cap and most
    are stale (older review rounds, infrastructure notes) or already
    captured in auto-memory project_signature_research.md
  * Heavyweight ingest workflow not needed when project context is
    already comprehensive

PROJECT.md captures the Big-4 reframe key decision and the locked
v3.x history; REQUIREMENTS.md defines REQ-001..008 for v4.0;
ROADMAP.md lays out 7 phases (Foundation -> Methodology -> Results
-> Prose -> AI peer review -> Partner re-review -> Submission);
STATE.md anchors at Phase 1 entry on branch paper-a-v4-big4.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Requirements — Paper A v4.0 (Big-4 reframe)
+
+Milestone: Paper A v4.0 IEEE Access submission with Big-4-only primary scope and full-dataset secondary robustness.
+
+## REQ-001: Big-4-only primary scope (foundation)
+
+**What**: All primary statistical analysis (KDE+dip, BD/McCrary, Beta mixture, 2D-GMM K=2/K=3, pixel-identity FAR, held-out 70/30 z-test, classifier sensitivity) is rerun on the 437-CPA Big-4 subset (Firm A + KPMG + PwC + EY, n_signatures ≥ 10).
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- Script 20 rerun on Big-4 subset, dip-test p < 0.05 on cos_mean and dh_mean
+- Script 21 (held-out validation) rerun on Big-4 subset
+- Script 24 (calibration vs held-out z-test, classifier sensitivity) rerun on Big-4 subset
+- Script 19 (pixel-identity / FAR) rerun on Big-4 subset
+- All rerun outputs land under `reports/v4_big4/`
+- New operational threshold cos > 0.975 AND dh ≤ 3.76 (or refined K=2 posterior) documented with bootstrap 95% CI
+
+## REQ-002: Full-dataset robustness as secondary section
+
+**What**: §IV-K (new) reports the full-dataset (686 CPA) version of the same analyses as a robustness check, demonstrating the pipeline runs at multiple scopes and explaining why the published v3.x 0.945 threshold drifted (mid/small-firm tail heterogeneity).
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- §IV-K table comparing Big-4-only vs full-dataset crossings, with mid/small-firm contribution analysis
+- Explicit explanation of why Big-4 is the methodologically privileged primary scope
+
+## REQ-003: Methodology rewrite (§III-G / I / J / L)
+
+**What**: Sections III-G (unit hierarchy / scope), III-I (threshold estimators), III-J (accountant-level GMM), III-L (per-document classifier rule) rewritten to reflect dip-test confirmed bimodality and the new K=2-derived classifier rule.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- §III-G justifies Big-4 as the methodological unit (sample size, homogeneity, dip-test evidence)
+- §III-I anchored on bootstrap-stable bimodal evidence rather than three-method convergence on unimodal data
+- §III-J reports K=2 as primary (interpretable: replicated vs hand-leaning) with K=3 BIC slightly preferred (-1112 vs -1108) as secondary
+- §III-L derives operational rule from Big-4 K=2 components and bootstrap CI
+
+## REQ-004: Results tables IV-XVIII regenerated
+
+**What**: All results tables in §IV (currently Tables IV through XVIII at v3.20.0) regenerated on the Big-4 subset with consistent formatting and footnote citation to source script.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- Each table cites the script + DB query that generated it
+- Big-4 numbers replace full-dataset numbers as primary; full-dataset relegated to §IV-K
+- Figures 1-4 regenerated; Fig 4 (yearly per-firm) likely reusable as-is
+
+## REQ-005: Firm A reframed as templated case study
+
+**What**: Throughout the manuscript, Firm A's role pivots from "calibration anchor (with minority hand-signers)" to "case study of the templated end of Big-4 (0% in K=3 hand-sign-leaning cluster, 82.5% in replicated cluster)". PwC's higher hand-sign tradition (24/102 = 23.5% in C1) noted as a Big-4 internal contrast.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- Discussion (§V) explicitly states Firm A is the most digitally-replicated of Big-4
+- Cross-tab table (firm × cluster) included in either §IV or §V
+- Conclusion's contributions list updated accordingly
+
+## REQ-006: AI peer review (≥3 rounds)
+
+**What**: At least three cross-AI peer-review rounds on the v4.0 manuscript using codex (GPT-5.x), Gemini 3.x Pro, and Opus 4.7 max effort. Per `[[feedback-ai-review-provenance]]` memory: every reviewer-flagged empirical claim must be provenance-verified against fresh sqlite/grep against the named script.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- Round 1 verdict obtained from each of the three reviewers
+- All Major-class findings either RESOLVED in revision or explicitly disclaimed
+- Final round produces ≥1 Accept / Minor verdict from at least 2 of 3 reviewers
+
+## REQ-007: Partner Jimmy second review on v4.0
+
+**What**: Jimmy (who proposed Big-4-only direction) reviews the v4.0 manuscript end-to-end before submission.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- v4.0 DOCX shipped to ~/Downloads
+- Jimmy's response captured in repo (paper/partner_jimmy_v4_review.md)
+- Any must-fix items resolved in v4.0.x
+
+## REQ-008: iThenticate + eCF + submission
+
+**What**: iThenticate similarity check below 20%, IEEE eCF copyright form completed, manuscript uploaded via IEEE Access submission portal with cover letter.
+
+**Acceptance**:
+- iThenticate report saved under `paper/ithenticate_v4.pdf`
+- eCF confirmation captured
+- Submission portal confirmation number recorded in PROJECT.md "Validated" section
+
+## Cross-cutting constraints
+
+- **Reproducibility**: every script accepts a `--scope big4|full` flag (or new scripts under `signature_analysis/v4_*` if a flag refactor is too invasive)
+- **Provenance**: every numeric claim in the paper traces to (script_id, DB query, output file) — see `[[feedback-provenance-fabrication]]`
+- **No data re-ingest**: existing `/Volumes/NV2/PDF-Processing/signature-analysis/signature_analysis.db` is the frozen snapshot
+- **Branch isolation**: all v4.0 work on `paper-a-v4-big4`; do NOT merge back to `yolo-signature-pipeline` until v4.0 is partner-approved