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/ROADMAP.md

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+# Roadmap — Paper A v4.0 Big-4 reframe
+
+Milestone goal: Ship Paper A v4.0 to IEEE Access with Big-4-only primary scope, dip-test confirmed bimodality, and full-dataset robustness as secondary.
+
+Branch: `paper-a-v4-big4` (from `from-outside-of-firmA` from `yolo-signature-pipeline` at v3.20.0).
+
+## Phase 1 — Foundation: Big-4 subset script reruns
+**Status**: pending
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-001
+**Tasks**:
+- Add `--scope=big4|full` flag to scripts 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 (and harness any others that load accountant aggregates)
+- Rerun on Big-4 subset; outputs to `reports/v4_big4/`
+- Bootstrap 95% CI on K=2 marginal crossings (extend Script 34's bootstrap to other measures)
+- Confirm dip-test p < 0.05 on Big-4 cos_mean and dh_mean (Script 34 already verified at p<0.0001 — replicate inside the rerun harness for audit trail)
+
+**Done when**: All five scripts produce v4_big4 outputs with bootstrap CI; cross-check against Script 34 numbers.
+
+## Phase 2 — Methodology rewrite (§III-G / I / J / L)
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 1
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-003
+**Tasks**:
+- §III-G: re-justify accountant-level Big-4 as the analysis unit (sample size, dip-test evidence, contrast with mid/small heterogeneity)
+- §III-I: re-anchor "natural threshold" claim on dip-test multimodality + bootstrap stability
+- §III-J: K=2 primary (replicated 31% / hand-leaning 69%) + K=3 secondary (BIC -1111.93 vs -1108.45)
+- §III-L: derive cos>0.975 AND dh≤3.76 (or K=2 posterior cut) from §III-J components
+
+**Done when**: §III markdown files updated; cross-references to Phase 1 outputs are correct.
+
+## Phase 3 — Results regeneration (§IV Tables IV-XVIII + §IV-K)
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 1 and 2
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-001 (tables), REQ-002 (§IV-K), REQ-004
+**Tasks**:
+- Regenerate Tables IV through XVIII on Big-4 subset (relabel as v4 numbering if order shifts)
+- Regenerate Figures 1-3 (Fig 4 yearly per-firm likely reusable)
+- New §IV-K Full-Dataset Robustness section: comparison table (Big-4 vs full), mid/small-firm contribution, why scope matters
+- Add firm × cluster cross-tab table from Script 35
+
+**Done when**: All §IV tables and figures land in repo; cross-refs from §III hold.
+
+## Phase 4 — Prose rewrite (Abstract / I / II / V / VI)
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 3
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-005
+**Tasks**:
+- Abstract: new threshold, new scope, retain the "reproducible pipeline" frame
+- §I Introduction: contributions list updated (Firm A reframe, Big-4 internal contrast finding, dip-test natural threshold)
+- §II Related Work: minimal changes (statistical methodology citations stable)
+- §V Discussion: Firm A as templated case study, PwC as hand-sign-leading firm, what this implies
+- §VI Conclusion + Future Work: forecast Paper B (audit behaviour / policy)
+
+**Done when**: All prose markdown files updated; word counts within IEEE Access limits (Abstract ≤ 250 words).
+
+## Phase 5 — AI peer review (3 rounds across codex, Gemini, Opus)
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 4 (manuscript-complete state)
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-006
+**Tasks**:
+- Round 1: codex (GPT-5.x) — full manuscript review with provenance verification
+- Round 1: Gemini 3.x Pro — full manuscript review
+- Round 1: Opus 4.7 max-effort — full manuscript review
+- Round 2: address Major findings; same three reviewers cross-check
+- Round 3: convergence — Accept / Minor from at least 2 of 3 reviewers
+
+**Done when**: Final round produces Accept/Minor consensus from majority; reviewer artifacts saved under `paper/`.
+
+## Phase 6 — Partner Jimmy v4.0 review
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 5
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-007
+**Tasks**:
+- Export v4.0 DOCX (`paper/export_v3.py` + author block fill)
+- Ship to ~/Downloads
+- Iterate on Jimmy's comments
+- Capture review artifact in `paper/partner_jimmy_v4_review.md`
+
+**Done when**: Jimmy approves v4.0.
+
+## Phase 7 — iThenticate + eCF + IEEE Access submission
+**Status**: pending; depends on Phase 6
+**Requirements covered**: REQ-008
+**Tasks**:
+- Run iThenticate, target similarity < 20%
+- Complete IEEE eCF
+- Upload manuscript + cover letter via IEEE Access submission portal
+- Capture confirmation number
+
+**Done when**: Submission confirmed by IEEE Access portal.
+
+---
+*Phase ordering: 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 (mostly linear; Phase 5 round-2 may loop back to Phase 4 prose if Major findings).*