Shelf Map — Orphans (2026-08-11)
digital-equity-connectivity — register gap candidate
The backgrounder's own header places this page "under the broader municipal-technology-digital-
services / H4 issue index row," but H4's actual PROBLEM REGISTER — what are Toronto and Torontonians' problems? (one of this library's own project records)
content (the combined F2+H4 entry) is about MFIPPA-bound municipal data practice, vendor
contracts, the city's own AI adoption, and digital-ID — municipal governance-of-data questions,
not the resident-facing "who can't get online, and why" (cost/device/skills) problem this
backgrounder documents. The register's own Part III dedup note lists broadband-digital-equity
under "issue index's considered-and-cut stands" — i.e. this was deliberately excluded from
scoring, not merely unmined. No existing register row states the lived problem here. Register
gap candidate.
free-gift-economy-decommodification — project machinery, not a problem
The backgrounder's own header self-identifies this page as a "VISIONARY PLANK" under Domain P (Democratic Innovation & Civic Tech) — a solution/model proposal (gift economies, tool libraries, time banks, Buy Nothing groups) explicitly given "full rigor and an honest FOR/AGAINST precisely because it is unconventional." It is a proposed answer, not a problem statement, and the register's own Part III dedup note already parks it as a "solution-frame — Solution Suite input." Serves the project's own machinery (the Solution Suite), not a register problem.
purok-hyperlocal-organizing — project machinery, not a problem
Same pattern: the backgrounder's header self-identifies this page as a "VISIONARY PLANK" (Domain P, master plan Ruling 6e) — an evaluation of whether a Philippine hyperlocal-organizing model could transfer to Toronto. It is a civic-model transplant proposal, not a lived-problem statement, and the register's own Part III dedup note already parks it as a "solution-frame — Solution Suite input." Serves the project's own machinery, not a register problem.
supercharging-clubs-groups-gatherings — project machinery, not a problem
The backgrounder explicitly hands off its own loneliness/social-capital evidence base to the
sibling leaf connection-community-belonging (register row X02, which already owns that
ground) and instead focuses on its own angle: civic-association density, organizer support, and
friction reduction as buildable municipal infrastructure — i.e. a solutions/toolkit leaf, not a
problem statement in its own right. The register's own Part III dedup note already parks it as a
"solution-frame — Solution Suite input." Serves the project's own machinery, not a register
problem (its evidentiary content belongs to X02, already well covered by other slugs).
web3-dao-civic-coordination — project machinery, not a problem
Same pattern again: the backgrounder's header self-identifies this page as a "VISIONARY PLANK" (Domain P, master plan Ruling 6e) — an evaluation of real-world web3/DAO civic-coordination pilots and what a city could try. It is a civic-tech pilot proposal, not a lived-problem statement, and the register's own Part III dedup note already parks it as a "solution-frame — Solution Suite input." Serves the project's own machinery, not a register problem.
Pattern note: 3 of 5 orphans (free-gift-economy-decommodification, purok-hyperlocal-
organizing, web3-dao-civic-coordination) plus the close cousin
supercharging-clubs-groups-gatherings are all Domain P/Q "solution-frame" leaves the register's
own authors had already flagged — this review independently reached the same conclusion rather than
just repeating the note. The fifth, digital-equity-connectivity, is different in kind: it is a
genuine coverage question the register's own text admits was "considered-and-cut," named here as a
register gap candidate rather than folded into an existing row it doesn't actually fit.
Source tags like (homes HM12) mark questions carried from the project's own question banks (QUESTION_HARVEST.csv); untagged questions were raised in the 2026-08-11 rewrite.