Decipher: The Performance Construct
WWTC investigating WWTC. The framework turns its analytical tools on itself - examining how protocols, routes, and methodologies actually functioned. Meta-investigation as transparency practice.
The meta-investigation analyses completed WWTC projects as artefacts. Route maps showing where you actually walked versus where you planned to walk. Decision trees explaining why certain frameworks emerged. Comparative analysis of what different methodologies revealed about different cities. Honest assessment of what worked and what failed. This transparency distinguishes WWTC from most cultural commentary. We don't hide how the investigation was constructed. We don't pretend observation happens from neutral positions. Decipher documents exactly how the framework functions - the decision points, the theoretical influences, the practical constraints that shaped what could be documented.
The meta-investigation serves multiple purposes. It makes WWTC methodology transparent and replicable for others who want to attempt similar work. It provides comparative analysis across different cities and protocols. It honestly assesses what worked versus what was theoretical decoration. And it establishes that investigating the investigator is part of the framework, not separate from it. Most importantly, Decipher treats methodology as performance too. WWTC doesn't just document how cities perform - it acknowledges that investigation itself is a performance with its own staging, audience, and constructed authenticity. Making that construction visible isn't weakness - it's the only honest position available.
Each WWTC investigation becomes a case study in methodology construction. What theoretical tools were used? Which proved useful and which were decorative? How did practical constraints (weather, access, exhaustion) shape what could be documented? What did sustained residency reveal that shorter engagement would miss? The analysis includes what didn't work. Frameworks that seemed useful in planning but failed in practice. Routes that proved inaccessible or uninteresting. Theoretical concepts that sounded good but didn't help organise actual observations. Documenting failure is as important as documenting success - both reveal how methodology actually functions rather than how it's supposed to.
