docs: papers 003-006 — rebuttal, revisions, and feedback loop

003: Adversarial critique of papers 001/002 — unfalsifiability,
     weak evidence, analogy limits, missing fourth future.
004: Revised paper 001 — social skill downgraded to framework,
     meta-skill argument added, shelf-life confronted.
005: Revised paper 002 — Y2K parallel, cognition-as-commodity
     economics, Automation Spiral future, honest probabilities.
006: Feedback loop — niche construction, obsolescence question,
     recursion observation, structured from raw conversation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

NEXT_SESSION_PROMPT.md

@@ -5,11 +5,9 @@ Copy-paste this to start the next session:
 ---
 
 ```
-@WORKFLOW.md @HANDOFF.md @001-vibe-coding-as-social-skill.md @002-the-cognitive-surplus.md
+@WORKFLOW.md @HANDOFF.md @003-rebuttal-stress-testing-the-foundations.md @004-vibe-coding-as-social-skill-revised.md @005-the-cognitive-surplus-revised.md @006-the-feedback-loop.md
 
-Continuing VIBECODE-THEORY. Last session we wrote two initial papers from a conversation about whether vibe coding is a real skill. Read the handoff doc for where we left off.
+Continuing VIBECODE-THEORY. Last session we expanded from 2 papers to 6: wrote an adversarial rebuttal (003), revised both originals (004, 005), and structured observations on the feedback loop / obsolescence question (006). Paper 007 is planned but unwritten — it should synthesize everything.
 
-The plan: expand and attack these ideas. Poke holes, stress-test the analogies, find what doesn't survive scrutiny. The papers should get stronger or get rewritten — no protecting ideas just because we wrote them.
-
-Start by reading all four files, then tell me what you think is weakest in each paper and we'll go from there.
+Read the handoff doc for the full state. Read all six papers. Then let's write 007.
 ```