deletions | additions       diff --git a/README.md b/README.md  index 65881a0..f1e50d7 100644  --- a/README.md  +++ b/README.md 
...
Writers Workshop for computational systems, and include related  recommendations for practitioners.  # Plan of Action  1. **(Joe, Alison): Significantly clarify the argument and summarise it in  the introduction.**  - We are offering one possible computational definition of serendipity  - Serendipity is not the same as luck.  It’s a matter of learning  something, in a way that’s unanticipated.  Looking for something and  finding something else.  - Explain the aspects of the model better, e.g. why is it essential  that the trigger is not under the control of the system.  - Clearly summarise the offering of the paper.  2. **(Joe): Move our formal definition of serendipity (e.g. the diagram) up  to meet the literature review, as a new section ‘Formal definition of  Serendipity’. (It’s a key contribution of the paper.)**  - We will clearly connect the heuristic criteria from Alison with the  figure.  - In addition a quick graphical summary of the 13 criteria  3. **(Joe): Drop sections 3 and 4, and move key concepts to “future work”**  - Section 3 (FloWr) -\> heavily condense and put into future work  (some overview of Joe’s concrete implementation plans).  Explain  with minimal references.  - Section 4 (Design patterns) - heavily condensed - “Just So Stories”  paragraph in Section 5.3 as a potential application.  Explain some  history about design patterns and say that, for serendipity, the  question is where do new “design” ideas come from.  (I.e. discovery  of a new approach.)  But make this future work.  - “We are highlighting how design patterns and the other ideas in this  paper could be used to build a context where serendipity will take  place.”  4. **(Anna): Remove Section 5.3 (save it for another paper about Writers  Workshops). It’s relevant for “embedded creativity” but “Writers  Workshops” themselves can be a footnote. The actual idea here is more  general.**  - Anna can add more about evaluation in the creative process  - The idea of the WW (or just social revision) is an example of a  place where serendipity can occur.  5. **(Anna): Leading into our thought experiment: “An emerging theme in  computing is exploitation of social creativity and feedback. Our  computational model contributes to theorising this work.”**  - Include another example with computational serendipity? Maybe the  example from Kaz’s thesis  - It would not be hard to find an example of a music system noticing  that a note was wrong and playing. Make sure we include at least  one example that is not “technically improbable” -- better to  include several that have been realised (e.g. Copycat)  6. **(Christian): Copycat or any other historical examples of serendipity  in computing, or explanation of why there are none (argue for or  against, in the background section, as a new §§, and perhaps again later  in the document as a further analysis to accompany our thought  experiment).**  - Concrete lower bound examples and counterexamples, e.g. would it be  possible for “merely generative” systems to exhibit serendipity? --  case of genetic algorithms  - What is the difference between serendipity and good luck? (E.g. a  random act that leads to an outcome that is evaluated positively.)  - What are the strict requirements and what are only the supportive  factors that make serendipity "likely"? Or is it a matter of degree?  - Is it the case that serendipitous systems would be more 'sagacious'  in recognizing interesting triggers? - explain, especially in  connection with computational search.  - What about 'regular' systems that work by applying inference  procedures on symbolic representations to yield new representations?  - e.g. theorem provers  - Evaluate existing approaches to “computational learning” - are they  serendipitous?  7. **(Simon, Alison): Clarify the extent to which serendipity is something  that “actually exists” or is something that is only perceived to exist.**  - It does not seem to be an “essentially contested concept”, just a  potentially confusing one. One contribution of the paper is to  clarify this.  - Clarify the relationship to other key concepts in computational  creativity / creative computing  8. **(Alison): Include a section early on that defines any other keywords  that we refer to later, like the word “dynamic”.**  9. **(Alison): Improve exposition of the analysis of Pek van Andel’s  patterns.**  - (1) What do we hope to achieve with this analysis, and our diagram?  - (2) Have we done the analysis in some verifiable way, i.e. “where  does the analysis come from (i.e. which aspect occurs in which  pattern)? Is there clear consensus on this?”  10. **(Joe, all): Make referencing less intensive for the reader.**  - Use APA style referencing and cut down on number of references.  - Clearly explain in narrative form what sort of literature we will  draw on.  - Perhaps the historical examples of serendipity should be confined to  a separate “recommended reading” section and not referenced directly  in the text.  11. **(Christian, Anna): Shorten and improve the literature review.**  - Preserve key features of the general survey, but include a more  thorough review of recent related work in computing, including work  in the Cognitive Computation journal.  - There has been prior work on surprise (Mary Lou Maher + Kazjon  Grace -  [https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW14/paper/view/8779](http  s://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaai.org%2Focs%2Findex.php%2F  WS%2FAAAIW14%2Fpaper%2Fview%2F8779&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFIWctyzoi4ZSfD  oIrAznrL4Be0g) and  also their paper at ICCC 2013 or 2014) and discovery (Kaz’s AAAI  paper)  12. **(Joe): Confine philosophy references (e.g. Bergson, Deleuze) to the  background section so that it doesn’t confuse anyone about what we’re  actually offering in the paper.**  - Don’t refer to them in the conclusion, but do summarise the  contribution of this paper again in the conclusion (hint: it should  be what we say in the title).  - Re-summarise again in the abstract. ## Status  When we have addressed the [outstanding issues](https://github.com/holtzermann17/serendipity/issues) pointed out by previous reviewers, we plan to submit the revised paper to [Minds and Machines](http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/journal/11023).