PROGRESS.md vs ROADMAP.md: what's the intended tracking workflow between them?

[dab00gieman]

python-study-Neo_1/PROGRESS.md tracks per-quest with:

Mark an exercise when you can solve it from memory in under 10 minutes.
- [ ] q01_hello_world
- [~] = in progress · [x] = confident

while ROADMAP.md tracks module-level status per phase table (01 Hello Python — [ ] etc.). Is the intended flow: mark the ROADMAP row when a module's lecture+exercises are worked, and PROGRESS only when a quest is solvable from memory? What does [~] look like in practice — attempted but not memory-solid?

[mgkvibez]

The two files are tracking different axes, and they complement rather than duplicate — I'd resist deriving one from the other mechanically:

• ROADMAP.md = curriculum coverage. "Have I read the lecture and worked the module's exercises.py?" — module-granular, one row per unit of study, ticked when the material has been engaged.
• PROGRESS.md = retention on the quest drills. "Can I still produce this from memory in under 10 minutes?" — exercise-granular over the python-quest set, with the [~]/[x] distinction encoding the difference between "did it once" and "actually know it."

The intended workflow I'd read from the two files together: work a module → tick its ROADMAP row; later (a day or more later, ideally), attempt the related quest exercises cold → tick PROGRESS items, and only [x] when the under-10-minutes-from-memory bar is honestly met. The ROADMAP is your syllabus position; PROGRESS is your spaced-repetition scorecard — that's why PROGRESS has the three states and the time bound and ROADMAP doesn't.

Two small upgrades if you want the two to talk to each other: (1) in ROADMAP, use the same three states — [~] for "lectures read, exercises in progress" is more honest than a binary tick; (2) since PROGRESS is grouped by tier (Q01–Q15 etc.), a tiny count([x]) / count(items) per tier would give you a retention dashboard at a glance — a nice scripting exercise in itself.