As we move forward with advancing the PIRC Working Group’s framework for graceful degradation, we invite readers to consider what this approach might look like from their own positions across the scientific communication landscape. Each stage of this process will involve different actors, and the additional steps it requires do not have to translate into more work for researchers. With the right tools, many of these tasks — particularly at the most interactive level — could become easier. For instance, we’re curious to see how emerging AI capabilities may make it easier to generate interactive content, manipulate data or code directly from publications, and even automate parts of the publication workflow. At the same time, this is a call to action for tool builders to design systems that not only support these interactive experiences but also make exporting to static formats seamless, preserving accessibility and openness. Ultimately, achieving graceful degradation will require balancing automation and human effort, innovation and practicalities. We hope this proposal is a step towards building a collaborative ecosystem where richer, more dynamic research communication is both possible and sustainable.

Questions we will want to consider:

Researchers¶

• How does graceful degradation enter your daily workflow?

• How do you currently manage “good enough” preservation while staying productive?

• Have you ever gone back to recover something from a past project? What was missing?

• How do you handle broken examples or outdated tools in computational courses?

• What would help you preserve teachable versions of interactive content over time?

Repository + Data Stewards / Digital Preservation Specialist¶

• What are your strategies for capturing multi-format research objects?

• How do you prioritize long-term access versus immediate usability / utility?

• What metadata standards do you adhere to and what standards are lacking?

Tool Builders & Infrastructure Developers¶

• How are your tools enabling—or preventing—graceful degradation?

• What “defaults” could you change to encourage fallback artifacts?

Funders & Policymakers¶

• How can funding requirements support this mindset without being overly prescriptive?

• What counts as “good enough” for reproducibility five years from now?

Publishers, Journals & Preprint Servers¶

• How can publication platforms support layered publishing?

• What policies or templates could better accommodate bundled artifacts?

Public/Readers¶

• What does “useful” mean from a non-specialist’s point of view?

• Are there ways degraded versions can still support understanding or trust?