(Initial comments on the project and wiki)
(Commenting the proposal)
Two more specific remarks concerning your proposal:
p. 3: You have identified two areas where research on problem solving would be missing: “…Shape of the problem and problem-solving process.” -> However, clear-cut definition of the two are not given, such that it is not clear if you are right. Regarding the “shape” of the problem, there is, for example, research on functional fixedness where one “perspective” (often the most frequently encountered usage of an object, e.g., the usage of a box for the storage of smaller objects) blocks access to alternative “perspectives” (the usage of the same object for a different purpose, e.g., the usage of a box mounted to the wall as a candle holder). Regarding the process, there is, for example, research on negative set effects where stereotypic or automatized types of problem solving are applied to problems that would offer themselves to simpler solutions if the automatized type of problem solving would not be applied. Evidently, you do not mean such “shapes” and “processes” because otherwise your claim would not hold, but what you mean instead does not get across at this point.
p. 5: What do you mean be “archetype”? Your definition, “…archetypes are transferable entities that contain some individual features, which are ultimately reflected in the problem-solving process”, raises more questions than it answers. What are “transferable entities”, what are their “individual features”? Maybe you could list them and give examples. Also maybe “archetype” is not the best label. At least, this is highly charged labelling and connects to Jung’s work. Maybe you meant “prototype” or some such? Still it would be good to give a definition of what this concept is supposed to mean.