What is needed most critically is, in my view, a good understanding and articulation of the logic of hypothesis testing in generative grammar, and the development of a minimally satisfactory structure of our experimental design and its justification.

In concrete terms, one can ask questions like the following in relation to any work one might be reading or writing, assuming that the work in question is meant to be making a claim that has empirical consequences in the context of generative enterprise.

(i) What generalization is proposed or adopted in the work, which crucially involves a proposition that something is impossible under some specified condition?
(ii) What account is given for (i)?
(iii) How solid is the alleged generalization in (i)? How much repeatability obtains in regard to the predicted speaker judgments on what is claimed to be impossible ? Of course, we are not just talking about a few 'minimal pairs here; the claim is that something is impossible due to some property of the Computational System and hence what is claimed to be impossible must be impossible no matter what.
(iv) With the account in (ii), what negative predictions -- predictions that something is impossible under some specified condition -- are made beyond what has given rise to the alleged generalization in (i)?
(v) How can we test the predictions in (iv)?
(vi) How are the predictions borne out? How much repeatability obtains in terms of the predicted speaker judgments?