Phase 5-8: Code organization and C++20 features

Phase 5 (Header Structure):
- Analyzed prtree.h structure (1566 lines, 9 components)
- Decision: DEFER decomposition due to template complexity
- Documented in PHASE5_HEADER_STRUCTURE.md

Phase 6 (Implementation Separation):
- Decision: DEFER template implementation separation
- Rationale: Single-header design appropriate for templates
- Documented in PHASE6_IMPLEMENTATION_SEPARATION.md

Phase 7 (Cache Optimization):
- Investigated parallel scaling bottleneck (1.08x with 4 threads)
- Root cause identified: Amdahl's law (single-threaded nth_element)
- Implemented thread-local buffers in benchmark (marginal improvement)
- Tested alignas(64) alignment (caused 2x regression, reverted)
- Key finding: Real bottleneck is algorithmic, not cache/false sharing
- Documented comprehensive analysis in PHASE7_FINDINGS.md

Phase 8 (C++20 Features):
- Added C++20 concepts for type safety (IndexType, SignedIndexType)
- Applied concept constraints to all 9 template classes
- Documented branch prediction hints (kept macros for compatibility)
- Added <span> and <concepts> headers
- Zero performance impact, improved type safety and error messages
- Documented in PHASE8_CPP20_FEATURES.md

All changes build cleanly with C++20 standard.

Author: claude

PHASE5_HEADER_STRUCTURE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Phase 5: Header Structure Documentation
+
+**Status**: ✅ DOCUMENTED (Decomposition Deferred)
+**Priority**: LOW
+**Decision**: Defer actual decomposition to focus on critical Phase 7
+
+---
+
+## Current Structure Analysis
+
+The `prtree.h` file (1566 lines) contains:
+
+1. **Utility Functions** (lines 47-110)
+   - `as_pyarray`, `list_list_to_arrays`
+   - `compress`, `decompress`
+
+2. **BB<D> Class** (lines 112-232)
+   - Bounding box operations
+   - ~120 lines
+
+3. **DataType<T,D> Class** (lines 234-260)
+   - Data element with index and bbox
+   - ~26 lines
+
+4. **Leaf<T,B,D> Class** (lines 261-342)
+   - Leaf node implementation
+   - ~81 lines
+
+5. **PRTreeLeaf<T,B,D> Class** (lines 462-523)
+   - Leaf node wrapper
+   - ~61 lines
+
+6. **PRTreeNode<T,B,D> Class** (lines 525-544)
+   - Internal node
+   - ~19 lines
+
+7. **PRTreeElement<T,B,D> Class** (lines 546-571)
+   - Tree element union
+   - ~25 lines
+
+8. **BFS Helper** (lines 575-605)
+   - Breadth-first search utility
+   - ~30 lines
+
+9. **PRTree<T,B,D> Class** (lines 607-1566)
+   - Main tree implementation
+   - ~959 lines ⚠️ LARGE
+
+---
+
+## Proposed Decomposition (Future Work)
+
+If decomposition is needed:
+
+```
+prtree/
+├── prtree_fwd.h         # Forward declarations
+├── prtree_types.h       # BB, DataType
+├── prtree_leaf.h        # Leaf, PRTreeLeaf
+├── prtree_node.h        # PRTreeNode, PRTreeElement
+├── prtree_utils.h       # Utility functions
+├── prtree_query.h       # Query operations
+├── prtree.h             # Main PRTree class
+└── prtree_impl.tpp      # Template implementations (Phase 6)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Why Deferring
+
+1. **Template Complexity**: Heavy use of templates makes splitting complex
+2. **Single Translation Unit**: Python extension compiles as single unit
+3. **Priority**: Phase 7 (performance) is more critical
+4. **Risk**: Decomposition could break pybind11 bindings
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**DEFER** to future work. Current 1566-line file is manageable, and:
+- Code is logically organized
+- Phase 7 (performance) is critical priority
+- Breaking templates across files adds complexity
+- No compilation time issues currently
+
+If needed later:
+- Can use internal namespaces for organization
+- Can add section comments for navigation
+- Can consider extern template declarations
+
+---
+
+## Status
+
+✅ **SKIPPED** - Documented for future reference
+➡️ **PROCEEDING** to Phase 7 (Critical Cache Optimization)

PHASE6_IMPLEMENTATION_SEPARATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+# Phase 6: Implementation Separation Documentation
+
+**Status**: ✅ DOCUMENTED (Separation Deferred)
+**Priority**: LOW (Optional)
+**Decision**: Defer template implementation separation to focus on critical Phase 7
+
+---
+
+## Original Goal
+
+Separate template implementations into `.tpp` files:
+```
+cpp/
+├── prtree.h          # Class declarations
+├── prtree_impl.tpp   # Template implementations
+├── prtree_bb.tpp     # BB<D> implementations
+├── prtree_leaf.tpp   # Leaf implementations
+└── prtree_node.tpp   # Node implementations
+```
+
+---
+
+## Why Deferring
+
+### 1. **Same Concerns as Phase 5**
+- Heavy template metaprogramming throughout
+- Single translation unit for Python extension
+- Template instantiation happens in one place
+- No compilation time benefits
+
+### 2. **Pybind11 Integration**
+The Python binding in `python/src/python_module.cpp` instantiates specific template configurations:
+```cpp
+py::class_<PRTree<int64_t, 8, 2>>(m, "PRTree")
+    .def(py::init<int, const std::string &, bool, size_t>(), ...)
+```
+
+Separating implementations would:
+- Complicate the build system
+- Require explicit template instantiation
+- Risk breaking pybind11 bindings
+- Add no measurable benefit
+
+### 3. **Priority Alignment**
+**Phase 7 is CRITICAL** - addresses the #1 performance issue from Phase 0:
+- Parallel scaling broken (1.08x speedup with 4 threads instead of 4x)
+- 92% efficiency loss
+- Memory bandwidth saturation or false sharing
+- Requires immediate attention
+
+### 4. **Current Code Organization**
+The code is already well-organized with clear sections:
+```cpp
+// cpp/prtree.h structure:
+Lines   47-110:  Utility functions
+Lines  112-232:  BB<D> class (120 lines)
+Lines  234-260:  DataType<T,D> (26 lines)
+Lines  261-342:  Leaf<T,B,D> (81 lines)
+Lines  462-523:  PRTreeLeaf<T,B,D> (61 lines)
+Lines  525-544:  PRTreeNode<T,B,D> (19 lines)
+Lines  546-571:  PRTreeElement<T,B,D> (25 lines)
+Lines  575-605:  BFS Helper (30 lines)
+Lines  607-1566: PRTree<T,B,D> (959 lines)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Alternative Approaches (If Needed in Future)
+
+### Option 1: Internal Namespaces
+```cpp
+namespace prtree {
+namespace detail {
+    // Internal implementation details
+}
+}
+```
+
+### Option 2: Enhanced Section Comments
+```cpp
+// ============================================================================
+// BB<D>: Bounding Box Operations (Lines 112-232)
+// ============================================================================
+
+// ============================================================================
+// PRTree<T,B,D>: Main Tree Implementation (Lines 607-1566)
+// ============================================================================
+```
+
+### Option 3: Extern Template (C++11)
+If compilation time becomes an issue:
+```cpp
+// prtree.h
+template <class T, int B = 8, int D = 2>
+class PRTree { ... };
+
+// prtree.cpp
+template class PRTree<int64_t, 8, 2>;  // Explicit instantiation
+```
+
+---
+
+## Benefits of Current Single-Header Approach
+
+1. **Simplicity**: Single `#include <prtree.h>` for users
+2. **Template Flexibility**: Full template code visible to compiler
+3. **Optimization**: Compiler can inline and optimize aggressively
+4. **Maintenance**: Changes don't require modifying multiple files
+5. **Build Speed**: Single translation unit for Python extension
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**DEFER** implementation separation indefinitely. The current single-header design is:
+- ✅ Appropriate for template-heavy code
+- ✅ Works well with pybind11
+- ✅ Has no compilation time issues
+- ✅ Maintains good logical organization
+- ✅ Allows focus on critical performance work (Phase 7)
+
+---
+
+## Status
+
+✅ **SKIPPED** - Documented for future reference
+➡️ **PROCEEDING** to Phase 7 (Critical Cache Optimization)
+
+**Rationale**: Template-heavy Python extensions benefit from single-header design. Phase 7 performance optimizations are the critical priority.
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Phase 5 analysis: `PHASE5_HEADER_STRUCTURE.md`
+- Phase 0 baseline: `docs/baseline/BASELINE_SUMMARY_COMPLETED.md`
+- Original plan: Lines indicate Phase 6 as "LOW (Optional)"
+- Python bindings: `python/src/python_module.cpp`