R+D is "research and development", not "research" and "development". It's specifically development of research into new products. Otherwise a carpenter could be seen as "developing" wood into cabinets. If there's no research or experimental process involved in the work, then it's not R+D.

I can imagine Unicorn Research Inc deciding to rename all “developer” titles to “programmer” titles, and removing the word “Research” from the company name.

I love when people on the Internet tell me I've been doing my job wrong for a decade...

It's research (as in new knowledge) and development (as in new products based on existing research and knowledge). Software generally falls into the latter category. A scientific process is not required but does make it easier to document qualification for the R&D credit.

And yes, a carpenter developing new cabinet designs absolutely would qualify for the R&D credit (and their salary could fall under the scope of this rule change).

> It's research (as in new knowledge) and development (as in new products based on existing research and knowledge).

This is... Exactly what I said?

> And yes, a carpenter developing new cabinet designs absolutely would qualify for the R&D credit (and their salary could fall under the scope of this rule change).

I feel I pretty clearly alluded to the physical process of turning wood into a cabinet, not developing novel new techniques for doing such.

What about work-for-hire?