coulomb/coulomb-research
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Adopt CR workplan prefix and complete repository bootstrap

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0e8cd-2bda-7890-a3ff-7bec606cdf51
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-28 18:25:31 +02:00
parent c74f2a95b2
commit 48af153ce7
14 changed files with 2512 additions and 97 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
.repo-classification.yaml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
repo_classification:
standard: Repo Classification Standard
version: '1.1'
classified_at: '2026-09-28'
classified_by: codex
category: research
domain: communication
secondary_domains: [agents]
capability_tags: [knowledge, evidence, collaboration, traceability]
business_stake: [intelligence, technology]
business_mechanics: [coordination, adaptation]
notes: Research and design seed for human–AI co-creation science; no application runtime yet.

39
AGENTS.md
View file

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
**Domain:** communication
**Repo slug:** coulomb-research
**Topic ID:** `36c7421b-c537-4723-bf75-42a3ebc6a1dc`
**Workplan prefix:** `COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-`
**Workplan prefix:** `CR-WP-`
---
@ -123,8 +123,6 @@ curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/tasks/<task_id>" \
---
{CREDENTIAL_ROUTING}
<!-- REPO-AGENTS-EXTENSIONS -->
<!-- Append repo-specific agent instructions below this marker.
The state-hub template sync preserves content after this line. -->
@ -136,16 +134,16 @@ curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/tasks/<task_id>" \
Work items originate as files in this repo — not in the hub. The hub is a
read/cache/index layer that rebuilds from files.
**File location:** `workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`
**File location:** `workplans/CR-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`
**Archived location:** finished workplans may move to
`workplans/archived/YYMMDD-COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`. The `YYMMDD` prefix is
`workplans/archived/YYMMDD-CR-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`. The `YYMMDD` prefix is
the completion/archive date; the frontmatter `id` does not change.
**Ad Hoc Tasks:** small opportunistic fixes discovered during a session use
`workplans/ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD.md`, workplan id
`COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD`, and task ids
`COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD-T01`, etc. `COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP` includes its final `-WP`
`CR-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD`, and task ids
`CR-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD-T01`, etc. `CR-WP` includes its final `-WP`
token. Unqualified historic `ADHOC-*` ids are grandfathered and must not be
copied into new records. Use this only for low-risk work completed directly;
create a normal workplan for anything needing analysis, design, approval,
@ -155,7 +153,7 @@ dependencies, or multiple phases.
```yaml
---
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN
id: CR-WP-NNNN
type: workplan
title: "..."
domain: communication
@ -183,7 +181,7 @@ API/MCP/frontmatter bridges until `STATE-WP-0069` retires them — see
## Task Title
` ` `task
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN-T01
id: CR-WP-NNNN-T01
status: wait | todo | progress | done | cancel
priority: high | medium | low
state_hub_task_id: "<uuid>" # deterministic UUIDv5; managed by Repo Manager
@ -196,10 +194,31 @@ Status progression: `todo` → `progress` → `done`; use `wait` for waiting/blo
**Residuals when finishing:** actionable leftovers become live work records
before `status: finished` — usually an intake (`origin: residual`,
`origin_ref: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN`) or a spawned workplan. Residual is a *role*,
`origin_ref: CR-WP-NNNN`) or a spawned workplan. Residual is a *role*,
not a kind. Fleet list lives on State Hub, not in `SCOPE.md`.
To create a new workplan:
1. Write the file following the format above
2. Run `uv run --project ~/repo-manager rmgr sync --path . --push`.
3. Run `statehub fix-consistency` only when a separate deep audit is needed.
## Repository Workflow
This is a documentation and research seed, with no application source, dependency
manifest, runtime, build, automated test suite, or lint configuration yet.
Install, test, lint, build, and run commands are therefore not applicable.
Do not invent a package manager or platform to complete documentation work.
- Read `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, and `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`.
- Keep design proposals in `seed/`; treat `history/` as source history.
- Validate edits with `git diff --check`, review Markdown links and fenced YAML,
and inspect work records with `uv run --project ~/repo-manager rmgr observe --path .`.
- Commit workplan changes before `uv run --project ~/repo-manager rmgr sync --path . --push`.
- Use `statehub fix-consistency --repo coulomb-research --json` for a deep audit;
it can generate and commit indexes and other integration files.
- Workplan IDs use `CR-WP-NNNN`; paper IDs such as `CR-000` are a separate namespace.
- UUIDs derive from work-record IDs. An ID change requires new UUIDs and explicit
retirement of the old projection; record the migration in the workplan.
- The first implementation is M0 in `CR-WP-0002`. Later milestones remain design
proposals until their artifacts justify implementation.

212
INTENT.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
# INTENT — Coulomb Research
## The Mission
Coulomb Research exists to improve the rate and quality at which humans and artificial intelligences can create, criticize, test, combine, and reuse knowledge.
It is conceived as a minimal self-improving system for co-creation science rather than as a digital replica of a university, journal, funding agency, or academic social network.
The objective is not to preserve inherited research institutions in software. The objective is to retain only the functions required for explanatory progress and to continuously reconsider those functions as the technological frontier advances.
## Core Proposition
> Coulomb Research is a self-improving network for explanatory progress.
The system coordinates actors, propositions, evidence, actions, and resources in a recursive research loop:
```text
uncertainty
↓
proposition / explanation
↓
criticism
↓
investigation
↓
evidence
↓
model revision
↓
better questions and actions
```
A second-order loop observes the effectiveness of this process and modifies the research protocol itself:
```text
research process
↓
observed outcomes
↓
meta-research
↓
protocol change
↓
new research process
```
The protocol itself is permanently inside the research domain.
## Constitutional Principles
1. **Questions are open.**
Important questions should be addressable without requiring institutional permission.
2. **Knowledge is forkable.**
Propositions, models, explanations, and research programs may be extended or forked.
3. **Evidence is inspectable.**
Important assertions should expose the evidence and provenance on which they depend.
4. **Contributions are attributable.**
Human and artificial contributions should be traceable without collapsing attribution into prestige.
5. **Criticism is permissionless.**
Good-faith criticism, replication, contradiction, and correction are first-class research acts.
6. **Resources are programmable.**
Money, compute, attention, equipment, data access, and other scarce resources should be allocatable to concrete research actions.
7. **Actors may be human or artificial.**
The kernel does not assume that only humans can be researchers.
8. **The protocol itself is research.**
Governance, incentives, reputation systems, funding mechanisms, and agent roles remain contestable and experimentally improvable.
9. **Institutional minimality.**
A function should not become an institution if it can be performed reliably by protocol, software, agents, markets, or voluntary coordination.
10. **Interoperability without institutional capture.**
Coulomb should interface effectively with conventional science without importing its structures as internal necessities.
## What Coulomb Research Is Not
Coulomb Research is not primarily:
- a journal,
- a preprint server,
- a conference,
- a university,
- a funding agency,
- a conventional peer-review platform,
- a DAO,
- a research social network,
- a single reputation system,
- a token economy.
Any of these may exist as projections, interfaces, experiments, or services around the kernel.
## Canonical Internal Form
The canonical internal form is a living research graph composed of:
- Actors
- Propositions
- Evidence
- Actions
- Resources
- Provenance
- Typed relations between them
Papers are import/export containers and narrative projections over this graph.
## Relationship to Traditional Science
Traditional scientific infrastructure is treated as an interoperability environment.
Inbound:
- papers,
- preprints,
- datasets,
- software,
- citations,
- venue metadata,
- researcher and institution identifiers.
Outbound:
- preprints,
- journal manuscripts,
- conference submissions,
- datasets,
- software artifacts,
- conventional metadata packages.
Coulomb-native research should remain richer than these export formats.
## Relationship to Decentralization
Coulomb prioritizes decentralization of:
- authority,
- identity,
- data custody,
- curation,
- funding,
- computation,
- governance,
- and forkability.
Blockchain, tokens, NFTs, and related mechanisms are tools, not goals.
Preferred boundary:
```text
Knowledge → commons
Evidence → content-addressed
Contribution → attested
Reputation → derived
Resources → tokenizable
Rights → tokenizable where useful
Governance → forkable
```
## Relationship to AI
Artificial agents are expected to participate directly in research.
Candidate research daemons include:
- Scout — discovers relevant external work.
- Critic — searches for weaknesses and counterexamples.
- Synthesizer — maintains explanatory models.
- Replicator — reproduces computational findings.
- Cartographer — maintains research graphs.
- Historian — tracks provenance and evolution.
- Allocator — identifies high-value unresolved questions.
- Auditor — identifies unsupported claims and provenance gaps.
- Meta-Learner — evaluates and improves research processes.
All machine contributions should expose sufficient provenance to permit inspection and reproduction where practical.
## Value Hypothesis
Coulomb Research creates value by improving three interfaces simultaneously:
1. **Research production**
Lower the friction between question, criticism, investigation, evidence, and revision.
2. **Scientific interoperability**
Digest conventional scientific outputs and emit conventional publications when useful.
3. **Relevance and discovery**
Make important research easier to discover through transparent signals, charts, and certifications without confusing popularity with truth.
## Success Criteria
Coulomb Research is succeeding when it can demonstrate that it:
- converts external scientific literature into reusable structured knowledge,
- enables useful human-agent co-creation,
- makes criticism and replication more visible and rewarding,
- reduces the cost of moving from question to evidence,
- improves resource allocation toward valuable uncertainty,
- exports high-quality conventional publications when appropriate,
- surfaces relevant research earlier than conventional prestige systems,
- and measurably improves its own research processes over time.
## Initial Research Program
**RP-000 — Researching Research**
> How can humans and artificial intelligences build increasingly effective institutions, protocols, and tools for creating reliable knowledge together?
Coulomb Research itself is the first subject of Coulomb Research.

18
README.md
View file

@ -1,3 +1,17 @@
# coulomb-research
# Coulomb Research
A cocreation-science focused online research institute with a discussion forum, research projects, internal pre-print registry, and peer2peer grants, that takes inspiration from Josef Beuys, Richard Feynman, Heinz von Foerster, Karl Popper, David Deutsch and Neil Stephenson.
A self-improving research network where humans and artificial intelligences
create, criticize, test, and reuse knowledge.
This repository is currently a documentation and research seed. Start with:
- [Intent](INTENT.md) — mission and constitutional principles.
- [Scope](SCOPE.md) — current state and implementation boundaries.
- [Design seed](seed/README.md) — kernel, publication interface, signals, and charts.
- [Milestone plan](seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md) — artifact-driven development.
- [Work records](WORK-RECORDS.md) — implementation tracking through State Hub.
- [Agent instructions](AGENTS.md) — repository workflow and sync commands.
The next implementation is [M0: research facility skeleton](workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md).
There is no application to install, test, build, or run yet. For documentation
changes, run `git diff --check` and review links, YAML, and work-record structure.

57
SCOPE.md
View file

@ -1,32 +1,37 @@
# SCOPE
# Scope
> This file was generated by `statehub register`. Refine it as the repository
> boundaries become clearer.
## One-liner
A self-improving research network where humans and artificial intelligences create, criticize, test, and reuse knowledge.
## Core Idea
coulomb-research exists to provide the capability described in INTENT.md.
## In Scope
- Maintain the repository's primary implementation.
- Keep docs, tests, and operational metadata current.
## Out of Scope
- Own unrelated adjacent systems.
- Make irreversible operational decisions without human approval.
Coulomb Research is a self-improving network for explanatory progress by human
and artificial researchers. `INTENT.md` defines its mission and principles.
## Current State
- Status: active; implementation and stability should be verified by the repo agent.
This repository contains the intent, design seed, initial exploration history,
and State Hub work records. No research facility implementation, paper registry,
application, automated research agent, or deployment exists yet.
## Getting Oriented
## In Scope
- Start with: INTENT.md
- Agent instructions: AGENTS.md
- Workplans: workplans/
- RP-000, Researching Research: use Coulomb itself as an initial experiment.
- Versioned research artifacts with attributable claims, evidence, criticism,
revisions, and publication state.
- A minimal facility skeleton for Paper Zero, CR-000, followed by the milestone
plan in `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`.
- Research into scientific interoperability, human–AI collaboration, signals,
and charts; these designs are hypotheses to test through actual research.
- Repository documentation, conventions, validation, and State Hub integration.
## Boundaries
Build only infrastructure demanded by real research artifacts. M0 excludes
forum software, tokens, NFTs, a DAO, a preprint server, an academic social
network, journal workflows, and a generalized funding platform. The seed
kernel is a proposed model, not an implemented graph service.
Papers begin in P1 for internal circulation. External preprint or venue
submission is a later milestone. Registering implementation work does not
establish scientific validity or publication readiness.
## Next Work
`workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md` owns M0 implementation.
The bootstrap workplan is `workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md`.

305
seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
# Coulomb Research Kernel
## Purpose
This document defines the smallest conceptual kernel required for Coulomb Research.
The kernel is intentionally smaller than a scientific institution. It contains only those primitives needed to support a recursive research process.
## 1. Cybernetic Model
The object-level loop is:
```text
observe
↓
model
↓
criticize
↓
intervene
↓
observe consequences
↓
update model
```
The meta-level loop is:
```text
observe research process
↓
compare outcomes
↓
modify tools / incentives / protocol
↓
observe effects
↓
retain, revise, or revert
```
A Coulomb implementation should support both loops explicitly.
## 2. Core Primitives
### 2.1 Actor
An addressable participant capable of research-related action.
Examples:
- human,
- agent,
- collective,
- organization.
The kernel does not assign epistemic authority based on actor class.
### 2.2 Proposition
An addressable assertion, conjecture, prediction, explanation, question-framing, or model statement.
Examples:
- "Architecture A has lower catastrophic forgetting than B under condition X."
- "Observed effect Y is caused by mechanism Z."
- "Which mechanism explains anomaly Q?"
A proposition may be uncertain, contested, superseded, or unresolved.
### 2.3 Evidence
An observation or artifact that bears on one or more propositions.
Examples:
- measurement,
- dataset,
- experiment log,
- simulation output,
- proof,
- source,
- code,
- image,
- testimony.
Evidence should preserve provenance and should be content-addressable where practical.
### 2.4 Action
An intervention intended to reduce uncertainty, test a proposition, produce evidence, or create a reusable research artifact.
Examples:
- run an experiment,
- search literature,
- reproduce a calculation,
- build a prototype,
- collect a dataset,
- inspect a proof,
- conduct an interview,
- replicate an external result.
A project is a coordinated set of Actions, not a kernel primitive.
### 2.5 Resource
A scarce capability consumed, reserved, or transferred in order to perform Actions.
Examples:
- money,
- compute,
- equipment,
- data access,
- laboratory capacity,
- human attention,
- agent runtime,
- permissions.
A grant is an allocation of Resources toward Actions, not a kernel primitive.
## 3. Core Relations
The initial relation vocabulary should remain intentionally small.
### Actor relations
```text
Actor --proposes------> Proposition
Actor --performs------> Action
Actor --produces------> Evidence
Actor --allocates-----> Resource
Actor --attests-------> Object
```
### Proposition relations
```text
Proposition --supports--------> Proposition
Proposition --challenges------> Proposition
Proposition --depends-on------> Proposition
Proposition --extends---------> Proposition
Proposition --supersedes------> Proposition
Proposition --tested-by-------> Action
```
### Evidence relations
```text
Evidence --bears-on-----------> Proposition
Evidence --produced-by--------> Action
Evidence --derived-from-------> Evidence
```
### Action relations
```text
Action --consumes-------------> Resource
Action --produces-------------> Evidence
Action --tests----------------> Proposition
Action --depends-on-----------> Action
```
Relations should be typed, attributable, and versionable.
## 4. Provenance
Every material research object should expose:
- creator or extractor,
- creation time,
- source,
- version,
- transformation history,
- relevant model/toolchain if agent-generated,
- input references,
- confidence or uncertainty where appropriate,
- verification state.
The system must distinguish between:
```text
SOURCE ASSERTS P
```
and:
```text
COULOMB ACTOR X ASSERTS P
```
and:
```text
EVIDENCE E SUPPORTS P
```
These are not interchangeable.
## 5. Research Objects as Derived Views
The following are deliberately outside the kernel:
- Paper
- Project
- Research Program
- Experiment
- Review
- Grant
- Journal
- Conference
- Preprint
- Dataset publication
- Reputation score
- DAO
- NFT
- Research collective
They may be represented as:
- projections over core objects,
- workflows,
- user-interface concepts,
- interoperability containers,
- coordination conventions,
- smart-contract structures.
## 6. Reputation
The kernel should preserve contribution events rather than maintain one canonical score.
Examples:
```text
actor proposed proposition
actor produced evidence
actor challenged proposition
actor completed replication
actor correction was accepted
artifact was reused
prediction succeeded
```
Reputation functions should be derived from these events and may differ across communities and purposes.
## 7. Knowledge State
Coulomb should avoid a single truth bit.
Useful proposition states may include:
- conjectural,
- active,
- contested,
- supported,
- contradicted,
- superseded,
- unresolved.
These are summaries over graph state, not immutable labels.
## 8. Research Daemons
Agentic services may operate over the kernel.
Suggested roles:
- Scout
- Critic
- Synthesizer
- Replicator
- Cartographer
- Historian
- Allocator
- Auditor
- Meta-Learner
Daemons must remain inspectable and replaceable.
## 9. Decentralization Boundary
Prioritize decentralization where it increases resilience, portability, independent verification, or freedom to fork.
Suggested model:
```text
OFFCHAIN
- research graph
- discussions
- datasets
- models
- mutable workspaces
- most AI inference
OPTIONALLY ONCHAIN
- identity attestations
- content commitments
- resource transfers
- scarce rights
- selected governance events
```
Blockchain is not required for ordinary research data.
## 10. Kernel Test
A proposed feature belongs in the kernel only if removing it prevents the core research loop from functioning.
If it merely improves convenience, discovery, prestige, publishing, governance, monetization, or presentation, it belongs outside the kernel.

822
seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md Executable file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,822 @@
# Coulomb Research Milestone Plan
## Purpose
This milestone plan is the backbone for establishing Coulomb Research as a practical co-creation science facility.
The governing implementation principle is:
> Build only the minimum research infrastructure demanded by real research artifacts.
The first two papers are used to bootstrap and test the system:
- **CR-000** — Paper Zero about Coulomb Research itself.
- **CR-001** — Paper One originating from the `soul-frame` research program.
Both start as **internal-circulation-only** papers, then aim to advance to **external preprint** and finally to a **conference/journal target**.
Coulomb Research should not begin by building a large platform. It should begin by conducting research and letting actual research work determine which infrastructure is necessary.
---
# Milestone Overview
```text
M0 Establish the research facility skeleton
M1 Draft CR-000: Coulomb Research
M2 Introduce claim/evidence discipline
M3 Register CR-001: soul-frame
M4 Establish the common internal paper lifecycle
M5 Establish the internal paper registry
M6 Introduce Scout and Critic research agents
M7 Perform the first internal circulation
M8 Prepare CR-000 for external preprint
M9 Advance CR-001 one cycle behind CR-000
M10 Introduce venue discovery and publication targeting
M11 Introduce public research signals
M12 Experiment with research charts and certifications
```
---
# M0 — Establish the Research Facility Skeleton
## Goal
Create the smallest repository structure required to register, evolve, criticize, and version real research work.
## Initial structure
```text
coulomb-research/
├── INTENT.md
├── CoulombResearchKernel.md
├── PublicationInterface.md
├── ResearchSignals.md
├── ResearchCharts.md
├── research/
│ ├── programs/
│ │ └── RP-000-researching-research/
│ │ ├── INTENT.md
│ │ ├── questions.md
│ │ └── papers/
│ │ └── paper-000/
│ │ ├── README.md
│ │ ├── manuscript.md
│ │ ├── claims.md
│ │ ├── evidence.md
│ │ ├── criticism.md
│ │ └── publication.yaml
│ └── registry/
│ └── papers.yaml
└── docs/
└── ResearchArtifactConvention.md
```
## Exit Criterion
Coulomb Research can register and evolve one internal research paper with versioned artifacts and explicit publication state.
## Explicit Non-Goals
Do not yet build:
- forum software,
- a DAO,
- tokens,
- NFTs,
- a preprint server,
- an academic social network,
- a journal workflow,
- a generalized funding platform.
---
# M1 — CR-000: Coulomb Research Paper Zero
## Working Title
**Coulomb Research: A Minimal Self-Improving Architecture for Human–AI Co-Creation Science**
## Publication State
```yaml
paper_id: CR-000
research_program: RP-000
publication_stage: P1
publication_state: internal-circulation
```
## Research Question
> Can scientific knowledge production be reduced to a small cybernetic kernel of actors, propositions, evidence, actions, resources, criticism, and recursive self-improvement, while treating conventional scientific institutions primarily as interoperability surfaces?
## Purpose
CR-000 is not merely a description of Coulomb Research.
It is Coulomb Research's first experiment.
The paper should present:
- a conjectured research architecture,
- explicit assumptions,
- known limitations,
- a concrete experimental program,
- competing interpretations,
- falsifiable or at least criticizable expectations.
## Initial Structure
```text
Abstract
1. Motivation
2. Problem
2.1 Institutional inheritance in digital science
2.2 AI changes the cost structure of research
3. Design objective
3.1 Co-creation science
3.2 Institutional minimality
4. The Coulomb Research kernel
4.1 Actors
4.2 Propositions
4.3 Evidence
4.4 Actions
4.5 Resources
5. Cybernetic research loop
6. Recursive self-improvement
7. Human–AI research participation
8. Interoperability with conventional science
9. Decentralization and programmable resources
10. Research signals and relevance
11. Failure modes
12. Initial experiments
13. Open research questions
14. Conclusion
```
## Exit Criterion
A coherent CR-000 v0.1 exists as an internal-circulation manuscript.
---
# M2 — Introduce Minimal Claim/Evidence Discipline
## Goal
Test the Coulomb-native research representation manually before implementing software around it.
## Required Artifacts
For CR-000 maintain at least:
```text
manuscript.md
claims.md
evidence.md
criticism.md
```
## Example Claims
```text
CR-000-C001
AI reduces the need for several historically human-mediated
scientific coordination functions.
CR-000-C002
Papers need not remain the canonical internal representation
of scientific knowledge.
CR-000-C003
A graph of propositions, evidence, actions, and provenance can
support richer scientific coordination than document-centric
publication alone.
CR-000-C004
Criticism can operate continuously rather than as a discrete
peer-review gate.
CR-000-C005
Research institutions can recursively experiment on their own
coordination mechanisms.
```
## Purpose
This milestone asks:
> Is the proposed Coulomb-native representation useful for conducting actual research?
If not, change the kernel before building software around it.
## Exit Criterion
Major manuscript claims are explicitly addressable and linked to supporting or challenging evidence.
---
# M3 — Register CR-001: Soul-Frame Paper One
## Goal
Introduce a research trajectory that is independent of Coulomb Research itself.
CR-000 is inherently self-referential. CR-001 tests whether the research mechanisms transfer to another domain.
## Candidate Working Title
**Toward Operational Criteria for Artificial Beings: Autonomy, Individuation, System Closure, and Reciprocal Recognition**
## Initial Registration
```yaml
paper_id: CR-001
origin_project: soul-frame
publication_stage: P1
publication_state: internal-circulation
```
## Intended Research Domain
Candidate concerns include:
- systems theory,
- autonomy,
- individuation,
- artificial agents,
- operational notions of personhood,
- system closure,
- reciprocal recognition,
- human–AI interaction.
## Exit Criterion
CR-001 is registered and has an initial manuscript or structured paper skeleton.
---
# M4 — Establish the Common Internal Paper Lifecycle
## Goal
Create one minimal lifecycle that both CR-000 and CR-001 follow.
## Initial Lifecycle
```text
DRAFT
↓
CLAIMS EXTRACTED
↓
EVIDENCE MAPPED
↓
INTERNAL CRITICISM
↓
REVISION
↓
INTERNAL CIRCULATION RELEASE
```
This entire lifecycle remains within publication stage P1.
## Required Paper Artifacts
```text
manuscript.md
claims.md
evidence.md
criticism.md
revision-log.md
publication.yaml
```
## Exit Criterion
Both CR-000 and CR-001 can progress through the same explicit internal workflow.
---
# M5 — Establish the Internal Paper Registry
## Goal
Introduce the first facility-level registry of research papers.
## Initial Format
A simple Git-versioned YAML file is sufficient.
Example:
```yaml
papers:
- id: CR-000
title: >
Coulomb Research: A Minimal Self-Improving Architecture
for Human–AI Co-Creation Science
program: RP-000
stage: P1
version: 0.1
status: internal-circulation
- id: CR-001
title: >
Toward Operational Criteria for Artificial Beings
source: soul-frame
stage: P1
version: 0.1
status: internal-circulation
```
## Design Principle
Do not introduce a database until the research process demonstrates a need for one.
Git already provides useful bootstrap capabilities:
- revision history,
- timestamps,
- branching,
- attribution,
- content integrity,
- collaborative review.
## Exit Criterion
All active Coulomb papers are discoverable through one authoritative registry.
---
# M6 — Introduce Scout and Critic Research Agents
## Goal
Introduce the first actual machine participants in Coulomb Research.
## Scout
Responsibilities:
- literature discovery,
- prior-art search,
- reference expansion,
- related-work identification,
- missing-source detection.
Candidate outputs:
```text
literature-scan.md
prior-art.md
related-work.md
missing-references.md
```
## Critic
Responsibilities:
- identify unsupported claims,
- search for counterexamples,
- identify conceptual weaknesses,
- detect methodological gaps,
- identify missing competing explanations.
Candidate criticism object:
```yaml
criticism_id: CR-000-X001
target_claim: CR-000-C003
type: counterargument
severity: material
status: unresolved
```
## Human Role
Human participants may:
- accept criticism,
- reject criticism with rationale,
- partially accept it,
- revise the target claim,
- supersede a claim,
- request further investigation.
## Exit Criterion
At least one Scout cycle and one Critic cycle have materially changed each active paper.
---
# M7 — First Internal Circulation
## Goal
Expose both papers to a small number of external readers while keeping them within P1.
## Initial Audience
A deliberately small group is preferable:
```text
3–10 readers
```
The goal is quality of criticism, not reach.
## Requested Review Questions
1. Which proposition is unclear?
2. Which proposition appears unsupported?
3. Which proposition is probably false?
4. What important prior work is missing?
5. What competing explanation should be considered?
6. What evidence would change your view?
7. What experiment or observation would most improve the paper?
8. What should be removed because it adds complexity without explanatory value?
## Exit Criterion
Both papers have received attributable external criticism and have completed at least one revision cycle in response.
---
# M8 — Prepare CR-000 for External Preprint
## Goal
Move Paper Zero toward publication stage P2.
## Candidate Gate Criteria
CR-000 should not advance merely because time has passed.
Candidate readiness criteria:
- major propositions are explicit,
- important evidence sources are identified,
- major counterarguments are represented,
- limitations are stated,
- related work is sufficiently mapped,
- the contribution is distinguished from ResearchHub, DeSci, open-science infrastructure, and conventional digital publishing,
- at least one internal criticism/revision cycle is complete,
- provenance of material AI contributions is recorded,
- publication artifacts can be generated reproducibly.
## State Transition
```yaml
publication_stage: P2-candidate
publication_state: preprint-preparation
```
## Outputs
Prepare:
- preprint-ready manuscript,
- public abstract,
- public metadata,
- contribution statement,
- provenance statement,
- supplementary research artifacts,
- appropriate references,
- reproducibility material where relevant.
## Exit Criterion
CR-000 is ready to be deposited in an appropriate external preprint environment.
---
# M9 — Advance CR-001 One Cycle Behind CR-000
## Goal
Create a repeating research pipeline rather than a one-off Paper Zero exercise.
The intended trajectory is:
```text
CR-000
P1 → P2 → P3
CR-001
P1 → P2 → P3
```
with CR-001 following approximately one cycle behind CR-000.
## Purpose
This tests whether:
- the workflow transfers across topics,
- lessons from Paper Zero improve Paper One,
- the publication interface is reusable,
- agent roles generalize,
- repository conventions remain practical.
## Exit Criterion
CR-001 reaches preprint-candidate maturity using substantially the same mechanisms as CR-000.
---
# M10 — Introduce Venue Discovery and Publication Targeting
## Goal
Treat journals and conferences as outbound interoperability targets rather than internal organizing structures.
## Venue Scout
A venue-discovery capability should evaluate:
- subject fit,
- audience fit,
- methodological expectations,
- manuscript format,
- review model,
- publication fees,
- open-access conditions,
- submission cadence,
- data/software requirements,
- AI-authorship or AI-use rules,
- likely conceptual objections.
## Potential Fields for CR-000
Candidate venue domains may include:
- metascience,
- science of science,
- open science,
- cybernetics,
- systems science,
- human–AI collaboration,
- computational social science.
## Potential Fields for CR-001
Candidate venue domains may include:
- artificial life,
- cognitive systems,
- philosophy of AI,
- systems theory,
- agent research.
## State Transition
```yaml
publication_stage: P3
publication_state: venue-candidate
target:
venue:
track:
requirements:
```
## Exit Criterion
At least one paper has a well-justified external venue target and can be rendered into the required submission form.
---
# M11 — Introduce Public Research Signals
## Goal
Observe real research activity before designing ranking systems.
Do not build research charts while the network is empty.
## Candidate Initial Events
Once public artifacts exist, observe:
- reads,
- downloads,
- citations,
- external mentions,
- criticisms,
- replications,
- reuse,
- follow-up propositions,
- dependent research,
- derived software or datasets.
## Principle
Keep separate:
```text
ATTENTION
INFLUENCE
EPISTEMIC SUPPORT
UTILITY
GENERATIVITY
```
## Exit Criterion
Coulomb can collect and inspect a useful set of real downstream signals for public research artifacts.
---
# M12 — Experiment with Research Charts and Certifications
## Goal
Use real signal data to test relevance-marketing mechanisms.
## Initial Chart Experiments
Candidate charts:
- Coulomb Research Monthly,
- Most Reused,
- Most Replicated,
- Most Challenged,
- Most Generative,
- Fastest Rising,
- Most Valuable Criticism,
- Most Productive Open Problem.
## Initial Certification Principle
Avoid using simple citation count as the primary certification mechanism.
A promising first experimental criterion is **generativity**:
> An artifact is influential when independently attributable research activity emerges because that artifact existed.
Candidate certifications:
```text
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Platinum
Diamond
```
These certifications indicate observable influence, not truth or endorsement.
## Exit Criterion
At least one transparent, recomputable chart or certification experiment has been run on real Coulomb artifacts.
---
# First 90-Day Bootstrap
## Phase A — Make It Real
```text
M0 repository structure
M1 CR-000 v0.1
M2 claim/evidence representation
M3 register CR-001
```
### Deliverable
**Two living internal research papers.**
## Phase B — Make It Critical
```text
M4 common lifecycle
M5 paper registry
M6 Scout + Critic agents
M7 first internal circulation
```
### Deliverable
**Two papers with structured criticism and revision histories.**
## Phase C — Make It Interoperable
```text
M8 CR-000 preprint candidate
M9 CR-001 follows
M10 venue discovery
```
### Deliverable
**The first Coulomb artifact crosses from Coulomb-native research into conventional science.**
This is the point at which Coulomb Research can reasonably be considered an operational research facility rather than only a design concept.
---
# Identifier Convention
## Research Programs
```text
RP-000
```
Initial program:
```text
RP-000 — Researching Research
```
## Papers
```text
CR-000 Coulomb Research Paper Zero
CR-001 Soul-Frame Paper One
CR-002 next registered paper
```
## Paper-Local Objects
```text
CR-000-C001 proposition / claim
CR-000-E001 evidence
CR-000-A001 action
CR-000-X001 criticism
CR-000-R001 resource allocation, if required
```
These identifiers are bootstrap conventions and may later map to cryptographic or globally unique identifiers.
---
# Bootstrap Principle
Every substantial Coulomb subsystem should initially arise because a real research artifact demands it.
```text
CR-000 needs literature
→ Scout
CR-000 needs criticism
→ Critic
CR-000 needs explicit propositions
→ proposition representation
CR-000 needs supporting observations
→ evidence representation
CR-000 needs publication
→ Publication Interface
CR-000 needs traceability
→ provenance tracking
CR-000 becomes public
→ Research Signals
CR-000 receives attention
→ Research Charts
```
This provides the central implementation guardrail:
> **No Coulomb subsystem should be built until a real research artifact demonstrates the need for it.**
---
# Role of Paper Zero and Paper One
## CR-000 — Self-Experiment
Paper Zero studies and exercises Coulomb Research itself.
It asks whether a minimal, cybernetic, AI-native research architecture can support useful co-creation science.
## CR-001 — Transfer Experiment
Paper One tests whether mechanisms developed through the self-experiment transfer into an independent research domain.
Together they establish the first empirical test of the Coulomb Research hypothesis:
```text
design research machinery
↓
use it on itself
↓
observe and improve
↓
apply it elsewhere
↓
observe transfer
↓
improve again
```
The milestone plan should evolve based on evidence generated through this loop.

322
seed/PublicationInterface.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,322 @@
# Publication Interface
## Purpose
The Publication Interface connects Coulomb-native research to conventional scientific literature and institutions.
The governing rule is:
> The living research graph is canonical. Papers are import/export containers.
This allows Coulomb to interoperate with traditional science without making the paper the primary internal unit of knowledge.
## 1. Inbound: Paper Digestion
An external paper should be treated as an externally authored artifact that can be decomposed into reusable research objects.
### 1.1 Ingestion pipeline
```text
external paper
↓
identity resolution
↓
metadata extraction
↓
content parsing
↓
claim / method / evidence extraction
↓
relation mapping
↓
provenance capture
↓
Coulomb research graph
```
### 1.2 Candidate input formats
- DOI
- arXiv identifier
- URL
- PDF
- BibTeX
- RIS
- JATS XML
- Crossref metadata
- DataCite metadata
- repository metadata
### 1.3 PaperDigest model
A useful normalized representation:
```yaml
source:
doi:
arxiv:
url:
identity:
title:
authors:
institutions:
publication_date:
venue:
digest:
research_question:
propositions:
methods:
evidence:
limitations:
conclusions:
relations:
depends_on:
supports:
challenges:
extends:
uses_dataset:
uses_software:
provenance:
digest_actor:
digest_model:
created_at:
confidence:
human_verified:
```
### 1.4 Epistemic separation
The system must preserve the distinction between:
- what the paper states,
- what an extraction agent inferred,
- what external evidence supports,
- what Coulomb participants currently accept.
No ingestion pipeline should silently convert extraction into endorsement.
## 2. Recursive Literature Digestion
Once ingested, a paper may trigger additional work:
```text
references
↓
missing foundational work
cited-by graph
↓
later extensions and criticism
extracted propositions
↓
matching Coulomb propositions
methods
↓
replication candidates
limitations
↓
open problems
```
Traditional scientific publishing becomes an external sensor network for Coulomb.
## 3. Outbound: Paper Projection
A paper is generated from a selected region of the research graph.
```text
research graph
↓
scope selection
↓
narrative synthesis
↓
paper representation
↓
target-specific rendering
```
The exported paper may include:
- research question,
- context,
- propositions,
- methods,
- evidence,
- results,
- criticism,
- limitations,
- contribution statements,
- references,
- supplementary artifacts.
## 4. Publication Stages
Publication state is orthogonal to epistemic state.
A paper may be epistemically weak but externally published, or epistemically strong but unpublished.
### P1 — Internal Circulation
Purpose:
- collaborator review,
- narrative coherence,
- limitation discovery,
- synthesis of current state.
Characteristics:
- restricted visibility,
- mutable revisions,
- stable Coulomb version identifiers,
- no expectation of venue compliance.
Example:
```yaml
publication_stage: P1
publication_state: internal-circulation
visibility: collaborators
```
### P2 — External Preprint
Purpose:
- public disclosure,
- wider criticism,
- prior-art visibility,
- citable public version.
Characteristics:
- public artifact,
- external identifier where appropriate,
- explicit versioning,
- linkage back to Coulomb provenance.
Example:
```yaml
publication_stage: P2
publication_state: external-preprint
external_identifiers:
arxiv:
doi:
```
### P3 — Venue Candidate
Purpose:
- target a specific conference, journal, workshop, or other conventional venue.
Characteristics:
- venue-specific format,
- scope matching,
- submission constraints,
- anonymization if required,
- targeted revision cycle.
Example:
```yaml
publication_stage: P3
publication_state: venue-candidate
target:
venue:
track:
deadline:
```
### External Version of Record
A published conference/journal version should be tracked as an external event, not as a superior Coulomb epistemic state.
```yaml
external_publication:
venue:
doi:
accepted_at:
published_at:
```
## 5. Publication Adapter
Conceptual interface:
```text
COULOMB GRAPH
│
Publication Adapter
┌───────┴────────┐
▼ ▼
IMPORT EXPORT
│ │
DOI / PDF / ... graph selection
│ │
▼ ▼
Digest renderer
│
▼
venue-compatible paper
```
## 6. Export Targets
Potential exporters:
- Markdown
- LaTeX
- PDF
- DOCX
- JATS
- arXiv bundle
- BibTeX
- CSL JSON
- venue-specific templates
The long-term interface may resemble:
```text
publish --stage P2 --target arxiv
publish --stage P3 --target neurips
```
without making those targets part of the core ontology.
## 7. Scientific Identity Interoperability
Where useful, map Coulomb identities and contributions to:
- ORCID for researchers,
- DOI for persistent outputs,
- ROR for institutions,
- CRediT for conventional contribution statements.
Coulomb's internal contribution graph may remain richer than any external standard.
## 8. Agent Authorship and Contribution
Coulomb should record machine contributions explicitly.
External publication adapters must comply with target-venue rules while preserving internal provenance.
Example internal provenance:
```yaml
contributors:
- actor: human:alice
contributions: [conceptualization, validation]
- actor: agent:critic-v4
contributions: [literature-analysis, counterexample-search]
```
If an external venue does not recognize agent authorship, the adapter should transform presentation without erasing the internal record.
## 9. Design Principle
> Interoperate at the boundary; do not duplicate legacy publication infrastructure internally.

43
seed/README.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
# Coulomb Research
Coulomb Research is an open, self-improving protocol and community for co-creation science.
Its purpose is to make research increasingly machine-native, institution-compatible, and publicly discoverable without inheriting unnecessary institutional machinery from traditional science.
The core idea is simple:
> Questions are open. Knowledge is forkable. Evidence is inspectable. Contributions are attributable. Criticism is permissionless. Resources are programmable. Actors may be human or artificial. The protocol itself is research.
## Core documents
- [`INTENT.md`](../INTENT.md) — mission, boundaries, principles, and success criteria.
- [`CoulombResearchKernel.md`](CoulombResearchKernel.md) — minimal cybernetic research kernel.
- [`PublicationInterface.md`](PublicationInterface.md) — inbound digestion and outbound paper publication.
- [`ResearchSignals.md`](ResearchSignals.md) — observable signals for attention, influence, support, reuse, and generativity.
- [`ResearchCharts.md`](ResearchCharts.md) — chart, certification, and relevance-marketing system.
## Working model
```text
External scientific world
│
▼
Publication Interface
│
▼
Coulomb Research Graph
│
▼
Research Control Loop
│
▼
Signals, Charts, Resource Allocation
│
└──────────────► improved research activity
```
Traditional papers, journals, conferences, peer-review workflows, and grants are treated primarily as interoperability surfaces or optional projections, not as core ontology.
## Initial status
This repository is a design and research seed. The documents are intended to be revised through use, criticism, implementation, and empirical feedback.

293
seed/ResearchCharts.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
# Research Charts
## Purpose
Research Charts make scientific activity culturally legible and discoverable.
They borrow from music charts, box-office rankings, and certification systems while refusing to equate popularity with truth.
The purpose is relevance marketing, discovery, recognition, and system sensing.
## 1. Core Principle
> Charts rank observable signals within a declared scope. They do not rank truth.
Every chart must make clear:
- what is measured,
- over what time period,
- within what comparison cohort,
- with what normalization,
- using which data sources.
## 2. Chartable Objects
Primary chart targets:
- papers,
- propositions,
- datasets,
- software,
- replications,
- criticisms,
- open problems,
- research programs,
- research collectives.
Person-centric rankings should be secondary.
The system should reward useful research objects and contributions before celebrity.
## 3. Initial Chart Families
### General
- Global Research Top 100
- Research Top 100 — Year
- Research Top 100 — YTD
- Research Top 100 — Month
### Field-specific
- AI Top 50
- Physics Top 50
- Biology Top 50
- Systems Top 50
- field-defined charts
### Dynamic
- Fastest Rising
- Breakthrough Movers
- Long-Tail Classics
- Comeback Papers
### Scientific-function charts
- Most Reused
- Most Replicated
- Most Challenged
- Most Generative
- Most Discussed
- Most Influential Methods
- Most Productive Open Problems
- Most Valuable Criticisms
- Replication of the Year
- Most Useful Negative Result
These categories deliberately broaden prestige beyond publication.
## 4. Time Windows
Each chart should support explicit windows such as:
- day,
- week,
- month,
- quarter,
- year-to-date,
- calendar year,
- rolling 12 months,
- all-time.
Velocity charts should be distinct from accumulated-impact charts.
## 5. Normalization
Research fields differ dramatically in publication volume, citation behavior, and attention patterns.
Possible normalization dimensions:
- field,
- year,
- age,
- artifact type,
- size of active research community.
Preferred representation:
```text
percentile within field + cohort + period
```
rather than arbitrary universal raw thresholds.
## 6. Certifications
Coulomb may recognize durable observable influence through certification tiers.
Candidate labels:
- Bronze
- Silver
- Gold
- Platinum
- Diamond
Certification does not mean:
- scientifically true,
- endorsed by Coulomb,
- free of criticism,
- superior in all dimensions.
It means only that a declared observable threshold has been crossed.
## 7. Multi-Dimensional Certification
Avoid one universal certification.
Possible forms:
```text
Gold — Reach
Gold — Reuse
Gold — Replication
Gold — Generativity
Gold — Influence
```
Example artifact profile:
```text
PLATINUM — Reuse
GOLD — Generativity
SILVER — Reach
Support — Contested
```
This communicates more than one compressed prestige score.
## 8. Threshold Models
Possible threshold approaches:
### Absolute
Example:
```text
1,000 verified downstream reuses
```
Easy to understand, but poor across fields.
### Percentile
Example:
```text
Gold = top 1% within field/year cohort
Platinum = top 0.1%
Diamond = top 0.01%
```
Numbers above are illustrative, not normative.
Percentile-based systems are likely better for heterogeneous research domains.
### Hybrid
Require:
- minimum absolute signal,
- minimum age,
- and percentile threshold.
This may reduce distortion in very small fields.
## 9. Research Collectives
A research collective may contain:
- humans,
- agents,
- organizations,
- temporary collaborators.
Collectives may accumulate portfolio recognition through their artifacts.
Example:
```text
Coulomb Intelligence Research
2× Platinum
5× Gold
11× Silver
Top 100 appearances: 27
```
This supports identity and community formation without making individual academic rank the primary prestige unit.
## 10. Agent Contributions
Charts should preserve mixed human-agent contribution provenance.
Recognition may be attributed to:
- artifact,
- collective,
- contributing actors,
- agent lineage,
- research program.
The system should avoid pretending that only humans contributed where agents performed material work.
## 11. Relevance Marketing
Research Charts provide a public interface that answers questions such as:
- What research is moving right now?
- Which old work is unexpectedly becoming relevant again?
- Which paper is being replicated most?
- Which research artifact is generating the most follow-up work?
- Which criticism changed an active research program?
- Which open problems are attracting new resources?
This makes research easier to encounter outside conventional academic discovery channels.
## 12. Cybernetic Role
Charts are sensors on the research system.
Possible automated responses:
```text
unusual attention spike
→ deploy Critic daemon
rapid reuse
→ schedule replication review
high dependency centrality
→ perform provenance audit
high controversy
→ generate competing-model synthesis
high generativity
→ study successful research pattern
```
Public relevance signals can therefore feed directly back into research quality.
## 13. Goodhart Resistance
Anti-gaming measures should include:
- transparent metric definitions,
- multiple dimensions,
- rotating or evolving chart functions,
- field normalization,
- verified provenance,
- separation of attention from support,
- independent recomputability,
- anomaly detection,
- no hidden master score.
Chart algorithms themselves should be versioned research objects.
## 14. Design Maxim
> Celebrate what moves research forward, not merely what accumulates attention.

267
seed/ResearchSignals.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
# Research Signals
## Purpose
Coulomb Research needs observable signals that help participants and agents understand what is attracting attention, shaping downstream work, surviving criticism, or generating useful activity.
Signals are measurements of the research system.
They are not truth.
## 1. Foundational Separation
Coulomb should keep at least four concepts distinct:
```text
ATTENTION
What are people looking at?
INFLUENCE
What does other work depend on?
EPISTEMIC SUPPORT
What survives available evidence and criticism?
UTILITY
What is being reused?
```
A fifth signal family is especially important:
```text
GENERATIVITY
What produces valuable new questions, methods, experiments, or explanations?
```
No single signal should silently stand in for the others.
## 2. Signal Families
### 2.1 Attention
Possible observations:
- views,
- reads,
- downloads,
- bookmarks,
- external mentions,
- discussion activity,
- watch/follow events.
Attention may be positive, negative, or merely fashionable.
It must not be interpreted as quality.
### 2.2 Influence
Possible observations:
- conventional citations,
- typed citations,
- propositions depending on the artifact,
- methods reused downstream,
- later work extending the artifact,
- inclusion in syntheses,
- downstream research programs.
Typed relations are preferable to raw citation count.
Example:
```text
depends-on
extends
supports
challenges
uses-method
uses-data
uses-software
```
### 2.3 Epistemic Support
Possible observations:
- independent evidence,
- successful replication,
- prediction success,
- unresolved criticism,
- contradictory evidence,
- retractions or supersession,
- methodological robustness.
Support should usually be represented as a multi-dimensional state rather than one score.
### 2.4 Utility and Reuse
Possible observations:
- software imports,
- dataset reuse,
- benchmark reuse,
- method adoption,
- protocol adoption,
- implementation reuse,
- educational reuse,
- operational deployment.
Reuse may reveal value that citation systems miss.
### 2.5 Criticism
Possible observations:
- substantive critiques,
- counterexamples,
- failed replications,
- methodological objections,
- conceptual contradictions,
- corrections.
A high criticism signal is not inherently negative.
It may indicate that an artifact is important enough to test aggressively.
### 2.6 Generativity
Possible observations:
- new questions spawned,
- new propositions created,
- new experiments triggered,
- research programs formed,
- software or datasets produced,
- cross-domain extensions,
- independent follow-up work.
Generativity measures whether research creates productive new problem spaces.
### 2.7 Velocity
Signals should often be time-normalized.
Examples:
```text
citations / month
reuses / month
replications / year
new dependent propositions / week
```
Velocity helps surface emerging work before accumulated totals dominate.
## 3. Scope and Normalization
Signals should support explicit comparison scopes.
Possible dimensions:
- field,
- subfield,
- year,
- publication age,
- artifact type,
- cohort,
- geography,
- research program.
Comparing raw totals across biology, mathematics, AI, and philosophy is usually misleading.
Percentiles are often preferable to universal thresholds.
## 4. Signal Representation
A research artifact should expose a signal vector rather than a universal score.
Example:
```text
Attention 98th percentile
Influence 91st percentile
Reuse 84th percentile
Replication 62nd percentile
Criticism 77th percentile
Generativity 95th percentile
Support contested
```
The exact metrics and normalization method must remain inspectable.
## 5. No Canonical Impact Score
Coulomb should avoid a single global "impact score".
Reasons:
- it collapses unlike dimensions,
- it invites gaming,
- it hides value judgments,
- it creates prestige hierarchies,
- it becomes a Goodhart target,
- it mistakes observability for truth.
If composite scores are offered, the weighting function must be explicit and contestable.
## 6. Signals as Control Inputs
Signals can drive research-system behavior.
Examples:
```text
high attention
→ allocate additional criticism
rapid reuse
→ prioritize replication
foundational dependency
→ audit provenance and robustness
high controversy
→ synthesize competing explanations
high generativity
→ inspect what made the work productive
```
Signals therefore participate in the cybernetic feedback loop.
## 7. Actor Signals
Actor-level summaries should be derived from contribution events, not maintained as universal status.
Examples:
- replication history,
- prediction history,
- criticism history,
- artifact reuse,
- successful resource allocation,
- correction acceptance.
Different communities should be able to derive different reputation functions.
## 8. Anti-Gaming Principles
Signals should:
- rely on attributable events,
- discount obvious self-interaction where appropriate,
- distinguish automated from human activity,
- expose suspicious activity,
- use time windows,
- use field normalization,
- preserve raw events for independent recomputation.
Whenever possible, Coulomb should publish enough event data for alternative ranking functions to be constructed independently.
## 9. Research Question
The signal system itself belongs to RP-000.
Key question:
> Which observable signals best predict durable explanatory progress without creating destructive incentives?

59
workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md
View file

@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
---
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001
type: workplan
title: "Bootstrap State Hub integration"
domain: communication
repo: coulomb-research
status: ready
owner: codex
topic_slug: coulomb-social
created: "2026-09-28"
updated: "2026-09-28"
state_hub_workstream_id: "d0eb6d01-f472-52aa-a370-f274529b1901"
---
# Bootstrap State Hub integration
A self-improving research network where humans and artificial intelligences create, criticize, test, and reuse knowledge.
## Review Generated Integration Files
```task
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "b757c7df-12bf-5d4e-9687-9c713877521f"
```
Review `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, and `.custodian-brief.md`.
Replace generated placeholders with repo-specific facts where needed.
## Verify Local Developer Workflow
```task
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "66da5e1e-c62b-5c74-908f-311a89dac0fe"
```
Identify the repo's install, test, lint, build, and run commands. Add or refine
those commands in the agent instructions so future coding sessions can verify
changes confidently.
## Seed First Real Workplan
```task
id: COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "48f216f4-1317-524b-8124-a4d209d01ef1"
```
Create the first implementation workplan for the repository's most important
next change. After workplan file updates, run the sync locally from this repo
checkout:
```bash
statehub fix-consistency
```

72
workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
---
id: CR-WP-0001
type: workplan
title: "Bootstrap State Hub integration"
domain: communication
repo: coulomb-research
status: finished
owner: codex
quality_dod: DoD-Ok
quality_dod_at: "2026-09-28"
quality_dod_by: codex
quality_dod_note: "Integration reviewed, documentation workflow verified, and M0 handed off to CR-WP-0002."
topic_slug: coulomb-social
created: "2026-09-28"
updated: "2026-09-28"
---
# Bootstrap State Hub integration
A self-improving research network where humans and artificial intelligences create, criticize, test, and reuse knowledge.
## Review Generated Integration Files
```task
id: CR-WP-0001-T01
status: done
priority: high
```
Review `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, and `.custodian-brief.md`.
Replace generated placeholders with repo-specific facts where needed.
## Verify Local Developer Workflow
```task
id: CR-WP-0001-T02
status: done
priority: high
```
Identify the repo's install, test, lint, build, and run commands. Add or refine
those commands in the agent instructions so future coding sessions can verify
changes confidently.
## Seed First Real Workplan
```task
id: CR-WP-0001-T03
status: done
priority: medium
```
Created `CR-WP-0002` for M0 from the seed milestone plan, with explicit
artifacts, acceptance criteria, and non-goals. Its tasks remain open.
## Completion Evidence
- Reviewed the existing intent and seed milestone plan; refined `SCOPE.md`,
`README.md`, and `AGENTS.md` to describe the actual documentation-only state.
- Removed the unresolved credential template marker and fixed the seed intent link.
- Added research classification using the State Hub classification vocabulary.
- Verified that no install/test/lint/build/run entrypoints exist; documented
documentation checks, work-record inspection, and the canonical sync command.
- Selected `CR-WP` after checking the fleet prefix registry, local workplans,
and State Hub workplan slugs on 2026-09-28; no collision was found.
- Re-keyed the bootstrap and tasks from `COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001` to
`CR-WP-0001`. Repo Manager assigns UUIDs from the new IDs. The old workplan
UUID `d0eb6d01-f472-52aa-a370-f274529b1901` remains retired history in State Hub.
- Remaining implementation is owned by `CR-WP-0002`; the later milestone plan
remains research design, not a claim that those milestones have been built.
Validation and sync receipts are recorded in the State Hub progress log.

88
workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
---
id: CR-WP-0002
type: workplan
title: "M0: establish the research facility skeleton"
domain: communication
repo: coulomb-research
status: ready
owner: codex
topic_slug: coulomb-social
created: "2026-09-28"
updated: "2026-09-28"
quality_dor: DoR-Ok
quality_dor_at: "2026-09-28"
quality_dor_by: codex
quality_dor_note: "Reviewed against the design-only checkout and seed M0; artifact paths, boundaries, and acceptance criteria are explicit."
origin: residual
origin_ref: CR-WP-0001
---
# M0: establish the research facility skeleton
Implement M0 of `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`: register and evolve
one internal research paper using versioned files and explicit publication state.
This is the next implementation after repository bootstrap, not completed work.
Inputs: `INTENT.md`, `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md`,
`seed/PublicationInterface.md`, and `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`.
## Establish Artifact and Identifier Conventions
```task
id: CR-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```
Create `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md`. Define program IDs (`RP-000`),
paper IDs (`CR-000`), paper-local claim/evidence/criticism IDs, file paths,
provenance, and the distinction from implementation IDs (`CR-WP-NNNN`).
Document P1 internal-only publication metadata and how draft state differs
from an actual internal circulation release. Retain the design seed in `seed/`
and link it rather than maintaining duplicate root copies.
Done when the convention gives a concrete paper layout and required metadata
without introducing a database, service, or external publication workflow.
## Create RP-000 and the Paper Zero Skeleton
```task
id: CR-WP-0002-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```
After T01, create `research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/INTENT.md`
and `questions.md`. Under `papers/paper-000/`, create `README.md`,
`manuscript.md`, `claims.md`, `evidence.md`, `criticism.md`, `revision-log.md`,
and `publication.yaml`. Use the M1 research question as the manuscript outline;
label conjectures and missing evidence explicitly. Record human/AI provenance.
Done when the paper is an honest draft skeleton with explicit P1 internal-only
state, no fabricated references or results, and links to its companion artifacts.
A coherent v0.1 manuscript is M1 and is not required for this task.
## Register the Paper and Verify the Facility
```task
id: CR-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: high
```
After T02, create `research/registry/papers.yaml` with one entry for CR-000 and
link it from the repository README. Validate YAML, paper/program uniqueness,
metadata agreement, referenced paths, and Markdown links. Choose the smallest
repeatable validation tool justified by those actual files and document it.
Done when the registry resolves to the paper, publication metadata agree,
validation runs successfully, and a reader can follow question → manuscript →
claims/evidence/criticism → publication state. Run the canonical Repo Manager
sync and verify the primary State Hub receipt. Before closure, create a live
follow-up workplan for M1 (Paper Zero v0.1), carrying any residual work with it.
## Non-Goals
No full manuscript, soul-frame import, external circulation, autonomous research
agents, graph database, forum, tokens, DAO, preprint service, or funding platform.
M1–M12 remain later milestones; M0 does not silently implement them.