From 48af153ce7fd821cd03d9b2ec09176784cf0b913 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 18:25:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Adopt CR workplan prefix and complete repository bootstrap Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0e8cd-2bda-7890-a3ff-7bec606cdf51 --- .repo-classification.yaml | 12 + AGENTS.md | 39 +- INTENT.md | 212 +++++ README.md | 18 +- SCOPE.md | 57 +- seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md | 305 +++++++ seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md | 822 ++++++++++++++++++ seed/PublicationInterface.md | 322 +++++++ seed/README.md | 43 + seed/ResearchCharts.md | 293 +++++++ seed/ResearchSignals.md | 267 ++++++ ...OMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md | 59 -- workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md | 72 ++ .../CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md | 88 ++ 14 files changed, 2512 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) create mode 100644 .repo-classification.yaml create mode 100644 INTENT.md create mode 100644 seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md create mode 100755 seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md create mode 100644 seed/PublicationInterface.md create mode 100644 seed/README.md create mode 100644 seed/ResearchCharts.md create mode 100644 seed/ResearchSignals.md delete mode 100644 workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md create mode 100644 workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md create mode 100644 workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md diff --git a/.repo-classification.yaml b/.repo-classification.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c2e33c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/.repo-classification.yaml @@ -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. diff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md index 6d931ec..a7dd24c 100644 --- a/AGENTS.md +++ b/AGENTS.md @@ -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/" \ --- -{CREDENTIAL_ROUTING} - @@ -136,16 +134,16 @@ curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/tasks/" \ 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-.md` +**File location:** `workplans/CR-WP-NNNN-.md` **Archived location:** finished workplans may move to -`workplans/archived/YYMMDD-COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-NNNN-.md`. The `YYMMDD` prefix is +`workplans/archived/YYMMDD-CR-WP-NNNN-.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: "" # 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. diff --git a/INTENT.md b/INTENT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7b121c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/INTENT.md @@ -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. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4244693..d6f84a5 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -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. \ No newline at end of file +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. diff --git a/SCOPE.md b/SCOPE.md index ad77564..0ca1ea3 100644 --- a/SCOPE.md +++ b/SCOPE.md @@ -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`. diff --git a/seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md b/seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db1096a --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md @@ -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. diff --git a/seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md b/seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md new file mode 100755 index 0000000..f58d8a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md @@ -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. diff --git a/seed/PublicationInterface.md b/seed/PublicationInterface.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6856398 --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/PublicationInterface.md @@ -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. diff --git a/seed/README.md b/seed/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe006be --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/README.md @@ -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. diff --git a/seed/ResearchCharts.md b/seed/ResearchCharts.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db64c87 --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/ResearchCharts.md @@ -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. diff --git a/seed/ResearchSignals.md b/seed/ResearchSignals.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8016408 --- /dev/null +++ b/seed/ResearchSignals.md @@ -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? diff --git a/workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md b/workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md deleted file mode 100644 index f896c85..0000000 --- a/workplans/COULOMB-RESEARCH-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md +++ /dev/null @@ -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 -``` diff --git a/workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md b/workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b323183 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md @@ -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. diff --git a/workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md b/workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..64714b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md @@ -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.