From 4f6384808e1299afa6fb44ad36ec52196243c45c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 01:42:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Resolve=20CR-000-X005=20and=20CR-000-X007=20(CR?= =?UTF-8?q?-WP-0005=20T01=E2=80=93T02)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mark C001 as a loose conjecture and sharpen C005 to the manuscript's meta-level cycle without new evidence or a supported state. Record that Added by is the drafter, and add Position origin on each claim. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a10946-16b2-7771-88ac-c6bc305423b3 --- docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md | 43 +++++- .../papers/paper-000/claims.md | 129 +++++++++++++++--- .../papers/paper-000/criticism.md | 35 +++-- .../papers/paper-000/evidence.md | 30 ++-- .../papers/paper-000/manuscript.md | 29 +++- .../papers/paper-000/revision-log.md | 24 ++++ ...R-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md | 10 +- 7 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md b/docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md index b6324a4..651b569 100644 --- a/docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md +++ b/docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md @@ -147,10 +147,45 @@ follows `seed/PublicationInterface.md` §4 and is out of scope for M0/M1. Every claim, evidence item, and criticism entry should record, inline in its own file entry, at minimum: -- the authoring actor (human or agent, per `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` - §2.1/§4), written as `human:` or `agent:`, -- the date it was added, -- for agent-authored entries, the model/toolchain if relevant. +- the actor who transcribed or drafted the entry text (human or agent, per + `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §2.1/§4), written as `human:` or + `agent:`, +- the date that text was added, +- for agent-drafted entries, the model/toolchain if relevant. + +On a claim entry, that drafter/transcriber relation is the `Added by` +field. **`Added by` means who wrote the words of the entry. It does not +mean who originated the position, and it does not mean who approved the +commit.** Approval is a different relation: a human can retain commit +approval without being the source of the proposition and without being the +drafter (`manuscript.md` §7 for CR-000). Do not record approval in +`Added by`. + +A claim entry must also record `Position origin`. +`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §4 treats "source asserts P" and "actor +asserts P" as non-interchangeable, so a single drafter field cannot stand +in for both. Use one of: + +- `source: ` — the position is a transcription or close restatement + of that source. Name the source. Do not attribute the position to the + transcriber. +- `actor: ` — a Coulomb actor originated the position in this entry, + rather than taking it from a source. This is "actor asserts P". Use it + only when the record supports origination, not as the default for + whoever typed the file. +- `mixed` — name the source the position comes from and the actor who + added an operational reading the source does not already state. Say + which is which. +- `unrecorded` — the files do not support the distinction. Do not guess. + +Do not overwrite `Added by`, and do not delete a recorded origin, when a +later actor edits an entry. Name that later actor and date on the wording +they added, and append the change to `revision-log.md`. + +Evidence and criticism entries are not claim positions. Their `Added by` +or `Critic` field likewise names who wrote that entry. When an evidence +entry draws on a source, its `Source` field records that source; it does +not make the drafter the origin of a claim. This is a lightweight, file-embedded application of the kernel's provenance requirement (`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §4) — it does not introduce a diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/claims.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/claims.md index 21ddcd9..f1a0fff 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/claims.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/claims.md @@ -6,6 +6,11 @@ provenance requirements. Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. +`Added by` means who transcribed or drafted the entry text. It does not +mean who originated the position, and it does not mean who approved the +commit. `Position origin` records that distinction. See +`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4. + --- ## CR-000-C001 @@ -15,18 +20,37 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Position origin:** source: `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` + (M2 example claims). Verbatim transcription of that source sentence, + which also appears in + `history/260928-InitialExplorationCoulombResearch.txt`. The transcribing + agent did not originate the position (`revision-log.md`, 2026-09-28). +- **Formulation:** deliberately loose exploratory conjecture, pending a + sharper reformulation (`CR-000-X005`, `CR-WP-0005` T01, 2026-10-05). + "Several" and "coordination functions" are undefined. The manuscript + does not already contain a falsifiable reading of this sentence. §7 + says one paper's authorship split is too small to bear on the claim as + stated and makes no claim of support. §2.2 names literature search, + extraction, replication-adjacent code, criticism generation, editorial + gatekeeping, and fixed review cycles, but only as a cost-structure + conjecture and as "candidates for redesign," which is a different + proposition and not a pass/fail test. That §2.2 wording is not adopted + here. No sharper test was invented to fit `CR-000-E002`. - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §7 - **Evidence for/against:** `CR-000-E002` — weak, double-edged evidence. Agent-authored drafting/structuring occurred, but the coordination function of deciding scope and approving output stayed human-mediated throughout, which cuts against a strong reading of this claim. State left `conjectural`, not upgraded, per `CR-000-E002`'s own assessment. + The loose formulation above is not a license to read `CR-000-E002` as + support. - **Criticism:** `CR-000-X002` bears on the general standard of evidence - this claim is held to. `CR-000-X005` (independent) challenges the claim - itself as unquantified and effectively unfalsifiable as worded - ("several," "coordination functions" undefined) — the first criticism - aimed at this claim's content rather than the evidence standard around - it. + this claim is held to. `CR-000-X005` (independent) challenged the claim + as unquantified and effectively unfalsifiable as worded ("several," + "coordination functions" undefined). That gap is addressed by the + Formulation field: the vagueness is explicit, and the claim is not + being treated as a test waiting to be run. The criticism did not show + the sentence is false. ## CR-000-C002 @@ -35,6 +59,9 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** contested - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Position origin:** source: `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` + (M2 example claims). Verbatim transcription. The transcribing agent did + not originate the position (`revision-log.md`, 2026-09-28). - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §2.1, §8, §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet - **Criticism:** `CR-000-X001` — the M0/M1 implementation of CR-000 itself @@ -48,6 +75,9 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** contested - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Position origin:** source: `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` + (M2 example claims). Verbatim transcription. The transcribing agent did + not originate the position (`revision-log.md`, 2026-09-28). - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §2.1, §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet - **Criticism:** `CR-000-X001` — same basis as `CR-000-C002`. No graph has @@ -61,33 +91,65 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Position origin:** source: `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` + (M2 example claims). Verbatim transcription. The transcribing agent did + not originate the position (`revision-log.md`, 2026-09-28). - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet - **Criticism:** `CR-000-X002` — the only criticism CR-000 has received so far is self-authored, which is a weak instance of this claim rather than evidence against it. Not marked `contested`, because the criticism concerns the strength of the evidence for the claim, not the claim's - content. + content. The later independent entries do not change that reading: they + still do not test this claim's content. ## CR-000-C005 -> Research institutions can recursively experiment on their own -> coordination mechanisms. +> A research institution can complete a meta-level cycle on its own +> coordination: observe the research process rather than only its +> object-level conclusions, compare that process against outcomes, and +> on that basis retain, revise, or revert a coordination mechanism. - **State:** conjectural -- **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 (transcribed the prior + wording below). Operative wording above drafted by agent:grok — + 2026-10-05. +- **Position origin:** mixed. The prior wording is source: + `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` (M2 example claims), transcribed + verbatim. The operative wording is not a new empirical position. It is + that sentence sharpened to the meta-level loop in + `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §1, which `manuscript.md` §6 already + applies to this claim. The sharpening text was drafted by agent:grok + under `CR-WP-0005` T01. +- **Formulation:** sharpened under `CR-WP-0005` T01 in response to + `CR-000-X005`, using the reading already in `manuscript.md` §6. Prior + wording: "Research institutions can recursively experiment on their own + coordination mechanisms." The operative wording is an existence claim + about one recorded cycle with all three steps. It does not claim that + the cycle produces better research outcomes than doing the work in one + pass; §6 leaves that comparison open, and it is not part of this claim. + A record supports the claim only when all three steps are present. + Content edits, or plan changes with no comparison against outcomes, do + not qualify. Absence of a qualifying cycle does not contradict an + existence claim. The claim would be contradicted if an attempt showed + that the process cannot be observed apart from its conclusions, or that + a comparison against outcomes cannot be recorded and acted on. Neither + has been shown. No new evidence was added. - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §6 -- **Evidence for/against:** `CR-000-E001` — weakly supports. The - `CR-WP-0002` → `CR-WP-0003` → `CR-WP-0004` sequence is a real instance - of recursive process revision, but confined to one paper, one - human/agent pairing, and one repository's short lifetime. State left - `conjectural`, not upgraded to `supported`, per `CR-000-E001`'s own - assessment. -- **Criticism:** `CR-000-X005` (independent) notes this claim had no - criticism attached prior to `CR-WP-0004`, alongside `CR-000-C001`, as an - example of self-criticism concentrating on infrastructure rather than - substantive claims. No content-level challenge to this specific claim - has been raised yet. +- **Evidence for/against:** `CR-000-E001` bears on this claim and does not + support the operative wording. It reports repeated revision of this + paper's own process and, in the same assessment, says there is no + comparison against outcomes that would distinguish that revision from + ordinary iteration. The compare-against-outcomes step is therefore + unmet. State left `conjectural`. Not upgraded to `supported`, and not + marked `contested`: the evidence fails to qualify; it does not refute + the existence claim. The entry's earlier "weakly supports" sentence + applies only to the prior, broader wording, as its assessment note says. +- **Criticism:** `CR-000-X005` (independent) noted that this claim, like + `CR-000-C001`, had no criticism attached before `CR-WP-0004`. The + response is the operative wording above, not a finding that the claim + is false. No separate argument that the cycle cannot be run has been + raised. ## CR-000-C006 @@ -97,6 +159,12 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** contested - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **Position origin:** mixed. An operational reading of source: + `INTENT.md` principle 9, as sharpened by + `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §10 and stated in `manuscript.md` §3.2. + Those sources are not this sentence verbatim. The paper-local wording + was drafted by agent:claude-sonnet-5; the position was not originated + independently of those sources. - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §3.2 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet. Previously cited `manuscript.md` §3.2/§9 (that M0/M1 needed no database, registry service, or on-chain @@ -121,6 +189,12 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **Position origin:** mixed. Source: `seed/PublicationInterface.md` + (governing rule: the living research graph is canonical, and papers are + import/export containers). `manuscript.md` §8 presents this claim as + that rule restated. The further clause, about not importing conventional + science's internal constraints, is paper-local wording drafted by + agent:claude-sonnet-5, not a separately originated position. - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §8 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet — no P2/P3 adapter behavior has been exercised (CR-000 is P1 only). @@ -133,6 +207,11 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **Position origin:** mixed. Source: `seed/ResearchSignals.md` §1 (no + single signal should stand in for the others) and §5 (no single global + impact score). `manuscript.md` §10 presents this claim as the paper's + endorsement of that principle, narrowed to epistemic support. That + narrowing's wording was drafted by agent:claude-sonnet-5. - **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §10 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet — CR-000 has no attention, influence, reuse, or generativity data (it has not circulated beyond this @@ -155,7 +234,13 @@ justify upgrading either claim to `supported` — no claim in this paper is self-criticism in `CR-WP-0003` missed entirely — two internal-consistency violations (`CR-000-X003`, `CR-000-X004`, both against `CR-000-C006`) and a structural observation that self-criticism had concentrated on -infrastructure rather than claim content (`CR-000-X005`). Mapping the -remaining claims to evidence with the discipline the M2 milestone requires +infrastructure rather than claim content (`CR-000-X005`). `CR-WP-0005` T01 +addresses that formulation gap without upgrading either claim: +`CR-000-C001` is an explicit loose conjecture, and `CR-000-C005` now +states the test already used in `manuscript.md` §6. `CR-000-E001` is not +support for the sharpened wording. `CR-WP-0005` T02 adds `Position origin` +on every entry above; `Added by` remains the drafter/transcriber. +`CR-000-X003` and `CR-000-X004` stay open. Mapping the remaining claims to +evidence with the discipline the M2 milestone requires (`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`, M2 exit criterion) remains unresolved work; see `manuscript.md` §13, Q2. diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/criticism.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/criticism.md index 8e5246e..4fc483d 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/criticism.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/criticism.md @@ -174,11 +174,18 @@ commitment to honest self-assessment implies. - **Critic:** agent:claude-sonnet-5, independent review instance (fresh session, no prior authoring context — see note at top of this file) - **Raised:** 2026-09-29 -- **Resolution state:** open — resolving this requires either sharpening - `CR-000-C001` (and similarly under-specified claims) into a testable - form, or explicitly accepting it as a deliberately loose, exploratory - conjecture and saying so in `claims.md` rather than leaving the - vagueness unaddressed. +- **Resolution state:** resolved — `CR-WP-0005` T01, 2026-10-05, by + agent:grok. The vagueness is no longer unaddressed. `claims.md` marks + `CR-000-C001` as a deliberately loose exploratory conjecture: the + manuscript does not already state a pass/fail test for that sentence, + and §2.2 was not substituted for one. `CR-000-C005` is sharpened to the + meta-level cycle `manuscript.md` §6 already uses (observe the process, + compare it against outcomes, then retain, revise, or revert). Both + remain `conjectural`. `CR-000-E001` is not treated as support for the + sharpened reading, because that entry already says the outcome + comparison is missing. No new evidence was added. The historical point + stands: before `CR-WP-0004`, this file had not questioned whether these + claims were well-formed. ## CR-000-X006 @@ -227,7 +234,17 @@ currently capture that distinction. - **Critic:** agent:claude-sonnet-5, independent review instance (fresh session, no prior authoring context — see note at top of this file) - **Raised:** 2026-09-29 -- **Resolution state:** open, minor priority — resolving this requires - either a richer provenance field distinguishing origination from - transcription, or an explicit note that `Added by` currently means "who - wrote the words," not "who originated the position." +- **Resolution state:** resolved — `CR-WP-0005` T02, 2026-10-05, by + agent:grok. `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4 now states that + `Added by` means who transcribed or drafted the entry text, not who + originated the position and not who approved the commit. Each + `claims.md` entry has a `Position origin` field (`source`, `actor`, or + `mixed`). On the record, `CR-000-C001`–`CR-000-C005` are transcriptions + of `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`'s M2 example list + (`revision-log.md`, 2026-09-28), not positions the transcribing agent + originated. This entry's examples of independent agent synthesis + (`CR-000-C001`, `CR-000-C005`) are not what that log shows; the missing + distinction is what made them look that way. `CR-000-C006`–`CR-000-C008` + are `mixed`: `INTENT.md` or seed positions, with paper-local wording + drafted by agent:claude-sonnet-5. No origin was guessed where the files + do not say. diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/evidence.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/evidence.md index 9cfa598..01a2f80 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/evidence.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/evidence.md @@ -15,8 +15,10 @@ as preliminary, not conclusive. ## CR-000-E001 -**Bears on:** `CR-000-C005` (research institutions can recursively -experiment on their own coordination mechanisms) +**Bears on:** `CR-000-C005` (a research institution can complete a +meta-level cycle on its own coordination: observe the research process +rather than only its object-level conclusions, compare that process against outcomes, +and on that basis retain, revise, or revert a coordination mechanism) **Observation:** The workplan sequence `CR-WP-0001` → `CR-WP-0002` → `CR-WP-0003` → `CR-WP-0004` is itself a recorded instance of RP-000 @@ -38,14 +40,22 @@ become live, rather than folding it silently into `CR-WP-0003`. `workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md`, `workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md`. -**Assessment:** Weakly supports `CR-000-C005`. It shows recursive -revision *did* occur at least three times in sequence. It does not show -this generalizes beyond a single paper produced by a single human/agent -pairing within one repository's lifetime — there is no cross-program, -cross-institution, or long-horizon instance yet, and no counterfactual -showing this differs from ordinary iterative project management under -another name. `CR-000-C005` remains `conjectural` in `claims.md`, not -`supported`, pending a broader or longer-running instance. +**Assessment:** Weakly supports the broad wording `CR-000-C005` had before +2026-10-05 ("research institutions can recursively experiment on their own +coordination mechanisms"). It shows recursive revision *did* occur at +least three times in sequence. It does not show this generalizes beyond a +single paper produced by a single human/agent pairing within one +repository's lifetime — there is no cross-program, cross-institution, or +long-horizon instance yet, and no counterfactual showing this differs from +ordinary iterative project management under another name. The claim was +left `conjectural` in `claims.md`, not `supported`. + +**Assessment note (2026-10-05, agent:grok, `CR-WP-0005` T01):** The +operative wording of `CR-000-C005` is now the three-step cycle in the +Bears-on line. This observation does not satisfy the comparison against +outcomes, which the assessment above already says is missing. It is +not support for the sharpened claim. The observation itself is unchanged, +and no new evidence is added here. **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/manuscript.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/manuscript.md index 5c5bfca..c9383dd 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/manuscript.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/manuscript.md @@ -195,8 +195,13 @@ happened, because no external criticism has been solicited (§11, §12). ## 6. Recursive self-improvement -`CR-000-C005` (research institutions can recursively experiment on their -own coordination mechanisms) is this section's subject. The meta-level loop +`CR-000-C005` is this section's subject. `claims.md` sharpens it +(`CR-WP-0005` T01) to a testable reading of the meta-level loop below, +rather than leaving only the broader M2 sentence ("research institutions +can recursively experiment on their own coordination mechanisms"). The +comparative question at the end of this section — whether plan, defer, +and revisit produces better outcomes than one pass — stays outside the +claim. The meta-level loop in `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §1 asks whether the research *process* itself — not just its object-level conclusions — is observed, compared against outcomes, and revised. RP-000 @@ -240,7 +245,12 @@ independently checkable rather than only asserted here. `CR-000-C001` (AI reduces the need for several historically human-mediated coordination functions) is directly at issue in this section's own production process, but one paper's authorship split is far too small a sample to bear on -`CR-000-C001` as stated — no claim of support is made here. +`CR-000-C001` as stated — no claim of support is made here. This section +does not define "several" or those coordination functions, and §2.2's +related cost-structure conjecture is not a pass/fail test of this +sentence. `claims.md` therefore marks `CR-000-C001` as a deliberately loose +exploratory conjecture (`CR-000-X005`) rather than rewriting it into a +test this authorship split could pass. ## 8. Interoperability with conventional science @@ -382,9 +392,13 @@ violated the paper's stated labeling convention by asserting an unlabeled generalization the evidence did not support (`CR-000-X006`, addressed in the Abstract above) — a discipline lapse in the one section most readers take at face value. None of `CR-000-X003`–`CR-000-X006` are -resolved by this manuscript revision; they are recorded as open in +resolved by this manuscript revision; they were recorded as open in `criticism.md` and carried forward, per `CR-WP-0004`'s remaining tasks and -its own next-milestone handoff. +its own next-milestone handoff. A later pass (`CR-WP-0005` T01) addresses +only the formulation gap `CR-000-X005` named, in `claims.md`: `CR-000-C001` +is marked a deliberately loose exploratory conjecture, and `CR-000-C005` +is given the testable reading §6 already uses. That does not resolve +`CR-000-X003`, `CR-000-X004`, or `CR-000-X006`. ## 12. Initial experiments @@ -409,7 +423,10 @@ section can point to rather than only describe: left `conjectural` rather than inflated to `supported` — a small test of whether this paper's own claim/evidence discipline (§4.3, `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §5) resists the temptation to - overclaim once real evidence exists to point to. + overclaim once real evidence exists to point to. A later sharpening of + `CR-000-C005` (`CR-WP-0005` T01) records that `CR-000-E001` does not + meet the outcome-comparison step that entry already said was missing, + so it is not support for the sharpened claim. 3. **A minimal response to `CR-000-X001`.** `scripts/query_paper_graph.py` parses the `Bears on:`/`Challenges:`/`Evidence for/against:`/ `Criticism:` fields in `claims.md`, `evidence.md`, and `criticism.md` diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/revision-log.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/revision-log.md index 0242c67..8cd8f56 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/revision-log.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/revision-log.md @@ -80,3 +80,27 @@ rather than edited in place in their source files. gaining support. No claim in `claims.md` reached `supported` in this revision — the evidentiary bar was deliberately not lowered to produce one. + +## 2026-10-05 — Formulation of C001/C005; claim position origin + +- **Actor:** agent:grok +- **Change:** Responded to `CR-000-X005` without new evidence and without + upgrading any claim. `CR-000-C001` is marked in `claims.md` as a + deliberately loose exploratory conjecture: `manuscript.md` §7 does not + state a pass/fail test, and §2.2's related conjecture was not adopted as + one. `CR-000-C005`'s operative wording is the meta-level cycle §6 + already uses (observe the process, compare it against outcomes, then + retain, revise, or revert). The prior M2 sentence is retained as prior + wording. State of both claims stays `conjectural`. `CR-000-E001`'s + assessment note records that the existing observation does not meet the + outcome-comparison step and is not support for the sharpened wording. + Responded to `CR-000-X007`: `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4 now + states that `Added by` means the drafter or transcriber, not the + originator of the position and not the commit approver, and each claim + has a `Position origin`. `CR-000-C001`–`CR-000-C005` are transcriptions + of the M2 example list; `CR-000-C006`–`CR-000-C008` are mixed + source-plus-paper-local wording. `CR-000-X005` and `CR-000-X007` are + `resolved`. `CR-000-X003`, `CR-000-X004`, and `CR-000-X006` remain open. +- **Context:** Implements `workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md` + tasks T01 and T02 only. T03 (organizationally independent review) was + not simulated. T04 stays waiting. The workplan is not finished. diff --git a/workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md b/workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md index ffa701f..45a4bf1 100644 --- a/workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md +++ b/workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ status: blocked owner: codex topic_slug: coulomb-social created: "2026-09-29" -updated: "2026-09-29" +updated: "2026-10-05" origin: residual origin_ref: CR-WP-0004 state_hub_workstream_id: "9e7bf9d6-2e32-5ea7-87c7-65f5e1ec0db5" @@ -26,7 +26,9 @@ self-criticism had missed, and left several items open: `CR-000-X001` (document-centrism), `CR-000-X003`/`CR-000-X004` (`CR-000-C006`'s withdrawn evidence, no replacement yet), `CR-000-X005` (unfalsifiable phrasing in `CR-000-C001`/`CR-000-C005`), and `CR-000-X007` -(provenance field conflation, minor). +(provenance field conflation, minor). T01 and T02 (2026-10-05) address +`CR-000-X005` and `CR-000-X007`. `CR-000-X001`, `CR-000-X003`, +`CR-000-X004`, and `CR-000-X006` remain open. T03 and T04 are not done. `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` M3 (register CR-001) is the next milestone in sequence, but this workplan judges it premature to start @@ -46,7 +48,7 @@ This workplan is scoped to close that gap before M3 is evaluated again. ```task id: CR-WP-0005-T01 -status: todo +status: done priority: medium state_hub_task_id: "519fe130-c81b-5ad6-b120-869e06572586" ``` @@ -63,7 +65,7 @@ state for `CR-000-X005` accordingly. ```task id: CR-WP-0005-T02 -status: todo +status: done priority: low state_hub_task_id: "18572e28-45c5-549e-b431-7df06ba2d8a2" ```