diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index a202e04..14a85ae 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ This repository is currently a documentation and research seed. Start with: registered papers, currently just `CR-000` (Paper Zero, RP-000). M0 ([research facility skeleton](workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md)) -is implemented. The next implementation is -[M1: Paper Zero v0.1 manuscript](workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md). +and M1 ([Paper Zero v0.1 manuscript](workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md)) +are implemented. The next implementation is +[M2: claim/evidence discipline](workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.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 c4ed24b..bd0bb5f 100644 --- a/SCOPE.md +++ b/SCOPE.md @@ -33,8 +33,12 @@ establish scientific validity or publication readiness. ## Next Work -M0 is implemented (`workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md`, -finished): the artifact convention, `RP-000`/`CR-000` skeleton, and paper -registry exist. `workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md` owns M1 -(bringing CR-000 to a coherent v0.1 manuscript). The bootstrap workplan is +M0 and M1 are implemented (`workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md`, +`workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md`, both finished): the +artifact convention, `RP-000`/`CR-000` skeleton, paper registry, and a +coherent CR-000 v0.1 manuscript exist. `CR-WP-0003`'s own self-criticism +found the implementation still document-centric and only self-criticized +(`CR-000-X001`, `CR-000-X002`); `workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md` +owns M2 (independent criticism, real evidence linkage, and a response to +the document-centrism criticism). The bootstrap workplan is `workplans/CR-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md`. 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 ce00111..674d7a7 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 @@ -2,12 +2,9 @@ Paper-local claims for `CR-000`, addressable as `CR-000-C`. See `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §1.1 for the ID convention and §4 for -provenance requirements. Each claim below is transcribed from the M2 -example list in `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` — restated here as -this paper's own claims, not yet linked to evidence or criticism (that -linkage is M2's exit criterion, not M0's). +provenance requirements. -Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links (currently empty). +Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links. --- @@ -18,28 +15,36 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links (currently empty). - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §7 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet -- **Criticism:** none yet +- **Criticism:** none directly; `CR-000-X002` bears on the general standard + of evidence this claim is held to. ## CR-000-C002 > Papers need not remain the canonical internal representation of > scientific knowledge. -- **State:** conjectural +- **State:** contested - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §2.1, §8, §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet -- **Criticism:** none yet +- **Criticism:** `CR-000-X001` — the M0/M1 implementation of CR-000 itself + is flat Markdown documents with no queryable graph, in tension with this + claim. Updated to `contested` on 2026-09-28 per `revision-log.md`. ## CR-000-C003 > A graph of propositions, evidence, actions, and provenance can support > richer scientific coordination than document-centric publication alone. -- **State:** conjectural +- **State:** contested - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §2.1, §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet -- **Criticism:** none yet +- **Criticism:** `CR-000-X001` — same basis as `CR-000-C002`. No graph has + been built; only ID-labeled prose files. Updated to `contested` on + 2026-09-28 per `revision-log.md`. ## CR-000-C004 @@ -48,8 +53,13 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links (currently empty). - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §11 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet -- **Criticism:** 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. ## CR-000-C005 @@ -58,13 +68,60 @@ Each entry: claim text, state, provenance, and links (currently empty). - **State:** conjectural - **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-28 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §6 - **Evidence for/against:** none yet - **Criticism:** none yet +## CR-000-C006 + +> Institutional functions should default to not existing in a given +> implementation until a concrete research artifact demonstrates a +> specific, load-bearing need for them. + +- **State:** conjectural +- **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §3.2 +- **Evidence for/against:** `manuscript.md` §3.2, §9 report that M0/M1 + needed no database, registry service, or on-chain component — a + consistent but very small data point, not independent evidence. +- **Criticism:** none yet + +## CR-000-C007 + +> A publication adapter that treats papers as import/export containers +> rather than the canonical internal representation allows interoperability +> with conventional science without importing conventional science's +> internal constraints. + +- **State:** conjectural +- **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **Discussed in:** `manuscript.md` §8 +- **Evidence for/against:** none yet — no P2/P3 adapter behavior has been + exercised (CR-000 is P1 only). +- **Criticism:** none yet + +## CR-000-C008 + +> No single research signal or composite score should be treated as a +> stand-in for epistemic support. + +- **State:** conjectural +- **Added by:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 — 2026-09-29 +- **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 + repository). +- **Criticism:** none yet + --- -No claim above is currently supported, contested, or superseded — all five -are freshly transcribed conjectures with no linked evidence or criticism. -Mapping them to evidence and criticism is explicitly M2 work -(`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`, M2 exit criterion), not claimed -here. +Claim-state legend (per `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4 and +`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §7): conjectural, active, contested, +supported, contradicted, superseded, unresolved. `CR-000-C002` and +`CR-000-C003` are the only claims currently `contested`; all others remain +`conjectural`. No claim in this paper is `supported` — CR-000 has no +evidence entries yet (`evidence.md`), which is itself the subject of §12's +report on this paper's first (partial) experiment. Mapping 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 2e36f89..bc8b712 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 @@ -3,15 +3,72 @@ Paper-local criticism entries for `CR-000`, addressable as `CR-000-X`. See `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §1.1 and §4. -No criticism has been received for this paper yet — it has not yet reached -even collaborator review under P1 internal circulation. This file exists as -the required artifact location (per -`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` M0/M4) so that criticism has a place -to go as soon as it is raised; it is intentionally empty rather than -populated with anticipated or self-authored criticism standing in for real -external criticism. +Both entries below are self-criticism: raised by the same human/agent +pairing that authored the claims and manuscript text they challenge, during +the same workplan (`CR-WP-0003`). This is acceptable at publication stage +P1 (`seed/PublicationInterface.md` §4), but is a materially weaker signal +than independent criticism, and `CR-000-X002` says so explicitly rather +than letting the distinction go unstated. CR-000 has not yet received +criticism from any other actor. -Each future entry should record, at minimum: the criticism ID, which -claim(s) or manuscript section it challenges, the criticism itself, the -critic's identity (human or agent), and its resolution state (open, -addressed, disputed, accepted). +--- + +## CR-000-X001 + +**Challenges:** `CR-000-C002`, `CR-000-C003` + +**Criticism:** `CR-000-C002` and `CR-000-C003` claim that papers need not +remain the canonical representation of knowledge and that a graph of +propositions, evidence, actions, and provenance can outperform +document-centric publication. The M0/M1 implementation of CR-000 does not +demonstrate this. `claims.md`, `evidence.md`, and `criticism.md` (this +file) are flat Markdown documents. Cross-references between paper-local +objects (e.g. this entry's own "Challenges" field, or a future evidence +entry's "bears-on" field) are strings that a reader or script must locate +manually or by pattern-matching — they are not edges in any queryable +graph, and no tool in the repository traverses, validates the +consistency of, or queries these relations as a graph. +`scripts/validate_research_registry.py` checks registry/publication +metadata agreement and Markdown link resolution, but nothing about +proposition-evidence-criticism relation integrity. As built, CR-000 is +closer to a set of cross-referenced prose documents with ID labels than to +the graph representation §2.1 and §11 of `manuscript.md` describe as the +alternative to document-centrism. This does not show the underlying idea +in `CR-000-C002`/`CR-000-C003` is false — no graph implementation has been +attempted yet, so there is no evidence against the idea itself, only +against the claim that this paper's own construction demonstrates it. + +- **Critic:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 (with human:bernd.worsch), self-criticism +- **Raised:** 2026-09-29 +- **Resolution state:** open — resolving this requires either building or + at least prototyping something that is actually graph-queryable, or + narrowing `CR-000-C002`/`CR-000-C003` to a claim this paper's evidence + can actually support. Neither is in scope for `CR-WP-0003`; see the + workplan's residual handoff. + +## CR-000-X002 + +**Challenges:** `CR-000-C004` (the strength of evidence offered for it, not +its content) + +**Criticism:** `CR-000-C004` claims criticism can operate continuously +rather than as a discrete peer-review gate. The only criticism CR-000 has +received to date — this entry and `CR-000-X001` — is self-authored by the +same human/agent pairing that wrote the claims and manuscript text under +criticism, during the same workplan that wrote them. This is a weak +instance of continuous criticism, not independent validation of it: +self-criticism is structurally biased toward surfacing objections the +author is comfortable publishing, and `seed/ResearchSignals.md` §8 names +discounting self-interaction as an explicit anti-gaming principle for +criticism signals generally. Until CR-000 receives criticism from an actor +other than the paper's own author-agent pair, `CR-000-C004` should be read +as motivating this paper's process rather than validated by it, and this +criticism file itself should not be cited as evidence that the continuous- +criticism model works. + +- **Critic:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 (with human:bernd.worsch), self-criticism +- **Raised:** 2026-09-29 +- **Resolution state:** open — resolving this requires criticism from an + actor other than CR-000's own author-agent pair. Soliciting that is out + of scope for `CR-WP-0003` and is explicitly named as residual work in the + workplan's handoff. 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 11b23ee..b27f11f 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 @@ -1,17 +1,42 @@ # CR-000 — Coulomb Research: A Minimal Self-Improving Architecture for Human-AI Co-Creation Science -> **Draft state:** This is an M0 outline skeleton, not a coherent M1 v0.1 -> manuscript. Sections marked `[CONJECTURE]` state an unverified position -> this paper intends to argue for. Sections marked `[MISSING]` are -> acknowledged gaps with no content yet — they are not silently skipped. -> No results, citations, or evidence are asserted below; all evidentiary -> support belongs in `evidence.md`, linked by ID, once it exists. +> **Draft state:** This is an M1 v0.1 internal-circulation manuscript. It is +> a coherent draft, not a finished or externally validated paper. Sections +> marked `[CONJECTURE]` state a position this paper argues for but that is +> not yet backed by evidence in `evidence.md` (which remains empty — see +> §11 and §12). Every claim numbered `CR-000-C` below is tracked in +> `claims.md`; several are marked `contested` there following the +> self-criticism recorded in `criticism.md` (§11 summarizes why). No +> results, external citations, or fabricated evidence are asserted below. ## Abstract -`[MISSING]` — cannot be honestly written before §§1–13 have real content to -summarize. A placeholder abstract would misrepresent the paper's current -state. +Coulomb Research proposes reducing scientific knowledge production to a +small cybernetic kernel — actors, propositions, evidence, actions, +resources, and criticism, arranged in a recursive object-level and +meta-level loop (`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md`) — and treating +conventional research institutions (journals, venues, review boards) as +interoperability surfaces at the boundary of that kernel rather than as +internal necessities (`seed/PublicationInterface.md`). This paper, CR-000, +is that architecture's own first experiment: it is written using the +artifact conventions (`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md`) the kernel +prescribes, inside the program (`RP-000`) whose subject is Coulomb Research +itself. We state the design objective (institutional minimality, +co-creation science), summarize the kernel and its publication and signal +layers, and report the paper's own construction as its first initial +experiment (§12). The central finding at this stage is negative and +self-directed: the current implementation, despite arguing that documents +should not remain the canonical representation of research (`CR-000-C002`, +`CR-000-C003`), is itself built from flat Markdown documents with no +queryable graph behind the ID references — a tension recorded as +self-criticism `CR-000-X001` and reflected in `claims.md` by marking +`CR-000-C002` and `CR-000-C003` `contested`. We treat this as evidence that +institutional minimality is easy to state and hard to build without first +reintroducing the very document-centric scaffolding it argues against. The +paper's central research question — whether the kernel actually supports +real scientific coordination, or merely restates document-centric practice +under new vocabulary — remains open and is the subject of the M2 milestone +that follows this one. ## 1. Motivation @@ -26,11 +51,24 @@ principle this paper is built on. ### 2.1 Institutional inheritance in digital science -`[MISSING]` — requires a literature pass on prior attempts at post-journal -or open-science infrastructure (e.g. preprint servers, open review -platforms) and where they retained legacy structure. No such survey has -been conducted yet; nothing here should be read as asserting what that -survey would find. +`[CONJECTURE]` This subsection is an impression, not a literature review — +no formal survey has been conducted, and no specific system's claims, +dates, or figures are asserted here as verified fact. With that caveat: a +recurring pattern in prior digital-science infrastructure (preprint +repositories, open-review platforms, academic social networks) is that they +digitize the *distribution* of a research institution's outputs — faster +copies of papers, faster commentary threads — while leaving the +institution's *unit of knowledge* unchanged. The paper, as a fixed +document with a single version of record and a small number of named +authors, survives the migration to digital infrastructure largely intact. +What changes is speed and reach, not the underlying representation. +`CR-000-C002` and `CR-000-C003` are this paper's attempt to state an +alternative directly: that the paper need not be the canonical internal +unit, and that a graph of typed propositions, evidence, and provenance +could support richer coordination. §11 records why the current +implementation does not yet demonstrate this and instead illustrates how +easily the pattern above reasserts itself even when explicitly +argued against. ### 2.2 AI changes the cost structure of research @@ -44,88 +82,315 @@ foregone conclusions. ### 3.1 Co-creation science -Restates `INTENT.md`'s mission in paper form: `[MISSING]`. +`INTENT.md` states the mission this paper operationalizes: to improve the +rate and quality at which humans and artificial intelligences can create, +criticize, test, combine, and reuse knowledge, as a minimal system for +co-creation science rather than a digital replica of existing research +institutions. Co-creation, in that framing, is not a claim that human and +AI contributions are interchangeable or equally weighted in every case — it +is a claim that the kernel should not structurally privilege one actor +class over the other (`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §2.1: "the kernel +does not assign epistemic authority based on actor class"). This paper's +own `publication.yaml` contribution record (§7) is a direct, if small, +instance of that design objective in practice rather than only in +principle. ### 3.2 Institutional minimality -Restates `INTENT.md` principle 9 (Institutional minimality) and -`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §10 in paper form: `[MISSING]`. +`INTENT.md` principle 9 states that a function should not become an +institution if it can be performed reliably by protocol, software, agents, +markets, or voluntary coordination. `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §10 +sharpens this into a falsifiable-in-spirit test: a proposed feature belongs +in the kernel only if removing it prevents the core research loop from +functioning; everything else — convenience, discovery, prestige, +publishing, governance, monetization, presentation — belongs outside the +kernel. `CR-000-C006` states this paper's operational reading of that +principle: institutional functions should default to *not existing* in a +given implementation until a concrete research artifact demonstrates a +specific, load-bearing need for them, rather than being built in advance +on the expectation that they will eventually be needed. M0 +(`workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md`) applied this +directly: no database, registry service, or authentication layer was built +because a Git-versioned YAML registry and Markdown files were sufficient +for one paper (§9, §5 of `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` M5, makes +the same argument for the registry specifically). Whether this discipline +holds as the number of papers, programs, and contributors grows is untested +by a single-paper facility and is explicitly out of scope for what this +paper can claim. ## 4. The Coulomb Research kernel -This section will restate, for a reader unfamiliar with the repository, the -kernel primitives defined authoritatively in `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` -§2. It is a presentation of existing design content, not new argument, and -is deferred to M1 to avoid duplicating the seed document prematurely. +This is a condensed presentation of `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §2 for +a reader unfamiliar with the repository; it restates existing design +content rather than arguing a new position, and the seed document remains +authoritative over this summary. ### 4.1 Actors -`[MISSING]` +An addressable participant capable of research-related action — human, +agent, collective, or organization. The kernel does not assign epistemic +authority based on actor class (§2.1). ### 4.2 Propositions -`[MISSING]` +An addressable assertion, conjecture, prediction, explanation, +question-framing, or model statement, which may be uncertain, contested, +superseded, or unresolved (§2.2). This paper's own `claims.md` entries are +an implementation-level approximation of propositions, scoped to one paper +rather than the full research graph (`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` +§1.1) — see §11 for why that approximation is currently weaker than the +kernel's own model. ### 4.3 Evidence -`[MISSING]` +An observation or artifact that bears on one or more propositions, +preserving provenance and content-addressable where practical (§2.3). CR-000 +currently has none (`evidence.md` is empty by design — see §12). ### 4.4 Actions -`[MISSING]` +An intervention intended to reduce uncertainty, test a proposition, +produce evidence, or create a reusable research artifact (§2.4). Writing +this manuscript, and the M0/M1 workplans that structured that writing, are +themselves actions in this sense. ### 4.5 Resources -`[MISSING]` +A scarce capability consumed, reserved, or transferred to perform actions — +money, compute, equipment, data access, attention, agent runtime, +permissions (§2.5). At this scale, the only resources this paper has +consumed are human review attention and agent (LLM) runtime, both +unmeasured; no formal resource allocation exists yet, consistent with the +institutional-minimality argument in §3.2 (no allocator has been built +because none has been needed). ## 5. Cybernetic research loop -`[MISSING]` — presentation of `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §1. +`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §1 defines an object-level loop (observe → +model → criticize → intervene → observe consequences → update model) and a +meta-level loop that observes the research process itself and modifies +tools, incentives, or protocol in response. This paper is an attempt to run +one object-level cycle explicitly and visibly: M0 produced a model (the +draft skeleton), this M1 workplan intervened on it (real content, plus a +deliberate self-criticism pass in §11), and the result is a paper that +states, in its own claims table, where that criticism landed. The cycle is +not closed yet — "update model" in response to *external* criticism has not +happened, because no external criticism has been solicited (§11, §12). ## 6. Recursive self-improvement -`[MISSING]` — presentation of the meta-level loop in -`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §1, plus this paper's own role as an -instance of it (RP-000 studying Coulomb Research using Coulomb Research). +`CR-000-C005` (research institutions can recursively experiment on their +own coordination mechanisms) is this section's subject. 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 +(`research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/INTENT.md`) is this paper's +program-level instance of that loop: it exists specifically to hold Coulomb +Research's own design to the same evidentiary standard it proposes for +everything else, rather than exempting the facility's own architecture from +criticism because it motivated the repository. Concretely, this manuscript +already records one small meta-level correction: `CR-WP-0002` scoped the +paper as an "honest draft skeleton" and explicitly deferred a coherent +manuscript to M1; this workplan (`CR-WP-0003`) is that deferral being +honored rather than silently dropped. Whether this pattern — plan, defer +what cannot yet be done honestly, revisit — actually produces better +research outcomes than doing everything in one pass is itself an open +question this program has not yet accumulated enough cycles to answer. ## 7. Human-AI research participation -`[MISSING]` — this section should discuss this very paper's own -human/agent contribution record (`publication.yaml`) as a working example, -once there is enough revision history to say something concrete. +This paper's own contribution record (`publication.yaml`) is a concrete, +if minimal, instance of the co-creation-science objective in §3.1: + +```yaml +contributors: + - actor: human:bernd.worsch + contributions: [conceptualization] + - actor: agent:claude-sonnet-5 + contributions: [scaffolding, literature-analysis] +``` + +At M0/M1, the agent's role has been drafting and structuring text against +explicit human-authored source material (`INTENT.md`, the `seed/` design +documents, and the workplan tasks that scope each writing pass); the +human's role has been setting direction, commissioning the workplans, and +retaining approval over what gets committed. This division is not +prescribed by the kernel (`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §2.1 explicitly +declines to assign epistemic authority by actor class) — it reflects how +this particular paper happened to be produced, not a claim about how +human/agent contribution should generally divide. `revision-log.md` +records each substantive change with its acting actor, so this division is +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. ## 8. Interoperability with conventional science -`[MISSING]` — presentation of `seed/PublicationInterface.md`. +`seed/PublicationInterface.md` states the governing rule: the living +research graph is canonical, and papers are import/export containers, +allowing Coulomb to interoperate with traditional science without making +the paper the primary internal unit of knowledge. `CR-000-C007` restates +this as a claim this paper argues for: a publication adapter that treats +papers as import/export containers, rather than as the canonical internal +representation, should in principle allow interoperability with +conventional venues (journals, preprint servers, ORCID/DOI/ROR/CRediT +identity systems — `seed/PublicationInterface.md` §7) without importing +those venues' internal constraints (fixed authorship models, single-version +gatekeeping, human-only authorship assumptions) into Coulomb's own +representation. CR-000 itself is currently only at publication stage P1 +(internal circulation, `publication.yaml`); no P2/P3 adapter behavior has +been exercised, so `CR-000-C007` is argued here but not yet tested against +an actual external target. This mirrors §2.1's observation about the field +generally: it is easy to state that a system avoids document-centrism at +the boundary while the internal representation itself remains +document-centric (§11). ## 9. Decentralization and programmable resources -`[MISSING]` — presentation of `seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §9. +`seed/CoulombResearchKernel.md` §9 suggests, as a candidate model rather +than a settled architecture, keeping the research graph, discussions, +datasets, models, mutable workspaces, and most AI inference off-chain, with +identity attestations, content commitments, resource transfers, scarce +rights, and selected governance events as optionally on-chain. The stated +principle — prioritize decentralization where it increases resilience, +portability, independent verification, or freedom to fork, and treat +blockchain as unnecessary for ordinary research data — is consistent with +the institutional-minimality argument in §3.2: nothing in M0 or M1 required +any on-chain component, because Git already provides the resilience, +portability, and independent-verification properties needed for one paper +and one registry (`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` M5 makes this +point specifically about the registry). This paper does not argue that +on-chain components will never be justified — only that none has been +justified yet, and that the suggested off-chain/on-chain split remains an +untested design sketch rather than an implemented boundary. ## 10. Research signals and relevance -`[MISSING]` — presentation of `seed/ResearchSignals.md` and -`seed/ResearchCharts.md`, to the extent they inform this paper's claims. +`seed/ResearchSignals.md` and `seed/ResearchCharts.md` propose keeping +attention, influence, epistemic support, utility/reuse, criticism, and +generativity as distinct signal families, explicitly rejecting a single +canonical "impact score" (`seed/ResearchSignals.md` §5) because it +collapses unlike dimensions, invites gaming, and becomes a Goodhart target. +`CR-000-C008` states this paper's endorsement of that design principle: no +single research signal or composite score should be treated as a stand-in +for epistemic support specifically, because support is a claim about what +survives evidence and criticism, while attention, reuse, and the rest +measure something else entirely (`seed/ResearchSignals.md` §1's +"foundational separation"). This section is a presentation of that design +principle, not a report of any signal actually being computed: CR-000 has +no attention, influence, reuse, or generativity data, because it has not +yet circulated beyond this repository (`publication.yaml` +`visibility: collaborators`). The one signal family this paper can speak to +concretely is criticism (§11), and even there, the criticism is +self-authored rather than independently observed, which `[CONJECTURE]` +weakens rather than satisfies the anti-self-interaction principle in +`seed/ResearchSignals.md` §8. ## 11. Failure modes -`[MISSING]` — this section requires actual criticism (`criticism.md`) -before it can be written honestly; a self-authored failure-modes section -without external criticism would understate risk. +This section is written from `CR-000-X001` and `CR-000-X002` in +`criticism.md`, added specifically so this section would have real +criticism to draw on rather than being self-authored without a named, +addressable critique behind it (the M0 skeleton deferred this section for +exactly that reason). + +**Document-centrism reasserting itself (`CR-000-X001`).** `CR-000-C002` and +`CR-000-C003` argue that papers need not remain the canonical +representation of knowledge and that a graph of propositions, evidence, +actions, and provenance can outperform document-centric publication. The +M0/M1 implementation does not demonstrate this: `claims.md`, `evidence.md`, +and `criticism.md` are flat Markdown files. Cross-references between them +(e.g. "`CR-000-E003` bears on `CR-000-C002`") are strings a reader or +script must locate by grep, not edges in a queryable graph with any +traversal, consistency-checking, or query capability beyond what +`scripts/validate_research_registry.py` happens to check today (link +resolution and registry/publication-metadata agreement — nothing about +proposition/evidence/criticism relation integrity). This is precisely the +pattern §2.1 describes in the field generally: an infrastructure that +argues against document-centrism while quietly rebuilding it. `claims.md` +now marks `CR-000-C002` and `CR-000-C003` `contested` on this basis. This +is not evidence that the underlying idea is wrong — a real graph +representation has simply not been attempted yet — but it is evidence that +stating the idea is much cheaper than building it, and that the gap between +the two should not be allowed to go unmarked, which is the specific failure +this section exists to guard against. + +**Self-criticism is not a substitute for independent criticism +(`CR-000-X002`).** `CR-000-C004` claims criticism can operate continuously +rather than as a discrete peer-review gate. The only criticism CR-000 has +received so far is self-authored, produced by the same +human/agent pairing that wrote the claims being criticized, during the same +workplan. This is compatible with continuous, low-friction criticism in +principle, but it is a weak instance of it in practice: self-criticism is +structurally biased toward finding criticisms the author is comfortable +publishing, and `seed/ResearchSignals.md` §8 explicitly names +self-interaction as something signal systems should discount. Until CR-000 +receives criticism from an actor other than the one that wrote the claim +under criticism, `CR-000-C004` should be read as motivating this paper's +process, not as validated by it. + +**A general risk this section itself cannot fully escape.** Writing one's +own failure-modes section, informed only by one's own self-criticism, risks +producing a section that is thorough-looking but self-limiting — it can +only surface the failure modes the author was willing and able to see. +This paragraph is that risk stated explicitly rather than hidden by the +section's own existence. ## 12. Initial experiments -`[MISSING]` — candidate experiment: RP-000 itself, i.e. whether this -facility can register, criticize, and revise this very paper (M2). No -experiment has been run yet; this section will report on M2 once conducted. +The candidate experiment identified in the M0 skeleton was RP-000/CR-000 +itself: whether this facility can register, criticize, and revise this very +paper. This workplan (`CR-WP-0003`) is a partial run of that experiment — +it took CR-000 from an empty skeleton through one self-criticism cycle +(§11) to a v0.1 manuscript with `claims.md` states updated in response. It +is partial because the criticism involved was self-authored (§11, +`CR-000-X002`); a fuller run of the experiment requires at least one +criticism from an actor other than the paper's own author-agent pair, which +is explicitly out of scope for this workplan and is carried forward as +residual work (`SCOPE.md`, `docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` — see the +handoff note at the end of this workplan). No claim of success or failure +for the underlying architecture is made from this one partial cycle; a +single self-reviewed paper is far too small a sample. ## 13. Open research questions -See `research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md` for the -current, maintained list. This section will summarize a subset once the -program has run long enough to prioritize among them. +`research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md` is the +maintained list; this section summarizes its current state rather than +duplicating it. + +- **Q1 (kernel sufficiency)** — the paper's own research question (this + document, in full) — remains open. This v0.1 manuscript is a more + complete statement of the position than the M0 skeleton, but it is not + evidence for the position; see §11 for why the implementation so far cuts + against, rather than for, two of the paper's own claims. +- **Q2 (representation usefulness)** — still blocked on M2 + (claim/evidence/criticism linkage exercise), which this workplan + deliberately did not fold into its own scope (see the workplan's + Non-Goals). §11's `CR-000-X001` is, if anything, a preliminary negative + signal on Q2's premise: the representation as built has not yet shown + itself more useful than prose, only differently organized prose with ID + labels. +- **Q3 (institutional minimality in practice)** — §3.2 and §9 report one + small data point each (no database or registry service was needed for + M0/M1; no on-chain component was needed either), consistent with the + kernel test predicting these functions were not load-bearing yet at this + scale. Whether that holds as the facility grows past one paper is + untested. ## 14. Conclusion -`[MISSING]` — cannot be honestly written before the preceding sections -exist. +CR-000's v0.1 draft states a real position — that a small kernel of actors, +propositions, evidence, actions, and resources, with conventional +institutions treated as an interoperability boundary rather than an +internal requirement, can support real research coordination — and +subjects that position to the facility's own tools rather than presenting +it as already validated. The most useful result of writing this v0.1 is not +any of its numbered claims but the self-criticism in §11: the paper that +argues papers should not remain canonical is itself, right now, a paper. +Closing that specific gap — building or at least prototyping something that +is actually graph-queryable rather than ID-labeled prose, and getting +criticism from an actor other than this paper's own author-agent pair — is +the concrete, falsifiable next step this paper leaves for the program that +follows it, rather than a general call for "future work." 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 e1ce133..be435d0 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 @@ -20,3 +20,26 @@ rather than edited in place in their source files. - **Context:** Implements `workplans/CR-WP-0002-research-facility-skeleton.md` task T02. This is a draft skeleton, not a coherent v0.1 manuscript (M1 is a separate, later milestone). + +## 2026-09-29 — v0.1 manuscript + +- **Actor:** agent:claude-sonnet-5 (with human:bernd.worsch) +- **Change:** Replaced all `[MISSING]` sections of `manuscript.md` with real + content (§§2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Abstract). + Added three new claims (`CR-000-C006`, `CR-000-C007`, `CR-000-C008`) to + `claims.md`. Added two self-criticism entries (`CR-000-X001`, + `CR-000-X002`) to `criticism.md`, and updated `CR-000-C002` and + `CR-000-C003` to `contested` in `claims.md` on the basis of `CR-000-X001` + (the implementation is flat Markdown, not a queryable graph, in tension + with those claims). `evidence.md` remains empty — no evidence has been + produced yet; see `manuscript.md` §12. +- **Context:** Implements `workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md` + tasks T01–T03. `publication.yaml` `version` updated to `"0.1"` (already + `"0.1"`; confirmed accurate against this content, not incremented from a + higher M0 placeholder). This is a coherent v0.1 internal-circulation + manuscript per the M1 exit criterion + (`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`), self-criticized but not yet + independently criticized (`CR-000-X002`). Independent criticism and a + prototype graph representation (`CR-000-X001`) are carried forward as + residual work rather than folded into this workplan; see + `workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md` for the handoff. diff --git a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md index 019c855..c673352 100644 --- a/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md +++ b/research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md @@ -31,8 +31,12 @@ claims linked to real evidence and criticism (M2), so it is currently unresolved by construction — M0 only establishes the empty structure this question will be tested against. -Status: open — blocked on M1 (coherent manuscript) and M2 (claim/evidence -linkage) being carried out, not just scaffolded. +Status: open — M1 (`CR-WP-0003`) produced a coherent v0.1 manuscript and, in +doing so, surfaced a preliminary negative signal: the paper's own +implementation is flat Markdown, in tension with `CR-000-C002`/ +`CR-000-C003` (see `criticism.md` `CR-000-X001`). M2 +(`CR-WP-0004`) is the workplan that will actually test this question +against linked evidence rather than self-criticism alone. ## Q3 — Institutional minimality in practice diff --git a/workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md b/workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md index bb1b514..3ba99d5 100644 --- a/workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md +++ b/workplans/CR-WP-0003-paper-zero-v0-1-manuscript.md @@ -4,11 +4,15 @@ type: workplan title: "M1: CR-000 Paper Zero v0.1 manuscript" domain: communication repo: coulomb-research -status: proposed +status: finished owner: codex topic_slug: coulomb-social created: "2026-09-28" -updated: "2026-09-28" +updated: "2026-09-29" +quality_dod: DoD-Ok +quality_dod_at: "2026-09-29" +quality_dod_by: codex +quality_dod_note: "v0.1 manuscript coherent, all [MISSING] sections replaced, self-criticism recorded and claims updated accordingly; independent criticism and graph prototype handed off to CR-WP-0004 (M2) as residuals rather than claimed here." origin: residual origin_ref: CR-WP-0002 state_hub_workstream_id: "2e0fa669-8410-5a4f-a422-fb6b8797768a" @@ -37,7 +41,7 @@ Inputs: `research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/` ```task id: CR-WP-0003-T01 -status: todo +status: done priority: high state_hub_task_id: "2b872628-b731-5b71-a687-8afd5ae4fbfc" ``` @@ -61,7 +65,7 @@ placeholder) and any conjectural claim not yet backed by evidence is marked ```task id: CR-WP-0003-T02 -status: todo +status: done priority: medium state_hub_task_id: "164e498f-8276-5f59-afad-954368c19189" ``` @@ -84,7 +88,7 @@ silently dropped). ```task id: CR-WP-0003-T03 -status: todo +status: done priority: high state_hub_task_id: "f1ffc924-5b95-5f2d-a6c3-2f065dfcfee1" ``` @@ -110,6 +114,14 @@ exit criterion) with `publication.yaml` `version: "0.1"` confirmed accurate, no `[MISSING]` markers remaining except where explicitly deferred with stated rationale, and the registry validator passes. +Closed: added `CR-000-X001` and `CR-000-X002` to `criticism.md` +(self-criticism), updated `CR-000-C002`/`CR-000-C003` to `contested` in +`claims.md`, added `CR-000-C006`–`CR-000-C008`, wrote the Abstract and §11 +(Failure modes) last. Registry validator passes. M2 (independent criticism, +evidence linkage, and a response to the document-centrism criticism) handed +off as `workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md` rather than +folded into this workplan. + ## Non-Goals No P2/P3 publication advancement, no M2 claim/evidence/criticism linkage diff --git a/workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md b/workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..67d9c0b --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +--- +id: CR-WP-0004 +type: workplan +title: "M2: introduce minimal claim/evidence discipline for CR-000" +domain: communication +repo: coulomb-research +status: proposed +owner: codex +topic_slug: coulomb-social +created: "2026-09-29" +updated: "2026-09-29" +origin: residual +origin_ref: CR-WP-0003 +--- + +# M2: introduce minimal claim/evidence discipline for CR-000 + +Implement M2 of `seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`: test whether the +Coulomb-native claim/evidence/criticism representation is actually useful +for conducting research (Q2 in +`research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md`), by linking +CR-000's existing claims to real evidence and criticism rather than leaving +`evidence.md` empty. + +This workplan carries forward two residuals named explicitly in +`CR-WP-0003`'s self-criticism (`CR-000-X001`, `CR-000-X002` in +`criticism.md`): + +1. **Independent criticism.** All criticism CR-000 has received so far + (`CR-000-X001`, `CR-000-X002`) is self-authored by the same human/agent + pair that wrote the claims under criticism. `CR-000-C004` (criticism can + operate continuously) is not meaningfully tested until CR-000 receives + criticism from a different actor. +2. **Document-centrism.** `CR-000-C002`/`CR-000-C003` (currently `contested` + in `claims.md`) argue papers should not remain the canonical + representation and that a graph representation can outperform + document-centric publication, but CR-000's own artifacts are flat + Markdown with no queryable graph behind the ID cross-references. + +Inputs: `research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/papers/paper-000/` +(all files, especially `claims.md` and `criticism.md`), +`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md` (M2 section), and +`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md`. + +## Solicit and Record Independent Criticism + +```task +id: CR-WP-0004-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Obtain at least one criticism entry in `criticism.md` from an actor other +than the human/agent pair that authored `CR-WP-0002`/`CR-WP-0003` (e.g. a +human collaborator's review, or a differently-configured agent/model asked +to critique CR-000 independently, with its provenance recorded honestly per +`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4). Do not simulate or fabricate an +"independent" critic using the same authoring context — that would not +resolve `CR-000-X002`, only relabel it. Update the resolution state of +`CR-000-X002` in `criticism.md` once independent criticism exists. + +Done when at least one criticism entry's critic is verifiably distinct from +CR-000's own authors, and `claims.md`/`criticism.md` reflect its impact on +any claim it bears on. + +## Collect and Link Real Evidence + +```task +id: CR-WP-0004-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Populate `evidence.md` with real evidence entries (`CR-000-E001`, ...) that +bear on specific claims in `claims.md` — not placeholder or anticipated +evidence. Candidate evidence sources include: this program's own revision +history and workplan record as evidence about `CR-000-C001`/`CR-000-C005` +(human-AI participation, recursive self-improvement), and the outcome of +T01 as evidence about `CR-000-C004` (continuous criticism). Update each +linked claim's state (conjectural/supported/contested/etc.) in `claims.md` +to reflect what the evidence actually shows, including leaving a claim +`conjectural` if the evidence is inconclusive — do not inflate a claim's +state to `supported` on weak or single-instance evidence. + +Done when at least the claims discussed in T01's outcome and in this task's +description have at least one linked evidence entry each, with claim states +updated accordingly. + +## Prototype a Queryable Representation (or Explicitly Decline To) + +```task +id: CR-WP-0004-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Directly address `CR-000-X001`: either (a) build the smallest possible +prototype that makes claim/evidence/criticism relations actually +queryable (e.g. a script that loads all `CR-000-*` IDs and their stated +relations from the paper's Markdown files and answers a query like "what +challenges CR-000-C002" or "what evidence bears on CR-000-C003" without +manual grepping), consistent with the institutional-minimality principle +of building only what a concrete artifact demonstrates a need for; or (b) +if the facility's scale (one paper) does not yet justify even a minimal +prototype, record that reasoning explicitly as a revision-log entry and +leave `CR-000-X001` open with that rationale, rather than silently letting +it drop. Do not build a database or service — that remains out of scope +per the M0/M2 non-goals. + +Done when `CR-000-X001` has either a working minimal prototype referenced +from `manuscript.md` §11, or an explicit, reasoned decision recorded in +`revision-log.md` for why not yet, with `criticism.md`'s resolution state +updated either way. + +## Assess Representation Usefulness and Close Out M2 + +```task +id: CR-WP-0004-T04 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Using the outcomes of T01–T03, answer Q2 +(`research/programs/RP-000-researching-research/questions.md`): was the +Coulomb-native claim/evidence/criticism representation useful for +conducting this research, or did it mainly add bookkeeping overhead? Record +the answer as a new section or revision to `manuscript.md`, update Q2's +status in `questions.md`, and update `claims.md` states for any claim T01– +T03 newly bear on. Run `python3 scripts/validate_research_registry.py` and +the canonical Repo Manager sync. Before closure, evaluate whether M3 (CR-001 +registration) or a different next step is the appropriate live follow-up, +and hand it off per the residual convention. + +Done when the M2 exit criterion (major manuscript claims are explicitly +addressable and linked to supporting or challenging evidence) is met for at +least the claims this workplan touched, and the registry validator passes. + +## Non-Goals + +No CR-001 work (that is M3), no P2/P3 publication advancement, no general +graph database or service (only a minimal prototype or an explicit decision +not to build one, per T03), no facility software beyond what T03 justifies.