---
id: CR-WP-0005
type: workplan
title: "Resolve CR-000's outstanding criticism; assess M3 readiness"
domain: communication
repo: coulomb-research
status: blocked
owner: codex
topic_slug: coulomb-social
created: "2026-09-29"
updated: "2026-10-05"
origin: residual
origin_ref: CR-WP-0004
state_hub_workstream_id: "9e7bf9d6-2e32-5ea7-87c7-65f5e1ec0db5"
---

# Resolve CR-000's outstanding criticism; assess M3 readiness

`CR-WP-0004` (M2) obtained CR-000's first independent criticism
(`CR-000-X003`–`CR-000-X007` in `criticism.md`), from a procedurally
independent but organizationally identical reviewer (a freshly spawned
agent instance, same underlying model as CR-000's authors — see
`criticism.md`'s provenance note). It found a real internal-consistency
violation (`CR-000-C006`, now `contested`) that two rounds of
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(`CR-000-C006`'s withdrawn evidence, no replacement yet), `CR-000-X005`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). 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
before the items above are addressed: M3's purpose is to test whether
Coulomb's mechanisms transfer to an independent domain, and starting a
second paper while the first has multiple open, unresolved
internal-consistency criticisms would compound the problem `CR-WP-0004`
found (self-review missing things a fresh reader catches) rather than
respond to it. `manuscript.md` §14 makes the same call explicitly: the
concrete next step it names is a *second* round of independent criticism,
from a reviewer organizationally distinct from CR-000's authors, not a new
paper.

This workplan is scoped to close that gap before M3 is evaluated again.

## Resolve or Reframe CR-000-C001 and CR-000-C005

```task
id: CR-WP-0005-T01
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "519fe130-c81b-5ad6-b120-869e06572586"
```

Respond to `CR-000-X005`: either sharpen `CR-000-C001` ("AI reduces the
need for several historically human-mediated scientific coordination
functions") and `CR-000-C005` into claims specific and falsifiable enough
to be tested, or explicitly mark them in `claims.md` as deliberately loose,
exploratory conjectures pending a sharper reformulation, rather than
leaving the vagueness unaddressed. Update `criticism.md`'s resolution
state for `CR-000-X005` accordingly.

## Fix the Provenance Field Conflation

```task
id: CR-WP-0005-T02
status: done
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "18572e28-45c5-549e-b431-7df06ba2d8a2"
```

Respond to `CR-000-X007`: add a field (or a documented convention in
`docs/ResearchArtifactConvention.md` §4) distinguishing who originated a
claim's position from who transcribed or drafted its text in `claims.md`,
or add an explicit note that `Added by` currently means the latter, not the
former. Update `claims.md` entries and `criticism.md`'s resolution state
for `CR-000-X007` accordingly.

## Obtain Organizationally-Independent Review

```task
id: CR-WP-0005-T03
status: wait
priority: high
needs_human: true
decision_id: 772217c2-23b9-424f-8b52-be50b04ecc53
blocking_reason: "Needs a reviewer who is not another instance of the authoring model. Opening the decision is not the review."
state_hub_task_id: "1b927a09-a915-5792-bbfa-0ffd305511e2"
```

`CR-000-X003`/`CR-000-X004`/`CR-000-X005`/`CR-000-X006` were all found by
an agent instance running the same underlying model as CR-000's authors —
procedural independence, not organizational independence. Solicit review
from a human collaborator, or an agent/model from a genuinely different
provider or configuration, and record the result honestly in `criticism.md`
with accurate provenance. This step requires action outside what an agent
in this repository can perform on its own (recruiting a human reviewer, or
provisioning access to a different model/provider) — flagged
`needs_human` accordingly; do not simulate this step.

## Decide Whether CR-000-C006 Can Be Re-Evidenced, and Reassess M3

```task
id: CR-WP-0005-T04
status: wait
depends_on: [CR-WP-0005-T03]
blocking_reason: "Waiting on T03 (organizationally independent review)."
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "5f896d81-27a7-5a19-9da2-d4c1150791af"
```

Waiting on T03. After organizationally-independent review exists, decide
whether `CR-000-C006` can be given real, non-circular evidence
(`evidence.md`) or should remain `contested` pending a future test case.
Using T01–T03's outcomes, reassess whether M3 (CR-001 registration,
`seed/CoulombResearchMilestonePlan.md`) is now appropriate to start, and
hand it off as a new workplan if so — or state explicitly why it still
is not, rather than leaving the decision implicit. Run
`python3 scripts/validate_research_registry.py` and
`python3 scripts/query_paper_graph.py --list` and the canonical Repo
Manager sync before closure.

## Non-Goals

No CR-001 work directly (that decision is T04's output, not this
workplan's content), no new facility software beyond documentation/field
changes in T01–T02, no lowering the evidentiary bar to manufacture a
`supported` claim.