coulomb-research/workplans/CR-WP-0004-claim-evidence-discipline.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	updated	quality_dod	quality_dod_at	quality_dod_by	quality_dod_note	origin	origin_ref	state_hub_workstream_id
CR-WP-0004	workplan	M2: introduce minimal claim/evidence discipline for CR-000	communication	coulomb-research	finished	codex	coulomb-social	2026-09-29	2026-09-29	DoD-Ok	2026-09-29	codex	Obtained genuine independent criticism (fresh, context-isolated agent instance) that found a real internal-consistency violation self-criticism missed; linked first evidence entries; built minimal read-only query prototype. Remaining residuals (organizationally-independent review, claim sharpening, provenance field) handed off to CR-WP-0005 rather than folded in.	residual	CR-WP-0003	d4e08468-ef7f-5dab-af8a-aecd4e6dc415

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

id: CR-WP-0004-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "540baf89-2858-5edc-9c43-a78e6283ee88"

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

id: CR-WP-0004-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "368573d3-e917-5931-a42d-704b297e027e"

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)

id: CR-WP-0004-T03
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "4bdc3ac4-5f91-55b3-93c3-726772520917"

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.

Closed: built scripts/query_paper_graph.py (read-only, stdlib-only, parses relation fields across claims.md/evidence.md/criticism.md and answers --challenges/--bears-on/--id/--list queries). Referenced from manuscript.md §11 and §12. CR-000-X001 left open — the prototype is a query layer over flat files, not a real graph, and does not claim to resolve the underlying criticism.

Assess Representation Usefulness and Close Out M2

id: CR-WP-0004-T04
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "411e3a05-6f0d-5e66-9732-be453e89e4f9"

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.

Closed: Q2 answered as "mixed, leaning useful for criticism, unproven for evidence" in manuscript.md §13; questions.md updated for Q1–Q3. Registry validator and scripts/query_paper_graph.py --list both pass. M3 (CR-001) judged premature — CR-000-X001/X003–X005/X007 remain open and the independent review obtained here was only procedurally, not organizationally, independent. Handed off as workplans/CR-WP-0005-resolve-outstanding-criticism.md instead of M3.

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.