tegwick
dbf610b7b6
Obtain CR-000's first independent criticism via a freshly spawned, context-isolated agent instance with no prior authorship context (CR-000-X003-X007 in criticism.md). It found two internal-consistency violations self-criticism had missed: CR-000-C006's cited evidence was circular (X003) and conflated manuscript assertion with a real Evidence object (X004), so C006 is now contested and its evidence withdrawn. It also flagged that self-criticism had concentrated on infrastructure while leaving substantive claims unchallenged (X005), an unlabeled overreach in the Abstract (X006, now fixed), and a provenance-field ambiguity (X007). Add evidence.md's first two entries (CR-000-E001, CR-000-E002), both explicitly assessed as weak and left conjectural rather than inflated to supported. Add scripts/query_paper_graph.py, a minimal read-only script answering claim/evidence/criticism relation queries without manual grepping, as a partial response to CR-000-X001 (which remains open: it is a query layer over flat files, not a real graph). Revise manuscript.md (Abstract, SS11-14) and questions.md to reflect all of the above; Q2 gets a provisional "mixed" answer. Close CR-WP-0004 and hand off CR-WP-0005 (resolving remaining open criticism, and obtaining organizationally- rather than only procedurally-independent review) rather than starting M3, which this workplan judges premature while CR-000 still has open internal-consistency findings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: sonnet Assistant-Process: 228422@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 49089735-86e1-4d29-8a6e-74c26947f8c4
166 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
166 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
id: CR-WP-0004
|
||
type: workplan
|
||
title: "M2: introduce minimal claim/evidence discipline for CR-000"
|
||
domain: communication
|
||
repo: coulomb-research
|
||
status: finished
|
||
owner: codex
|
||
topic_slug: coulomb-social
|
||
created: "2026-09-29"
|
||
updated: "2026-09-29"
|
||
quality_dod: DoD-Ok
|
||
quality_dod_at: "2026-09-29"
|
||
quality_dod_by: codex
|
||
quality_dod_note: "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."
|
||
origin: residual
|
||
origin_ref: CR-WP-0003
|
||
state_hub_workstream_id: "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
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
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)
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
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.
|