Research deliverbles standard, concept on earned equity, data collection and digests added

2026-09-14 22:04:44 +02:00 · 2026-09-14 22:04:44 +02:00 · 83c8a763a1
commit 83c8a763a1
parent c70b671a38
16 changed files with 4465 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/C3ResearchDeliverablesStandard.md
+++ b/C3ResearchDeliverablesStandard.md
@ -0,0 +1,846 @@
+---
+title: "C3 Research Deliverables Standard"
+short_title: "C3ResearchDeliverablesStandard"
+version: "0.1"
+status: "initial"
+artifact_type: "methodology"
+scope: "research repositories"
+---
+
+# C3 Research Deliverables Standard
+
+**C3ResearchDeliverablesStandard** is a lightweight methodology for organizing research results into three distinct classes of durable deliverables:
+
+1. **Compendium** — what we know.
+2. **Catalog** — what we have identified.
+3. **Concepts** — what we propose or explore.
+
+The standard is intended for research repositories that continuously collect evidence, synthesize knowledge, design new ideas, and revise their understanding over time.
+
+Its purpose is to keep three fundamentally different epistemic activities separate:
+
+> **describing the world, inventorying the world, and designing possible changes to the world.**
+
+The three classes deliberately share the letter **C**, giving the method its name:
+
+> **C3 = Compendium + Catalog + Concepts**
+
+---
+
+# 1. Why C3 exists
+
+Research repositories tend to accumulate heterogeneous Markdown files:
+
+- literature reviews;
+- definitions;
+- taxonomies;
+- benchmark lists;
+- hypotheses;
+- design ideas;
+- source summaries;
+- proposed mechanisms;
+- research notes;
+- experiments;
+- datasets;
+- conclusions.
+
+Without a clear information architecture, these gradually become difficult to interpret.
+
+A polished speculative design may start to look like established knowledge. A catalog entry may acquire narrative interpretation and become difficult to process systematically. A compendium may become a dumping ground for every interesting fact.
+
+C3 separates durable research output by **epistemic purpose** rather than by topic.
+
+The standard asks three questions:
+
+> **What do we know?**
+
+> **What things have we identified?**
+
+> **What could we create or change?**
+
+Each question has one canonical home.
+
+---
+
+# 2. The three deliverable classes
+
+## 2.1 Compendium — What do we know?
+
+The **Compendium** contains synthesized research knowledge.
+
+A compendium document explains the best current understanding of a subject based on available evidence. It may integrate theory, definitions, literature, empirical findings, competing explanations, historical development, uncertainty, unresolved questions and conclusions.
+
+A compendium is not merely a collection of sources. Its purpose is to transform source material into an increasingly coherent model of a subject.
+
+### Compendium question
+
+> **What is currently justified to believe about this subject?**
+
+### Typical artifacts
+
+- `IntelligenceCompendium.md`
+- `EconomicsOfMachineIntelligence.md`
+- `TransformativeAICompendium.md`
+- `AgencyAndMotivation.md`
+- `HistoryOfConsumerOwnership.md`
+
+### Compendium quality criterion
+
+A good compendium should make clear:
+
+- what is known;
+- how strongly it is known;
+- what is disputed;
+- what evidence supports the current view;
+- what remains unresolved.
+
+### Directory
+
+```text
+compendium/
+```
+
+---
+
+## 2.2 Catalog — What have we identified?
+
+The **Catalog** contains structured inventories of identifiable entities, mechanisms, observations, patterns, sources or categories.
+
+A catalog is designed primarily for enumeration, comparison, retrieval, classification, coverage analysis and machine processing where useful.
+
+It should favor explicit fields and repeatable structure over long narrative prose.
+
+### Catalog question
+
+> **What relevant things exist, and how can they be systematically described and compared?**
+
+### Typical artifacts
+
+- benchmark catalog;
+- model catalog;
+- thinker catalog;
+- mechanism catalog;
+- policy catalog;
+- indicator catalog;
+- failure-mode catalog;
+- experiment catalog;
+- source catalog;
+- use-case catalog.
+
+Examples:
+
+```text
+catalog/
+├── AIBenchmarkCatalog.md
+├── EconomicIndicatorCatalog.md
+├── ConsumerCapitalMechanismCatalog.md
+├── ParticipationCapitalFailureModeCatalog.md
+└── ThinkerCatalog.md
+```
+
+### Catalog quality criterion
+
+A good catalog should be:
+
+- systematically structured;
+- extensible;
+- internally consistent;
+- explicit about inclusion criteria;
+- suitable for comparison;
+- easy to update without rewriting the whole artifact.
+
+---
+
+## 2.3 Concepts — What could we create or change?
+
+The **Concepts** area contains proposed mechanisms, candidate architectures, designed interventions, hypotheses developed into concrete models, and possible solutions.
+
+Concept documents are intentionally allowed to be speculative.
+
+Their purpose is not to claim that something already works. Their purpose is to make an idea sufficiently explicit that it can be criticized, modeled, compared, simulated, prototyped or tested.
+
+### Concept question
+
+> **What might work, and how exactly would it work if we built or adopted it?**
+
+### Typical artifacts
+
+- `CustomerEarnedEquityDesign.md`
+- `IndividualParticipationCapitalAccount.md`
+- `AdaptiveTransitionBuffer.md`
+- `SovereignAIAssuranceNetwork.md`
+- `ConsumerParticipationDividend.md`
+
+### Concepts quality criterion
+
+A good concept should make clear:
+
+- the problem it addresses;
+- its mechanism;
+- actors and incentives;
+- expected benefits;
+- assumptions;
+- design parameters;
+- trade-offs;
+- failure modes;
+- evidence level;
+- how it could be tested.
+
+### Directory
+
+```text
+concepts/
+```
+
+---
+
+# 3. The core epistemic distinction
+
+The three C classes represent different relationships to reality.
+
+## Compendium
+
+> **Models of the world**
+
+The compendium tries to explain reality.
+
+## Catalog
+
+> **Inventory of the world**
+
+The catalog identifies and structures relevant things in reality.
+
+## Concepts
+
+> **Possible changes to the world**
+
+Concepts propose interventions, mechanisms and designed alternatives.
+
+This distinction is the heart of C3.
+
+The same topic may legitimately appear in all three forms:
+
+```text
+compendium/
+└── ConsumerOwnership.md
+
+catalog/
+└── ConsumerOwnershipMechanismCatalog.md
+
+concepts/
+└── CustomerEarnedEquityDesign.md
+```
+
+These files are not duplicates. They answer different questions.
+
+---
+
+# 4. Directory standard
+
+A C3-compliant research repository SHOULD contain the following root-level directories:
+
+```text
+repository/
+├── catalog/
+├── compendium/
+└── concepts/
+```
+
+These are the **normative C3 deliverable directories**.
+
+A larger research repository MAY additionally contain supporting directories such as:
+
+```text
+repository/
+├── catalog/
+├── compendium/
+├── concepts/
+├── data/
+├── digests/
+├── research/
+└── README.md
+```
+
+These supporting directories are not part of the C3 deliverable taxonomy itself.
+
+---
+
+# 5. Supporting directories
+
+## 5.1 `research/`
+
+Contains working research artifacts such as dated investigations, exploratory notes, source reviews, literature scans, hypothesis exploration and preliminary analyses.
+
+Research files may be temporary or durable, but they have not yet necessarily been normalized into C3 outputs.
+
+Typical form:
+
+```text
+research/
+└── 2026-09-14-transformative-ai-strategy-assessment.md
+```
+
+A research file may later update one or more C3 deliverables.
+
+## 5.2 `digests/`
+
+Contains time-bounded summaries of change such as daily intelligence digests, weekly research digests, monthly policy updates and benchmark change summaries.
+
+Digests answer:
+
+> **What changed during this period?**
+
+They are chronological rather than epistemically canonical.
+
+## 5.3 `data/`
+
+Contains raw or normalized research material intended for analysis, including CSV, JSON, YAML, benchmark observations, measurement exports and structured source metadata.
+
+Data supports C3 artifacts but is not itself a C3 deliverable.
+
+---
+
+# 6. Placement decision rule
+
+When creating a durable research artifact, ask the following questions in order.
+
+## Question 1
+
+**Is the main purpose to explain the current state of knowledge?**
+
+If yes:
+
+```text
+compendium/
+```
+
+## Question 2
+
+**Is the main purpose to enumerate and compare identified things?**
+
+If yes:
+
+```text
+catalog/
+```
+
+## Question 3
+
+**Is the main purpose to design, propose or explore something that does not yet exist in established form?**
+
+If yes:
+
+```text
+concepts/
+```
+
+## Question 4
+
+**Is the artifact primarily an investigation, dated analysis, source review or working research result?**
+
+If yes:
+
+```text
+research/
+```
+
+until its results are incorporated into one or more C3 deliverables.
+
+## Question 5
+
+**Is the artifact primarily a time-bounded summary of recent change?**
+
+If yes:
+
+```text
+digests/
+```
+
+---
+
+# 7. The C3 research flow
+
+C3 is not intended as a rigid pipeline. Research can move between all three classes.
+
+A common pattern is:
+
+```text
+research
+   ↓
+compendium
+   ↓
+concept
+   ↓
+catalog / experiment
+   ↓
+evidence
+   ↓
+research
+   ↓
+updated compendium
+```
+
+A more abstract formulation is:
+
+> **Understand → Invent → Enumerate → Test → Learn**
+
+The important principle is that **concepts do not silently become facts**.
+
+Evidence generated by testing a concept must return through research and eventually update the compendium.
+
+---
+
+# 8. Concept maturity
+
+Concept artifacts SHOULD declare their maturity explicitly.
+
+Recommended maturity values:
+
+```yaml
+maturity:
+  - hypothesis
+  - exploratory
+  - modeled
+  - simulated
+  - prototyped
+  - tested
+  - validated
+  - operational
+```
+
+Meaning:
+
+- `hypothesis` — the core causal idea has been stated.
+- `exploratory` — the mechanism has been elaborated and alternatives considered.
+- `modeled` — actors, incentives and expected dynamics have been formalized.
+- `simulated` — the concept has been exercised in a simulation or analytical model.
+- `prototyped` — a working implementation exists.
+- `tested` — the concept has been tested against observations or experiments.
+- `validated` — multiple lines of evidence support the concept under specified conditions.
+- `operational` — the concept is used in a real system.
+
+A concept reaching `validated` or `operational` maturity may generate new compendium knowledge, but the concept document itself remains a concept artifact.
+
+---
+
+# 9. Evidence maturity
+
+C3 artifacts SHOULD distinguish maturity of an idea from strength of evidence.
+
+A recommended evidence scale is:
+
+```text
+E0 — intuition
+E1 — historical analogue
+E2 — observational evidence
+E3 — quasi-experimental evidence
+E4 — randomized evidence
+E5 — replicated cross-context evidence
+E6 — operational proof at meaningful scale
+```
+
+Example:
+
+```yaml
+artifact_type: concept
+maturity: modeled
+evidence_level: E2
+```
+
+A highly detailed concept may therefore remain weakly evidenced. Conversely, a simple mechanism may have strong empirical evidence.
+
+This distinction prevents sophistication of presentation from being mistaken for certainty.
+
+---
+
+# 10. Recommended metadata
+
+C3 documents SHOULD include concise frontmatter.
+
+## Compendium
+
+```yaml
+---
+title: "..."
+artifact_type: compendium
+status: active
+last_reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
+evidence_level: E0-E6
+---
+```
+
+## Catalog
+
+```yaml
+---
+title: "..."
+artifact_type: catalog
+status: active
+schema_version: "0.1"
+last_updated: YYYY-MM-DD
+---
+```
+
+## Concept
+
+```yaml
+---
+title: "..."
+artifact_type: concept
+status: active
+maturity: exploratory
+evidence_level: E1
+last_reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
+---
+```
+
+Metadata should remain lightweight. C3 is intended to improve thinking, not create administrative overhead.
+
+---
+
+# 11. Naming guidance
+
+C3 does not mandate one filename convention, but filenames SHOULD reveal artifact purpose.
+
+### Compendium
+
+Use `...Compendium.md` or a plain subject name where directory placement is sufficient.
+
+### Catalog
+
+Use `...Catalog.md`.
+
+Examples:
+
+```text
+catalog/
+├── BenchmarkCatalog.md
+├── MechanismCatalog.md
+└── IndicatorCatalog.md
+```
+
+### Concepts
+
+Concepts SHOULD normally use the actual mechanism or design name.
+
+Examples:
+
+```text
+concepts/
+├── CustomerEarnedEquityDesign.md
+├── AdaptiveTransitionBuffer.md
+└── IndividualParticipationCapitalAccount.md
+```
+
+A suffix such as `Design`, `Architecture`, `Mechanism`, or `Model` may be useful where ambiguity exists.
+
+---
+
+# 12. Cross-linking between C3 artifacts
+
+C3 artifacts SHOULD reference related artifacts from other classes when those relationships are meaningful.
+
+Example:
+
+```yaml
+related_compendium:
+  - ../compendium/ConsumerOwnership.md
+
+related_catalogs:
+  - ../catalog/ConsumerCapitalMechanismCatalog.md
+
+related_concepts:
+  - ./IndividualParticipationCapitalAccount.md
+```
+
+Narrative cross-links are equally acceptable.
+
+The objective is to make the knowledge graph visible without requiring a dedicated graph database.
+
+---
+
+# 13. Example: Customer-Earned Equity
+
+The Customer-Earned Equity topic illustrates C3 well.
+
+## Compendium
+
+```text
+compendium/
+└── ConsumerOwnership.md
+```
+
+Answers:
+
+- What forms of consumer ownership already exist?
+- What does research say?
+- What economic theory applies?
+- What effects are empirically supported?
+
+## Catalog
+
+```text
+catalog/
+└── ConsumerCapitalMechanismCatalog.md
+```
+
+Enumerates patronage dividends, mutual ownership, customer shares, loyalty-to-equity programmes, profit participation, warrants and diversified customer funds.
+
+## Concept
+
+```text
+concepts/
+└── CustomerEarnedEquityDesign.md
+```
+
+Designs eligibility, accrual rules, capitalization, dilution, matching, diversification, portability, rights, tax treatment and failure controls.
+
+---
+
+# 14. Anti-patterns
+
+## 14.1 The Everything Compendium
+
+Do not put every observation, source, idea and design proposal into the compendium. The compendium should represent synthesized knowledge.
+
+## 14.2 The Narrative Catalog
+
+Do not let catalog entries evolve into essays. If extensive interpretation is needed, move it into the compendium.
+
+## 14.3 The Concept Presented as Fact
+
+A concept SHOULD clearly state assumptions, maturity and evidence. A polished design is still a design.
+
+## 14.4 The Research Note That Becomes Canon by Age
+
+Old research notes do not automatically become authoritative because nobody revisited them. Durable conclusions should be incorporated into the compendium.
+
+## 14.5 Duplicate Truth
+
+Avoid maintaining the same canonical explanation in multiple places.
+
+Prefer:
+
+```text
+compendium → canonical explanation
+catalog → canonical enumeration
+concept → canonical proposed design
+```
+
+Other artifacts should link to these.
+
+---
+
+# 15. Lifecycle of a research result
+
+A typical result may evolve as follows.
+
+### Stage 1 — Observation
+
+Captured in:
+
+```text
+research/
+```
+
+### Stage 2 — Repeated evidence
+
+Structured in:
+
+```text
+catalog/
+```
+
+or synthesized into:
+
+```text
+compendium/
+```
+
+### Stage 3 — Design implication
+
+Developed in:
+
+```text
+concepts/
+```
+
+### Stage 4 — Experiment
+
+Recorded as research/data.
+
+### Stage 5 — Validation or falsification
+
+Updates `compendium/`, `catalog/`, and/or `concepts/` as appropriate.
+
+The repository therefore accumulates knowledge without erasing its developmental history.
+
+---
+
+# 16. C3 and research governance
+
+C3 supports three complementary forms of governance.
+
+## Knowledge governance
+
+The compendium provides the current synthesized view.
+
+## Coverage governance
+
+The catalog reveals what has and has not been systematically identified.
+
+## Innovation governance
+
+The concepts directory exposes speculative ideas explicitly, making them reviewable without confusing them with established knowledge.
+
+This separation helps reviewers ask better questions:
+
+- **Compendium:** Is this conclusion supported?
+- **Catalog:** Is this inventory complete and consistently classified?
+- **Concept:** Could this mechanism work, and how would we know?
+
+---
+
+# 17. C3 as an epistemic safety mechanism
+
+C3 is deliberately more than directory organization.
+
+It reduces several recurring research errors:
+
+- speculation becoming fact through repetition;
+- catalogs being mistaken for explanation;
+- source volume being mistaken for knowledge;
+- mature prose being mistaken for mature evidence;
+- proposed interventions being evaluated as if already validated;
+- experimental outcomes failing to update canonical understanding.
+
+C3 therefore acts as a lightweight **epistemic type system**.
+
+In programming terms:
+
+```text
+Compendium : KnowledgeModel
+Catalog    : StructuredInventory
+Concept    : ProposedIntervention
+```
+
+Mixing those types should be treated as a design smell.
+
+---
+
+# 18. Minimal C3 repository
+
+The minimum compliant structure is:
+
+```text
+research-project/
+├── catalog/
+├── compendium/
+├── concepts/
+└── README.md
+```
+
+---
+
+# 19. Recommended research repository
+
+For continuously operated research systems such as `intelligence-radar`:
+
+```text
+intelligence-radar/
+├── catalog/
+│   ├── benchmarks/
+│   ├── indicators/
+│   ├── mechanisms/
+│   └── sources/
+│
+├── compendium/
+│   ├── intelligence/
+│   ├── economics/
+│   ├── technology/
+│   └── policy/
+│
+├── concepts/
+│   ├── economics/
+│   ├── infrastructure/
+│   └── governance/
+│
+├── data/
+│   ├── raw/
+│   ├── normalized/
+│   └── derived/
+│
+├── digests/
+│   ├── daily/
+│   └── weekly/
+│
+├── research/
+│   └── YYYY/
+│       └── YYYY-MM-DD-*.md
+│
+└── README.md
+```
+
+Subdirectories SHOULD emerge only when volume justifies them. The three top-level C directories remain the stable semantic anchors.
+
+---
+
+# 20. C3 placement lint
+
+Before accepting a new durable artifact, apply this quick check.
+
+### Compendium lint
+
+- Does it synthesize rather than merely list?
+- Does it distinguish evidence from uncertainty?
+- Is it describing current knowledge rather than proposing a design?
+
+### Catalog lint
+
+- Does it enumerate identifiable things?
+- Are entries structurally comparable?
+- Can new entries be added without rewriting the whole artifact?
+
+### Concept lint
+
+- Is it proposing something?
+- Are assumptions explicit?
+- Are mechanism and actors clear?
+- Are failure modes considered?
+- Is maturity/evidence stated?
+
+If the artifact fails all three tests, it probably belongs in `research/`, `data/`, or `digests/`.
+
+---
+
+# 21. Standard summary
+
+The **C3ResearchDeliverablesStandard** organizes durable research output into three semantic classes:
+
+| Class | Core question | Function |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Compendium** | What do we know? | Synthesize knowledge |
+| **Catalog** | What have we identified? | Structure inventories |
+| **Concepts** | What could we create or change? | Design possibilities |
+
+Supporting material remains outside the C3 taxonomy:
+
+| Directory | Function |
+|---|---|
+| `research/` | Investigations and working research |
+| `digests/` | Time-bounded change summaries |
+| `data/` | Raw and structured evidence |
+
+The fundamental rule is:
+
+> **Compendium = models of the world.**  
+> **Catalog = inventory of the world.**  
+> **Concepts = possible changes to the world.**
+
+Operationally:
+
+> **Understand → Invent → Enumerate → Test → Learn.**
+
+C3 is intentionally small.
+
+Its value comes from maintaining the distinction consistently.