Public Method

Method controls what may be claimed, how uncertainty stays visible, and what happens when a test fails.

Method commitment Partially implemented

M1 — The project must expose its own repair process

Uncommon Reality should show objections evidence gaps corrections revisions narrowing withdrawals dissent and implementation consequences rather than only polished current wording.

Audit test: Can a reader identify what changed why it changed what evidence mattered how quickly correction occurred which dissent remained and whether a claim was narrowed challenged or retired?

Inspect M1

Promotion discipline

Claim role, claim kind, research state, and theory status remain separate.
not_yet_defined is rendered as an unresolved evidence gap, never guessed away.
Context and illustration are not treated as causal support.
Failure, successful-repair, and boundary comparisons must be typed separately.
Historical confidence scores do not become current evidence ratings.

Simulated standpoint forum protocol

Evidence-room tags

V — verified project fact: Directly established by a current source, registry, artifact, test, or repository record.
H — historical interpretation: A sourced account of an intellectual lineage that remains open to contest.
I — inference: A reasoned interpretation that goes beyond the direct record.
N — normative judgment: A claim about what ought to matter or be protected.
P — proposal: An action for future implementation.
O — open question: Material uncertainty that must not be silently closed.

No standpoint vote or convergence can turn H, I, N, P, or O into V. Convergence is not truth.

Required mechanics

Independent openings: separate tracks first reconstruct the strongest project, the strongest failure account, and a bounded improvement programme.
Steelman before critique: state the strongest recognizable version of a position before challenging it.
Adversarial pairings: subject each major question to counter-readings, including systems integration versus totalization and feedback design versus legitimacy and rights.
Dissent ledger: preserve conceptual, empirical, normative, and implementation disagreement; consensus may not erase it.
Affected-party absence check: name who is described but absent. Simulation cannot supply consent, lived knowledge, authority, or legitimacy.
Dual co-chair functions: protect evidence structure and feedback closure alongside plurality, ethics, clarity, and public responsibility.

Non-numeric disposition criteria

Decisions record reasons, dependencies, risks, and stop conditions under seven criteria: claim-boundary preservation; evidence honesty; public usefulness; ethical and rights protection; reversibility; testability and auditability; and maintainability across future editions. The forum produces no synthetic score. A proposal is implemented now, built as infrastructure only, held for real review, deferred behind a stated gate, or rejected with reasons.

T001 prospective-design boundary

Synthetic versus conventional voice-deception verification burden is a registered Design stub whose status is Infrastructure only and whose outcome-inspection status is Not inspected.

This row creates the prospective-design contract requested by D030. It is infrastructure only: not a preregistration not a running test not a result and not evidence for C3 or Theory F.

Unresolved before any test: No case-selection rule observation period operational measures data sources analysis plan decision rule missing-data rule domain reviewer or affected-party review is registered.

Responsible-use protocol

A measurable threshold is not automatically legitimate, and a Repair-Lag diagnosis does not authorize an intervention. Before applying the framework, disclose:

who proposed the valued condition and adequacy criterion;
whether the criterion is analytic, legal, institutional, political, or rights-based;
who has decision authority, if anyone, and which affected people or rights-holders are represented or excluded;
alternative criteria, disagreement, distributional consequences, and whether the threshold was declared prospectively or retrospectively;
the strongest rival explanation, transfer limits, missing evidence, and result that would revise the criterion or diagnosis.