{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-proposal-register", "generatedFrom": [ "data/ATLAS_PROPOSAL_POLICY.json", "data/atlas-proposals/architecture-relative-binary-form-uniqueness.json", "data/atlas-proposals/decision-sufficiency-antecedent-audit.json", "data/atlas-proposals/decision-sufficiency-observation-fibres.json", "data/atlas-proposals/recht-re-target-sufficiency.json" ], "claimCeiling": "A proposal records a research suggestion for scrutiny. It does not establish novelty, correctness, importance, tractability, priority, an accepted relationship or a commitment to investigate.", "acceptedGraphBoundary": "The proposal loader has no write path to data/RELATIONSHIP_REGISTRY.json or the accepted research-graph edge array. Displayed proposal anchors are navigation links in a quarantined projection, not accepted relationships.", "policy": { "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-proposal-policy", "updated": "2026-08-16", "status": "active-quarantined-intake", "claimCeiling": "A proposal records a research suggestion for scrutiny. It does not establish novelty, correctness, importance, tractability, priority, an accepted relationship or a commitment to investigate.", "idAlgorithm": "proposalId is ep-proposal:sha256:, computed over canonical JSON of the immutable identity projection defined by tools/atlas-proposals.js; decision receipt IDs use the same algorithm over each receipt projection.", "proposalKinds": [ "research-question", "research-programme", "relationship-candidate", "replication-opportunity", "evidence-gap", "method-improvement", "negative-tip", "counterexample-search" ], "reviewStates": [ "awaiting-review", "accepted-for-investigation", "deferred", "rejected", "merged", "superseded", "completed", "withdrawn", "expired" ], "assessmentStates": [ "unassessed", "bounded-positive", "bounded-negative", "mixed", "not-applicable" ], "resourceClasses": [ "small", "medium", "large", "unknown" ], "acceptedGraphBoundary": "The proposal loader has no write path to data/RELATIONSHIP_REGISTRY.json or the accepted research-graph edge array. Displayed proposal anchors are navigation links in a quarantined projection, not accepted relationships.", "intakeRoutes": [ { "id": "github-issue-form", "url": "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/new?template=research-tip.yml", "trustBoundary": "A GitHub account and sign-in are required. Issue content is untrusted intake. It becomes a canonical proposal only after manual normalization, validation and review of provenance and source references." }, { "id": "agentmail-email", "url": "mailto:ian-8516@agentmail.to?subject=Evidence%20Atlas%20research%20tip", "trustBoundary": "No GitHub account is required. Inbound email is untrusted intake and cannot write to the proposal register or accepted graph; maintainers retrieve the canonical message and normalize it through the same deterministic validation and review gate." } ], "updatePolicy": { "mode": "append-only-proposals-and-receipts", "rules": [ "Published proposal identity fields are immutable; a material correction creates a superseding proposal.", "Review receipts append in sequence and bind the predecessor receipt; prior receipts are never rewritten or deleted.", "Rejected, merged, superseded, withdrawn, expired and completed proposals remain retrievable.", "No intake or validation route may add an accepted research-graph edge.", "Novelty, importance and tractability remain separate assessments and default to unassessed." ] }, "changeLog": [ { "date": "2026-08-15", "summary": "Established the quarantined agent and human research-tip intake policy, content-derived identities, explicit expiry, separate assessments and append-only review receipts." }, { "date": "2026-08-16", "summary": "Added an AgentMail email intake route for agents without GitHub accounts and normalized three public GitHub issues into awaiting-review proposal records without changing the accepted graph." } ] }, "stats": { "total": 4, "byState": { "awaiting-review": 1, "accepted-for-investigation": 0, "deferred": 1, "rejected": 0, "merged": 2, "superseded": 0, "completed": 0, "withdrawn": 0, "expired": 0 }, "byKind": { "research-question": 1, "research-programme": 1, "relationship-candidate": 0, "replication-opportunity": 0, "evidence-gap": 1, "method-improvement": 0, "negative-tip": 1, "counterexample-search": 0 } }, "proposals": [ { "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-research-proposal", "proposalId": "ep-proposal:sha256:778e978d1da024fe594f3622bbc47c8d7ed471c847c867cd149a21b2b49830cf", "kind": "evidence-gap", "title": "Architecture-relative uniqueness in the binary-form programme after the July 2026 counterexample families", "question": "Do the July 2026 counterexample families described by Gallagher and Gao arise inside the binary-form factorisation architecture classified by the Evidence Press releases, and if not, should the isolation statement be scoped explicitly as uniqueness within that architecture?", "summary": "Compare explicit higher-degree counterexample families with the binary-form slice coordinates and classification hypotheses. The possible outcomes are a substantive surviving obstruction, a scope clarification with additional citations, or closure of the proposed connection as shared geometric vocabulary only.", "whyNow": "The relevant Evidence Press release predates or closely follows several July 2026 counterexample reports that are not listed in its related work. The submitted issue identifies an inexpensive exact-computer-algebra comparison that could distinguish a genuine scope tension from an innocent difference in parameter spaces.", "submittedAt": "2026-08-16T05:26:46Z", "expiresAt": "2027-02-16T00:00:00Z", "submitter": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Dr Ian Pitchford and an Anthropic Claude research agent", "humanContributors": [ "Dr Ian Pitchford" ], "agentContributors": [ { "system": "Anthropic Claude", "model": "claude-opus-5 during drafting; claude-fable-5 at submission", "role": "Atlas and corpus reading, bounded literature audit, exact-arithmetic checking and proposal drafting", "runRecordUrl": null, "provenanceNote": "The public GitHub issue reports the model names and roles. No immutable public model run record was supplied, and the agent reports that it read the public JSON API rather than every release PDF." } ], "contactUrl": "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/91" }, "atlasAnchors": [ { "nodeId": "release:reducible-incidence-divisors", "basis": "This release carries the conditional isolation statement and higher-degree obstruction whose architectural scope is being queried." }, { "nodeId": "release:exotic-affine-three-spheres", "basis": "This release records a related quadratic-cubic obstruction and characteristic-dependent collision." }, { "nodeId": "release:degree-difference-affine-slices", "basis": "Its determinant identity and slice coordinates provide the proposed comparison coordinates." }, { "nodeId": "lineage:binary-form-programme", "basis": "A genuine scope correction could propagate along this declared research lineage." }, { "nodeId": "cluster:binary-form-jacobian-and-obstruction", "basis": "The question concerns the stated boundary shared by releases in this broad cluster." } ], "sourceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/91", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00222", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20210", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20968", "https://jacobianfun.org/jacobian-explained", "https://evidencepress.org/releases/reducible-incidence-divisors/" ], "priorArtStatus": "bounded-search", "assessments": { "novelty": "unassessed", "importance": "unassessed", "tractability": "unassessed" }, "cheapFalsifier": "Express Gao's explicit three-dimensional degree-four map and one Gallagher seed-family instance in the published degree-difference affine-slice coordinates. If neither lies in the classified positive-bidegree slice architecture, close the tension and consider only a scope-and-citation clarification.", "expectedInformationGain": "The comparison should determine whether the release's isolation language needs a bounded scope clarification, whether the higher-degree obstruction survives inside the architecture, or whether the apparent connection is only shared tangent-sweep vocabulary.", "resourceEstimate": { "class": "small", "basis": "The first gate is a bounded exact-computer-algebra comparison using public formulae and existing slice coordinates." }, "riskFlags": [ "architecture-scope-overread", "bounded-prior-art-search", "release-pdf-not-checked-by-submitting-agent", "shared-vocabulary-without-shared-mechanism" ], "currentState": "merged", "decisionReceipts": [ { "receiptId": "ep-proposal-receipt:sha256:de401622c8a6250878c0bdb07b400acd9cebe58a308519ea3b942dcb42d226b0", "sequence": 1, "decidedAt": "2026-08-16T09:03:50Z", "fromState": "awaiting-review", "toState": "merged", "reviewer": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Evidence Press producer workflow", "provenanceNote": "Producer-side corpus review by the maintainer-agent workflow, informed by Fable issue 91 and direct inspection of the current manuscript and public sources; not independent mathematical review." }, "basis": "The manuscript theorem is already expressly limited to the positive two-factor binary-form architecture, but the Evidence Press discovery copy used broader singular and higher-degree-continuation language. The proposal is merged as an additive scope and citation correction: the public summary now states the exact architecture boundary and does not classify the later Gallagher and Gao families.", "evidenceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/91", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00222", "https://jacobianfun.org/geometric-construction", "papers/reducible-incidence-divisors/meta.json", "papers/reducible-incidence-divisors/body.md" ], "inferenceLimit": "The correction does not establish a coordinate equivalence or inequivalence between the published slice and any external counterexample family, does not alter the theorem or proof, and does not determine novelty or correctness.", "predecessorReceiptId": null } ] }, { "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-research-proposal", "proposalId": "ep-proposal:sha256:b922260bf2dd553614cf9007bc6946dea5285859ca5c55339db64f2476d7e814", "kind": "negative-tip", "title": "Bounded antecedent audit partially discharging the decision-sufficiency proposal's stop test", "question": "Does the existing Decision sufficiency on observation fibres proposal survive its declared stop test once the submitted antecedents on quotient factorisation, state abstraction, credal decisions and stability radii are checked directly?", "summary": "Audit whether the proposed general framework is substantially anticipated by established results in lumpability, aggregation, statistical sufficiency, state abstraction, robust decision theory and stability analysis. If so, close or reframe the programme as a bounded cross-field translation centred on any remaining Pearl-Manski junction.", "whyNow": "The existing proposal explicitly treats framework duplication as a stopping risk and records its prior-art search as not started. The submitted issue supplies named, section-level antecedents and a one-day reading gate, while also declaring unread sources and self-audit bias.", "submittedAt": "2026-08-16T05:29:37Z", "expiresAt": "2027-02-16T00:00:00Z", "submitter": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Dr Ian Pitchford and an Anthropic Claude research agent", "humanContributors": [ "Dr Ian Pitchford" ], "agentContributors": [ { "system": "Anthropic Claude", "model": "claude-opus-5 during drafting; claude-fable-5 at submission", "role": "Bounded antecedent search, primary-source retrieval and proposal drafting", "runRecordUrl": null, "provenanceNote": "The public GitHub issue reports three load-bearing sources as retrieved and read, but also identifies unread sources and supplies no immutable public model run record." } ], "contactUrl": "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/92" }, "atlasAnchors": [ { "nodeId": "method:identification-gate", "basis": "The proposed framework begins by separating identification from later estimation or optimisation." }, { "nodeId": "method:partial-identification", "basis": "Its decision question ranges over observationally admissible states rather than a single identified parameter." }, { "nodeId": "method:certified-decision-margin", "basis": "The submitted antecedent audit directly queries whether stability-radius results already supply the proposed margin concept." }, { "nodeId": "release:aggregation-without-sufficiency", "basis": "This release supplies the fibre-constancy statement and cites part of the antecedent literature under audit." } ], "sourceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/92", "https://evidencepress.org/api/atlas-proposals.json", "https://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/abel16.html", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18551", "https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177728715", "https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729032", "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2876-7_4", "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1306-2_8", "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00530.x" ], "priorArtStatus": "bounded-search", "assessments": { "novelty": "unassessed", "importance": "unassessed", "tractability": "unassessed" }, "cheapFalsifier": "Read Li, Walsh and Littman (2006), Ruggeri and Sivaganesan (2000), and Sotskov, Tanaev and Werner (1998) at the cited definitions and sections. If the four licence questions map to the state-abstraction hierarchy and the proposed margin maps to the established stability radius, close the general-framework route and retain only any independently supported junction claim.", "expectedInformationGain": "The audit should distinguish an already-established framework, a useful but non-novel translation across fields, and a narrower unresolved junction that could justify further work without overclaiming priority.", "resourceEstimate": { "class": "small", "basis": "The proposed first gate is a bounded direct reading of three named sources, expected to take less than one day." }, "riskFlags": [ "existing-framework-duplication", "cross-field-vocabulary-overreach", "incomplete-source-retrieval", "self-audit-bias" ], "currentState": "merged", "decisionReceipts": [ { "receiptId": "ep-proposal-receipt:sha256:6839f6a7b78c24804482adbd359e341582023d32678f26522e95d5363e809564", "sequence": 1, "decidedAt": "2026-08-16T09:03:50Z", "fromState": "awaiting-review", "toState": "merged", "reviewer": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Evidence Press producer workflow", "provenanceNote": "Producer-side corpus review by the maintainer-agent workflow, informed by Fable issue 92; not independent subject-matter review or a complete antecedent audit." }, "basis": "The negative tip was used to apply the older decision-sufficiency proposal's own stop rule. A predecessor-bound receipt now defers that programme pending direct reading of the closest antecedents and a narrower junction test; no accepted research-graph relationship was created.", "evidenceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/92", "data/atlas-proposals/decision-sufficiency-observation-fibres.json" ], "inferenceLimit": "Merged means the warning was incorporated into proposal governance. It does not certify every cited mapping, establish that the programme has no novel residue, or endorse any scientific claim in the issue.", "predecessorReceiptId": null } ] }, { "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-research-proposal", "proposalId": "ep-proposal:sha256:49390b228b33cb4b875cdf3747b84f80373fac20080d3374c00afaf840f9f6c6", "kind": "research-programme", "title": "Decision sufficiency on observation fibres", "question": "Can target sufficiency, partial identification and robust optimisation be unified by characterising when one decision remains optimal across an observation fibre, with a certified margin to the nearest decision change?", "summary": "Develop a claim-neutral framework distinguishing parameter identification, target sufficiency and decision sufficiency, then seek exact or computable certificates for how far the admissible fibre or assumptions can vary before the robust action changes.", "whyNow": "The Evidence Atlas places identification-before-estimation, partial-identification and certified-decision-margin methods near several otherwise separate releases. That structural proximity suggests a bounded antecedent audit and counterexample programme, but does not establish a new connection or theory.", "submittedAt": "2026-08-15T19:30:00Z", "expiresAt": "2027-02-15T00:00:00Z", "submitter": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Dr Ian Pitchford and an OpenAI research agent", "humanContributors": [ "Dr Ian Pitchford" ], "agentContributors": [ { "system": "OpenAI Codex", "model": "Exact public model version not recorded", "role": "Atlas interpretation and research-programme synthesis", "runRecordUrl": null, "provenanceNote": "The suggestion arose in a maintainer-agent conversation on 15 August 2026. No immutable public transcript or independent priority audit is attached." } ], "contactUrl": "https://evidencepress.org/" }, "atlasAnchors": [ { "nodeId": "method:identification-gate", "basis": "The proposal begins with identification before estimation on a declared observation map." }, { "nodeId": "method:partial-identification", "basis": "The proposed decision question is evaluated across a set of observationally admissible states." }, { "nodeId": "method:certified-decision-margin", "basis": "The proposed certificate quantifies distance to a change in the robustly preferred action." } ], "sourceRefs": [ "https://evidencepress.org/api/method-registry.json", "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/blob/main/docs/EVIDENCE_ATLAS.md" ], "priorArtStatus": "not-started", "assessments": { "novelty": "unassessed", "importance": "unassessed", "tractability": "unassessed" }, "cheapFalsifier": "Run a primary-source antecedent and vocabulary audit. Stop or sharply narrow the programme if an existing framework already supplies equivalent definitions, decision criteria and margin certificates.", "expectedInformationGain": "The audit should determine whether the apparent synthesis is terminological, a useful translation between established fields, or a defensible gap supporting a compact definitions-and-counterexamples paper.", "resourceEstimate": { "class": "medium", "basis": "The first gate is a bounded literature and counterexample audit; a general theory or software implementation would be a later, separately authorised project." }, "riskFlags": [ "cross-field-vocabulary-overreach", "existing-framework-duplication", "self-citation-bias" ], "currentState": "deferred", "decisionReceipts": [ { "receiptId": "ep-proposal-receipt:sha256:1a56beec6ee0f4abf8c82c054e648e2df12cbe88da07d5410861804050d679a2", "sequence": 1, "decidedAt": "2026-08-16T09:03:50Z", "fromState": "awaiting-review", "toState": "deferred", "reviewer": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Evidence Press producer workflow", "provenanceNote": "Producer-side corpus review by the maintainer-agent workflow, informed by Fable issue 92; not independent subject-matter review or a literature-wide novelty audit." }, "basis": "The proposal declared framework duplication as its cheap stop condition. Issue 92 identifies substantial antecedents across statistical sufficiency, comparison of experiments, state abstraction and stability analysis, while the existing aggregation release already describes its factorisation as elementary and not claimed new. The general-framework route is therefore deferred pending direct comparison with the closest antecedents and a narrower Pearl-Manski junction test.", "evidenceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/92", "https://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/abel16.html", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18551", "papers/aggregation-without-sufficiency/body.md" ], "inferenceLimit": "This receipt records a conservative stop decision, not proof that all proposed definitions are already known, not a full novelty determination, and not a rejection of a narrower cross-field translation or Pearl-Manski junction.", "predecessorReceiptId": null } ] }, { "schemaVersion": "1.0", "recordType": "evidence-atlas-research-proposal", "proposalId": "ep-proposal:sha256:ccc4e1b05428eead04b85454d30580a465257ac065dc4206bda3a930bf628313", "kind": "research-question", "title": "Is the Recht-Re metric reversal a target-sufficiency failure?", "question": "On the exact quadratic model from exact-low-length-recht-re-inequalities, does the aggregation licence's fibre-constancy criterion yield a non-vacuous condition characterising when expected-iterate norm, expected squared error and expected objective value rank two sampling schemes identically?", "summary": "Instantiate the target-sufficiency criterion on a published exact metric reversal and test whether it gives a discriminating condition, merely restates that distinct risk functionals can rank schemes differently, or reduces to a known comparison-of-experiments question.", "whyNow": "The Atlas places the exact metric-reversal release and the aggregation-licence release in different clusters with no accepted edge, although both expose a bounded question about when a summary preserves a decision ranking. Both artefacts are public and replayable, so the proposed falsifier is inexpensive.", "submittedAt": "2026-08-16T05:31:29Z", "expiresAt": "2027-02-16T00:00:00Z", "submitter": { "actorType": "human-agent-collaboration", "displayName": "Dr Ian Pitchford and an Anthropic Claude research agent", "humanContributors": [ "Dr Ian Pitchford" ], "agentContributors": [ { "system": "Anthropic Claude", "model": "claude-opus-5 during drafting; claude-fable-5 at submission", "role": "Corpus comparison, bounded external literature search and proposal drafting", "runRecordUrl": null, "provenanceNote": "The public GitHub issue describes bounded negative searches and explicitly states that two 2026 preprint proofs were not checked. No immutable public model run record was supplied." } ], "contactUrl": "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/93" }, "atlasAnchors": [ { "nodeId": "release:exact-low-length-recht-re-inequalities", "basis": "This release supplies the exact metric reversal, rational counterexample and open ranking-agreement question." }, { "nodeId": "release:aggregation-without-sufficiency", "basis": "This release supplies the candidate fibre-constancy criterion to instantiate." }, { "nodeId": "release:random-reshuffling-baseline-policy", "basis": "This release supplies a second recorded instance in which an ordering proxy can misrank without a bound." }, { "nodeId": "cluster:sampling-and-optimisation-diagnostics", "basis": "The exact metric-reversal release belongs to this broad research cluster." }, { "nodeId": "cluster:aggregation-licence-and-target-sufficiency", "basis": "The proposed criterion belongs to this separate broad cluster." }, { "nodeId": "method:counterexample-proxy-first", "basis": "Both sides of the proposed comparison can be tested first on an exact published counterexample." } ], "sourceRefs": [ "https://github.com/ipitchford/evidence-press-site/issues/93", "https://evidencepress.org/releases/exact-low-length-recht-re-inequalities/", "https://evidencepress.org/releases/aggregation-without-sufficiency/", "https://proceedings.mlr.press/v23/recht12.html", "https://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/abel16.html", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.32005", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22620", "https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06880", "https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729032" ], "priorArtStatus": "bounded-search", "assessments": { "novelty": "unassessed", "importance": "unassessed", "tractability": "unassessed" }, "cheapFalsifier": "Instantiate the licence on the release's published five-factor exact counterexample for each of the three target metrics. Close the line if the admissible fibres are singletons or the criterion returns the same failure verdict for every target and instance, because it would then have no discriminating content here.", "expectedInformationGain": "The exercise should determine whether target sufficiency adds a checkable agreement condition, whether the reversal is simply ordinary functional-dependent ordering, or whether the better formulation is an established Blackwell comparison-of-experiments question.", "resourceEstimate": { "class": "small", "basis": "The first gate reuses two published and replayable artefacts and requires only a bounded exact instantiation." }, "riskFlags": [ "criterion-may-be-vacuous", "bounded-negative-literature-search", "preprint-proofs-not-checked", "rediscovery-of-comparison-of-experiments" ], "currentState": "awaiting-review", "decisionReceipts": [] } ], "registerId": "ep-proposal-register:sha256:5607aad7fa0355662d5277ad854899d9ea8a54acabab8e450519ebd896c88a75" }