Publication quality-control register¶
Part of Inverse Innovation with the Encyclopedia of Abstractions · Publication quality-control register · Last revised August 2026
Status date: 2026-08-06
Scope: August 2026 public working-paper package
Interpretation: PASS means the named gate has direct evidence. PARTIAL
means that a narrower automated or editorial check passed but the full semantic
claim has not been independently verified. A working manifest is not a final
release seal while any gate remains partial or pending.
| Gate | Status | Evidence and remaining work |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Generate a canonical fact table | PASS — automated | data/report_facts.json is regenerated from preserved artifacts for twelve prospective experiments, one retrospective experiment, and five post-hoc analyses by build_inverse_innovation_public_report_data.py. |
| 2. Reconcile counts and endpoint definitions | PASS — automated | validate_inverse_innovation_public_report.py checks the 59 dossiers, portfolio endpoint counts, experiment scope, ranks, and load-bearing report phrases, including the Experiment 9 and 11–15 frozen results. Protocol-specific denominators remain separate in the report. |
| 3. Verify all 59 candidate lineages and classifications | PASS — automated lineage; PARTIAL — semantic | Every candidate links to existing proposal and evaluation artifacts and has one preserved endpoint class. No independent expert has re-adjudicated all classifications. |
| 4. Check every dossier against proposal and terminal evaluation | PARTIAL | The dossier compiler reads the canonical candidate index and validators check IDs, links, lengths, and required fields. Full sentence-level semantic comparison by an independent reader has not been completed for all 59. |
| 5. Verify external citations and coverage dates | PARTIAL | Source objects require URL, publisher, source class, date fields, access date, and supported claims. The frozen ten-case prior-art sentinel ran 40 targeted historical, trade/standards, non-English, and composition queries: 8/10 cases acquired closer adjacent precedent, 2 did not, and none met its likely-substantial-collision rule. This improves sensitivity evidence but does not verify every citation or prove exhaustive search. |
| 6. Reproduce every table and figure from saved data | PARTIAL | Experiment tables are cross-checked against canonical analysis outputs. Experiments 9 and 11–15 pass their dedicated validators; the Experiment 8 and Experiment 10 tables pass the hardening validator; and the substrate analyses pass freeze-hash, blinding, matrix, clustered-result, and frozen-gate checks. Several main-report prose tables remain editorial rather than generated directly from one script. |
| 7. Audit every numerical claim against the fact table | PARTIAL | Validators check the principal published counts, yields, resources, denominators, hardening results, Experiment 9/11/12/13/14/15 frozen statistics, and E10B/E9 substrate headlines. The 422-record proposal-type analysis used two outcome-blinded passes plus blinded adjudication of all 68 disagreements; the E9 substrate follow-up used two blinded passes plus adjudication of all ten disagreements before key join; Experiment 12 preserves its two-pass classifications, paired judgments, adjudications, web screens, and cell-level join; Experiment 13 preserves 180 proposals, duplicate blinded measurement, all disagreement adjudications, 180 opaque screens, and its paired join; Experiment 14 preserves duplicate case audits, all material-disagreement adjudications, sealed retrieval inputs, and 114 blinded DNF verifications; and Experiment 15 preserves a disjoint archetype sample, duplicate case audits, material-disagreement adjudications, sealed eligibility, and seven deterministic retrieval arms. A complete independent audit of every numeral in narrative prose has not been performed. |
| 8. Run link and anchor checks | PASS — automated | Public-report and publication validators check local targets, dossier anchors, site chapter links, and registered downloads. External reachability can change after release. |
| 9. Review narrative accessibility and technical fidelity | PASS — editorial; PARTIAL — independent | The report received a cold adversarial model review and subsequent correction pass. It has not received independent domain-expert or journal review. |
| 10. Preserve a version, changelog, and correction route | PASS | Machine release metadata, change log, visible revision month, original experiment artifacts, and a correction policy are present. |
| 11. Seal only after all gates pass | PENDING | The current 0.9 manifest identifies a reproducible working publication state. It is not a final QA seal while gates 3–7 and 9 remain partial. |
What the automated checks establish¶
They establish that expected artifacts exist, counts reconcile, candidate IDs and endpoint classes are internally consistent, required source fields are present, local links and anchors resolve, and publication archives match their manifests. They do not establish world novelty, source truth, causal validity, domain-expert agreement, or the absence of older and proprietary precedent.
Release rule¶
The report may be published as a clearly labeled working paper with this status register. A future final seal requires either completing the partial semantic gates or explicitly revising the approved release criteria; silent equivalence between automated conformance and independent verification is not permitted.