Contributing

New entries and improvements are welcome. This site’s credibility rests on strict epistemic tiering, so every substantive conclusion must be marked with its tier.

Process

1. ProposeTopic noteSay what you want to write and which existing entries and claims it relates to.
2. WriteFollow the style sheetUse the sample entry: abstract, definition and theorem boxes, references.
3. ReviewEditorial checkEditors check the tier, grounds and sources of every conclusion.
4. Publish and reviseKeep it currentSubstantive revisions are dated; important corrections are logged publicly.

Rules

• Whenever you state a substantive conclusion, give its epistemic tier (postulate, theorem, empirical, structural inference, interpretive, lexical, engineering, programmatic, or rejected).
• Follow the cascade rule: the tier of a conclusion = min(tier of the premises, rigour of the inference). Anything derived from an interpretive correspondence is at most interpretive.
• Never close an argument on numerical coincidence: equal numbers (64 = 64, 60 = 60) are not evidence; a structural reason is required.
• “This domain is Five-Phase” must pass the algebraic gate; report failures honestly and look for the right structure.
• Numbers must come from actual runs, never from assertion; distrust surprising results and cross-check them by an independent method.
• Use the corrected wording (see the editorial policy), never superseded phrasing from older drafts.