From evidence to explanation
The instrument moves between local accounts and a model that must explain their differences. Its contracts govern the work; these pages explain the route.
Agents and their roles explains who prepares the material, reads it, builds the model and checks the work.
First, understand each community
Community readers code participants’ words. A case lead consolidates codes, themes and a case account. Exact quotations and reading records let a reviewer check the evidence behind an account.
How community coding works · Full community coder contract
Then compare, build and challenge
A1 reads the cases before a common scheme is named. B1 to B4 build, pilot, apply and adjudicate that scheme. Independent readings make disagreements visible; adjudication remains an interpretive task.
C1 to C5 develop higher-order themes, the dynamic model and its account. The model is challenged, compared with literature, and examined against the Field account when supplied.
The Field analysis studies the central r/place forum separately. C4 compares the account supplied with the community model, recording its scope and limits. In v43, the Field agent supplied an interim reading and comments; its full model was not finished. A comparison with that completed model remains pending. If no account is supplied, C4 records its absence. This site does not yet provide a standalone Field launch guide.
D1 to D5 return the model to communities, assess corrections and develop the taxonomy. D6 retells the whole model with the organizational forms inside it; new insights remain unvalidated proposals. A difference can matter within one community without requiring the global model to explain every case identically.
E1 and E2 audit the work and examine feedback. File checks support the inquiry; evidence and argument carry the explanation.
Choose a stage · Full method · Full aggregator contract
Review an inference
Follow a claim to its account, codes and source material. Compare the aggregator’s record with its stated alternatives and limits. A checkpoint interview can probe that interpretation, but its answers are new responses from the saved state.
Trace one claim · Interview a checkpoint · Detailed methodological review
Audit the evidence with TRACE: recorded examples, access limits and gaps, without extra research gates.
The older review page describes a historical run. Use the publication catalogue for the records indexed by this site.