What this publication contains
Updated 29 October 2026. This page describes the recorded run and distinguishes its checks from proposed next work.
The study's frame contains 705 communities. Community coding develops codes, second-order themes and case accounts. The aggregator compares this material, builds an account of organizing, and returns the model to saved case agents. The census reference explains the population judgments; downloads do not recreate those decisions.
The run is finished. Its final publication,
f27566528a51, records all 18 stages closed, ending at E2b
on 28 October 2026. Earlier checkpoints retain their own source commits
and saved-state dates. A completed run is not proof that its explanation
is correct.
Read an actual result
Follow PlaceNL from coding to the population model, or explore the population model, its organizational forms and all community profiles.
Start with the final D6 account and figure. Then read the E1 audit and experience, followed by E2's handling review and proposed next instrument. They distinguish the explanation from its limits and proposed repairs.
The D4 tree and final D5 form accounts show how the forms were developed. D5b and D6b remain available as earlier records; later work changed their stages. The C5 account remains a historical version, not the final account.
For one community, compare PlaceNL at coding close with its local model at R6. The pages show saved text with participant IDs substituted, plus a comparison of original file hashes with the recorded parent. They retain the known limits of the historical close.
Trace one quoted item from the R6 account to its code and archived thread. This checks one evidence path, not every claim in the model.
How the model is checked
An account can read well and still misread the record. The paper groups checks at three levels.
Coding: does the account fit its evidence?
Scripts check cited quotations against source items. A resolved quotation shows that the text exists, not that the interpretation is sound. The paper also reports paired coding of 300 communities with two models. A scored comparison of those codings is not yet presented on this site; the count alone is not an estimate of reliability.
Composition: do claims hold across cases?
Human audits can test selected cross-case inferences. The run also retained critical readings, returned its model to community agents, and checked reconstruction of local accounts. PlaceNL's return shows a revision and its limits; E1 explains the reconstruction check.
Two further population models are planned for comparison: algorithm-supported induction from term frequencies, without a coding agent, and a separate aggregator using cross-case tables. These comparisons are not results of the completed run.
Source: what does another view reveal?
The central r/place forum falls outside the 705-community artwork frame. Its Field agent is still working. At C4, it supplied an interim reading and comments that prompted tentative additions and qualifications to the community model. This was not a check against a completed Field model. Finishing that analysis and comparing its full model with the population model remain future work.
Inspect one recorded review and correction for a narrower audit with file versions and explicit limits. Agents and their roles explains who did each part and where human judgment remained.
What is shared
Saved reading pages cover 35 aggregator checkpoints and 28 community checkpoints, two for each of 14 selected communities. The earlier 52 have published private interview packages. The 11 final-run additions have separate file and native checks; their cards distinguish test results from release availability. Other entries offer only a record.
Read saved outputs without starting an agent. Interview a checkpoint to ask new questions about it. GitHub downloads remain private and hosted reviewer interviews are not enabled. Run the study explains the separate reproduction routes and their prerequisites.