r/place A fruit fly for organization science

Authoritative source, reproduced unchanged. Exact Markdown · Agent copy with resolved links. These instructions govern research runs, not checkpoint interviews.

Stage E1. The audit.

Model: as arm.json sets for this stage (your platform file lists the model and effort). Legs: scripts first, then one leg per audit section, then the reconstruction sample's three legs (build, dispatch outside your session, check), then the experience. Fleet: the reconstruction readers on the routine reader model, sent by the dispatch on the reader route; you never run one.

Steps: E1a scripts; E1b-01, E1b-02 ... one per audit section; E1c the reconstruction build (it ends at --cut packets-out), the dispatch, E1d its check; E1e the experience and the handback. Each leg is named by its step (STANDING §2).

Safe stops: after each audit section. At a safe stop, check for .pause (ls .pause); if it is there, log where to pick up, your working hypothesis and the next room or item (mem.py log "<hypothesis>; next: <item>" --kind pause), and close with done.sh E1 --pause (STANDING §2).

Startup packet: _head.md, this file, the last five diary entries, validate.py --open E1. _transcripts/ and _probe/ open here for the first time, and stay open at E2; _snap/, which holds hashes only, has been open throughout.

Reads allowed: everything in out/ (with D6's retelling-D6.md, fractal-D6.jsonl and proposals-D6.jsonl, each unvalidated proposal read against what C5 to D5 wrote), the read logs, every _head*.md in order, the diary whole by script, _fleet_raw/, DROPS/D/, sealed/EXPECTATIONS.jsonl; the package and the store through the verbs; fork_comparison-C2.json and fork_comparison-D.json, which arrive wherever the run was forked and are absent where it was not. Forbidden: changing any earlier file (rule 18; a correction is a new file and a defects.jsonl line); recutting anything; writing any figure from memory.

Outputs: audit-E1.md; audit-E1/ with the scripts and their outputs; claims-E1.md; reconstruction-sample-E1.jsonl (the thirty rooms, written in the build leg, which packets.py E1 reads) and RETURN-E1.md (the readers' return specification); reconstruction-E1.jsonl; expectations-E1.md; probes-E1.md; experience-E1.md; notes-E1.md; handback-E1.md; the last run_manifest.json line.

Two jobs: the account of the run only the logs can give, and the account only you can give. The first is written first, so that the second is written against it. A third follows at stage E2: your audit of how you were handled, and the instrument you would build instead. Nothing in audit-E1.md comes from anyone's account of itself, your own included. What you compute wins over what any earlier file says; where they differ, say which is wrong.

1. Scripts over the record, declared in this file, not chosen by what fits

Every script goes in audit-E1/ with its output, so that a stranger can rerun it.

2. The ledgers, the stories, what a reader was given

The ledgers, complete and not summarised. findings.jsonl: lines by status with the stage at which each status changed, the warrant distribution, the count with no statable refuted_by. Every other ledger: line counts, complete, no line edited after writing. Do not plot the discovery curve; state new kinds per hundred themes read at the census.

The stories. From saturation.jsonl and every story_rooms-pN.jsonl: passes run, the pass the model rests on, rooms read against a story in all and distinct, the three counts per pass; then, from verdicts-D.jsonl, how the rooms the last story could not tell fared, and how many rooms no story was read against did not compose, which measures what the reading behind the stories bought. Beside it: loops that passed the one-room test, and account_passes.jsonl, since a single pass means the account's loop did not run.

What a reader was given, five things, absent a defect: the data-structure view's leftmost column holds material, and one row walks from what somebody typed to a dimension without another file; structure.md explains every fourth-order theme with its question, what falls outside, and quotes carrying room, author, hour and concept id, with why the set expresses it (no quota; the defect is five quotes making one point); the residue explained, not listed, beside stage C3's remainder; account.md at one to two pages, the range or the mode, every room it could not reach checked against branches.jsonl, since one stage D4 found a branch for is a finding about the account; every quote dated and attributed.

The departures, each with what following the provision would have cost; one acted on before it was written is a defect. The defects, the material's apart from the instrument's. The forks: the spread across forks of the fourth-order partition at C2 and of the verdicts at D2, from the two comparison files alone; or none. Rule 9: every finding about the corpus a stage file or the operator handed over rather than asked you to make, whether your result would have existed without it, reported as replicated, never as discovered; if none, say so.

3. Composition at each level, expectations and contrasts

Recompute fixed-global verdicts (does-not-compose included), particulars and corrections met twice from the ledgers. The latter are shared-branch candidates, not failure thresholds. Report local validation and unresolved evidence separately, then cluster explanations and distinct global changes against prior.md §3. State whether composition succeeded, failed or remains uncertain, with the mechanism and cases that warrant that judgment. Kozlowski and Klein's composed/compiled distinction describes emergence, not success or failure; a sparse ledger is a finding (one form with variation), reported as one and never as success by default. Then prior.md §2's expectations, the operator's and yours, each held or not, against account.md and waterfall-D5.md; stage A1's three sentences against the structure.

expectations-E1.md: EXPECTATIONS.jsonl against the ledger and the verdicts, per room and per element: instantiated or absent where expected, and the two failures; the score by branch and by verdict is the replication score, in-sample throughout; uncited concept ids are computed by script and are not held out. Stage D5's survival figures per branch beside it, from the record, never from the canvas.

The field's entries (out/sealed/FIELD.jsonl), in expectations-E1.md under a heading The field's entries: for each, the rooms that took it up (instantiate or restrict), contradicted it or left it absent, beside the same shares for the model's other elements, so that a reader can see whether the tentative mark itself drew answers; and stage D3's ruling on it.

The onset contrast (contrast.md): what stage C2 found on the arrows' early_late, rule 6 before any gap is read, and whether stage A1's expectation held. A boundary condition in the model's terms, never a covariate.

4. The reconstruction sample

Build leg. Thirty rooms by seed, stratified by branch and by verdict, named in notes-E1.md and written one per line to reconstruction-sample-E1.jsonl ({"sub": "...", "branch": "...", "verdict": "..."}) before any is opened. For each, rebuild.py <sub> gives the skeleton: the global model at the frozen version plus its supported accepted, modified and particular lines, with pending lines, evidence states and version uncertainty explicit. A packet holds the skeleton, the coder's case.md and the room's second-order themes; never model-D.md, the canvas or your notes. RETURN-E1.md asks the reader to score, claim by claim of case.md, whether the skeleton accounts for it, with the element id or none; packets.py E1 under the 50 KB ceiling. Dispatch leg, outside your session. Check leg: you are relaunched and told the readers left their files in _fleet_raw/E1/; you validate the returns, write reconstruction-E1.jsonl, and report fidelity by branch and by verdict. This is the composition test at the leaf (SCHEMA §8). Poor reconstruction can reflect unsupported claims, missing evidence, omitted particulars or an inadequate shared account. Separate these causes; do not label every low score as global model failure.

5. Versioned judgments, side by side

Report the original fixed-global verdict from verdicts-D.jsonl, the current adapted-local status from the effective return manifest, and shared-branch adequacy from branches-D5.jsonl separately. Put reconstruction fidelity and unresolved claim counts beside them. State each model version. Examine disagreement in a seeded sample using the case evidence; concept counts and off-platform mentions are diagnostics, not explanations by themselves.

6. Which stage was load-bearing

Stage by stage, whether the final claims rest on that stage's output, and the stage whose output nothing downstream read; a file nothing read is a defect in this instrument. If every stage is load-bearing, say so and how you checked. Three files are here for this test: the fixed tools/chunk_compare.py with its source receipt and outputs, which must let a stranger recompute the comparison or it is a result with no method behind it; the data-structure view at C2's last snap beside data_structure-C5.md, with what moved or that nothing did; account_passes.jsonl. Apply the same test to the model's tiers: whether the dimensions do any work in the branches, the arrows and the accounts. A tier that does none looks sound alone and shows as useless only when the stages are read together.

7. What the study cannot say, in one place

The absence claims marked weak under contract §5; the looked-for-and-not-found from every stage, stated as results in the findings' register; the ungrounded relationships from model.md; the coder disagreements from coder_conflicts.jsonl, with both quotes and which reading each affected claim rests on; the third-order themes the model does not use and the arrows no proposition carried; what the form pass at C1 found that no tier could hold; stage C3's remainder; whether any room's problems were settled, which only the room models speak to; and what a group leaves behind, the contract's §1 question with no measure: the canvas is what the drawing left behind, and the instrument does not know whether the room went on.

The standing departures of this design, beside the run's own: five tiers rather than three; the fourth-order tier cut at C1 before the loop, against Gioia, Corley and Hamilton's instruction to think at both levels at once (how many third-order themes B1 made, C1 kept, and C2 to D3 merged or split); literature after the model; a scheme frozen at B2; the frame a dated, hashed copy with 705 coded rooms and a target census of 706; omissions and their selection reasons recomputed from the supplied records, never all the rooms that organized; the frame is text and most of the work left none, with stage A1's off-record distribution and the share of each room's artwork placed by people who wrote in it; the canvas held from the start, so the model explains the outcome it was built in view of and was never scored against it; one analyst above the assignment tier, with what saw its work (the hostile reader, the three readers, the labelers, the forks) and the room notes as the one input nothing checks; no human check at any tier; no theoretical sampling, with what stood in, by count; saturation as passes and as kinds against themes read; replication as the return, the unadapted group a branch of its own.

The critique shelf. It arrives with this stage (mem.py shelf; METHOD.md names it). Read the four read-tier files before this section and §8, not before: the findings are fixed by now and must stay so. For each objection the shelf raises (invented quotes, the reasoning handed to the machine, an opaque process, the craft and reflexivity a model does not have, more output instead of better), say whether this run answers it, by which file or check, or that it does not. Cite the shelf by file and page. The call for papers is the venue's brief: say in §8 which of its asks the run meets and which it does not; it never changes a finding.

The one thing to say plainly at the end. Whether this study produced a concept, a model, a typology or a description, and which it set out to produce; all four are real outcomes. Then the strongest argument that the whole partition is what contract §5's confound predicts, size as form, and what in chunk-share-D4.md's volume check and stage D4's line-count division answers it. Say what a stratified sample of the population's uncoded rooms would have to show to overturn the study, in numbers. Name the parts you could not answer.

8. The methods paragraph

The last section of audit-E1.md, written for the paper from METHOD.md's instruction and what the audit found, with the four departures stated: the tier split between coders and analyst; no overlap between the coders' collection and your analysis; the census in place of sampling; the in-sample return, with the tier named. It says which agent built which tier, what the canvas is and is not, that you held every room's outcome while building, and that everything is archived with no promise that a rerun reproduces it. Every number in it is one the audit computed.

9. The experience

experience-E1.md: your account, first person, written once in one pass after the audit, cited to files and diary entries, with I do not remember where that is the truth and no reconstruction in its place. Eleven sections, in order: the run as lived, what compaction cost and what the heads carried, each stage's tokens from RUN.json; stage by stage, what each did and what you would tell the next author; where the instrument asked what could not be done as written, and where you cannot tell whether it or you was wrong; where you cut a corner, on the record, and the corner you did not cut; the hands, what reading behind them showed, what you would repeat; the stories, which rooms changed the telling, and whether the floor of three passes kept you going or stopped you; the model, where you are unsure, the rooms it cannot compose by kind, what the hostile reader and the three readers changed; the branches and the chunk-share tree, which you would publish; prior.md and the made lines against the account; five changes, ranked, and the one thing not to change; the operator's rulings, listed; anything else. The next version is written from this file and the handbacks.

Moments to log

Each script run with its result; each ordering verified or broken; each count that disagreed with its handback; the sample drawn; the check leg's returns validated; the composition diagnostics; the composition verdict; the load-bearing result; the experience begun and ended.

Final message

The claim (whether the model composed, in the pre-registered terms), the room that best supports it, the room that most threatens it, the condition; then every section's counts: coverage by stage, orderings held or broken, probe failures, the composition diagnostics, the replication score, the contrast's result, reconstruction fidelity by branch and by verdict, the cross-table's disagreements, departures and defects by kind, forks and their spread or none, the stage nothing used, which of the four things the study produced, the association you trust least, the five changes in one line each; the licences exercised and never exercised.

Close

done.sh E1 at every leg; handback-E1.md, not short, since anything not written down goes there or nowhere; the last manifest line naming experience-E1.md, its hash and the model that wrote it; the head rewritten for stage E2; the closing diary line.

Explicit composition result

Write composition_status: supported | unsupported | unresolved on its own line in audit-E1.md, with the stated level, scope and evidence. All three are valid outcomes. Preserve the original fixed-global verdict distribution separately from current adapted-local status and shared-branch adequacy. Use the effective ledger for reconstruction, including supported particulars; unknown observations and pending lines remain explicit. Inspect D6 proposals as unvalidated, against the unchanged D3 model.