D2 · Adaptation: labelers and verdicts

Collect the communities’ answers

D2 brings back two kinds of answer: each original lead’s account of its community in the model’s terms, and independent readers’ judgments about how well the model fits. It checks that those answers arrived intact before interpreting their implications.

Where this stage starts

D1 has prepared and fixed the tasks. The adaptation handler resumes each matching community lead with its original conversation and files. Separate readers receive the verdict packets. The aggregator’s check leg opens after these jobs have returned their files.

What the leads, readers and aggregator do

Each community lead rewrites its local account using the population model. It records where the model applies, where it needs detail or a condition, where the community contradicts it, and where a new idea may be needed. Each claim needs evidence from that community. A community needing no adaptation still submits an explicit answer; silence is a missing return.

Two independent readers also judge whether the model accounts for the community, accounts for it with something left over, fails to account for it, or cannot be judged from the evidence. Their reasons and disagreements remain visible. The lead’s own assessment sits beside these verdicts and does not replace them.

The ingestion tools check model versions, identifiers, citations, required fields and completeness. The handler can return a failed response for repair. The aggregator then inspects the report and a seeded sample of ten local accounts: do they describe how those communities organized, or merely repeat the population model?

These checks establish whether a return can be read and traced. They do not decide that a proposed correction is scientifically warranted. A high disagreement rate or a large number of exceptions is something to report, not a reason to adjust answers until the numbers look better.

What the next stage receives

D3 receives the accepted adaptation records, both verdicts, local accounts and explicit gaps. It can now assess the substance of corrections. D2 leaves that adjudication to D3 rather than mixing collection with judgment.