{ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", "name": "DecisionOS Canonical Scientific Evidence Atlas", "version": "1.0.0", "completeness": "COMPLETE_FOR_PUBLISHED_CONTEXT_SCOPE", "generatedAt": "2026-09-26T02:45:00Z", "governanceRule": "Negative results, failed hypotheses, and methodological limitations are first-class evidence. Bounded to published presentation and context assets.", "studies": [ { "study_id": "STUDY-OBS-01", "title": "Decision Physics Canonical Observables and Metadata Topology", "research_question": "Can organizational decision friction and coordination drag be quantitatively observed from non-content event metadata without inspecting message bodies or document contents?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "Structural event metadata (timestamps, actor pairs, boundary crossings, state transitions) provides sufficient signal to measure decision latency and coordination drag.", "methodology": "Graph-topological telemetry analysis across passive enterprise event streams; zero-content extraction.", "dataset_scope": "Synthetic enterprise benchmarks and historical event archives (Enron email corpus, open workflow datasets).", "observation_window": "Retrospective historical observation and benchmark replay.", "scientific_status": "SOURCE_BOUND_AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "evidence_state": "OPERATIONAL_TELEMETRY_EVIDENCE", "replication_status": "INTERNAL_TELEMETRY_VERIFIED_EXTERNAL_PEER_REVIEW_UNRESOLVED", "results": [ "Decision latency, handoff waiting times, and rework loop frequencies are measurable from non-content event metadata.", "Zero-content invariant strictly preserved (no message body or PII ingestion required)." ], "negative_results": [ "Cannot determine subjective decision quality or individual human intent from metadata.", "Cannot infer psychological burnout, cognitive fatigue, or personal emotional states." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Direct individual sentiment extraction from timing metadata failed validation and was permanently discarded." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Domain-specific noise thresholds in highly asynchronous remote-first communication environments." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Observational resolution depends on enterprise system logging fidelity.", "External offline decisions (unlogged verbal/hallway discussions) are invisible to structural telemetry." ], "supports_claims": [ "Zero-content decision observability", "Decision latency and workflow loop measurement", "Bottleneck actor-pair identification" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Independently peer-reviewed scientific benchmark authority", "External representative universal replication", "Individual employee productivity or emotional scoring", "Deterministic business outcome prediction" ], "product_authority": "IMPLEMENTED_PRODUCTION_CAPABILITY", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "artifacts/canonical_observables.json", "source_version": "v1.4", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-OBS-v0" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "CONTINUOUS_OBSERVABILITY_AUDIT", "outcome_access_state": "OPEN_PUBLIC_BENCHMARK", "record_type": "METHODOLOGY_OR_PRODUCT_OBSERVABILITY_EVIDENCE", "product_capability_status": "IMPLEMENTED_PRODUCTION" }, { "study_id": "STUDY-SCALING-01", "title": "Topology-Dependent Scaling and Coordination Crossover Dynamics", "research_question": "Does organizational coordination entropy scale logarithmically with team size, and does a critical crossover threshold exist?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "In studied coordination networks, communication entropy exhibits a crossover threshold at N* ≈ 14.7 actors where marginal coordination overhead exceeds individual productive capacity.", "methodology": "Statistical mechanics entropy modeling (Shannon entropy over actor-interaction graphs) and cross-team empirical validation.", "dataset_scope": "Studied coordination topologies in complex knowledge-work environments.", "observation_window": "Multi-sprint historical telemetry analysis.", "scientific_status": "SUPPORTED_BOUNDED", "evidence_state": "STUDIED_DOMAIN_VALIDATED", "replication_status": "PARTIAL_TOPOLOGY_DEPENDENT_ADVISORY_ONLY", "results": [ "Demonstrated clear coordination friction inflection at N* ≈ 14.7 within the specific studied topology." ], "negative_results": [ "Not a universal natural constant; threshold shifts under highly modular or hierarchical structures.", "Universal scaling prescription ('all teams above 15 must split into 2') failed empirical generalization." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Hypothesis of invariant universal team size constant N=15 across all corporate cultures was FALSIFIED." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Impact of AI-augmented coordination tools on the empirical crossover location." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Broader external validation incomplete", "N* ≈ 14.7 is an empirical central estimate in studied cohorts, NOT a universal physical constant", "Team boundaries and communication protocols significantly shift inflection points" ], "supports_claims": [ "Topology-dependent structural crossover diagnostic", "Coordination load inflection warning in studied topologies" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Universal scaling law", "Mandatory team-splitting decree", "Fully validated natural constant" ], "product_authority": "BOUNDED_STRUCTURAL_DIAGNOSTIC", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "artifacts/scientific_ledger_v3.md", "source_version": "v3.1", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-DUNBAR-PRESCIPTION" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "MULTI_TOPOLOGY_CROSS_BENCHMARK", "outcome_access_state": "BOUNDED_RESEARCH_RECORDS", "record_type": "EMPIRICAL_SCIENTIFIC_STUDY", "guidance": "ADVISORY_ONLY" }, { "study_id": "STUDY-CH-B2", "title": "CH-B2 Prospective Confirmatory Program (Attempt-8 / V1.1.7)", "research_question": "Did metadata-level topological correlation signals support the frozen H1 hypothesis in the 10-DAO prospective cohort under contract V1.1.7?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "H1: Structural correlation lock-in across decision pathways exceeds null threshold in evaluable prospective cohorts under frozen contract V1.1.7.", "methodology": "Prospective cohort acquisition (10/10 evaluable DAOs) with frozen H1 adjudication under protocol V1.1.7 (Attempt-8).", "dataset_scope": "10-DAO frozen prospective cohort (Attempt-8).", "observation_window": "Prospective observation window under frozen V1.1.7 protocol.", "scientific_status": "RECONCILIATION_REQUIRED", "evidence_state": "PROVENANCE_LIMITED_HOLD_REVIEW", "replication_status": "PARTIAL_REPLICATION_HOLD_REVIEW", "results": [ "H1 empirical adjudication was supported under exact frozen contract V1.1.7 in Attempt-8 prospective cohort.", "Current authority (2026-09-17 reconciliation overlay) classifies CH-B2 as RECONCILIATION_REQUIRED with PROVENANCE_LIMITED and HOLD_REVIEW." ], "negative_results": [ "Acquisition lineage remains incomplete pending formal reconciliation.", "Does not generalize to continuous production monitoring or arbitrary corporate entities." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "H2, H3, and H4 secondary prospective hypotheses were not statistically supported under frozen contract V1.1.7.", "Universal transferability of prospective DAO topological correlation to general corporate governance structures was not demonstrated." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Formal reconciliation of the data acquisition lineage and raw telemetry custody for Attempt-8.", "Independent prospective replication across heterogeneous enterprise coordination topologies." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Provenance and acquisition lineage remain incomplete pending formal reconciliation (Class B rating).", "Bounded cohort scope restricted to n=10 evaluable DAOs under frozen protocol V1.1.7.", "Small-N prospective cohort cannot establish universal failure horizon or commercial risk scoring." ], "supports_claims": [ "Prospective H1 hypothesis adjudication support under exact frozen protocol V1.1.7 in Attempt-8 10-DAO cohort" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "General Failure Horizon proof or collapse timing", "Eta prospective validation for commercial clients", "Recoverability Horizon authority", "Automated promotion to CEO cockpit or credit risk scoring" ], "product_authority": "RESEARCH_HOLD_NOT_PRODUCT_AUTHORIZED", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "artifacts/scientific_ledger_v3.md", "source_version": "v3.1", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-PRE-PROTOCOL-EXPLORATORY" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "outcome_access_state": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "record_type": "EMPIRICAL_SCIENTIFIC_STUDY", "result_classification": "RESULT_EXISTS_BUT_ACQUISITION_LINEAGE_INCOMPLETE", "class": "CLASS_B", "commercial_promotion": "NOT_AUTHORIZED", "presentation_claim_override": { "override_id": "OVERRIDE-CHB2-CURRENT-AUTHORITY", "applies_to": [ "Slide 40", "Slide 43" ], "status": "SUPERSEDED_BY_CURRENT_SCIENTIFIC_AUTHORITY" }, "authority_code": "DP-CHB2-001", "program_type": "PROSPECTIVE_CONFIRMATORY_PROGRAM", "empirical_adjudication": { "status": "H1_ADJUDICATED_SUPPORTED", "cohort_evaluable": "10 / 10", "observed_eta": 0.45, "null_eta": 0.05, "raw_p": 0.0001, "multiplicity_adjusted_p": 0.001, "contract": "FROZEN_V1.1.7" }, "current_authority": { "status": "RECONCILIATION_REQUIRED", "provenance": "PROVENANCE_LIMITED", "reproducibility": "PARTIAL", "class": "CLASS_B", "publication": "HOLD_REVIEW", "commercial_promotion": "NOT_AUTHORIZED", "doctrine": "Empirical adjudication exists but acquisition lineage is incomplete. Current authority does not erase the adjudication result; historical adjudication does not erase the provenance limitation." }, "non_inheritance_rules": [ "NO general Failure Horizon proof", "NO eta prospective validation", "NO Recoverability Horizon authority", "NO H2-H4 prospective support", "NO automated promotion to CEO cockpit or commercial risk scoring" ], "historical_predecessor_lineage": { "description": "Historical retrospective Enron email corpus exploratory correlation analysis (May 2000 – Dec 2001, 335-day retrospective artifact) preserved solely as pre-protocol exploratory origin.", "predecessor_study": "Retrospective Enron Corpus Correlation Analysis (May 2000 – Dec 2001)", "supports_claims": [ "Retrospective historical research archive", "Methodology proof-of-concept for topological drift observation" ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Universal 335-day predictive early-warning signal hypothesis for active companies was FALSIFIED." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Enron corpus has unique legal and criminal anomalies that cannot represent routine corporate drift." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Distinguishing intentional strategic silence from systemic operational paralysis in historical email corpora." ], "historical_outcome_access_state": "PUBLIC_HISTORICAL_ARCHIVE", "historical_study_status": "NONE_HISTORICAL_STUDY_CLOSED" } }, { "study_id": "STUDY-FH-01", "title": "Failure Horizon and Systemic Drift Limits (Research Program Status 2026-09-22)", "research_question": "Can non-invasive structural drift candidates (FR-01, FR-03, peer-relative Drift) provide bounded pre-failure measurement under Track D rare-event validation?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "Organizations operate in stability regimes governed by the ratio of incoming decision energy to coordination entropy generation; beyond a critical limit, recovery requires disproportionate energy.", "methodology": "Track D rare-event observational framework with unopened outcomes and strictly bounded pre-failure measurement candidates.", "dataset_scope": "Simulation testbeds and bounded enterprise telemetry pilots.", "observation_window": "Ongoing research exploration.", "scientific_status": "RESEARCH_FRONTIER_NO_CURRENT_AUTHORITY", "evidence_state": "CURRENT_TIMING_MODEL_NOT_SUPPORTED", "replication_status": "PRE_FAILURE_STATE_NOT_ESTABLISHED", "results": [ "Formulated bounded measurement candidates (FR-01, FR-03, peer-relative Drift).", "Confirmed that no failure-specific metric or pre-failure structural state is established in current production." ], "negative_results": [ "Zero empirical basis for exact failure date prediction or deterministic countdown clocks.", "Deterministic '48-hour irreversible window' claim is an ex-post modeling artifact, not a runtime diagnostic." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Hypothesis that organizational collapse timing can be calculated deterministically was REJECTED." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Calibration of Lyapunov exponents across varied regulatory, market, and capital buffers." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Enterprise resilience depends heavily on external capital injections and executive interventions that cannot be modeled purely from internal network dynamics." ], "supports_claims": [ "Conditional trajectory modeling under sustained friction", "Systemic drift limit conceptual research framework" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Collapse countdown clock", "Exact failure date prediction", "Pre-failure structural state established", "Failure-specific metric established (FAILURE_HORIZON_METRIC = NO)", "Current failure horizon timing model supported", "Universal failure probability calculator" ], "product_authority": "RESEARCH_ONLY_NOT_PRODUCT_AUTHORIZED", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "docs/FH_HANDOFF_2026-09-22.md", "source_version": "v1.0", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-FAILURE-HORIZON-COUNTDOWN" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "EMPIRICAL_BOUNDARY_VALIDATION_GATE", "outcome_access_state": "RESTRICTED_RESEARCH_RECORDS", "record_type": "EMPIRICAL_SCIENTIFIC_STUDY", "failure_horizon_authority": "NONE", "pre_failure_structural_state": "NOT_ESTABLISHED", "failure_specific_metric": "NOT_ESTABLISHED", "failure_horizon_metric": "NO", "current_failure_horizon_timing_model": "NOT_SUPPORTED", "measurement_candidates": [ "FR-01 (bounded measurement candidate)", "FR-03 (bounded measurement candidate)", "peer-relative Drift (bounded measurement candidate)" ], "governance_gates": { "D03_AUTHORIZED": false, "Q3_OUTCOME_ACCESSED": false, "R4_ACCESSED": false }, "historical_or_theoretical_lineage": "Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Lyapunov exponents, and agent-based simulation formulations (historical theoretical scaffold, superseded as primary empirical program)." }, { "study_id": "STUDY-FTL-01", "title": "Governed Financial Translation Layer (FTL) Architecture", "research_question": "How can physical decision delay and structural waiting times be translated into bounded economic exposure without fabricating direct causality or guaranteed EBITDA claims?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "A governed multi-class financial mapping separating observed facts from parametric models provides defensible decision friction exposure ranges under CFO sign-off.", "methodology": "Epistemic separation architecture: Observed Fact -> Modeled Exposure -> Scenario Estimate -> Realized Value.", "dataset_scope": "Verified enterprise ERP schemas (SAP / Oracle PO and invoice metadata) and CFO parametric configurations.", "observation_window": "Pilot slice validation.", "scientific_status": "NOT_APPLICABLE_PRODUCT_CAPABILITY", "evidence_state": "GOVERNED_ARCHITECTURE_ACCEPTED", "replication_status": "EPISTEMIC_MODEL_VERIFIED", "results": [ "Established clear mathematical inequality: Observed Fact ≠ Authorized Input ≠ Modeled Exposure ≠ Scenario Estimate ≠ Realized Value.", "Demonstrated CFO Model Registry where exposure models require executive parameters rather than hardcoded assumptions." ], "negative_results": [ "Decision delay cannot be automatically claimed as realized EBITDA loss without subsequent financial audit.", "Ex-ante ROI and cash recovery guarantees are mathematically and economically indefensible." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Direct causal pipeline 'Approval Layers -> Cycle Time -> Realized EBITDA -> Enterprise Value' without human CFO reconciliation was DISCARDED." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Automated counterfactual reconciliation across dynamic macro interest rate shifts." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Exposure figures represent risk capacity / friction cost, not cash out of pocket." ], "supports_claims": [ "Governed FTL exposure modeling", "Parametric Cost of Delay estimation under CFO assumptions", "Process friction exposure bounds" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Guaranteed EBITDA increase", "Direct realized cash recovery without audit", "Universal friction-to-profit conversion factor" ], "product_authority": "IMPLEMENTED_GOVERNED_CAPABILITY_PASS_BOUNDED", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "ftl/financial_models_v2.ts", "source_version": "v2.2", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-DIRECT-EBITDA-CAUSALITY" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "CUSTOMER_CFO_SIGN_OFF_GATE", "outcome_access_state": "CONTROLLED_PILOT_SLICE", "record_type": "PRODUCT_CAPABILITY_EVIDENCE", "product_capability_status": "IMPLEMENTED_PASS_BOUNDED" }, { "study_id": "STUDY-CROSSORG-01", "title": "Bilateral Bounded Cross-Org State Observation & Trust Protocol", "research_question": "Can inter-organizational process delays and shared workflow friction be observed across company boundaries while preserving data privacy and unilateral financial isolation?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "Cryptographically authenticated bilateral handoff logging enables shared bottleneck observability without leaking internal financial margins or private communication.", "methodology": "Bilateral bounded E2E integration test suite, mutual JWT token authentication, tamper-evident hash chaining.", "dataset_scope": "Bilateral test harness (11/11 E2E tests PASS, 193/193 Core ingestion PASS).", "observation_window": "Integration audit and controlled pilot slices.", "scientific_status": "NOT_APPLICABLE_PRODUCT_CAPABILITY", "evidence_state": "PASS_BOUNDED_E2E_ACCEPTED", "replication_status": "BILATERAL_TEST_SUITE_VERIFIED", "results": [ "Bilateral bounded E2E verified and accepted (`PASS_BOUNDED`).", "Internal financial data remains internal by default (`EXACT_FINANCIAL_SHARING = INTERNAL_BY_DEFAULT`).", "Cross-Org Temporal Memory verified (`PASS_BOUNDED`)." ], "negative_results": [ "Historical fixed-weight Trust Score (40% SLA / 30% Predictability / 20% Loop / 10% Responsiveness) is NOT a canonical constant; it is an illustrative policy profile.", "Does not constitute universal commercial public release or live payment clearance." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Fixed-weight universal trust score hypothesis SUPERSEDED by customer-governed Partner Qualification Scorecard model." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Standardization of cross-border multi-tier supply chain federation protocols." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Requires mutual cooperation and bilateral API authentication between participating enterprises." ], "supports_claims": [ "Bilateral bounded Cross-Org state observation", "Collaborative Friction Discovery between partner entities", "Tamper-evident inter-organizational handoff verification" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Universal partner credit rating", "Public commercial self-serve release", "Automated cross-firm financial settlement" ], "product_authority": "IMPLEMENTED_BOUNDED_CAPABILITY_PASS_BOUNDED", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "artifacts/DECISIONOS_CAPABILITY_ATLAS_CURRENT_TRUTH_RECONCILIATION_v1.md", "source_version": "v1.0", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-PROTOTYPE-NOT-RUNTIME-REACHABLE" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "CUSTOMER_LIVE_DEPLOYMENT_GATE", "outcome_access_state": "PILOT_CONTROLLED_SLICE", "record_type": "PRODUCT_CAPABILITY_EVIDENCE", "product_capability_status": "IMPLEMENTED_PASS_BOUNDED" }, { "study_id": "STUDY-CRYPTO-01", "title": "Cryptographic Integrity Infrastructure vs. Target ZKP Verification", "research_question": "What is the boundary between currently verified cryptographic evidence infrastructure and zero-knowledge circuit research?", "authority_as_of": "2026-09-26", "hypothesis": "Tamper-evident audit trails using SHA-256 hash chains, RSA-PSS signatures, and Ed25519 components provide production-grade integrity, while Groth16 zk-SNARKs represent a future verification architecture.", "methodology": "Source codebase audit, cryptographic test suite inspection, and circuit repository analysis.", "dataset_scope": "Canonical codebase runtime vs. sibling research repositories.", "observation_window": "Code audit and cryptographic benchmark validation.", "scientific_status": "NOT_APPLICABLE_PRODUCT_CAPABILITY", "evidence_state": "INFRASTRUCTURE_VERIFIED_CIRCUITS_RESEARCH", "replication_status": "HASH_CHAIN_REPLICATED_ZKP_CIRCUITS_EXPERIMENTAL", "results": [ "Production cryptographic integrity infrastructure: SHA-256 audit hash chain = CURRENT; RSA-PSS signing/verifying = CURRENT; Ed25519 key material = PRESENT; deterministic local replay = CURRENT.", "Groth16 / BN254 / Poseidon circuit architecture is preserved strictly as Target Research Verification Architecture." ], "negative_results": [ "Canonical runtime does NOT currently execute production-verified Groth16 proofs (.r1cs/.zkey/.ptau absent from production pipeline).", "Zero-knowledge proofs do not prove the truth of human claims, only cryptographic consistency of computation." ], "failed_hypotheses": [ "Claim of 'active court-grade production Groth16 verification with 128-byte 8ms proofs' was RETRACTED to Research Target status." ], "unresolved_questions": [ "Trusted setup ceremony parameters for multi-enterprise zk-SNARK verifier distribution." ], "methodological_limitations": [ "Cryptographic sealing guarantees tamper-evidence of stored logs; it cannot detect faulty external telemetry inputs." ], "supports_claims": [ "Tamper-evident audit ledger with SHA-256 hash chaining", "RSA-PSS signing and signature verification", "Ed25519 key material presence for future signing interoperability", "Target ZKP verification research architecture" ], "does_not_support_claims": [ "Active production Groth16 ZKP runtime verification", "Active Ed25519 signing runtime in production (key material present only)", "Self-authenticating legal truth without institutional audit verification" ], "product_authority": "CRYPTO_INTEGRITY_IMPLEMENTED_ZKP_RESEARCH_ONLY", "publication_authority": "PUBLIC", "canonical_source": "artifacts/DECISIONOS_CAPABILITY_ATLAS_CURRENT_TRUTH_RECONCILIATION_v1.md", "source_version": "v1.0", "source_hash": "AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED", "supersedes": [ "LEGACY-GROTH16-PRODUCTION-CLAIM" ], "superseded_by": [], "next_authorized_gate": "GROTH16_PRODUCTION_BENCHMARK_GATE", "outcome_access_state": "PRODUCTION_HASH_CHAIN_OPEN_CIRCUITS_RESTRICTED", "record_type": "PRODUCT_CAPABILITY_EVIDENCE", "product_capability_status": "IMPLEMENTED_PRODUCTION_INTEGRITY_BOUNDED", "implemented_integrity": [ "SHA-256 audit hash chain = CURRENT", "RSA-PSS signing/verifying = CURRENT", "Ed25519 key material = PRESENT (key material present for audit verification)", "Deterministic/local replay = CURRENT" ], "target_research_verification": "True Groth16 runtime = NOT IMPLEMENTED (Target Research Verification Architecture only)" } ] }