Alignment Workspace

enabling-work

frame · drafted

Question

Which repository infrastructure makes the trust research vettable and publishable?

Owners: @anson (GitHub A-M-Berns), @abram (GitHub abramdemski)

Path: the-program › enabling-work

Roots (the frame's goals)

shared-claim

enabling-vetting-and-prioritization-system and drafted

The argument map under graph/ files the research agenda from deep goals down to concrete tasks, ranks the next work so that human reading goes first to central claims and to claims with high estimated promise, logs every design change and user confusion met in use, and has the maintainers' answers to the design points it leaves open.

enabling-machine-checked-corpus and drafted

The research corpus's claims are formalized in Lean 4 over FAF and adversarially audited in a run independent of the first, the run's flagged packages are repaired or ruled on, the notes stop asserting what the Lean refutes, and selected results build in this repository's CI.

enabling-publication-pipeline and drafted

Each candidate for release to this repository is listed with its state, its blocker and its owner, and its claims are sorted by provenance before it is released.

crux-formalize-before-write-up cases drafted

Finishing the clean-room repair round and the note corrections before drafting the li-deference write-up gives a released write-up that needs fewer corrections after release, per researcher-hour, than drafting it now.

crux-vetting-or-generation cases drafted

Over the next researcher-hours of the agenda, reading and judging existing drafts settles more claims per hour than generating new drafts.

enabling-map-as-canonical leaf/task drafted

The argument map under graph/ is the one index of the research program: every registered claim a formal result, every priority item a leaf, every maintainer decision reachable from the nodes it touched, every narrative page attached, every round pointed at, and the duplicate human-facing files renders of it.

enabling-program-site leaf/task drafted

A website is generated from graph/index.json alone, with a page per frame, formal result, item, decision, round and narrative and three views, showing AI-drafted structure lighter than anything a human event has touched.

What it holds

Nodes this frame is about that are not goals of the ranking: no status, value or rank here.

items (15)

Narrative: CONVENTIONS

Wiki conventions

This directory is the wiki's source of truth. Pages are edited here and arrive as pull requests, which pass the same gates as everything else. The hosted wiki is a build artifact: the sync job force-pushes this directory to it on every merge to main that touches wiki/, so an edit made in the hosted wiki's web editor is overwritten without warning and without a record.

This file and ORIGIN.md are repo-side only. Every other file here is a page, named by its filename, and _Sidebar.md is the navigation column.

Register

Human-facing conceptual content: what the program is asking, why a distinction matters, how the lines fit together, what a result means for the question that motivated it. The lab holds the machine-facing record — statements of record, claim registries, structured state, verification. Machine ledgers are linked, not mirrored. A page that reproduces a registry row acquires a copy that drifts silently the moment the registry moves, and a reader has no way to tell which of the two is current.

Links into the repository

Every link into this repository is pinned to a full 40-character commit SHA — /blob/<sha>/… or /tree/<sha>/…, never /blob/main/…. A page cites evidence, and evidence a branch name resolves to is evidence that changes underneath the sentence citing it. checkers/wiki_links.py enforces this, and also that every link to another page here resolves to a page that exists.

Volatile quantities

A number that changes when work lands — a claim count, a pull-request number, a round tally — is declared, or it does not appear. Declaring it is two HTML comments, invisible in the rendered page, and checkers/wiki_state_bindings.py compares what you wrote against what the workspace says today.

Bind a live quantity to a dotted path into the state emission:

The consolidation is a separate
180-claim foundation.

workspace is python3 -m checkers.workspace_state --json, this repository's one adjudicator; python3 -m checkers.wiki_state_bindings --sections lists the sections it offers. Aggregates live in its counts section, because deriving them here would make the wiki a second judge of what the workspace holds. A path that has no key is a request to the maintainer to grow the emitter, not a licence to write the number bare.

Mark a past event historical when the statement cannot rot:

<!--historical-->PR #31 registered no workspace claim<!--/historical-->

Nothing inside is verified, which is why it is capped at three lines: it marks a statement, not a section.

Four forms fail unless declared — a pull-request number, and an integer immediately before claims, rounds, or priorit(y|ies). That list is a backstop for what gets written without thinking, not a definition of volatility; nothing here reads free prose to guess. A hit is not a complaint about the sentence. It asks where the number came from, and the remedy is to bind it or mark it historical. Growing the list is a maintainer act.

Statement

The repository's infrastructure, an argument map that files and ranks the agenda, a machine-checked corpus and a publication pipeline, lets the trust research be vetted and published.

Source

The repository's own activity as the activity sweep read it: graph/README.md and graph/PROTOCOL.md (the map), projects/deference/faf-cleanroom-2026-10-02/README.md (the clean room), PRIORITIES.md and RESEARCH_STATE.md (the publication queue); the claims and cruxes below cite their sources in their own files.

Notes

A sub-frame of the-program holding the enabling work the activity sweep found in the repository. It is a frame so that infrastructure stands below the agenda's own items (the two axes, the cruxes, the abstraction arc) rather than beside them. Its roots are shared claims, not plans: each is a deliverable whose success is a state of the repository, not an outcome class, so none is an option in the plan decision. The two cruxes are the filing session's: their Notes say so.

Author and human events

Author @smithy-verity; version 2; size M.

No human event has touched this node.

Edges

Above

Children

Work pointers

Ranking (the lens, not the structure)
{
 "status": "open",
 "diagnosis": null,
 "flags": [],
 "V": {
  "V_prior": null,
  "display": "2",
  "headline": 2,
  "ref": 2,
  "valid": 2,
  "weaker": "both"
 },
 "belief": null,
 "draft": "ai",
 "root": {
  "status": "open",
  "Pr": {
   "hi": "0/1",
   "lo": "0/1",
   "mid": "0/1"
  },
  "value": null,
  "cost": "118/1",
  "margin": "no established leaves"
 }
}

Say something about it

Each verb opens a prefilled issue; a round files what lands as the ledger event it is.

comment · challenge · estimate · want