112 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
112 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
# Research Contract
|
|
|
|
Use this contract to carry research state across Claude Scholar workflows.
|
|
|
|
The goal is to preserve:
|
|
- what question is being studied,
|
|
- what evidence currently exists,
|
|
- what claim is allowed by that evidence,
|
|
- what uncertainty remains,
|
|
- what decision or next action should happen.
|
|
|
|
## Research Question Card
|
|
|
|
Use this card when a vague idea becomes a research direction.
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
## Research Question Card
|
|
|
|
Question:
|
|
Type: exploratory | confirmatory | applied
|
|
Hypothesis:
|
|
Why it matters:
|
|
Current evidence:
|
|
Missing evidence:
|
|
What would support it:
|
|
What would falsify it:
|
|
Minimal next action:
|
|
Decision: explore | read more | run experiment | stop
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Record
|
|
|
|
Use this record for paper evidence, project notes, experiment outputs, and analysis artifacts.
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
## Evidence Record
|
|
|
|
Evidence ID:
|
|
Source:
|
|
Source type: full paper | preprint | dataset | experiment artifact | project note | abstract-only | webpage placeholder
|
|
Supports:
|
|
Contradicts:
|
|
Method / dataset / metric:
|
|
Limitation:
|
|
Project relevance:
|
|
Claim strength: speculative | observed | supported | strong
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Evidence ID format:
|
|
- Use `ER-YYYYMMDD-shortslug-NN`, for example `ER-20260513-tta-eeg-01`.
|
|
- Keep IDs unique within the project or research thread.
|
|
- Use stable, human-readable slugs. Do not use vague IDs such as `E1`, `paper1`, or `source-a`.
|
|
- Reuse the same Evidence ID when the same evidence record is referenced downstream; create a new ID only for a distinct source, artifact, or analysis result.
|
|
|
|
## Claim Candidate
|
|
|
|
Use this candidate when an analysis or synthesis suggests language that may later enter a report, paper, rebuttal, or project plan.
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
## Claim Candidate
|
|
|
|
Claim:
|
|
Source evidence:
|
|
Allowed wording:
|
|
Forbidden stronger wording:
|
|
Uncertainty:
|
|
Next check:
|
|
Decision: keep | weaken | revise | discard
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Source Trust Levels
|
|
|
|
Use source trust to decide whether a note can support downstream synthesis.
|
|
|
|
- `full paper` / `preprint`: can support `observed`, `supported`, or `strong` claims when the relevant method, dataset, metric, and limitation are named.
|
|
- `dataset` / `experiment artifact`: can support project claims when the unit of analysis, metric, provenance, and analysis limits are named.
|
|
- `project note`: can support hypotheses and plans, but not literature-backed claims unless it links to separate evidence records.
|
|
- `abstract-only` / `webpage placeholder`: can support discovery and `To-Read` routing only. Do not use it to support `Knowledge`, manuscript, or rebuttal claims unless it is later replaced by a full paper, preprint, or verified artifact.
|
|
|
|
## Claim Promotion Gate
|
|
|
|
Before a claim moves into `Knowledge`, `Writing`, a report, a manuscript draft, or a rebuttal, check:
|
|
|
|
1. The claim has at least one Evidence Record ID.
|
|
2. The source type is strong enough for the intended claim.
|
|
3. The claim strength is not silently upgraded.
|
|
4. The allowed wording and forbidden stronger wording are both recorded.
|
|
5. Contradictory evidence or missing evidence is preserved.
|
|
|
|
If any item fails, keep the claim as a hypothesis, motivation, warning, or `To-Read` item. Do not polish it into a durable conclusion.
|
|
|
|
## Proposal Readiness Gate
|
|
|
|
Generate a `research-proposal.md` only when:
|
|
|
|
- one Research Question Card is selected,
|
|
- current evidence is enough to justify the question and method,
|
|
- missing evidence is explicit and tractable,
|
|
- the minimal next action is more specific than "read more",
|
|
- citations or evidence records are available for the key motivation claims.
|
|
|
|
If these conditions are not met, generate `research-question-card.md`, a gap note, or an intake summary instead of a proposal.
|
|
|
|
## Strength Rules
|
|
|
|
- `speculative`: plausible idea, weak or indirect evidence only.
|
|
- `observed`: seen in a paper, note, or experiment, but not yet enough for a durable conclusion.
|
|
- `supported`: backed by explicit evidence such as a paper result, experiment, or analysis bundle.
|
|
- `strong`: supported by multiple evidence anchors or statistically rigorous project evidence.
|
|
|
|
Do not promote a claim to a stronger level without naming the evidence that justifies the upgrade.
|