Register governed post-Phase-2 research sources - #4
Conversation
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry @EmergentMonk, you've used your own review budget of 250,000 diff characters for the last 7 days.
You can request another review in 1 day and 19 hours by commenting @sourcery-ai review. Upgrade to get a review now.
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
Reviewer's GuideThis PR establishes a governed process for expanding the post-Phase-2 research corpus, registers five media references and two scholarly sources with explicit epistemic and rights boundaries, and adds regression checks to prevent redistribution or unsupported community-specific benchmark claims. Sequence diagram for safe research-source registrationsequenceDiagram
participant Researcher
participant Registry as ResearchReferenceRegistry
participant Tests as RegressionChecks
participant Benchmark as BenchmarkDesign
Researcher->>Registry: Register source metadata
Registry-->>Researcher: Record rights, provenance, epistemic status, mappings
Researcher->>Benchmark: Derive safe abstraction
Benchmark-->>Researcher: Use original or appropriately licensed work
Researcher->>Tests: Validate registry boundaries
Tests-->>Researcher: Enforce non-redistribution and consultation gate
Tests-->>Researcher: Reject unsupported community-specific ground truth
Flow diagram for governed research-source registrationflowchart LR
A[Proposed research source] --> B[Registration contract]
B --> C[Source type and rationale]
B --> D[Rights and provenance boundary]
B --> E[Explicit epistemic status]
B --> F[Research mappings and invariants]
B --> G[Safe benchmark abstraction]
G --> H[Independently authored or appropriately licensed work]
D --> I[No copyrighted expression redistributed]
E --> J[No unsupported community-specific ground truth]
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
@codex review Please review exact current head Scope is the first governed implementation of ROADMAP Workstream A:
CI run #250 is green on this exact head with 146 tests passing on Python 3.11 and 3.12, 15 starter records valid, 60 pilot items valid, and wheel/schema smoke passing. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 42c6e7df7b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1527ac7505
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review The three findings from review of Please re-check specifically:
CI run #258 is green on this exact head with 146 tests passing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ae7b0c5952
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e93118be41
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 24f8f04f8b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6a94058b2a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please re-review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b82c2db429
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0450a99684
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c52ad8230a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 75dd00bbe6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| def _is_hidden(tag: str, attrs: list[tuple[str, str | None]]) -> bool: | ||
| tag = tag.lower() | ||
| if tag in {"script", "style", "template"}: | ||
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Beyond the SVG-title repair, wrapping a pinned rights clause in <title>...</title> still lets _validate_registry_corpus() pass because _is_hidden() hides title only when it is under svg. An ordinary HTML title element does not render visible body text, so this can remove a source's provenance or redistribution boundary from the document while preserving every field and integrity hash; classify HTML metadata title content as non-visible or reject it in governed entries.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L105
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| def _css_hides_element(style: str) -> bool: | ||
| """Apply inline CSS declaration order and !important precedence.""" | ||
| cleaned = CSS_COMMENT_PATTERN.sub("", style.lower()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Beyond the CSS-comment and cascade repairs, wrapping a required clause in <span style="display:n\6f ne">...</span> still passes full registry validation: CSS decodes \6f to o, so the browser applies display:none, while this literal comparison treats the clause as visible and leaves all pinned hashes unchanged. Decode CSS escapes before resolving declarations, or reject unsupported style syntax, so required rights and provenance text cannot exist only in visually hidden content.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L105
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if tag == "a" and not hidden: | ||
| for key, value in attrs: | ||
| if key.lower() == "href" and value: | ||
| self.hrefs.append(value) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wrapping a registered URL in <span inert><a href="…">the same URL</a></span> still passes _validate_registry_corpus() because the visible text and destination hashes remain unchanged and this callback records every non-hidden anchor. Browsers make descendants of an inert container non-interactive, however, so readers cannot follow the purported provenance link; propagate inert ancestor state or reject inert containers around governed source anchors.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L102
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| for link in links: | ||
| parts.append(text[cursor:link.start]) | ||
| parts.append(link.label) | ||
| cursor = link.end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replacing a pinned rights sentence with  still passes full registry validation because this reducer substitutes every image's alt label into the visible-text hash. When the image loads, browsers display the image rather than that alt text, so a source's provenance or redistribution boundary can disappear from reader-visible documentation without changing any integrity fixture; reject images in governed clauses or exclude their alt text from visual-content validation.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L105
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| visible = visible.replace("**", "").replace("__", "") | ||
| visible = visible.replace("*", "").replace("_", "") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inserting literal intraword underscores throughout a pinned sentence—for example changing The article to T_h_e_ a_r_t_i_c_l_e_—still passes _validate_registry_corpus() because this reducer deletes every underscore rather than only parsed emphasis delimiters. CommonMark renders those intraword underscores literally, so an entire rights or provenance boundary can be visibly corrupted or made unreadable while all field and complete-entry hashes continue to match; parse emphasis syntax or retain underscores that render as text.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L105
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| visible = _visible_html_text(visible) | ||
| visible = html.unescape(visible) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Beyond rejecting semicolonless references, replacing the start of a pinned clause with &#84;he still passes full validation: a browser decodes this once and visibly displays The, but _visible_html_text() has already decoded & before this second html.unescape() turns the remaining numeric-looking text into T. This lets visibly corrupted governance wording hash as the canonical sentence, so remove the second decoding pass or otherwise model the single browser-decoding stage.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L105
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Implements ROADMAP Workstream A: research-corpus expansion and source governance, while establishing bounded follow-up methodology for Workstreams F, G, H, and I.
Scope
This PR formally registers a governed post-Phase-2 source batch in
docs/RESEARCH-REFERENCE-CORPUS.mdrather than treating planning reports, media references, archival records, glossaries, or community discussions as adopted evidence by default.Every adopted entry records attributable source destinations, source type and relevance, rights/provenance boundaries, epistemic limits, exactly one community-governance classification, research/project mappings, and a safe abstraction path for independently authored or appropriately licensed benchmark work.
Governed source batch
The registered batch covers:
Media sources remain mechanism-discovery references, not representative speech corpora. Scholarly, institutional, archival, theoretical, glossary, and community-attestation sources retain source-specific evidential and rights limits.
Roadmap and canonical methodology
The roadmap contains:
docs/METHODOLOGY.mdcentrally defines all four experiment families. Workstream I is explicitly source-gated and is not legal advice or a ranking of which country polices “better.” Every implemented Workstream I item must record, at minimum, country, jurisdiction, agency or institutional role, encounter type, source date or version, registered source identifiers or links supporting any legal or procedural condition supplied to the model, and claim type.Before publishing any family involving coercion, consent, search, detention, questioning, force, emergency powers, or legal rights, the governing sources must be verified as current for the recorded jurisdiction and date and the project must obtain appropriate Australian and United States legal, policing, civil-liberties, and community review.
A claim that Australian policing uses a lighter conversational touch is eligible only as a source-gated, encounter-specific hypothesis about register, discretion, or interactional style. It cannot become a universal description, a national moral ranking, or evidence that calm language removes coercive authority.
Candidate policing-context distinctions include:
US POLICE SCRIPT != AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PROCEDUREPOLICE TERMINOLOGY != CROSS-JURISDICTION EQUIVALENCECASUAL ADDRESS != FRIENDSHIP OR CONSENTCALM TONE != ABSENCE OF COERCIVE AUTHORITYPOLITE WORDING != VOLUNTARY CHOICEFICTIONAL POLICE TROPE != OPERATIONAL POLICYONE AGENCY != A NATIONAL POLICING SYSTEMONE ENCOUNTER != SYSTEM-WIDE GROUND TRUTHJURISDICTIONAL DIFFERENCE != NATIONAL MORAL CHARACTERLEGAL INFORMATION != LEGAL ADVICELatest Codex repair pass
The current exact-head hardening adds five further browser/rendered-semantics protections:
displayandvisibility, including declaration order and!importantprecedence, so a later visible declaration cannot be incorrectly treated as hidden because of an earlierdisplay:none;aria-hidden=truecorrectly as accessibility-tree metadata rather than visual hiding, keeping visually rendered ARIA-hidden content inside browser-visible integrity and uniqueness checks.Cumulative hardening retained by this PR includes:
.github/workflows/ci.yml; temporary repair runners self-delete after verified repair commits;hiddenattribute, CSS-hidden content,script,style,template, default-closed<details>and<dialog>, SVG<title>/<desc>metadata, self-closing non-void browser semantics, HTML5 implied-end behavior, and CSS-comment normalization;aria-hidden=trueremains visually visible for integrity/uniqueness checks because it affects accessibility-tree exposure rather than visual rendering;<strong>/<b>, nested/wrapped HTML markup, entity-encoded labels, Markdown-link-wrapped labels, and raw-HTML-anchor-wrapped labels;Safeguards
RESEARCH REFERENCE != REDISTRIBUTABLE DATAFORMAL ANALOGY != PHYSICAL ONTOLOGYMATHEMATICAL MODEL != EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED MECHANISMDEADPAN DELIVERY != LITERAL INTENTVerification
CI #635 is green on exact head
75dd00bbe6a545ad3cc5b40641874366c68bceabusing the ordinary read-only workflow:All currently known Codex review threads are resolved.