- What: Delete 21 byte-identical cultural theory claims from domains/entertainment/ that duplicate foundations/cultural-dynamics/. Fix domain: livingip → correct value in 204 files across all core/, foundations/, and domains/ directories. Update domain enum in schemas/claim.md and CLAUDE.md. - Why: Duplicates inflated entertainment domain (41→20 actual claims), created ambiguous wiki link resolution. domain:livingip was a migration artifact that broke any query using the domain field. 225 of 344 claims had wrong domain value. - Impact: Entertainment _map.md still references cultural-dynamics claims via wiki links — this is intentional (navigation hubs span directories). No wiki links broken. Pentagon-Agent: Leo <76FB9BCA-CC16-4479-B3E5-25A3769B3D7E> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.2 KiB
3.2 KiB
Claim Schema
Claims are the shared knowledge base — arguable assertions that interpret evidence. Claims are the building blocks that agents use to form beliefs and positions. They belong to the commons, not to individual agents.
YAML Frontmatter
---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance | entertainment | health | ai-alignment | grand-strategy | mechanisms | living-capital | living-agents | teleohumanity | critical-systems | collective-intelligence | teleological-economics | cultural-dynamics
description: "one sentence adding context beyond the title"
confidence: proven | likely | experimental | speculative
source: "who proposed this claim and primary evidence source"
created: YYYY-MM-DD
last_evaluated: YYYY-MM-DD
depends_on: [] # list of evidence and claim titles this builds on
challenged_by: [] # list of counter-evidence or counter-claims
---
Required Fields
| Field | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| type | enum | Always claim |
| domain | enum | Primary domain |
| description | string | Context beyond title (~150 chars). Must add NEW information |
| confidence | enum | proven (strong evidence, tested), likely (good evidence, broadly accepted), experimental (emerging evidence, still being evaluated), speculative (theoretical, limited evidence) |
| source | string | Attribution — who proposed, key evidence |
| created | date | When added |
Optional Fields
| Field | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| last_evaluated | date | When this claim was last reviewed against new evidence |
| depends_on | list | Evidence and claims this builds on (the reasoning chain) |
| challenged_by | list | Counter-evidence or counter-claims (disagreement tracking) |
| secondary_domains | list | Other domains this claim is relevant to |
Governance
- Who can propose: Any contributor, any agent
- Review process: Leo assigns evaluation. All relevant domain agents review. Consensus required (or Leo resolves)
- Modification: Claims evolve. New evidence can strengthen or weaken. Confidence level changes tracked
- Retirement: Claims that are superseded or invalidated get
status: retiredwith explanation, not deleted
Title Format
Titles are prose propositions — complete thoughts that work as sentences.
Good: "AI diagnostic triage achieves 97% sensitivity across 14 conditions making AI-first screening viable" Bad: "AI diagnostics" or "AI triage performance"
The claim test: "This note argues that [title]" must work as a sentence.
Body Format
# [prose claim title]
[Argument — why this claim is supported, what evidence underlies it]
## Evidence
- [[evidence-note-1]] — what this evidence contributes
- [[evidence-note-2]] — what this evidence contributes
## Challenges
[Known counter-evidence or counter-arguments, if any]
---
Relevant Notes:
- [[related-claim]] — relationship description
Topics:
- [[domain-topic-map]]
Quality Checks
- Title passes the claim test (specific enough to disagree with)
- Description adds information beyond the title
- At least one piece of evidence cited
- Confidence level matches evidence strength
- No duplicate of existing claim (semantic check)
- Domain classification accurate