m3taversal
89c8e652f2
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Two-layer ontology: contributor-facing (3 concepts: claims, challenges, connections) vs agent-internal (11 concepts). From 2026-03-26 ontology audit. New files: - schemas/challenge.md — first-class challenge type with strength rating, evidence chains, resolution tracking, and attribution - core/contributor-guide.md — 3-concept contributor view (no frontmatter, pure documentation) Modified files: - schemas/claim.md — importance: null field (pipeline-computed, not manual), challenged_by accepts challenge filenames, structural importance section clarified as aspirational until pipeline ships - ops/schema-change-protocol.md — challenge added to producer/consumer map Schema Change: Format affected: claim (modified), challenge (new) Backward compatible: yes Migration: none needed Pentagon-Agent: Clay <3D549D4C-0129-4008-BF4F-FDD367C1D184> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
99 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
99 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|
||
|
||
```yaml
|
||
---
|
||
type: claim
|
||
domain: internet-finance | entertainment | health | ai-alignment | space-development | energy | manufacturing | robotics | 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
|
||
importance: null # computed by pipeline — null until pipeline support is implemented
|
||
---
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## 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 | Challenge filenames or inline counter-evidence. When a first-class challenge file exists (see `schemas/challenge.md`), reference the filename. Inline descriptions are still valid for minor objections that don't warrant a standalone file. |
|
||
| secondary_domains | list | Other domains this claim is relevant to |
|
||
| attribution | object | Role-specific contributor tracking — see `schemas/attribution.md` |
|
||
| importance | float/null | Structural importance score (0.0–1.0). Computed by pipeline from downstream dependencies, active challenges, and cross-domain linkage. Default `null` — do not set manually. See Structural Importance section below. |
|
||
|
||
## 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: retired` with 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
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# [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
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Structural Importance
|
||
|
||
A claim's importance in the knowledge graph is determined by:
|
||
1. **Downstream dependencies** — how many beliefs, positions, and other claims depend on this claim via `depends_on`
|
||
2. **Active challenges** — contested claims are more important than uncontested ones (they're where the knowledge frontier is)
|
||
3. **Cross-domain linkage** — claims referenced from multiple domains carry higher structural importance
|
||
|
||
Importance is computed by the pipeline and written to the `importance` frontmatter field. Until pipeline support is implemented, this field defaults to `null` — agents should not set it manually. See `extract-graph-data.py` for the planned computation. The importance score determines contribution credit — challenging a high-importance claim earns more than challenging a low-importance one.
|
||
|
||
## Quality Checks
|
||
|
||
1. Title passes the claim test (specific enough to disagree with)
|
||
2. Description adds information beyond the title
|
||
3. At least one piece of evidence cited
|
||
4. Confidence level matches evidence strength
|
||
5. No duplicate of existing claim (semantic check)
|
||
6. Domain classification accurate
|