{
  "schema":"ULTRACON_CON_VALIDATION_PROTOCOL_V1",
  "version":"4.3",
  "updated":"2026-09-14",
  "name":"CON^VALIDATION",
  "status":"REVISED_AFTER_PILOT_01",
  "current_release_state":"REVISED",
  "pilot_01":"./validation/pilot-01-results.json",
  "goal":"Test whether admission, classification and audit rules can be applied reproducibly and whether CON^ can revise its own first-pass interpretations.",
  "validation_units":["admission decision","attribution type","neighbor-concept distinction","mechanism status","documentary status","CON^AUDIT outcome","claim evidence status"],
  "coder_design":{
    "minimum":"at least two independent coders for a validation run",
    "preferred":"include coders who did not author the coding rule when feasible",
    "blind_first_pass":true,
    "adjudication":"only after the pre-adjudication agreement estimate is preserved",
    "training":"use a separate training set; do not count training units in the final reliability estimate",
    "model_coder_warning":"independent model coders are acceptable for computational pilots but do not substitute for independent human coders"
  },
  "attribution_type_rule":{
    "added_after":"CON-V42-PILOT-01 / P09 disagreement",
    "allowed":["TRAIT","CONDUCT","ROLE","INSTITUTIONAL_CLASSIFICATION","SYSTEM_OUTPUT","OTHER"],
    "rule":"Code what kind of attribution is being made before auditing whether it is warranted.",
    "role_clause":"When attribution_type=ROLE, distinguish documented role/title validity from any inferred trait or competence deficit. A person may validly occupy a 'fool' role while a claim that the person lacks judgment remains unsupported or indeterminate."
  },
  "agreement":{
    "primary":"Krippendorff alpha for categorical coding when appropriate",
    "report_also":["raw agreement","Wilson or bootstrap interval for raw agreement when useful","category-specific disagreement matrix","missing-data pattern"],
    "rule":"Do not treat a single coefficient threshold as proof of validity. Low or unstable agreement triggers revision, not concealment.",
    "sources":["S82","S83"]
  },
  "stress_tests":[
    {"id":"VT01","name":"ADMISSION_FALSE_POSITIVES","test":"mix clear CON^ cases with error, disability, immorality, dissent and failure cases that should remain outside unless an attribution regime is documented"},
    {"id":"VT02","name":"LABEL_SWAP","test":"hold evidence constant while varying labels such as stupid, incompetent, ignorant, irrational or unlucky"},
    {"id":"VT03","name":"SOURCE_BLIND","test":"code a subset with source identity hidden, then compare after source disclosure"},
    {"id":"VT04","name":"EX_ANTE_EX_POST","test":"separate information available before outcome from later outcome knowledge"},
    {"id":"VT05","name":"COUNTERCASE_SENSITIVITY","test":"introduce mandatory countercases and record whether interpretations weaken, reverse or remain stable"},
    {"id":"VT06","name":"RIVAL_HYPOTHESIS","test":"require a competing explanation and record whether the CON^ explanation remains necessary"},
    {"id":"VT07","name":"REFLEX_REVERSAL","test":"run CON^REFLEX on a sample of CON^’s own claims and preserve any self-revisions"},
    {"id":"VT08","name":"PROVENANCE_COMPLETENESS","test":"verify that every published claim resolves to stable source ids and every derived synthesis records its inputs"}
  ],
  "pilot_history":[
    {
      "id":"CON-V42-PILOT-01",
      "date":"2026-09-14",
      "coders":["GPT-5.6 Sol","Gemini 3.6 Flash via T^AI Bridge"],
      "n":14,
      "admission_raw_agreement":1.0,
      "admission_alpha":1.0,
      "primary_neighbor_raw_agreement":0.9286,
      "primary_neighbor_alpha":0.9213,
      "audit_raw_agreement_all":0.9286,
      "audit_alpha_all":0.9115,
      "audit_raw_agreement_admitted_only":0.8889,
      "audit_alpha_admitted_only":0.8640,
      "disagreement":"P09 court-jester ROLE versus trait/neighbor interpretation",
      "effect":"codebook revised; disagreement preserved; no replication claim"
    }
  ],
  "release_states":[
    {"state":"UNVALIDATED","meaning":"protocol exists but no independent validation run"},
    {"state":"PILOTED","meaning":"small pilot completed; coding rules still provisional"},
    {"state":"REVISED","meaning":"rules changed in response to disagreement or counterevidence"},
    {"state":"REPLICATED","meaning":"independent coding run shows comparable results under the revised published protocol"},
    {"state":"CONTESTED","meaning":"substantial reproducible disagreement remains and is preserved publicly"}
  ],
  "next_validation_step":"Run a second pilot under the revised attribution_type rule, then add independent human coding before any REPLICATED claim.",
  "no_claim":"Reliability does not establish truth, validity, cultural equivalence or moral correctness.",
  "adversarial_option":"For disputed theoretical claims, use supervised rival-hypothesis or adversarial-collaboration designs rather than forcing consensus.",
  "adversarial_source":"S85"
}