Researcher

What this workspace asks

Including the questions this participant is NOT shown, each with the reason it was decided against — a decision that looks like an oversight is an oversight as far as a reader can tell.

• What is known

  Nothing is recorded

  The state of the evidence is the work.

• Where the evidence disagrees

  Nothing is recorded

  A contradiction is where the next study is.

• What is missing

  Nothing is recorded

  The gaps are the research agenda, stated as gaps rather than as opinions.

• Where it is being tried

  Nothing is recorded

  What is already being tried, and by whom.

• Who works on it

  Nothing is recorded

  Who else is on this, for replication and for contact through their institutions.

• What changed

  Nothing is recorded

  What moved since the last recompute.

What this participant may do

Every action stands on a permission that already exists. A workspace never offers what the database would refuse.

• Propose a record — Propose a study, a result or a link for a curator to decide.
• Read the evidence chain — Read the chain behind a number.

This role is shown what the system is checking right now. That desk opens only for a named curator who is signed in, so there is no way through to it from here.

Who to take it to

Hand-offs written down in advance: from whom, on which question, and why that participant rather than another.

• Where the evidence disagrees → Canon curator — A researcher proposes; a curator decides. The two are never the same act.
• Who works on it → Laboratory — Replication is arranged between groups, not between individuals.