Standards Body · Foundational source, public edition · Released July 17, 2026

Canonical record: https://standardsbody.ai/library/foundational-source/research-methodology/

Standards Body is an independent research and institutional-design project. It is not currently a regulator, accreditation body, certification body, or governmental authority. This document is research; it is not an adopted standard.

RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md

Standards Body Research Methodology

Project: Standards Body
Primary domain: standardsbody.ai
Core line: Foundations for Frontier AI
Document type: Canonical research planning, execution, review, publication, and correction methodology
Version: 1.0
Status: Approved foundational source
Document owner: Standards Body
Applies to: All Standards Body research programs, foundation papers, technical evaluations, literature reviews, case studies, institutional analyses, standards proposals, legal and policy research, forecasts, public reports, contributor projects, pilots, and future assurance research
Related canonical sources: PROJECT_IDENTITY.md, TERMINOLOGY.md, FOUNDATIONS_APPENDIX.md, EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md, TAXONOMY.md, EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md, GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md, TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md, VERSION_HISTORY.md
Research basis reviewed through: July 16, 2026
Review cycle: Annual review, with event-triggered revision following material changes in frontier AI evaluation science, research integrity, reproducibility practice, human-subjects regulation, open-science practice, research security, or Standards Body institutional status

Authority Note

This document defines the internal research methodology of Standards Body.

It does not:

Where applicable law, regulation, contract, ethics review, security classification, or domain-specific standard imposes a stronger requirement, the stronger requirement governs.

Document Purpose

This document establishes how Standards Body conducts research.

It is the authoritative source for:

The methodology is designed for an environment in which:

The purpose is not to impose one method on every project.

The purpose is to require that each project select, justify, document, execute, review, and revise a method appropriate to its question.

Executive Summary

Standards Body is a research and institutional-design project.

Its credibility depends on the quality of its research process, not only the quality of its conclusions.

The central methodological proposition is:

Research should begin with a decision-relevant question, proceed through a documented and proportionate method, preserve the distinction between planned and exploratory work, expose material uncertainty and disagreement, protect sensitive information, and produce outputs that can be reviewed, reproduced where appropriate, corrected, and retired.

Frontier AI research creates unusual methodological challenges.

A study may evaluate a model that changes before publication.

A capability result may depend more on scaffolding, tool access, test-time compute, or evaluator expertise than on the base model name.

A public task set may no longer measure general capability because the model was trained on similar material.

A controlled experiment may be impossible because the relevant event is rare, dangerous, proprietary, or international.

A qualitative interview may provide better evidence about institutional practice than a public policy document.

A confidential system log may be highly direct evidence but impossible for the public to inspect.

A technical result may inform a policy decision without determining the correct policy.

A research institution may be pressured to publish before the evidence is mature or to withhold findings that are commercially or politically inconvenient.

Standards Body addresses these challenges through a structured research lifecycle.

The Research Lifecycle

Every substantial project should ordinarily pass through:

  1. Initiation - Define the problem, decision, claim, audience, and consequence of error.

  2. Classification - Identify the project type, risk level, evidence needs, security needs, and review requirements.

  3. Protocol - Specify the research question, methods, sources, data, analysis, uncertainty, ethics, security, and change rules.

  4. Registration - Preserve a time-stamped record of the planned work where useful and safe.

  5. Evidence Collection - Gather primary, secondary, technical, organizational, legal, qualitative, quantitative, and contrary evidence.

  6. Execution - Conduct the study according to the protocol while recording deviations, failures, and exploratory work.

  7. Analysis - Apply justified methods, test assumptions, examine uncertainty, and separate observation from inference.

  8. Challenge - Use peer review, domain review, methodological review, independent review, adversarial review, or replication as required.

  9. Synthesis - Integrate evidence, preserve disagreement, assign evidence level and confidence, and identify remaining gaps.

  10. Publication

  11. Monitoring

  12. Correction or Retirement

The methodology distinguishes several research modes.

Descriptive Research

Documents what exists, happened, or changed.

Exploratory Research

Maps an immature topic, identifies hypotheses, and locates gaps.

Confirmatory Research

Tests prospectively defined hypotheses or decision rules.

Evaluation Research

Measures models, systems, safeguards, protocols, or institutions.

Case-Study Research

Examines a bounded event, organization, process, or failure in context.

Institutional-Design Research

Develops and tests governance, standards, assurance, incentive, and interoperability arrangements.

Legal and Standards Research

Interprets authoritative texts, institutional status, and formal requirements.

Comparative Research

Examines differences across models, evaluators, methods, organizations, sectors, or jurisdictions.

Forecasting Research

Makes explicit probabilistic or scenario-based claims about future conditions.

Synthesis Research

Integrates existing evidence through systematic, scoping, rapid, or narrative review.

The project does not treat these modes as interchangeable.

A literature review cannot prove that a new evaluation protocol works.

A pilot cannot establish universal validity.

A case study cannot estimate a population rate without additional design.

An expert panel cannot convert uncertainty into observed fact.

An experimental result cannot alone establish the legitimacy of a binding standard.

Standards Body uses prospective planning to distinguish prediction from explanation after the fact.

Preregistration is required or strongly preferred when:

Preregistration may remain confidential or embargoed when public release would compromise held-out evaluation content, security, privacy, intellectual property, or the research question.

A registration does not make a weak design strong.

It creates a record of what was planned.

Exploratory research remains legitimate.

It should be labeled as exploratory rather than presented as prospectively confirmed.

Research openness is also bounded.

Standards Body supports open science, reproducibility, and reusable research artifacts.

It does not interpret openness as mandatory release of:

The project therefore uses the rule:

As open as responsible, as restricted as necessary, and explicit about the difference.

The methodology requires active search for contrary evidence.

Researchers should not merely gather sources supporting the expected conclusion.

They should seek:

Research conclusions are assigned evidence levels and confidence according to EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md.

The method should identify:

Artificial intelligence tools may assist research.

They may support:

They may not serve as unverified independent evidence.

The research owner remains responsible for every published claim.

The project should record material model and tool use when it affects:

The methodology treats correction as a normal research function.

A credible research institution is not one that never changes its conclusions.

It is one that:

The final methodological rule is:

Plan the work, identify the object, preserve the evidence, challenge the conclusion, state the uncertainty, and keep the result correctable.

1. Foundational Research Principles

1.1 Decision Relevance

Research should identify the decision, claim, or institutional question it is intended to inform.

A project may be curiosity-driven.

Even then, it should define the knowledge gap it addresses.

1.2 Methodological Fit

The method should fit the question.

Do not select a method because:

1.3 Prospective Clarity

Where possible, define hypotheses, outcomes, exclusions, and analysis before observing the decisive results.

1.4 Exploratory Honesty

Exploratory work is valuable.

It should be reported as exploratory.

1.5 Evaluated-Object Precision

Research involving AI should identify the relevant model, system, configuration, access, tools, safeguards, protocol, environment, and date.

1.6 Evidence Traceability

Material findings should be traceable to data, sources, methods, code, logs, judgments, and reviewers.

1.7 Proportionality

Research rigor, independence, security, and review should increase with:

1.8 Independence Without Isolation

Researchers should seek necessary access and technical cooperation without surrendering control of methods or conclusions.

1.9 Contrary Evidence

Research should actively search for evidence that could falsify, narrow, or overturn the expected conclusion.

1.10 Uncertainty Preservation

Uncertainty should remain visible through analysis, review, and publication.

1.11 Reproducibility and Replication

Research should support independent verification to the degree lawful, safe, and technically possible.

1.12 Ethical and Legal Fitness

Research should respect:

1.13 Security by Design

Security review should occur before sensitive evidence is collected, not only before publication.

1.14 Open Science With Boundaries

Research artifacts should be findable, accessible under stated conditions, interoperable, and reusable where responsible.

1.15 Correction

Every canonical research output should have a correction pathway.

1.16 No Authority Inflation

Research findings should not be described as standards, certification, accreditation, regulation, or legal approval unless the appropriate process and authority exist.

1.17 Public Legibility

Important methods and limitations should be understandable to non-specialists without sacrificing accuracy.

1.18 Institutional Reflexivity

Standards Body should research the effects of its own methods, incentives, governance, and public claims.

2. Scope and Non-Claims

2.1 Research Covered

This methodology covers:

2.2 Activities Requiring Additional Review

Additional qualified review may be required for:

2.3 Research Versus Practice

Operational work may generate research evidence.

Examples:

The project should determine whether the activity is:

Legal definitions may differ by jurisdiction.

When human participants are involved, qualified ethics and legal review should determine applicable obligations.

2.4 No Universal Method

This methodology does not require every project to use:

It requires a justified method and a clear record.

3. Canonical Research Definitions

Definitions in TERMINOLOGY.md govern.

3.1 Research

A systematic or structured activity intended to generate, test, synthesize, or apply knowledge.

3.2 Research Question

A clearly formulated question that guides evidence collection and analysis.

3.3 Hypothesis

A testable proposed explanation, relationship, prediction, or difference.

3.4 Protocol

The prospective specification governing research purpose, question, method, data, analysis, security, ethics, review, and change control.

3.5 Preregistration

A time-stamped record of a research plan created before the decisive data are collected or analyzed.

3.6 Registered Report

A publication process in which the research question and method receive review before results are known, with publication commitment based primarily on the importance and rigor of the design rather than result direction.

3.7 Exploratory Analysis

Analysis undertaken to discover patterns, generate hypotheses, or examine unexpected findings.

3.8 Confirmatory Analysis

Analysis testing prospectively specified hypotheses or decision rules.

3.9 Deviation

A departure from the approved or registered protocol.

3.10 Amendment

A documented prospective change to the protocol.

3.11 Research Artifact

A digital or physical object used or produced in research, including data, code, prompts, models, logs, tasks, instruments, rubrics, notes, or environments.

3.12 Data Management Plan

A document governing data creation, access, storage, metadata, security, retention, sharing, and disposal.

3.13 Reproducibility

Obtaining consistent computational or analytical results using the same data, code, methods, and conditions.

3.14 Replicability

Obtaining substantively consistent findings through materially independent research addressing the same question.

3.15 Triangulation

Using multiple methods, sources, or perspectives to examine the same claim.

3.16 Research Integrity

Honest, verifiable, accountable, and professionally responsible conduct in proposing, performing, evaluating, and reporting research.

3.17 Research Security

Protection of research people, information, artifacts, infrastructure, partnerships, and intellectual assets against unauthorized access, misuse, coercion, or interference.

3.18 Dual-Use Research

Research with legitimate beneficial purposes and plausible applications that could create harm.

3.19 Human Participant

A person whose interaction, behavior, data, or identifiable private information is involved in research, subject to applicable legal definitions.

3.20 Methodological Audit

A structured review of whether the research was planned, executed, analyzed, and reported according to its stated method and applicable standards.

4. Standards Body Research Portfolio

4.1 Foundational Research

Purpose:

Develop concepts, first principles, definitions, and institutional architecture.

Typical outputs:

Primary methods:

4.2 Evaluation-Science Research

Purpose:

Develop and test methods for measuring frontier AI systems.

Typical outputs:

Primary methods:

4.3 Capability and Safeguard Research

Purpose:

Measure consequential capabilities, access pathways, safeguards, and deployment conditions.

Primary methods:

4.4 Institutional-Design Research

Purpose:

Develop governance, assurance, standards, accreditation, incentive, and interoperability systems.

Primary methods:

4.5 Standards Research

Purpose:

Determine whether a practice is mature enough for guidance, specification, standard, assurance, procurement, or formal requirement.

Primary methods:

4.6 Legal and Regulatory Research

Purpose:

Establish current legal status, authority, requirements, and institutional relationships.

Primary methods:

4.7 Public-Knowledge Research

Purpose:

Explain frontier AI standards questions accurately and accessibly.

Primary methods:

4.8 Metaresearch

Purpose:

Evaluate research quality, publication bias, reproducibility, methods, incentives, and institutional effects.

Primary methods:

5. Research Classification

Every substantial project should be classified before work begins.

5.1 Project Type

Select one or more:

5.2 Consequence Level

C0: Minimal

Low consequence if wrong.

C1: Limited

May affect internal prioritization or nonconsequential public understanding.

C2: Material

May affect organizational decisions, public claims, research agendas, or resource allocation.

C3: High

May affect deployment, safeguards, procurement, standards, certification, institutional recognition, or significant public decisions.

C4: Critical

May affect severe-risk decisions, binding requirements, critical infrastructure, national security, or difficult-to-reverse action.

5.3 Research Sensitivity

R0: Public

No material restriction.

R1: Controlled

Access limited for integrity, licensing, or coordination.

R2: Confidential

Contains proprietary, personal, contractual, or unpublished information.

R3: Restricted

Contains material security, vulnerability, dangerous-capability, or high-risk information.

R4: Highly Restricted

Requires specialized authorization, secure facilities, or legal controls.

5.4 Review Level

V0: Author Self-Check

Suitable only for low-consequence informal work.

V1: Internal Peer Review

At least one qualified internal reviewer.

V2: Domain and Method Review

Separate subject-matter and methodological review.

V3: Independent Expert Review

Qualified reviewers with sufficient independence and access.

V4: Multi-Party or Formal Assurance Review

Used for critical claims, standards progression, or formal decisions.

5.5 Registration Level

P0: No Registration

Used for informal notes or rapidly changing exploratory work.

P1: Internal Protocol Timestamp

Time-stamped internal record.

P2: Public or Embargoed Registration

Registered before decisive data access or analysis.

P3: Independently Reviewed Protocol

Protocol reviewed before execution.

P4: Registered Report or Equivalent

Publication or institutional commitment based on pre-results review.

5.6 Classification Record

Record:

6. Research Lifecycle

6.1 Initiation

Create a research intake record.

6.2 Scoping

Define:

6.3 Feasibility

Assess:

6.4 Classification

Apply Section 5.

6.5 Protocol

Prepare the research protocol.

6.6 Registration

Timestamp or register as appropriate.

6.7 Collection

Gather data, sources, and artifacts.

6.8 Execution

Conduct the research and record deviations.

6.9 Analysis

Apply pre-specified and clearly labeled exploratory analyses.

6.10 Review

Complete required review.

6.11 Synthesis

Assign evidence level, confidence, and limitations.

6.12 Publication

Release public, controlled, or restricted output.

6.13 Monitoring

Track new evidence and change triggers.

6.14 Correction

Correct, supersede, withdraw, or retire.

7. Research Question Formation

7.1 Question Test

A strong research question should be:

7.2 Decision Question

State:

Which decision or institutional judgment could change because of this research?

7.3 Claim Question

State:

Which claim would the evidence support, weaken, or leave unresolved?

7.4 Object Question

State:

Which model, system, protocol, organization, jurisdiction, process, or event is being studied?

7.5 Counterfactual Question

Where causal or comparative reasoning is involved:

Compared with what?

7.6 Consequence Question

What happens if the research conclusion is wrong?

7.7 Scope Question

What will the project not establish?

7.8 Feasibility Question

Can the available method and access support the intended conclusion?

7.9 Research Question Register

Record:

8. Protocol Development

8.1 Required Protocol Fields

A substantial protocol should include:

8.2 Protocol Proportionality

A short descriptive project may use a concise protocol.

A C3 or C4 project requires a complete protocol and independent review.

8.3 Primary and Secondary Outcomes

For confirmatory studies, define:

8.4 Analysis Plan

State:

8.5 Deviations

A deviation record should state:

8.6 Protocol Amendments

Prospective amendments are permitted.

They should be:

8.7 Protocol Freeze

For confirmatory analysis, freeze the relevant protocol before decisive analysis begins.

8.8 Protocol Availability

Publish or register the protocol unless:

requires restriction.

Even when restricted, preserve a time-stamped record.

9. Preregistration and Registered Research

9.1 Purpose

Preregistration distinguishes planned research from analysis developed after seeing results.

The Center for Open Science describes preregistration as specifying a research plan in advance and submitting it to a registry, which helps distinguish planned from unplanned work.[^cos-prereg]

9.2 Required Use

Preregistration is normally required for:

9.3 Strongly Preferred Use

Preregistration is strongly preferred for:

9.4 Optional Use

It may be optional for:

9.5 Registration Timing

Register before:

9.6 Registration Content

Include:

9.7 Embargoed Registration

Use an embargo when public release would compromise:

9.8 Registered Reports

Use a registered-report model where feasible for research vulnerable to publication bias or result-driven review.

9.9 Deviations

Report every material deviation.

A preregistration is not a promise that no change will occur.

It is a record that makes change visible.

9.10 Preregistration Limits

Preregistration does not:

10. Research Intake Template

Project ID:
Working title:
Research owner:
Date:

Problem

Research Question

Decision Link

Intended Claims

Evaluated Object

Audience

Project Type

Consequence Level

Sensitivity Level

Required Review Level

Registration Level

Expected Evidence Standard

Access and Resource Needs

Ethics and Human-Participant Screen

Dual-Use and Security Screen

Conflicts

Expected Deliverables

Approval

11. Research Protocol Template

Project ID:
Protocol version:
Date:
Owners:
Status:

1. Research Question

2. Rationale and Knowledge Gap

3. Decision and Claim Link

4. Scope and Non-Claims

5. Hypotheses or Exploratory Aims

6. Evaluated Object

7. Research Design

8. Data, Sources, or Participants

9. Sampling

10. Procedures

11. Variables, Constructs, and Outcomes

12. Analysis Plan

13. Uncertainty and Sensitivity

14. Exclusions and Missing Data

15. Ethics and Participant Protection

16. Security and Dual-Use Controls

17. Data and Artifact Management

18. Conflicts and Independence

19. AI Tool Use

20. Review Plan

21. Publication and Disclosure

22. Correction and Retirement

23. Change Control

24. Timeline and Resources

25. Approval

12. Literature and Evidence Review Methods

Standards Body uses several forms of review.

The method should match the purpose.

12.1 Systematic Review

Use when:

Required elements:

PRISMA 2020 provides a widely used reporting framework for systematic reviews, including checklists and flow diagrams. Standards Body may use PRISMA reporting elements where appropriate, while recognizing that a reporting guideline does not by itself determine whether the underlying review method is valid.[^prisma]

12.2 Scoping Review

Use when:

Typical outputs:

PRISMA-ScR may guide reporting for scoping reviews.[^prisma-scr]

12.3 Rapid Review

Use when:

Required controls:

12.4 Narrative Review

Use when:

Required controls:

12.5 Living Review

Use when:

Required elements:

12.6 Review Method Selection

The protocol should explain why the selected review type is fit for purpose.

12.7 Search Strategy

A search strategy should specify:

12.8 Search Breadth

Search should include:

12.9 Source Prioritization

Prioritize primary sources for:

12.10 Screening

For structured reviews, use:

Higher-consequence reviews should use at least two reviewers for a sample or all material inclusion decisions.

12.11 Extraction

Use a standardized form containing:

12.12 Quality Assessment

Apply EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md.

Do not exclude all low-quality evidence automatically.

Low-quality evidence may reveal:

Its weight should remain limited.

12.13 Citation Chaining

Use:

12.14 Search Completion

A search is sufficiently complete when additional searching is unlikely to materially change the bounded conclusion, or when time and resource limits are documented.

12.15 Review Flow Record

Maintain counts for:

12.16 Review Update

Update after:

13. Source Discovery and Verification

13.1 Discovery Is Not Verification

Search tools, recommendations, citations, and model outputs may locate sources.

The underlying source should be inspected.

13.2 Source Verification Checklist

Confirm:

13.3 Official Status Claims

For claims about:

check the official source shortly before publication.

13.4 Archiving

For dynamic sources, preserve where lawful:

13.5 Unavailable Sources

If a source cannot be accessed:

13.6 Translation

For non-English sources:

13.7 Retractions and Corrections

Check for:

13.8 Grey Literature

Grey literature may include:

Assess it by method, provenance, access, and conflict rather than by publication label alone.

14. Technical Experiment Methodology

14.1 Experimental Question

State:

14.2 Experimental Unit

Define the unit of analysis.

Possible units:

Avoid pseudo-replication.

Multiple outputs from one shared condition may not be independent.

14.3 Control Condition

Use an appropriate comparison:

14.4 Randomization

Use randomization when it improves causal interpretation or reduces selection bias.

Record:

14.5 Blinding

Use blinding where feasible for:

Record what could and could not be blinded.

14.6 Sample Size

Justify sample size through:

14.7 Stopping Rules

Define:

Do not stop because a preferred result appears unless the rule was specified or clearly labeled exploratory.

14.8 Multiple Comparisons

When many models, tasks, domains, or metrics are tested:

14.9 Missing Data

Record:

14.10 Pilot Studies

Pilots may assess:

Do not present a pilot as definitive evidence without justification.

14.11 Sequential Research

Sequential methods may be useful when:

The decision rule should be specified.

14.12 Adaptive Designs

Adaptive designs may change:

Adaptation should be governed prospectively and preserve valid inference.

14.13 Safe Proxies

Where direct testing is dangerous, use safe proxies when they preserve the relevant construct sufficiently.

Proxy limitations should be central to interpretation.

14.14 Experimental Records

Preserve:

15. Frontier AI Evaluation Research

15.1 Evaluation as Research

A frontier AI evaluation may be:

The protocol should identify which functions apply.

15.2 Evaluation Object

Record:

15.3 Construct

Define the capability, behavior, safeguard, or institutional property being measured.

15.4 Task Universe

Describe the broader set of tasks the sample is intended to represent.

15.5 Task Development

Task development should include:

15.6 Held-Out Design

Apply FOUNDATION_02_HELD_OUT_EVALUATIONS.md.

Protected material may include:

15.7 Elicitation Research

Elicitation should specify:

AISI's science-of-evaluations work has emphasized that test-time resources and elicitation protocols can materially affect measured agent capability, reinforcing the need to treat elicitation as part of the method rather than an incidental detail.[^aisi-eval-science]

15.8 Agentic Evaluation

Agent research should record:

15.9 Transcript and Trajectory Analysis

Quantitative success should be supplemented where useful by analysis of:

15.10 Scoring

Scoring should be:

15.11 Model Judges

Validate model judges against qualified human assessment.

Examine:

15.12 Human Baselines

Human baselines should define:

15.13 Human-Uplift Studies

Compare:

Measure:

15.14 Evaluation Validity

Validate through:

15.15 Dynamic Protocols

Apply FOUNDATION_01_DYNAMIC_EVALUATION_PROTOCOLS.md.

15.16 High-Stakes Evaluation

Apply FOUNDATION_03_HIGH_STAKES_CAPABILITY_EVALUATION.md.

15.17 Independent Review

Apply FOUNDATION_04_INDEPENDENT_EXPERT_REVIEW.md.

15.18 Tooling and Reproducibility

Evaluation frameworks such as AISI's Inspect illustrate the value of structured, inspectable evaluation tooling, although tool adoption does not itself establish validity.[^inspect]

16. Statistical Methodology

16.1 Statistical Purpose

Statistics should serve the question.

Do not use complexity to substitute for design quality.

16.2 Descriptive Statistics

Report distributions, not only averages.

Consider:

16.3 Estimation

Prefer effect estimates and uncertainty over binary significance alone.

16.4 Hypothesis Testing

Where used, report:

A p-value is not the probability that the claim is true.

16.5 Bayesian Methods

Bayesian methods may support:

State:

16.6 Hierarchical Structure

AI evaluation data are often nested:

Account for dependence.

16.7 Nondeterminism

Model outputs may vary across:

Use repeated runs and report variance.

16.8 Rare Events

For rare harmful events:

16.9 Calibration

Forecasts, probabilistic classifiers, and model judges should be assessed for calibration.

16.10 Sensitivity Analysis

Test the effect of:

16.11 Robustness Checks

Robustness checks should be relevant, not decorative.

16.12 Statistical Code Review

C2 through C4 projects should receive code review or independent recomputation where feasible.

16.13 No Universal Composite Score

Avoid combining unrelated measures into one score unless:

17. Qualitative Research Methodology

17.1 Appropriate Uses

Qualitative research is appropriate for:

17.2 Sampling

Possible methods:

State the rationale and limitations.

17.3 Interviews

An interview protocol should include:

17.4 Focus Groups and Workshops

Consider:

17.5 Coding

Define:

17.6 Thematic Analysis

Report:

17.7 Reflexivity

Researchers should record how their:

may affect collection and interpretation.

17.8 Saturation

Do not invoke saturation without stating:

17.9 Member Checking

Where appropriate, participants may review:

Participants should not receive veto over legitimate analysis unless agreed.

17.10 Qualitative Rigor

Support rigor through:

18. Mixed-Methods Research

18.1 Purpose

Mixed methods should integrate complementary evidence.

Do not add interviews to a quantitative study merely to claim comprehensiveness.

18.2 Designs

Possible designs:

18.3 Integration

State where integration occurs:

18.4 Divergence

When qualitative and quantitative findings conflict:

19. Case-Study Methodology

19.1 Case Definition

Define the bounded case by:

19.2 Case Selection

Possible rationales:

19.3 Evidence Sources

Use multiple sources where possible:

19.4 Chain of Evidence

Maintain traceability from:

19.5 Rival Explanations

Identify and test alternative explanations.

19.6 Generalization

Case studies support:

They do not automatically support population estimates.

19.7 Failure Case

A failure case should examine:

19.8 Comparative Case Study

Use a common framework across cases.

Explain selection and noncomparability.

20. Institutional-Design Research

20.1 Research Object

Institutional design may examine:

20.2 Design Inputs

Use:

20.3 Functional Analysis

Ask:

20.4 Comparative Institutional Analysis

Compare:

20.5 Design Prototypes

Produce:

20.6 Institutional Pilot

Test:

20.7 Outcome Evaluation

Do not evaluate the institution only by:

Measure:

21. Legal, Regulatory, and Standards Research

21.1 Source Priority

Use authoritative sources:

21.2 Status Control

Distinguish:

21.3 Jurisdiction

State:

21.4 Legal Interpretation

Separate:

21.5 Qualified Review

Material legal conclusions should receive qualified legal review.

21.6 Standards Research

Record:

21.7 Crosswalks

A crosswalk maps provisions.

It does not establish legal equivalence unless recognized by the relevant authority.

21.8 Current Verification

Reverify legal and standards claims before publication.

22. Comparative and International Research

22.1 Unit of Comparison

Define whether the comparison concerns:

22.2 Comparability

Assess:

22.3 Local Context

Avoid treating one jurisdiction as the default.

22.4 Translation

Validate key terms with domain and local expertise.

22.5 Data Gaps

Absence of published data may reflect:

Do not interpret absence as absence of activity.

22.6 Recognition Research

Distinguish:

22.7 International Participation

Include institutions from affected regions early enough to influence:

22.8 Capacity Impact

Assess whether the research:

23. Forecasting and Scenario Research

23.1 Forecast Definition

A forecast should specify:

23.2 Base Rates

Use relevant historical or comparative base rates where available.

23.3 Decomposition

Break complex forecasts into:

23.4 Calibration

Track whether stated probabilities correspond to outcomes over time.

23.5 Scenarios

Scenarios explore coherent possibilities.

They are not predictions unless probabilities are assigned.

23.6 Stress Scenarios

Use stress scenarios to test:

23.7 Forecast Updates

Record:

23.8 Avoided Practice

Do not present:

24. Structured Expert Judgment

24.1 Use Cases

Use when:

24.2 Question Design

Questions should be:

24.3 Individual Judgment First

Collect individual estimates before group discussion to reduce conformity pressure.

24.4 Evidence Packet

Provide balanced evidence and contrary views.

24.5 Aggregation

State whether estimates are:

24.6 Calibration

Where feasible, evaluate experts on seed questions or prior forecasts.

24.7 Disagreement

Preserve the distribution and reasons for disagreement.

24.8 Update

Expert judgments should have review dates and update triggers.

25. Data and Artifact Management

25.1 Data Management Plan

Every project that creates or handles material data should maintain a data management plan.

The plan should address:

25.2 Research Artifact Inventory

Possible artifacts include:

25.3 Persistent Identification

Assign stable identifiers to:

25.4 File Naming

Names should support:

Avoid ambiguous filenames such as:

without controlled versioning.

25.5 Metadata

Metadata should identify:

25.6 Data Quality

Data-quality checks may include:

25.7 Raw and Processed Data

Preserve the distinction among:

Record every material transformation.

25.8 Immutable Records

For high-consequence projects, preserve immutable or tamper-evident copies of:

25.9 Data Minimization

Collect only data necessary for the research and governance purpose.

25.10 Retention

Retention should consider:

25.11 Destruction

Destruction should be:

25.12 Stewardship

Every material dataset or artifact collection should have an identified steward.

26. Open Science and Responsible Access

26.1 Open-Science Position

Standards Body supports open research practices because they can improve:

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science provides an international framework emphasizing open scientific knowledge, infrastructures, engagement, and equitable access.[^unesco-open]

26.2 Responsible Openness

Openness should be balanced against:

26.3 Access Categories

Research artifacts may be:

26.4 FAIR Principles

Where appropriate, research objects should be:

FAIR does not require unrestricted public release. Accessibility may include authenticated or controlled access with rich metadata.[^fair]

26.5 Open Methods

Even when data are restricted, publish where safe:

26.6 Open Code

Release code when:

26.7 Open Tasks

Do not release active held-out tasks merely to satisfy an openness norm.

26.8 Equitable Access

Open-science design should consider:

26.9 Community Contribution

Provide pathways for:

26.10 Openness Statement

Every major output should state:

27. Reproducibility and Replication

27.1 Reproducibility Standard

A computational study should allow a qualified reviewer to reconstruct:

The National Academies defines reproducibility as obtaining consistent computational results using the same input data, computational steps, methods, code, and conditions of analysis, while reserving replicability for consistent findings across studies using new data.[^nasem-repro]

27.2 Reproducibility Package

Include:

27.3 Containerization and Environments

Where practical, preserve:

27.4 External Services

If a result depends on an external API or hosted model, record:

27.5 Reproducibility Status

Use:

27.6 Replication Plan

High-consequence research should state:

27.7 Artifact Review

Artifact review should examine whether research artifacts are:

ACM artifact-review practice provides useful distinctions among artifact availability, functional evaluation, reusability, reproduced results, and replicated results.[^acm-artifacts]

27.8 Replication Credit

Replication and reproduction should receive substantive contributor credit.

27.9 Failed Replication

A failed replication should trigger:

27.10 Restricted Reproducibility

Use controlled environments when public release would compromise:

28. Human-Participant Research

28.1 Screening

Before collecting data from or about people, determine whether the activity involves:

28.2 Legal Determination

A qualified institution or responsible official should determine whether formal human-subjects review applies.

In the United States, the Common Rule outlines core provisions for institutional review boards, informed consent, and assurances for covered research, while applicability depends on the conducting or supporting agency and the nature of the activity.[^common-rule]

28.3 Ethical Principles

Human-participant research should respect:

The Belmont Report remains a foundational statement of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research involving human subjects.[^belmont]

28.4 Consent

Consent should address:

28.5 Waiver or Alteration

A waiver or alteration of consent should be determined only through the applicable qualified review process.

28.6 Vulnerable or Dependent Participants

Additional safeguards may be required for:

28.7 Expert Interviews

Experts may still be research participants.

Consider:

28.8 Deception

Research involving deception requires strong justification, risk controls, qualified review, and debriefing where appropriate.

28.9 Compensation

Compensation should be fair and not improperly coercive.

28.10 Participant Safety

Monitor:

28.11 Withdrawal

Explain:

28.12 Public Data

Public availability does not automatically eliminate ethical concerns.

Consider:

28.13 International Research

Apply local legal and ethical requirements.

Do not treat one country's consent or review framework as universally sufficient.

29. Privacy and Personal Data

29.1 Privacy by Design

Privacy controls should be defined before collection.

29.2 Personal-Data Inventory

Identify:

29.3 Lawful Basis

Determine the lawful basis and institutional authority for collection, processing, transfer, and retention.

29.4 De-Identification

De-identification should consider:

29.5 Pseudonymization

Pseudonymization reduces direct identification but does not necessarily make data anonymous.

29.6 Access

Limit personal data to people whose role requires it.

29.7 Publication

Avoid unnecessary identifying detail.

Use participant quotations carefully.

29.8 Data Subject Rights

Where applicable, support:

29.9 Breach Response

A breach should trigger:

30. Dual-Use and Research Security

30.1 Dual-Use Screen

Every C3 or C4 technical project should assess whether the research could materially enable:

30.2 Research Security Screen

Assess:

30.3 Benefit-Risk Review

Consider:

30.4 Safe Research Design

Possible controls:

30.5 Publication Review

Before release, review whether details could:

30.6 Graduated Publication

Possible outputs:

30.7 Responsible Disclosure

Coordinate vulnerability or control-failure disclosure with affected parties while preserving independent reporting rights.

30.8 Researcher Protection

Provide:

30.9 Research Security Is Not Censorship

Restrictions should be:

30.10 Security Incident

A research security incident may require:

31. Conflicts, Independence, and Funding

31.1 Conflict Types

Research conflicts may be:

31.2 Disclosure

Material conflicts should be disclosed before:

31.3 Management Options

Use:

31.4 Sponsor Role

A sponsor may define a research need and provide technical information.

The sponsor should not receive hidden control over:

31.5 Publication Rights

Agreements should define:

31.6 Result-Dependent Funding

Payment contingent on a favorable result is prohibited.

31.7 In-Kind Support

Disclose material:

31.8 Access Dependence

Dependence on future model access may create a conflict even without direct payment.

31.9 Intellectual Commitments

Researchers should disclose when they:

31.10 Independence Record

C3 and C4 work should include an independence profile.

32. Research Roles, Contribution, and Authorship

32.1 Role Clarity

Projects should identify:

32.2 Contribution Taxonomy

Contribution may include:

32.3 Authorship

Authorship should require substantive contribution and accountability for the work.

32.4 No Honorary Authorship

Status, funding, leadership, or access alone does not justify authorship.

32.5 Acknowledgment

Recognize contributions that do not meet authorship criteria.

32.6 Contributor Statement

Major publications should include a role-based contribution statement.

32.7 Responsibility

Every author should understand the central claims and identify which parts they can directly verify.

32.8 Disagreement

An author should not be required to endorse claims they materially dispute.

Use:

32.9 Contributor Safety

Protect contributors from retaliation for good-faith:

33. Artificial Intelligence Tools in Research

33.1 Permitted Uses

AI tools may assist:

33.2 Verification

Material outputs require human or independently testable verification.

33.3 Source Rule

Cite the underlying evidence rather than an assistant-generated summary.

33.4 Tool Record

Record when material:

33.5 Sensitive Data

Do not submit confidential or restricted data to an external AI service without authorization and appropriate controls.

33.6 Code Generation

Generated code should receive:

33.7 Translation

Machine translation should receive domain review where wording affects:

33.8 Extraction

Sample automated extraction for:

33.9 Model-as-Researcher Claims

Do not list an AI system as an accountable author.

33.10 Model Output as Study Data

When model outputs are the object of research, preserve:

33.11 Disclosure Threshold

Disclose AI use when it materially affects:

34. Review Architecture

34.1 Review Types

Research may receive:

34.2 Review Fit

Select reviewers based on the actual claim and method.

34.3 Reviewer Access

Reviewers should have sufficient access to evaluate the public conclusion.

34.4 Reviewer Independence

External is not automatically independent.

Apply FOUNDATION_04_INDEPENDENT_EXPERT_REVIEW.md.

34.5 Review Questions

Reviewers should assess:

34.6 Factual Review

The studied party may identify:

It should not receive veto over independent interpretation.

34.7 Adversarial Review

For C3 and C4 work, appoint a reviewer or team to develop the strongest case that:

34.8 Red-Team Review

A methodological red team may attempt to:

34.9 Dissent

Preserve material dissent through:

34.10 Review Record

Record:

34.11 Review Completion

A review is complete when material comments are:

Not every reviewer must agree.

35. Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation

35.1 Analysis Separation

Separate:

35.2 Planned and Exploratory Work

Label analyses as:

Post hoc analysis may be valuable.

It should not be represented as prospectively confirmed.

35.3 Assumption Checks

Document assumptions concerning:

35.4 Triangulation

Use multiple evidence forms when one method cannot support the full claim.

Examples:

35.5 Contrary Evidence

Create a contrary-evidence section for C2 through C4 work.

State:

35.6 Alternative Explanations

List plausible alternate explanations and indicate:

35.7 Evidence Synthesis

Apply EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md.

Assign:

35.8 Heterogeneity

Do not pool results when:

35.9 Negative Results

Report negative and inconclusive results.

Distinguish:

35.10 Interpretation Boundary

The conclusion should not exceed:

35.11 Recommendation Boundary

A recommendation should distinguish:

36. Uncertainty and Confidence

36.1 Uncertainty Register

C2 through C4 projects should maintain an uncertainty register.

Possible categories:

36.2 Quantification

Quantify uncertainty when the method supports it.

36.3 Qualitative Uncertainty

Use structured qualitative descriptions when numerical precision would be misleading.

36.4 Confidence

Assign confidence according to EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md.

36.5 Decision Under Uncertainty

State:

36.6 Unknown Unknowns

Do not convert incomplete awareness into narrow confidence intervals.

Use stress tests, diverse review, and monitoring.

36.7 Confidence Decay

Confidence should be reconsidered after:

37. Research Reporting

37.1 Minimum Report Structure

A major research report should include:

37.2 Method Transparency

The method should be detailed enough for a qualified reader to understand:

37.3 Reporting Guidelines

Use relevant reporting guidelines where they improve completeness.

Do not treat checklist completion as proof of validity.

37.4 Result Reporting

Report:

37.5 Language

Use TERMINOLOGY.md.

Avoid unsupported:

37.6 Abstract and Summary

Summaries should preserve material limitations.

37.7 Visual Evidence

Figures and tables should include:

37.8 Public and Technical Versions

A project may publish:

The public version should explain what is withheld and why.

37.9 Research Status

Use:

37.10 Current-As-Of Date

Time-sensitive research should display the date through which evidence was reviewed.

38. Publication and Dissemination

38.1 Publication Decision

Consider:

38.2 No Favorable-Result Requirement

Publication should not depend on whether the result supports the preferred hypothesis or sponsor.

38.3 Publication Delay

Delay may be justified for:

Delay should not become indefinite suppression without review.

38.4 Preprints

Preprints should be clearly labeled as not yet peer reviewed where applicable.

38.5 Public Comment

Public comment may improve:

It does not replace technical validation.

38.6 Media Communication

Media materials should:

38.7 Stakeholder Briefing

Affected parties may receive advance briefing for:

They should not control independent conclusions.

38.8 Accessibility

Public reports should support:

39. Correction, Supersession, and Retirement

39.1 Correction Triggers

Correct when:

39.2 Correction Classification

Minor

No material effect on the central conclusion.

Material

Changes evidence level, confidence, scope, or recommendation.

Invalidating

The output should no longer support the central claim.

39.3 Correction Procedure

  1. Receive report.
  2. preserve original.
  3. assess evidence.
  4. classify severity.
  5. notify responsible owners.
  6. conduct independent review where material.
  7. issue correction, supersession, or withdrawal.
  8. propagate to dependent files.
  9. update VERSION_HISTORY.md.
  10. review process failure.

39.4 No Silent Replacement

Do not silently overwrite a material public error.

39.5 Supersession

Use when a newer study or version replaces the prior output without proving it invalid.

39.6 Withdrawal

Use when:

39.7 Retirement

Retire methods and findings that are no longer current or useful.

39.8 Correction Credit

Good-faith correction should receive institutional credit.

Repeated negligence, concealment, or manipulation should be treated separately.

40. Research Quality Assurance

40.1 Quality Objectives

Research quality includes:

40.2 Project Quality Plan

C3 and C4 projects should define:

40.3 Methodological Audit

A methodological audit should sample:

40.4 Reanalysis

Independent reanalysis may be required when:

40.5 Research Integrity

Standards Body adopts research-integrity expectations consistent with honest and verifiable methods, responsible peer review, protection of sensitive information, and accountable reporting. NSF and NIH research-integrity guidance provide relevant institutional reference points, while Standards Body applies its own bounded methodology.[^nsf-integrity][^nih-conduct]

40.6 Misconduct

Potential research misconduct should be handled through a fair process.

Distinguish:

40.7 Quality Metrics

Possible metrics:

40.8 Quality Review

Review the methodology itself using:

41. Research Governance

41.1 Governance Functions

Standards Body should govern:

41.2 Core Roles

Research Director or Methodology Owner

Maintains the research system.

Project Lead

Owns the project.

Method Reviewer

Reviews methodological fit.

Domain Reviewer

Reviews subject-matter validity.

Evidence Reviewer

Reviews sourcing and claims.

Security Reviewer

Reviews sensitive research.

Ethics Reviewer

Reviews participant and public-interest issues.

Independent Reviewer

Challenges consequential work.

Publication Authority

Approves release under current governance.

Records Custodian

Maintains protocols, evidence, and versions.

41.3 Approval Matrix

C0 and C1

Project lead plus self or peer check.

C2

Project lead, domain or method review, evidence check.

C3

Protocol review, domain and method review, security or ethics review where applicable, independent review.

C4

Multi-party governance review, independent expert review, security and ethics approval, publication decision, monitoring and appeal.

41.4 Recusal

Decision participants should recuse for material conflicts.

41.5 Dissent

Material dissent should be recorded.

41.6 Appeals

Appeals may concern:

41.7 Emergency Research

Emergency work may use an accelerated protocol.

It should still record:

42. Research Maturity Model

Level 0: Informal

Characteristics:

Level 1: Documented

Characteristics:

Level 2: Protocol-Governed

Characteristics:

Level 3: Independently Challenged

Characteristics:

Level 4: Decision-Grade

Characteristics:

Level 5: Adaptive Research Institution

Characteristics:

Maturity Rule

Research maturity should be assessed project by project.

An institution should not claim high maturity because one flagship study is rigorous.

43. Implementation Plan

Phase 1: Methodology Adoption

Apply this file to all new substantial projects.

Phase 2: Research Intake

Create a project registry using the intake template.

Phase 3: Protocol Library

Create controlled protocol templates for:

Phase 4: Source and Evidence Integration

Link each project to:

Phase 5: Research Artifact Repository

Establish:

Phase 6: Review Network

Develop qualified pools for:

Phase 7: Replication Program

Select high-value claims for:

Phase 8: Methodological Audit

Audit a representative sample of canonical work.

Phase 9: Public Research Register

Publish appropriate:

Phase 10: Method Evolution

Revise this methodology based on:

44. Research Methodology Scorecard

Dimension Core question
Question Is the research question clear, bounded, and answerable?
Decision link Is the intended decision or knowledge gap explicit?
Object identity Is the model, system, institution, or case precisely identified?
Method fit Does the method match the question?
Classification Are consequence, sensitivity, review, and registration levels assigned?
Protocol Was the work prospectively specified at an appropriate level?
Registration Are planned and exploratory work distinguishable?
Sampling Is the sample justified and relevant?
Sources Are authoritative and contrary sources included?
Data Are data quality, provenance, and transformation controlled?
Artifacts Are code, prompts, tasks, logs, and instruments preserved?
Analysis Are assumptions, exclusions, and uncertainty handled?
Qualitative rigor Are interpretation, coding, reflexivity, and negative cases addressed?
Statistical rigor Are dependence, power, multiplicity, and sensitivity addressed?
Evaluation validity Are construct, elicitation, scoring, and system identity valid?
Ethics Are participant welfare, consent, privacy, and justice addressed?
Security Are dual-use, access, disclosure, and incident risks controlled?
Conflicts Are funding, access, and intellectual conflicts managed?
AI-tool use Is material AI assistance verified and disclosed?
Reproducibility Can the work be reconstructed or re-executed?
Replicability Is independent confirmation planned or available?
Review Did qualified reviewers have sufficient access and independence?
Contrary evidence Was disconfirming evidence actively sought?
Uncertainty Are material uncertainties visible?
Reporting Does the report preserve method, limitations, and status?
Public claims Do public statements remain within evidence?
Correction Can error be corrected and propagated?
Monitoring Are update and retirement triggers defined?
Proportionality Is the burden appropriate to consequence?
Institutional learning Will the project improve future methods and standards?

44.1 Critical Failures

The following normally prevent a C3 or C4 project from publication as decision-grade research:

44.2 No Composite Rating

Do not average the scorecard into one universal number.

Critical weaknesses should remain visible.

45. Protocol Deviation Record Template

Project ID:
Protocol version:
Deviation ID:
Date identified:

Planned Method

Actual Method

Timing Relative to Result Access

Reason

Approval

Effect on Validity

Effect on Evidence Level or Confidence

Corrective Action

Publication Disclosure

46. Research Review Record Template

Project:
Reviewer:
Role:
Qualifications:
Conflict disclosure:
Access provided:
Date:

Scope

Method Findings

Evidence Findings

Security and Ethics Findings

Contrary Evidence

Required Corrections

Limitations

Recommendation

Unresolved Dissent

47. Research Artifact Availability Statement

Project:
Version:

Artifact Status Location or access process Restriction reason License Review date
Protocol
Registration
Data
Code
Prompts
Task bank
Environment
Analysis
Review record

Reproducibility status:
Replication status:
Contact:

48. Publication Readiness Checklist

Before publication, confirm:

  1. The question and scope are clear.
  2. The research object is precisely identified.
  3. The method is documented.
  4. Material protocol deviations are disclosed.
  5. Primary and contrary evidence were reviewed.
  6. Citations support the exact claims.
  7. Data and artifacts are preserved.
  8. Statistical and qualitative methods were reviewed.
  9. Uncertainty and confidence are stated.
  10. Human-participant obligations were resolved.
  11. Privacy and security review is complete.
  12. Dual-use publication risk is addressed.
  13. Conflicts and funding are disclosed.
  14. Material AI-tool use is documented.
  15. Required independent review is complete.
  16. Dissent is preserved.
  17. Public wording remains within evidence.
  18. Artifact availability is stated.
  19. Correction and monitoring paths exist.
  20. Version and current-as-of date are displayed.

49. Canonical Standards Body Research Positions

Standards Body adopts the following working positions.

  1. Research should begin with a defined question, object, scope, and intended use.

  2. Method selection should follow the question rather than institutional fashion.

  3. Planned and exploratory work should remain distinguishable.

  4. Exploratory research is legitimate when labeled honestly.

  5. Preregistration improves transparency but does not repair invalid design.

  6. High-consequence comparative, threshold, and confirmatory studies should ordinarily be preregistered or prospectively frozen.

  7. Restricted registration is acceptable when public registration would compromise security or holdout integrity.

  8. Research protocols should be versioned and deviations recorded.

  9. AI evaluation research should identify the full system, not only the model name.

  10. Elicitation conditions are part of the research method.

  11. Test-time resources can materially change measured capability and should be reported.

  12. Public benchmarks alone are insufficient for many consequential frontier AI claims.

  13. Negative results should be published and interpreted carefully.

  14. "Not demonstrated" should not be rewritten as "absent" without stronger evidence.

  15. Literature reviews should state their search, inclusion, exclusion, and update method.

  16. Reporting checklists improve completeness but do not prove validity.

  17. Primary sources should anchor legal, standards, institutional, and direct technical claims.

  18. Contrary evidence should be sought deliberately.

  19. Quantitative and qualitative methods should be chosen according to the claim.

  20. Mixed methods should integrate evidence rather than decorate a study.

  21. Case studies support contextual and analytical learning but not automatic population estimates.

  22. Institutional-design proposals should be piloted and evaluated by outcomes.

  23. Technical evidence does not uniquely determine policy.

  24. Legal claims require jurisdiction, status, date, and qualified interpretation.

  25. International comparisons should not treat one jurisdiction or language as the default.

  26. Forecasts should be probabilistic or scenario-based, time-bounded, and updateable.

  27. Expert judgment should be structured, conflict-aware, and distinguishable from observed fact.

  28. Data and research artifacts should have provenance, versions, access rules, and stewards.

  29. Research should be as open as responsible and as restricted as necessary.

  30. FAIR research practice does not require unrestricted public release.

  31. Reproducibility and replicability are distinct and should be reported separately.

  32. Restricted research should still support qualified independent challenge.

  33. Human-participant research requires appropriate ethical and legal review.

  34. Publicly available personal data can still create ethical and privacy risk.

  35. Dual-use and research-security review should begin before data collection.

  36. Security restrictions should be specific, proportionate, time-bounded, and reviewable.

  37. Sponsor and access relationships should be disclosed.

  38. Result-dependent research funding is prohibited.

  39. Contributor credit should follow actual contribution and accountability.

  40. Honorary authorship is prohibited.

  41. AI tools may assist research but cannot serve as unverified independent evidence.

  42. Material AI-tool use should be recorded when it affects method, confidentiality, reproducibility, or interpretation.

  43. Consequential work should receive domain, methodological, and independent challenge appropriate to its risk.

  44. Reviewed parties may correct facts but should not control independent conclusions.

  45. Material dissent should remain visible.

  46. Research reports should state evidence level, confidence, limitations, and current-as-of date.

  47. Public summaries and headlines should not exceed the underlying evidence.

  48. Corrections should be visible, timely, and propagated.

  49. Obsolete methods and findings should be retired rather than preserved through reputation.

  50. Standards Body should continuously evaluate and improve its own research system.

50. Relationship to Other Canonical Files

PROJECT_IDENTITY.md

Defines why Standards Body conducts research and limits its present authority.

TERMINOLOGY.md

Defines the controlled vocabulary used throughout research.

FOUNDATIONS_APPENDIX.md

Locates research within the integrated eight-foundation architecture.

EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md

Defines evidence levels, source quality, confidence, claims, and correction.

TAXONOMY.md

Will classify research objects, methods, evidence, risks, actors, and outputs.

EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md

Will define the deeper approach to measurement, validity, thresholds, and interpretation.

GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md

Will define formal decision rights, recusals, appeals, and oversight.

TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md

Will define disclosure classifications and public reporting.

CONTRIBUTOR_FRAMEWORK.md

Will govern participation, conduct, contribution, credit, and removal.

SOURCES.md

Will maintain the master research source registry.

VERSION_HISTORY.md

Will maintain current, superseded, corrected, withdrawn, and retired research records.

51. Final Research Position

Standards Body should not be known merely for having strong opinions about frontier AI standards.

It should be known for a research process that makes its conclusions difficult to overstate and possible to challenge.

That requires more than citations.

It requires:

Frontier AI research will often remain incomplete.

Models will change.

Protocols will become stale.

Access will be uneven.

Some evidence will remain confidential.

Some risks will be difficult to test directly.

The answer is not to lower methodological standards or to pretend that uncertainty has disappeared.

The answer is to build a research system that can learn.

The defining research rule of Standards Body is:

Ask a bounded question, use a fit method, preserve the evidence, invite challenge, and keep the conclusion revisable.

References and Research Basis

[^nist-rmf]: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), NIST AI 100-1, 2023. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf

[^nist-tevv]: National Institute of Standards and Technology, AI Test, Evaluation, Validation and Verification (TEVV). https://www.nist.gov/ai-test-evaluation-validation-and-verification-tevv

[^nist-itl-2026]: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Technology Laboratory AI Program, including advancing TEVV and measurement science, updated 2026. https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/nist-information-technology-laboratory-itl-ai-program

[^nasem-repro]: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303

[^prisma]: PRISMA, PRISMA 2020 Statement and Checklist. https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020

[^prisma-scr]: PRISMA, PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping

[^cos-prereg]: Center for Open Science, Preregistration. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg

[^fair]: GO FAIR, FAIR Principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/

[^unesco-open]: UNESCO, Recommendation on Open Science, adopted 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949

[^acm-artifacts]: Association for Computing Machinery, Artifact Review and Badging and Software and Data Artifacts in the ACM Digital Library. https://www.acm.org/publications/artifacts

[^common-rule]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Common Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html

[^belmont]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, The Belmont Report. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

[^nsf-integrity]: U.S. National Science Foundation, Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research and Research Integrity. https://www.nsf.gov/policies/responsible-research-conduct

[^nih-conduct]: National Institutes of Health, Office of Intramural Research, Guidelines for the Conduct of Research, 2026. https://oir.nih.gov/system/files/media/file/2026-06/guidelines-conduct_research.pdf

[^aisi-early]: UK AI Security Institute, Early Lessons from Evaluating Frontier AI Systems, 2024. https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/early-lessons-from-evaluating-frontier-ai-systems

[^aisi-eval-science]: UK AI Security Institute, Science of Evaluations research collection, including structured elicitation, statistical evaluation, transcript analysis, and test-time compute research. https://www.aisi.gov.uk/category/science-of-evaluations

[^inspect]: UK AI Security Institute, Inspect AI. https://inspect.aisi.org.uk/

Revision Record

Version 1.0

Date: July 16, 2026

Change type: Complete foundational edition

Summary: Establishes the canonical Standards Body research methodology. Defines authority limits, foundational principles, research portfolio and classification, lifecycle, question formation, protocols, preregistration, literature and source review, technical experiments, frontier AI evaluation, statistical and qualitative methods, case studies, institutional design, legal and international research, forecasting, expert judgment, data and artifact management, open science, reproducibility, human-participant research, privacy, dual-use and research security, conflicts, contributions, AI-tool use, review, synthesis, uncertainty, reporting, publication, correction, quality assurance, governance, maturity, implementation, scorecards, operational templates, canonical positions, and research basis.

Status: Approved foundational source.