Review and corrections

Skepticism is part of the method.

Fractalish asks reviewers to separate what is directly demonstrated, what is proposed, what remains unresolved, and what has been contradicted.

A compact review protocol

  1. Name the claim.Quote or link the smallest exact statement being reviewed.
  2. Name the evidence.Identify the artifact, run, citation, or observation that bears on it.
  3. Name the boundary.State the observer, protocol, representation, and target.
  4. Try the alternative.Offer a counterexample, competing mechanism, negative control, or missing variable.
  5. Assign a posture.SUPPORTED, UNRESOLVED, or CONTRADICTED—without turning uncertainty into failure or success.

High-value review targets

Non-uniqueness

Can different histories produce the same represented form?

Representation loss

Does the protocol erase the distinction it later claims to measure?

Namespace drift

Are process operators, action states, and evidence postures being conflated?

Correction policy

Raw evidence and prior public artifacts remain attributable. A correction should identify what changed, why it changed, and which newer record supersedes the older interpretation. Negative evidence is not removed simply because it is inconvenient.

Send a review

Use a repository issue for a public, traceable correction or test proposal. Include primary sources and reproduction steps where possible.

Open an issue