We distinguish what we value, what someone has experienced, how we interpret it, what we hypothesize, and what evidence can support. Agreement, AI-generated analysis, and a coherent explanation do not independently establish evidence.
The accepted Research Framework provides an approach to recording ideas, sources, uncertainty, and changes in thinking. This page is its public overview; it does not reproduce internal holding material or the full working register.
The Research Framework
Begin with questions before requiring propositions. Separate the kind of claim from its support. Treat traditions contextually. Separate work status from evidence. Require evidence appropriate to the claim and its intended use.
Six categories with different roles
These category names are shared with the historical HOS framework. They describe the nature of a statement, not a universal ranking of certainty. An open question need not be classified as a hypothesis before it makes a proposition.
- Institutional Commitments
- How we choose to conduct the work; commitments are not empirical findings.
- Enduring Human Wisdom
- Attributed understanding recognized over time; context and differences still matter.
- Broadly Supported Human Understanding
- Understanding for which substantial support is claimed; sources and limitations must be examined.
- Institutional Understanding
- The inquiry’s synthesis or way of organizing ideas, rather than an independent scientific discovery.
- Human Development Hypotheses
- Propositions about human development that remain open to investigation and revision.
- Operational Hypotheses
- Propositions about how assistance or an approach might work in practice.
What we record separately
Category, sources, evidentiary support, confidence, work status, attribution, and permission for publication are separate matters. Acceptance into the work does not establish truth. Historical HOS classifications are attributed to those records and must not appear to be newly validated findings.
Learning through demonstration
Our working cycle is Dream → Inquiry → Demonstration → Learning, followed by refined inquiry or better action. A demonstration can help us examine an idea and expose a failure. Its success as an interaction does not establish lasting human benefit.
What would count as learning
A working interface, perceived usefulness, improved understanding, lasting capability, and flourishing are different things to assess. Any future claim of benefit requires evidence appropriate to that claim. Competing explanations, uncertainty, and substantive revisions should remain visible.
Institutional learning through service and investigation
We ask whether service, research, and experience can improve an institution’s understanding and practical contribution. A proposed discipline is to record what was learned, consider competing interpretations, identify any change in practice, and examine whether that change helps. Accumulating records or activity is not sufficient evidence of learning. Privacy, consent, attribution, and permission continue to govern any use of experience. The historical HOS learning hypothesis remains distinct from a finding about the broader inquiry.
Each developed inquiry will show its question, current thinking, completed work, sources, uncertainty, and proposed next steps. The initial portfolio identifies questions; it does not imply that studies are under way.