v1 · public check-in

Contribution Intake v1

How outside evidence, critiques, replication notes, artifacts, and validation proposals are checked back into TWOG without directly mutating public candidate records.

pausedapplies to · outside submissionsclaims · queued contribution
What this governs

Contribution intake is deliberately gated. A public reader can submit better evidence, but the submission becomes a review packet first, not an automatic change to the record.

Public check-in creates review work. It does not rewrite candidate state.

01 · Template

The contributor starts from a structured template tied to a candidate ID, snapshot hash, contribution type, and requested review route.

02 · Submission

The packet records contributor contact, evidence URL or artifact reference, claim text, relation to the candidate, limitations, and requested action.

03 · Intake queue

Neon-backed storage receives the packet as queued intake. The public record remains unchanged.

04 · Operator decision

An operator can request more information, reject, archive, or route the packet into citation repair, evidence review, validation planning, or compute review.

05 · Record update

Only after review clears does TWOG write a new decision entry, snapshot version, or candidate update.

Why intake is gated

TWOG wants outside work to be useful without letting public submissions mutate research records directly. Intake preserves openness while keeping record changes accountable.

What can be submitted

The first accepted packet types are evidence, critique, replication note, artifact, validation proposal, and compute result. Free-form discussion belongs elsewhere.

What operators decide

Operators decide whether the packet is complete, source-traceable, non-duplicative, and worth routing into an internal review lane.

Why the form is paused

The public check-in form can remain paused while TWOG tightens review rails. Payloads and templates still make the intended exchange model visible.

What a reader can verify
Contributor context
Name, contact, organization, and declared relation to the candidate record.
Contribution type
Evidence, critique, replication, artifact, validation proposal, or compute result.
Route request
The lane the contributor believes should handle the packet.
Snapshot link
Candidate ID and content hash so review is tied to a specific public version.
Review outcome
Operator decision, rationale, and any downstream queue item created.
Where it's inspectable — public routes
Contribution templateopen route →
/api/public-candidates/rly2608-pik3ca/contribution-template

The structured check-in packet shape for one candidate snapshot.

Check-in endpointopen route →
/api/public-candidates/rly2608-pik3ca/contributions

The endpoint shape for submissions when public intake is enabled.

How to interpret this method
  • A submitted packet is not an accepted correction.
  • A contributor can challenge a claim without becoming part of the candidate decision log.
  • Public intake should preserve provenance before it adds speed.
  • No contribution triggers GPU compute or validation dispatch directly.
What this method does not certify

Contribution Intake v1 does not create an open wiki. It creates an accountable queue for work that may later become evidence review, validation planning, or record updates.