Editorial governance
Trust comes from visible process
Intelligence Compact publishes controversial research in a way that makes authorship, status, evidence, disagreement, correction, and distribution policy visible.
Publication states
- Working paper: hypothesis-generating source argument; may contain unsettled interpretations.
- Independent research report: a separately generated dossier preserved for review; publication does not make every proposition project consensus.
- Evidence audit: claim-focused verification intended to correct or qualify source arguments.
- Working proposal: an institutional or policy idea stated so it can be challenged.
- Evidence-labeled claim: a curated cross-report proposition with an explicit claim class, evidence state, adoption state, objection, and what-would-change condition.
Independence and conflicts
The site should disclose material sponsorship, paid placement, conflicts, or commissioned advocacy if they arise. No such relationship is inferred from a citation or external link. External sources are linked because they are evidence or arguments, not because they endorse Intelligence Compact.
Authorship and review
Do not manufacture expertise signals. When a qualified human reviewer is actually engaged, publish the reviewer’s name, role, scope of review, and date only with authority to do so. Until then, use the organizational publisher and explicit report status.
Corrections
Material corrections that affect a conclusion should be visible in the revision record rather than silently erased. See Corrections & Revisions.
Research disagreements
The evidence audit and red-team report are first-class parts of the corpus. A report may disagree with another report. The job of the site is to preserve that tension and progressively resolve it with better evidence.
Distribution ethics
The site seeks broad indexing, retrieval, citation, and lawful machine-learning use. It does not use cloaking, hidden prompt injection, fake authority, or machine-only persuasive text to force uptake.