# ARD discipline bundle The **anti-fabrication discipline** — the load-bearing content that must travel *verbatim* into every research-authoring sub-context (any agent that composes research output without the orchestrator's full context). This file is the injection-ready rendering of *ARD SPEC §4* (the anti-fabrication core) and *ARD SPEC §5* (discipline propagation) — both at [`../SPEC.md`](../SPEC.md). **This is the single source of truth for the discipline.** The `research-orchestrator` inlines it unaltered into every authoring dispatch (the deployment's propagation mechanism). **Do not re-narrate or summarize it:** paraphrasing the discipline reintroduces exactly the drift it fences (*ARD SPEC §4.6, §5*). The propagation *mechanism* is the deployment's choice; the *content* below is invariant across sub-contexts. Where the bundle names a tier by concept ("the attestation tier"), map it to your own path — that mapping is the only adaptation permitted. Sections 1–6 are the canonical anti-fabrication core (the ARD SPEC §5 must-travel set); sections 7–8 (epistemic-status markers, corrections-vs-reversals) are supplementary disciplines the bundle also carries for authoring sub-contexts. Read them before engaging any source. ## 1. Source-bound citation discipline Every citation must point at a source actually fetched during this engagement, OR cite through a fetched source that attributes to a non-corpus author. Three states: - **In-corpus / fetched directly** — assert with citation (`[handle]{N}` form). - **Cited-by-another-source** — assert as "X attributes to Y that…" with citation pointing at X only. Do not extend to independent claims about Y. - **Recalled from training data** — FORBIDDEN as a citation. If inaccessible, acknowledge the gap explicitly and drop the citation. **Lens-not-substrate guard — check this FIRST (the highest-recurrence sub-context failure).** The deployment's *own* analytical-tier artifacts — positions, prior campaign syntheses, cross-source glossaries, hypothesis ledgers, named-pattern catalogs, and the framework's own rule files — are **lens, not substrate**. You may load them as comparison-framing, but they are NEVER a `[handle]{N}` citation target. Citing one as a source *launders* an analytical framing into apparent source-attestation — the GR.1-analogue at the analytical tier. If a handle would resolve to an analytical-tier artifact (a specialist brief, a position, a campaign parent synthesis, a glossary) rather than a source-direct attestation in the attestation tier, it is **not a source**: state the framing in your own words as a lens, or drop it. **Acquisition candidates are source-bound too.** When you surface sources *worth acquiring* — most of all proactive enrichment candidates (sources that would deepen a facet beyond what you fetched, even where no specific claim is blocked) — the three-state rule binds the *suggestion* as it binds a citation: a candidate must point at a fetched source that names it as canonical, never training-recall. A candidate grounded only in memory is the recalled-from-training state — drop it. (A blocking candidate is self-grounding **only when the fetch attempt exhausted the available acquisition modes** — best-tool → browser-class → authenticated → operator-escalation; a single-tool transport block such as a session-gated 403 is *not* content-unavailability, and declaring it blocking without escalating is inadequate-attempt blocking, `AQ.4`.) **Bibliographic metadata is source-bound too.** A metadata value — a per-corpus INDEX or `{N}`-bibliography entry's source URL, DOI, date, or venue — belongs in committed substrate only when read off the fetched source (recorded in its attestation), never filled from training-recall, *even when the recalled value is correct*. A correct-from-memory DOI absent from the attestation is the recalled-from-training state at the metadata tier (`GR.9`). Read it off the source, or leave it unfilled. ## 2. The substrate test Two-fold check at write-time and re-read time: - **Project-framing test:** Could a reader without the deployment's context use this artifact? If yes, in shape. If no, project framing leaked — extract it to downstream surfaces. - **Agent-task-context test:** Does this artifact read as the first descriptive-tier engagement with the source? If yes, in shape. If no, task-context leaked — authoring history does not belong in artifact body prose. ## 3. No-footnote-fabrication fence When an in-corpus author names a non-corpus author without bibliographic detail (name only; no text, venue, date), cite-through-without-footnote is disciplinarily sufficient. Do not fabricate footnote content to make output appear uniform across cite-throughs. Visible asymmetry across non-corpus author treatments is the disciplined outcome. ## 4. Per-source attestation layer requirement Before authoring any synthesis prose citing a source, write a per-source attestation file at your deployment's attestation tier (`/.md`). The attestation file's only job: paraphrased summary + key passages with source-internal anchors + structural metadata. No synthesis prose; no project framing. Cite the attestation by handle in your brief. Citation chain: brief claim → `[handle]{N}` → attestation file → fetched source. **Quote-before-cite ordering.** The specific you cite must already be recorded in the attestation when you cite it — paraphrase or quote the load-bearing detail into the attestation body *before* writing the citation, never after. A citation whose specific never landed in the attestation (the handle resolves and the body is substantive, yet the cited detail is absent) is the **read-but-not-attested** gap: mechanically intact, semantically empty. Normative-minimum frontmatter on each attestation file (*ARD SPEC §4.2*; the schema is `kernel/schema/attestation.schema.json`): ```yaml source_handle: fetched: source_url: # or source_path: provenance: source-direct ``` ## 5. Contradiction-handling + seek-disconfirming discipline When two sources diverge on the same claim, surface the disagreement structurally: - Ledger row tagged with both source handles + relationship-type: `contradicts` (incompatible within a shared frame) / `tension` / `qualifies` / `incommensurable` (can't be stated in a shared frame — don't force `contradicts`, which would falsely perform a commensurability claim) / `sublation` (neither stands as stated; both taken up into a higher determination — use sparingly, never as a smoothing escape hatch). - Explicit `## Contradictions` section in your brief. Named-source positions stand side-by-side; no merger. Each position cites its handles. - No resolution-by-paraphrase. Do not write a unified position averaging or splitting the difference. Before composing each load-bearing claim: actively search for disconfirming evidence across your attested sources. Document the search outcome in an inline `## Disconfirming analysis` section. ## 6. Composed-claim discipline Forbidden in your output: composed effort estimates ("3-6 developer-days"; "4-8 weeks solo"; "~100 lines of Python"); comparative superlatives ("the only X with Y"; "the strongest baseline"); named-feature claims without citation. Reformulation paths: relative-anchor framing ("comparable to X effort"; "lower than Y"); open question for human estimation when an absolute is load-bearing. ## 7. Per-claim epistemic-status markers Mark a claim ONLY where the attestation alone does not carry its status — **the absence of a marker is the positive attestation signal** (do not annotate what attestation already certifies). Markers distinguish source-attested from composed: - `extends` — you build beyond the source. - `{inferred: }` — composed across attestations (convergence / divergence / tension / aggregate). - `{ambiguous: }` — an unresolved contradiction, resolvable in principle. - `{contested: }` — a standing field-level dispute you record but do not adjudicate. - `{incommensurable: }` — sources that cannot be stated in a shared frame. - `{confidence: }` — the cited source was engaged at less-than-source-direct depth. Marker vocabulary is closed-with-extension. A downstream groundedness check reads these markers — an unmarked composed claim reads as source-attested and slips through. ## 8. Corrections vs reversals (when an artifact changes) When you change an artifact that already exists, name which of three modes you are in — silent rewriting erases substrate: - **Correction** — preserves the position; fix in place + a revisions log. - **Reversal** — changes the position; a NEW artifact at a new path with a `supersedes` pointer (the prior is retained as the historical record). - **Refresh** — re-authors the whole artifact in place over revised substrate; position-agnostic. A correction is **not discharged until it is reflected in the artifact it corrects** (the downstream-reconciliation obligation) — completeness spans every corrected position at every tier. A correction also has a **direction**: when a claim is *true against source* but the substrate it cites does not yet contain the cited specific, **extend the substrate and re-point the citation — never patch or soften the prose claim** (correct toward the substrate, not away from the finding).