Registry

Object ID

NN-HC-M01

Type

Assessment method

Publication status

On hold pending arXiv approval

Current work note

The manuscript download is withheld pending permission for public release. It is not presented as an approved arXiv publication.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Evidence state

Historical method demonstration

Finding

Three selected historical cases: two fail the event-control rule; one remains unresolved.

Limit

One assessor; independent reliability and transfer to current AI systems remain unestablished.

Versions

Research release: v0.17.0

Admission

Provisional · Publication review open

Object ID

NN-HC-I01

Type

Assurance instrument

Research status

Research in progress

Current work note

The earlier bounded application remains available; broader research and validation continue.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Evidence state

Completed bounded application

Finding

Two independent scorers agreed on all seven findings for one frozen case.

Limit

Agreement on one case under contract 0.1.0 does not establish broader or current-contract reliability.

Versions

repository: 0.6.5
humanResult: 0.6.0
activePackage: 0.7.0 candidate
conformanceEngine: 0.5.0
specification: 0.4.0
scorerContract: 0.1.0

Admission

Provisional · Publication review open

Object ID

NN-EA-M01

Type

Evaluation-governance methodology

Research status

Evolving

Current work note

CDFI and the external SAICRED project continue to evolve. SAICRED remains external to Node & Norm.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Evidence state

Reference implementation · Review open

Finding

A worked example traces a citation-fabrication gate to its stated research motivation and implemented cap.

Limit

Traceability does not validate the threshold; complete scoring-contract reconciliation remains open.

Versions

Research release: v1.5

Admission

Provisional · Publication review open

What should be recorded before an AI recommendation becomes an institutional decision?

Program

Decision Evidence & Governed Action

Availability

Open source

Current work note

The specification and reference implementation are available. Field effectiveness remains untested.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Research state

Open specification and reference implementation; synthetic examples and bounded local technical checks; field validation open

Record admission

Provisional; canonical object ID normalization pending

Source versions

Specification v3.0 · GDR schema v2.0 · Repository v2.1.0 with unreleased material

Local technical findings

114 classifier tests passed; populated schema example passed; 9 routing and 5 field-change probes

Open gates

Confidence document and classifier threshold reconciliation; Review timing and runtime enforcement; Hash profile coverage; External conformance review; Independent field validation

Source review

13 September 2026 · Supplied archive; no field study

Provenance

Archive and source manifest

Can a team reconstruct why it proceeded, stopped, or waited at a consequential decision point?

Program

Decision Evidence & Governed Action

Availability

Open source

Current work note

The reference implementation and illustrative records are available. Completed deployment effectiveness is not established.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Research state

Working reference implementation with illustrative records; separate working AI participation profile and historical exploratory study; field effectiveness open

Record admission

Provisional; family reassessment and canonical object ID normalization pending

Core implementation

v2.0.1 · 9 September 2026

Associated method/profile

AI Assistance Governance v1.1.0 · 10 September 2026; separate research object, no DOI

Historical study

RGDS Independent Study v1.4 · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20242004 belongs to this study

Local technical findings

6 strict examples; 9 regression tests; 6 controlled probes. No field study.

Open gates

Substantive AI Dependency Test; Evidence-package interpretation; Study projection and date reconciliation; Independent field validation

Provenance

Three source snapshots and manifest

What does an institution owe after an AI-mediated decision harms someone?

Work

Poenitentia Institutionum

Publication status

Editorial review

Current work note

The chapter is in editorial review; final publication is not claimed.

Status source

2026-09-15 · Author update supplied in the website design conversation

Research area

Emerging research area

Research state

Normative framework with retrospective documentary applications; empirical outcome validation open

Record admission

Provisional

Source version

v1.0.2

Repository

Canonical research repository

Source review

2026-09-12 · Selected supplied archive; no new outcome study

Provenance

Source material under publication review

Source-linked documentary records connect incidents and institutional decisions to research questions. Each preserves established statements, allegations, unknowns, and review conditions.

Canonical describes the Registry’s role as the shared record source. Individual records carry their own review and admission status.