CHARTER · O0-RP-009

Record Schema and Metadata Standard

STATUSMETHODOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE TYPETECHNICAL STANDARD
REPLICATIONN/A
PHYSICAL VALIDATIONNONE
VERSION2.0
DATE

O0-RP-009

Record Schema and Metadata Standard

**Version:** 1.0

**Research status:** APPROVED


CLAIM STATUS: METHODOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE TYPE: GOVERNANCE STANDARD
PHYSICAL VALIDATION: NONE
INDEPENDENT REPLICATION: N/A
PHILOSOPHICAL PROVENANCE: O/0 ARCHIVE
ARCHIVE ENDORSEMENT: LIMITED TO REPORTED RESULT

Abstract

This document defines the authoritative schema for all research records published within the O/0 Research Program. It specifies every required field, its data type, allowed values, validation rules, and the semantic meaning of each. It also defines the claim-status banner that must appear at the top of every research record, providing readers with an immediate, standardized epistemic assessment of the document's contents. The schema serves as the constitutional document for record formatting — no record may be published that does not conform to this schema, and no field may be omitted without documented justification meeting specific exemption criteria.

Source proposition

The O/0 Research Program requires a uniform record format to enable: (a) automated validation of research outputs, (b) consistent cross-referencing between records, (c) immediate epistemic assessment by readers, and (d) long-term archival integrity.

Scientific audit

Standardized reporting schemas are established best practice in systematic research. The CONSORT statement (clinical trials), PRISMA (systematic reviews), and ODD protocol (agent-based models) all demonstrate that structured reporting reduces ambiguity, improves reproducibility, and facilitates meta-analysis. This schema adapts these principles for computational philosophy-of-science research.

Research question

What minimal schema ensures complete, unambiguous, and machine-validatable documentation of every research record in the program?

Operational definitions

1. **Schema**: A formal specification of the structure, fields, types, and constraints that a conforming document must satisfy.

2. **Required field**: A field that must be present in every conforming document. Omission requires explicit exemption with documented justification.

3. **Allowed values**: The enumerated set of valid entries for a constrained field.

4. **Claim-status banner**: A standardized block of metadata appearing at the top of every record that communicates the epistemic status of the document's claims at a glance.

5. **Validation rule**: A machine-checkable constraint on a field's content.

Hypothesis

Not applicable. This is a schema governance document.

Null hypothesis

Not applicable.

Competing explanations

One might argue that flexible, narrative-style reporting better captures the nuances of computational research. However, flexibility enables ambiguity, and ambiguity enables epistemic drift. The schema constrains reporting to prevent the most common failure modes identified in RP-004.

Formal model

Record Identifier Schema

**Format:** `O0-{TYPE}-{NUMBER}`

| Component | Type | Allowed Values | Description |

|-----------|------|----------------|-------------|

| Prefix | String (fixed) | `O0` | Program identifier |

| TYPE | String (enum) | `RP`, `SIM`, `MATH`, `OBS`, `META` | Record type |

| NUMBER | String (zero-padded) | `001`–`999` | Sequential identifier |

**Type definitions:**

  • `RP`: Research Program governance document (methodology, standards, protocols).
  • `SIM`: Simulation study (computational experiment with code and data).
  • `MATH`: Mathematical analysis (formal proof, derivation, or analytical result).
  • `OBS`: Observational study (empirical data collection without intervention).
  • `META`: Meta-analysis or cross-study synthesis.

Document Header Schema

| Field | Type | Required | Allowed Values | Validation Rule |

|-------|------|----------|----------------|-----------------|

| Title (H1) | String | YES | Record ID | Must match `O0-{TYPE}-{NUMBER}` pattern |

| Subtitle (H2) | String | YES | Free text | Must be ≤ 100 characters |

| Version | String | YES | Semantic version | Must match `\d+\.\d+` pattern |

| Research status | String (enum) | YES | See below | Must be one of the allowed values |

**Allowed values for Research status:**

  • `DRAFT`: Under development, not yet reviewed.
  • `IN REVIEW`: Submitted for internal review.
  • `REVISION REQUIRED`: Review complete, changes needed.
  • `APPROVED`: Passed all quality gates, published.
  • `SUPERSEDED`: Replaced by a newer version.
  • `RETRACTED`: Withdrawn due to identified errors.

Claim-Status Banner Schema

The claim-status banner is a mandatory code block appearing immediately after the document header. Its format is:


CLAIM STATUS: {value}
EVIDENCE TYPE: {value}
PHYSICAL VALIDATION: {value}
INDEPENDENT REPLICATION: {value}
PHILOSOPHICAL PROVENANCE: {value}
ARCHIVE ENDORSEMENT: {value}

| Banner Field | Type | Required | Allowed Values |

|-------------|------|----------|----------------|

| CLAIM STATUS | String (enum) | YES | `METHODOLOGICAL`, `COMPUTATIONAL`, `MATHEMATICAL`, `OBSERVATIONAL`, `SPECULATIVE`, `RETRACTED` |

| EVIDENCE TYPE | String (enum) | YES | `GOVERNANCE STANDARD`, `SIMULATION RESULT`, `ANALYTICAL PROOF`, `LITERATURE REVIEW`, `EMPIRICAL DATA`, `SYSTEMATIC AUDIT`, `DEFINITIONAL STANDARD`, `META-ANALYSIS` |

| PHYSICAL VALIDATION | String (enum) | YES | `NONE`, `PARTIAL`, `COMPLETE`, `NOT APPLICABLE` |

| INDEPENDENT REPLICATION | String (enum) | YES | `N/A`, `NOT ATTEMPTED`, `ATTEMPTED — FAILED`, `ATTEMPTED — PARTIAL`, `ATTEMPTED — SUCCESSFUL`, `MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT REPLICATIONS` |

| PHILOSOPHICAL PROVENANCE | String (fixed) | YES | `O/0 ARCHIVE` | Always this value for program records |

| ARCHIVE ENDORSEMENT | String (fixed) | YES | `LIMITED TO REPORTED RESULT` | Always this value — the archive endorses only the specific result reported, never its generalization |

**Banner semantics:**

  • `CLAIM STATUS: METHODOLOGICAL` — The document defines procedures, not empirical findings.
  • `CLAIM STATUS: COMPUTATIONAL` — The document reports simulation results (Tier 1 evidence).
  • `CLAIM STATUS: MATHEMATICAL` — The document reports formal proofs or derivations.
  • `CLAIM STATUS: OBSERVATIONAL` — The document reports empirical measurements.
  • `CLAIM STATUS: SPECULATIVE` — The document proposes hypotheses not yet tested.
  • `CLAIM STATUS: RETRACTED` — The document's claims have been withdrawn.

Required Sections Schema

Every conforming record must include ALL of the following sections in the specified order:

| Section | Type | Required | Exemption Criteria |

|---------|------|----------|--------------------|

| Abstract | Paragraph | YES | None — never exemptible |

| Source proposition | Paragraph | YES | None |

| Scientific audit | Paragraph(s) | YES | None |

| Research question | Question | YES | None |

| Operational definitions | Numbered list | YES | Governance docs may use "N/A" with justification |

| Hypothesis | Statement | YES | Governance docs: "Not applicable" is accepted |

| Null hypothesis | Statement | YES | Governance docs: "Not applicable" is accepted |

| Competing explanations | Paragraph(s) | YES | None |

| Formal model | Specification | YES | None — even governance docs must specify their formal scope |

| Methods | Paragraph(s) | YES | None |

| Controls | Description | YES | None |

| Predictions | Statement(s) | YES | None |

| Falsification criteria | Statement(s) | YES | None |

| Results / Expected Outcomes | Report | YES | None |

| Uncertainty | Description | YES | None |

| Limitations | Description | YES | None |

| Replication status | Statement | YES | None |

| Data and code | Reference(s) | YES | None |

| Relationship to philosophical archive | Paragraph | YES | Must include the provenance disclaimer |

| References | List | YES | Minimum 3 references for SIM/MATH/OBS records |

| Revision history | List | YES | None |

Provenance Disclaimer Requirement

The "Relationship to philosophical archive" section must always include, in some form, the following semantic content: *Conceptual provenance from the O/0 archive does not constitute empirical support for any claim made in this document.* The exact wording may vary, but the meaning must be preserved.

Revision History Schema

| Field | Type | Format |

|-------|------|--------|

| Entry | String | `- v{VERSION}: {DESCRIPTION}` |

The first entry must always be `- v1.0: Initial document generated.` Subsequent entries document all changes in reverse chronological order.

Methods

The schema was developed by analyzing existing research reporting standards (CONSORT, PRISMA, ODD, CRediT), adapting them for the specific needs of computational philosophy-of-science, and adding program-specific fields (claim-status banner, provenance disclaimer) to address the unique epistemic risks of the O/0 program.

Controls

The schema is validated by attempting to apply it retroactively to all existing program records. Any record that cannot conform without losing essential information indicates a schema deficiency requiring revision.

Predictions

Consistent schema application will enable: (a) automated validation scripts to pre-screen submissions, (b) machine-readable metadata extraction for cross-referencing, (c) rapid epistemic assessment by readers unfamiliar with specific records, and (d) structured querying across the record corpus.

Falsification criteria

The schema is inadequate if: (a) it cannot accommodate a legitimate research result without distorting its meaning, (b) it introduces systematic bias in how results are reported (e.g., by forcing binary assessments where continuous ones are appropriate), or (c) it becomes so complex that compliance overhead exceeds the information value of the structure.

Results / Expected Outcomes

The complete schema has been specified, including: record identifier format (5 fields), document header (4 fields), claim-status banner (6 fields with enumerated values), 21 required sections with exemption criteria, a mandatory provenance disclaimer, and a revision history format. An automated validation script conforming to this schema is planned.

Uncertainty

The schema may need to accommodate future record types not yet envisioned. The current type enumeration (RP, SIM, MATH, OBS, META) may prove insufficient as the program evolves. The revision protocol for the schema itself should be specified in a future meta-governance document.

Limitations

The schema governs structure and format but cannot govern content quality. A record may be fully schema-compliant yet scientifically weak. Content quality is addressed by the review processes defined in RP-006 and RP-007, not by this schema.

Replication status

Governance document. The schema has been applied to all existing records and found to be consistently applicable with minor retroactive corrections.

Data and code

An automated schema validation script (Python, using YAML-based schema definition) is planned. The schema definition will be maintained in machine-readable format (JSON Schema) alongside this human-readable specification.

Relationship to philosophical archive

The schema embodies the archive's principle of transparency by requiring explicit epistemic assessment of every claim. However, the schema's authority derives from established reporting standards and the program's methodological needs, not from philosophical principles. Conceptual provenance from the archive does not constitute empirical support for any claim.

References

  • Schulz, K.F. et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement. BMJ.
  • Moher, D. et al. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.
  • Grimm, V. et al. (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models (ODD protocol).
  • Brand, A. et al. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing.
  • Wilkinson, M.D. et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.
  • Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2020). DCMI Metadata Terms.

Revision history

  • v1.0: Initial document generated.

Source proposition

“Internal governance”

Conceptual provenance is not empirical support.

Related records

O0-RP-001O0-RP-008