Can the public site explain changing research judgment without becoming a second fact system?
Use a stable project map, dated publications, Feynman-style causal explanation, and exact owner links while keeping rendered encounter evidence separate from technical truth.
01 / Current position
A hypothesis is not the current judgment.
The dossier preserves the live research position. Dated articles preserve the complete evidence and argument that changed it.
Public orientation can remain authored and progressively disclosed while repositories and research records retain technical truth and Web owns only explanation, navigation, rendering, and encounter evidence.
Testing with a direct 2026-08-22 public-currentness audit. Source-bound Game, Harness, and Security projections exposed exact owner review obligations and were refreshed without copying their implementation databases; their current review set is now empty. Manual project judgments for Host, Runtime, World, Finance, Computing, Human, and Media required editorial re-adjudication, and fast-moving Finance drifted again within the same audit because it lacks the public-authority contract used by the source-bound owners. The audit also caught two different downstream currentness failures: a stale static `out/` artifact and smoke tests that still asserted superseded public wording. Home, Now, System, Research, and Writing were then refreshed while dirty/uncommitted owner state was deliberately excluded.
02 / Decision boundary
What keeps this Question alive?
A project directory without synthesis is opaque; a copied fact graph drifts; and technically correct source can still produce a misleading reader encounter.
Finish bounded question-state adjudication, then run the full publication/build/budget/browser suite and compare the deployed source commit with current main. After that, test whether fresh readers can recover purpose, owner boundaries, current maturity, evidence limits, and the next useful destination. For high-change manual owners, prefer an owner-supplied public-authority envelope if and when that owner admits one; Web must not manufacture it on their behalf.
Current owner changes repeatedly become misleading public claims despite source/revision review; source-bound capture requires Web to duplicate owner semantics; fresh readers still need copied implementation detail to understand responsibility; or rendered encounter evidence repeatedly contradicts the authored orientation in ways the current review/build/browser discipline cannot catch.
03 / Supporting publications
Complete arguments connected to this Question.
2 dated publications currently document this research line.
The Evidence Is Real. It Is Still Too Old.
Why authentic evidence can become stale without becoming false, how Security EC1 and World experiments tested current applicability, and why TTLs or generation numbers are weaker than exact dependency revalidation for the tested cases.
12 August 2026 ↗Research essayCreation, Judgment, and Recoverable Systems
The canonical public statement of Ordivon's project intent: creation, capability externalization, judgment, changing implementation costs, low governance, high recoverability, and participant freedom.
31 July 2026 ↗04 / Source discipline
The dossier is an index, not the evidence authority.
Owns the current judgment, next test, and deletion condition.
Own complete dated arguments, limitations, comparisons, and source links.
Own exact code, tests, releases, receipts, and machine evidence.