node&norm commits to traceable evidence, transparent methods and accountable publication. The standards below guide research conduct and reporting; each study must disclose how they were applied and what remains unresolved.
Research commitments
Claims have boundaries
Distinguish observations, interpretations and hypotheses. Report uncertainty, contradictory findings and the conditions under which a conclusion holds. Technical conformance alone does not establish practical effectiveness.
Missing evidence remains missing
An incomplete record may leave a question indeterminate. Absence from a search result does not establish absence from the underlying record.
Evidence has provenance
Record the source, date, scope, relationship to the claim, and known limitations. Identify derived analysis separately from source observations.
Results retain their method
Preserve the protocol, method version, evidence packet, code and decision rules needed to examine a result. Record departures from the planned method and distinguish exploratory analysis from prespecified tests.
Corrections preserve history
A material correction identifies the earlier state, what changed, why it changed, and which dependent claims were affected.
Conformance is bounded
A passing schema or test suite demonstrates only the properties it examines. Other claims require separate testing.
Independence is specified
Describe who examined the work, their role, relevant interests and access to evidence. External review, independent scoring and replication are distinct activities; report which occurred.
Human responsibility remains visible
Credit substantive contributions and identify responsibility for the work. Disclose material AI assistance, including its purpose and the human checks performed. Human authors remain responsible for sources, analysis and publication.
Funding, questions & findings
Commissioning an evaluation should not transfer authority over its evidentiary conclusion. Factual review, confidentiality review, and approval of a finding are separate powers.
| Field | What the record should disclose |
|---|---|
| Question authority | Who selected the question and success criteria |
| Funding provenance | Who funded the work and what financial or non-financial interests may affect it |
| Method authority | Who selected or changed the method |
| Evidence access | What could be inspected and what remained unavailable |
| Review rights | Who could correct facts, request redactions, or challenge interpretations |
| Publication rights | Who could restrict publication and on what grounds |
| Conclusion authority | Who retained responsibility for the evidentiary judgment |
Evidence access & limitations
Describe the material available for examination, the search process and the restrictions that affect a conclusion. Share supporting materials where permissions, privacy and confidentiality allow; explain restrictions and any route to controlled access.
| Investigation condition | Required disclosure |
|---|---|
| System and environment access | Full, partial, reproduced, documentary only, or unavailable |
| Transcripts and logs | Access scope, sampling, missingness, and known integrity limits |
| Model and personnel access | What could be queried or independently examined |
| Search process | Queries, tools, sampling, and limits of AI-assisted evidence discovery |
| Redactions and withheld evidence | Known restrictions and their effects on supportable conclusions |
| Resources and authority | Time, personnel, scope, publication rights, and conclusion control |
Separate research states
| State dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Publication | What version has been frozen or released? |
| Technical | What specification or implementation exists? |
| Research maturity | What empirical progress has occurred? |
| Claim | What does the evidence support? |
| Review | What independent examination has occurred? |
| Adoption | What external institutional use is documented? |
Correction policy
A substantive correction should state the affected version, the error, the evidence for the change and its effect on the conclusions. Preserve the earlier record with a visible correction notice. Findings that can no longer be supported should be marked as withdrawn, with the reason and date. Changes in an external source should be distinguished from errors in our analysis.
Ethics, concerns & accountability
Research involving people or sensitive information requires appropriate consent, privacy safeguards and any applicable ethics review before the work begins. Describe the review obtained and its scope in the study record.
Readers can raise reproducibility problems or propose corrections through the relevant research repository. Include the version, passage or result, supporting evidence and the proposed correction. Public issues should contain no confidential or identifying information. Allegations of misconduct require the appropriate institutional or publisher process, with confidentiality and fair consideration for those involved.
Guidance informing these commitments
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) sets out responsibilities for methods, records, authorship, interests and correction of the research record. ALLEA’s European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023) provides a cross-disciplinary framework for responsible research practice.
These are reference frameworks. Their inclusion does not imply external certification or endorsement of this research.