Propose Corrections¶

Optimistic honesty is the highest form of kindness.

Help us maintain scientific rigor by reporting errors, outdated information, or inaccuracies. We welcome all corrections, no matter how small.

Types of Corrections¶

1. Factual Errors¶

Incorrect statements or misrepresented research:

• Wrong statistics or numbers
• Misattributed quotes or findings
• Incorrect author names or dates
• Fabricated or non-existent citations

Example: "The framework claims 'virtually all cultures' show romantic love, but the actual study (Jankowiak & Fischer 1992) found 166 out of 186 cultures - that's 89%, not 'virtually all'."

2. Citation Errors¶

Problems with sources or references:

• Broken links or DOIs
• Incorrect citations
• Missing primary sources
• Citation laundering (citing reviews instead of original research)

Example: "The framework cites a review paper for the cryptochrome finding, but the primary source is Babcock et al. (2024). We should cite the original."

3. Outdated Information¶

Information that's been superseded:

• New research contradicts old claims
• Confidence ratings need updating
• Replication status has changed
• Better evidence now available

Example: "The framework rates this as ★★★★☆ but a 2025 meta-analysis with 10x the sample size should upgrade it to ★★★★★."

4. Logical Errors¶

Flaws in reasoning or argumentation:

• Invalid inferences
• Unfalsifiable claims
• Circular reasoning
• Missing alternative explanations

Example: "The claim that 'reality is structured toward integration' is presented as empirical, but it seems unfalsifiable. What would count as evidence against it?"

5. Interpretation Errors¶

Misinterpretation of research:

• Adding claims not made by original authors
• Overstating findings
• Ignoring limitations
• Cherry-picking evidence

Example: "The framework claims Finsler geometry supports consciousness theory, but the original physics papers make no such connection. This is interpretation, not physics."

6. Clarity Issues¶

Confusing or ambiguous language:

• Unclear explanations
• Jargon without definition
• Ambiguous claims
• Missing context

Example: "The section on 'quantum coherence' doesn't explain what this means or why it matters. Needs clearer explanation for general audience."

How to Submit Corrections¶

Option 1: GitHub Issues (Recommended)¶

1. Go to GitHub Issues
2. Click "New Issue"
3. Select "Correction Request" template
4. Fill in the template (see below)
5. Submit and engage with responses

Option 2: Pull Request¶

For direct corrections:

1. Fork the repository
2. Make the correction
3. Explain your reasoning in PR description
4. Submit pull request
5. Respond to review feedback

Option 3: Anonymous Submission¶

If you prefer anonymity:

1. Use gitGost for anonymous corrections
2. Or email corrections to alex@visualise.music
3. We'll process on your behalf (attribution optional)

Correction Request Template¶

## Location
[Which page/section contains the error?]

## Error Type
[ ] Factual error
[ ] Citation error
[ ] Outdated information
[ ] Logical error
[ ] Interpretation error
[ ] Clarity issue

## Current Text
[Quote the problematic text]

## Issue
[What's wrong with it?]

## Proposed Correction
[What should it say instead?]

## Evidence/Reasoning
[Why is your correction accurate?]

## Sources
[Any sources supporting your correction?]

## Priority
[ ] Critical (affects core claims)
[ ] High (significant error)
[ ] Medium (minor error)
[ ] Low (typo or formatting)

Correction Standards¶

What Makes a Good Correction?¶

Specific¶

Good: "Line 47 states '2.2 billion people' but the study had 2.2 million participants."

Too vague: "The numbers seem wrong."

Evidence-Based¶

Good: "According to the original paper (Wang et al. 2023, Table 2), the hazard ratio is 0.50, not 0.45."

Insufficient: "I think this number is wrong."

Constructive¶

Good: "This claim is unfalsifiable as stated. Suggest adding: 'This would be disproven if increased integration consistently led to worse outcomes.'"

Unhelpful: "This is stupid and wrong."

Actionable¶

Good: "Replace citation [12] with primary source: Babcock, N. S., et al. (2024). Superradiance in microtubules. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 128(4), 733-748."

Not actionable: "The citations are bad."

Correction Process¶

1. Submission¶

You submit a correction using one of the methods above.

2. Triage¶

We assess: - Validity of the correction - Priority level - Impact on framework - Required changes

3. Verification¶

We verify: - Your evidence is accurate - The error exists as described - The proposed correction is better - No unintended consequences

4. Implementation¶

We implement by: - Making the correction - Updating related sections - Documenting the change - Crediting the contributor

5. Notification¶

We notify you: - When correction is accepted - When changes are live - If we need more information - If correction is declined (with reasoning)

Response Times¶

What Happens to Corrections?¶

Accepted Corrections¶

• Integrated into framework
• Documented in changelog
• Contributor acknowledged
• Related sections updated

Declined Corrections¶

• Reasoning provided
• Discussion invited
• Alternative solutions suggested
• Appeal process available

Partial Corrections¶

• Some aspects accepted
• Others need revision
• Collaborative refinement
• Iterative improvement

Examples of Good Corrections¶

Example 1: Factual Error¶

Location: Simple Proof

Error Type: Factual error

Current Text: "Social connection reduces mortality risk by 50% (Wang et al. 2023, 2.2 billion people studied)"

Issue: Wrong number - study had 2.2 million participants, not 2.2 billion

Proposed Correction: "Social connection reduces mortality risk by 50% (Wang et al. 2023, 2.2 million people studied)"

Evidence: Wang et al. 2023 abstract states "meta-analysis of 148 studies comprising 2.2 million participants"

Priority: High (affects credibility of core claim)

Example 2: Citation Error¶

Location: Academic Proof

Error Type: Citation laundering

Current Text: "Microtubule superradiance confirmed (Review 2024)"

Issue: Citing a review instead of primary source

Proposed Correction: "Microtubule superradiance confirmed (Babcock et al. 2024)"

Evidence: Babcock, N. S., et al. (2024). Superradiance in microtubules. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 128(4), 733-748. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c06763

Priority: Medium (correct finding, wrong citation)

Example 3: Interpretation Error¶

Location: Claims section

Error Type: Interpretation error

Current Text: "Finsler geometry provides mathematical foundation for consciousness-spacetime coupling"

Issue: Original Finsler geometry papers make no consciousness claims - this is our interpretation added to physics

Proposed Correction: "We propose that Finsler geometry could provide a mathematical framework for consciousness-spacetime coupling (speculative interpretation, not claimed by original physics papers)"

Evidence: Review of original Finsler geometry papers shows no mention of consciousness

Priority: Critical (misrepresents physics as supporting consciousness theory)

Example 4: Outdated Information¶

Location: Evidence section

Error Type: Outdated information

Current Text: "Gravitational decoherence remains untested (★★☆☆☆)"

Issue: Gran Sasso experiment (Donadi et al. 2022) tested and constrained the simplest model

Proposed Correction: "Gravitational decoherence: simplest Diósi-Penrose model ruled out by Gran Sasso experiment (Donadi et al. 2022), but more complex models remain viable (★★★☆☆)"

Evidence: Donadi, S., et al. (2022). Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse. Nature Physics, 18(1), 71-75.

Priority: High (significant experimental result)

Correction Philosophy¶

We Welcome Corrections¶

Corrections help us: - Maintain scientific rigor - Build trust with readers - Improve accuracy over time - Model intellectual honesty

We Don't Punish Errors¶

Errors are: - Inevitable in complex work - Opportunities to improve - Signs of active development - Part of the scientific process

We Document Changes¶

All corrections are: - Tracked in changelog - Explained with reasoning - Attributed to contributors - Preserved in version history

We Learn from Mistakes¶

Each correction teaches us: - Where we need more rigor - What processes need improvement - How to prevent similar errors - What our blind spots are

Recognition¶

Correction contributors are:

• Acknowledged in changelog
• Listed in project contributors
• Cited in academic outputs (if desired)
• Invited to collaborate (for substantial contributions)

Note: Anonymous contributors can opt out of recognition.

Questions?¶

• About correction process: Open an issue on GitHub
• General questions: GitHub Discussions

Thank you for helping us maintain accuracy and rigor. Every correction makes the framework stronger! ✨

Remember: Finding errors is not criticism - it's collaboration. We're all working toward the same goal: understanding reality's structure.