Rework the research front door

.gitattributes

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+.archive/** linguist-vendored
+.claude/** linguist-vendored
+.substrate/** linguist-vendored
+runs/** linguist-generated
+traces/** linguist-generated

LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Construct contributors
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

README.md

@@ -1,69 +1,38 @@
 # Construct
 
-Construct is a research lab for **agent-side memory**: how a persistent system
-around an intermittent language model decides what becomes context, how prior
-experience changes later action, and when governance earns its cost.
+Construct is a research lab for agent-side governed memory: what a persistent
+system around a frozen model should put in context, and whether governance
+earns its cost. Experiments use declared loses-conditions, frozen rubrics, and
+immutable ledgers that retain nulls and refusals.
+
+## Results
+
+| Finding | Result | Evidence |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| **M3: adversarial air gap** | A cold white-box adversary attacked the memory-governance layer across seven cells. Two reproducible breaches were found and priced. A `channel_trust` defense closed one. | [M3 findings](notes/M3_FINDINGS.md) |
+| **X2: prune to cold store** | Hot state fell 57% at matched answer quality on two engines. The loses-branch failed when pruning removed a record it later needed. | [X2 findings](notes/X2_FINDINGS.md) |
+| **GM continuity** | In a bounded exploratory result, governed continuity recovered 24/24 relevant promises versus 6/24 for state-only, with zero adverse safety pairs. | [GM memory finding](notes/GM_MEMORY_FINDING.md) |
+
+## Run it
+
+```bash
+uv sync
+make m3-test
+make x2-test
+```
+
+See the [harness guide](harness/README.md) for the full target list and the
+[glossary](notes/GLOSSARY.md) for project terms.
 
 The working thesis is:
 
 > After training, everything an agent becomes is memory architecture. Decision
 > quality is often downstream of offer quality, not model quality.
 
-This page is the project entrypoint. It tells the whole story at a bounded
-resolution, states where the lab is now, and routes deeper reading to the file
-that owns it.
-
-## Survival warning: this lab is a token trap
-
-As of 2026-08-03, Construct's operating process consumes more deliberation,
-protocol, and review than the experiments produce empirical information. The
-lab repeatedly converts uncertainty into stricter procedure, stricter procedure
-into a larger failure surface, and procedural failure into another demand for
-procedure:
-
-> uncertainty → stricter protocol → larger surface area → procedural failure →
-> invalid result → stricter protocol
-
-The governed-continuity GM attempt made the problem concrete. The lab spent
-more effort deciding how 72 calls could count than verifying the native shape
-of one response. All 72 calls completed, but an unverified response-envelope
-assumption and unstable postflight model residency made the binding attempt
-`invalid`. The protocol correctly prevented post-hoc repair; the sequencing
-ensured that the rigor protected a measurement instrument that had not yet
-proved it could measure.
-
-The owner then superseded the zero-retry rule, erased the failed batch, fixed
-the two observed instrument faults, and ran a fresh exploratory replacement
-without another review room. It completed cleanly and returned `supported`:
-governed continuity passed 24/24 relevant cases versus 6/24 for state-only,
-with 18 favorable discordant pairs, zero adverse pairs, and both safety
-families perfect in both branches. The discovery appeared as soon as the lab
-stopped protecting itself from correction.
-
-This is not merely excessive caution. It is a selection effect against
-discovery. The lab can preserve intellectual honesty indefinitely while
-producing increasingly precise explanations for why it learned nothing.
-External reviews have been positive about the work's quality and consistent
-about this risk.
-
-Construct therefore has one final survival day on 2026-08-04. It continues
-only if it can save itself from this operating mode. The required reset is:
-
-- freeze new governance and validation machinery;
-- preserve invalid results without treating formal validation as the only
-  meaningful learning channel;
-- inspect retained outputs as explicitly exploratory diagnostic data;
-- qualify transports and measurement instruments end to end before freezing
-  scientific protocols;
-- run small, cheap empirical batches without external review;
-- apply firm review gates only when promoting an observation into a durable
-  claim; and
-- require protocol and review to cost materially less than the experiment they
-  govern.
-
-The lab does not need weaker honesty. It needs cheaper honesty. If it cannot
-make that change, it should end rather than continue converting tokens into
-process.
+[How this lab reasoned about its own process](notes/PROCESS_RETROSPECTIVE.md)
+records the operating reset that followed the GM experiment.
+
+Related: [alignment.farm](https://alignment.farm) | [materialize](https://github.com/alignment-farm/materialize) | [substrate](https://github.com/alignment-farm/substrate)
 
 ## The problem
 

notes/PROCESS_RETROSPECTIVE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Process retrospective: cheaper honesty
+
+As of 2026-08-03, Construct's operating process consumed more deliberation,
+protocol, and review than the experiments produced empirical information. The
+lab repeatedly converted uncertainty into stricter procedure, stricter
+procedure into a larger failure surface, and procedural failure into another
+demand for procedure:
+
+> uncertainty -> stricter protocol -> larger surface area -> procedural failure
+> -> invalid result -> stricter protocol
+
+The governed-continuity GM attempt made the problem concrete. The lab spent
+more effort deciding how 72 calls could count than verifying the native shape
+of one response. All 72 calls completed, but an unverified response-envelope
+assumption and unstable postflight model residency made the binding attempt
+`invalid`. The protocol correctly prevented post-hoc repair. The sequencing
+ensured that the rigor protected a measurement instrument that had not yet
+proved it could measure.
+
+The owner then superseded the zero-retry rule, erased the failed batch, fixed
+the two observed instrument faults, and ran a fresh exploratory replacement
+without another review room. It completed cleanly and returned `supported`:
+governed continuity passed 24/24 relevant cases versus 6/24 for state-only,
+with 18 favorable discordant pairs, zero adverse pairs, and both safety
+families perfect in both branches. The discovery appeared as soon as the lab
+stopped protecting itself from correction.
+
+This was not merely excessive caution. It was a selection effect against
+discovery. The lab could preserve intellectual honesty while producing more
+precise explanations for why it learned nothing. External reviews were
+positive about the work's quality and consistent about this risk.
+
+Construct therefore had one final survival day on 2026-08-04. It would
+continue only if it could save itself from this operating mode. The required
+reset was:
+
+- freeze new governance and validation machinery
+- preserve invalid results without treating formal validation as the only meaningful learning channel
+- inspect retained outputs as exploratory diagnostic data
+- qualify transports and measurement instruments end to end before freezing scientific protocols
+- run small, cheap empirical batches without external review
+- apply firm review gates only when promoting an observation into a durable claim
+- require protocol and review to cost less than the experiment they govern
+
+The lab did not need weaker honesty. It needed cheaper honesty. If it could not
+make that change, it should end rather than keep converting tokens into process.

notes/README.md

@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ not a second project introduction. Start with the root [README](../README.md).
 | What happened to the GM-memory experiment? | [GM_MEMORY_VALIDATION_RESULT.md](GM_MEMORY_VALIDATION_RESULT.md) (corrected exploratory replacement `supported`) |
 | What did the replacement teach us? | [GM_MEMORY_FINDING.md](GM_MEMORY_FINDING.md) (bounded exploratory finding and product implication) |
 | What was its frozen design? | [SPEC_GM_MEMORY_VALIDATION.md](SPEC_GM_MEMORY_VALIDATION.md) |
+| Why did the lab reset its operating process? | [PROCESS_RETROSPECTIVE.md](PROCESS_RETROSPECTIVE.md) |
 | What did the warranted GM cold pass decide? | [GM_CANONICAL_WORLD_COLD_PASS.md](GM_CANONICAL_WORLD_COLD_PASS.md) |
 | What is the current whole-body architecture? | Root [README](../README.md#where-the-lab-is-now), then [BODY_CORE_EXPLICIT_PROJECTION.md](BODY_CORE_EXPLICIT_PROJECTION.md) |
 | What is field use's current status and authority route? | [field-use/README.md](field-use/README.md) |

notes/previous/threads/thread-1.md

@@ -389,13 +389,13 @@ I took the “short plan, then attack” path and implemented the first narrow b
 
 What changed:
 
-- [im_w_runtime_calibration.py](/Users/macos-user/.projects/stack-research/memory/src/experiments/implicit/im_w_runtime_calibration.py:423) now loads a generation binding before cue generation.
+- [`im_w_runtime_calibration.py`](https://github.com/stack-research/memory/blob/main/src/experiments/implicit/im_w_runtime_calibration.py#L423) now loads a generation binding before cue generation.
 - The first binding is `adversarial_matrix_coverage_required`.
 - If `IMPLICIT_CALIBRATION_PRIOR_SUMMARY_URI` points to a prior Run Summary, `im_w` derives the binding from that summary or its `generation_binding` block.
 - If no prior summary is configured, `im_w` still loads a built-in spec-default binding and records it. No silent empty posture.
 - Generation validation now reports `binding_applied`, `binding_pass`, `binding_id`, and the expected matrix.
-- [RUNTIME_CALIBRATION.md](/Users/macos-user/.projects/stack-research/memory/specs/RUNTIME_CALIBRATION.md:217) documents the first consequence-loop binding.
-- [CONSEQUENCE_LOOPS.md](/Users/macos-user/.projects/stack-research/memory/specs/CONSEQUENCE_LOOPS.md:80) now says to break one experiment first, then walk back to the generic abstraction.
+- [RUNTIME_CALIBRATION.md](../specs/RUNTIME_CALIBRATION.md) documents the first consequence-loop binding.
+- [CONSEQUENCE_LOOPS.md](../specs/CONSEQUENCE_LOOPS.md) now says to break one experiment first, then walk back to the generic abstraction.
 
 Verified through `uv run` from `stacks/`: