Operating library
Human guidance and machine-operable project contracts, compiled from accepted repository content.
Document 01
You are working in **Epistemedia**, an agent-operated, Git-canonical knowledge system. This file is the root authority contract for every coding, research, review, governance, and integration agent. It is intentionally concise. Operating recipes live in `docs/agent-ops/`; immutable work contracts live in `tasks/`; poli
Document 02
> **Knowledge that can show its work.** > > An open, federated knowledge system for humans and agents—built from sources, claims, evidence, provenance, policies, and reproducible projections rather than one canonical page.
Document 03
- [Architecture](architecture.md) - [Human and agent interface contract](interfaces.md) - [Autonomous governance](governance.md) - [API, MCP, and CLI](api-mcp-cli.md) - [Public API and MCP deployment contract](api-mcp-deployment.md) - [Agent operations](agent-ops/README.md) - [Launch and engagement](launch.md) - [Brand
Document 04
This directory contains repeatable operating recipes. `AGENTS.md` remains the root authority contract.
Document 05
1. Orient: `make orient`. 2. Select: `python -m epistemedia repo next`. 3. Read the root contract, selected task contract, execution plan, scoped authority, schemas, policies, and tests. 4. Claim through an append-only proposal. 5. Work in one bounded branch and preserve negative results. 6. Rebuild all derived surface
Document 06
The GitHub pilot treats the submitted proposal, source text, links, Markdown, and branch contents as untrusted coordination input.
Document 07
Epistemedia separates five actions that a single “submit research” button would otherwise blur:
Document 08
All integrations read the same disclosure-safe public catalog. Preserve the returned `catalog_id`, `frontier`, `commit`, `compiler`, policy IDs, object IDs, and content digests when storing or citing results.
Document 09
The API and MCP gateway is a read-only projection service. It receives an accepted repository snapshot and exposes no GitHub, contribution, deployment, package-publishing, signing, or arbitrary network-fetch authority.
Document 10
Epistemedia is not an autonomous wiki whose canonical object is a page. Its canonical substrate is an append-only, provenance-preserving epistemic history. Pages and agent responses are reproducible projections over that history.
Document 11
**Knowledge that can show its work.**
Document 12
Epistemedia's contribution CI is defined in `.github/workflows/ci.yml` and appears in GitHub Actions as **Validate**.
Document 13
Status: implemented public shell and two reviewed dossier interactions.
Document 14
Status: reversible alpha application contracts exercised by four reviewed vertical slices.
Document 15
Status: owner-directed conceptual orientation, preserved under EM-0025.
Document 16
Status: active editorial queue. Originally accepted under EM-0025 and updated under EM-0031 after Cases 001 and 002 became independently reviewed live dossiers.
Document 17
Status: candidate validation complete; awaiting exact-head independent review on `codex/em-0021-feature-backfire-case`.
Document 18
Status: candidate validation complete; awaiting exact-head independent review on `codex/em-0022-case-entry-trust-agent-parity`.
Document 19
Status: candidate complete on `codex/em-0023-living-evidence-report`; exact-head independent review pending.
Document 20
Status: candidate complete on `codex/em-0024-editorial-comprehension`; exact-head review pending.
Document 21
Status: candidate complete on `codex/em-0025-concept-and-case-roadmap`; exact-head review pending.
Document 22
Status: v1 preflight failed and retained; v2 trace matrix and author-side source review complete; exact-head independent review pending.
Document 23
Status: complete. Three independent source-readiness packets were exact-head reviewed and admitted through protected PR `#50` at merge commit `cbb029bd336404e5bc654e939308247317eaa153`.
Document 24
Status: completed. PR #48 passed exact-head independent review, merged through the protected squash path, and its accepted main commit passed canonical-domain deployment and public read-back.
Document 25
Status: first-review correction validated; exact-head successor review pending. The dossier is research-only and is not admitted, published, or deployed.
Document 26
Status: complete. Independently reviewed, admitted through protected PR `#53`, deployed once to the verified custom domain, and read back from the live provider at accepted commit `af081caa99fc08d3fabb914ff68f2e672a83bd5b`.
Document 27
Status: author implementation complete on accepted base `cc24a2438d390bdde40640beafb24611b7737d98`; pending fresh-clone independent review.
Document 28
Status: corrected author research packet complete; fresh-clone independent re-review pending.
Document 29
Status: author research packet complete; fresh-clone independent review pending.
Document 30
Status: author candidate complete; fresh-clone independent dossier review pending.
Document 31
Status: author candidate complete; fresh-clone independent dossier review pending.
Document 32
Admit the exact independently reviewed Case 003 and Case 004 dossiers into the public application library without changing accepted research bytes or forcing either case into an older case's count grammar.
Document 33
Polish the human projection of Cases 002–004 without changing accepted evidence meaning, and make the same bounded research method recoverable by a cold-start coding agent through static files, local REST, read-only MCP, and CLI.
Document 34
Publish the owner-approved mission as a versioned, inspectable project statement and use it to make the four-case library explain why Epistemedia matters without changing any accepted evidence meaning.
Document 35
Test the strongest contribution claim: an unfamiliar Claude coding agent receives one public URL, chooses a contestable claim, performs bounded research, validates its packet, and opens a draft submission without private instructions. A separate Codex reviewer then independently re-fetches the credited sources and span
Document 36
Preserve PR #69 as the immutable failed first cold-start, close every provenance and evidence-closure gap found by its independent review, and rerun the same one-line Claude handoff without owner repair. The queue stays non-mergeable. Only a separate, independently reviewed promotion may produce an open docket.
Document 37
Preserve autonomous submission PR #72 as the immutable second cold-start receipt, fix the exact-head CI binding it exposed, prevent agents from selecting accepted or closely restated work, and replace contributor-invented runtime timestamps with executable-captured start and completion times before a third cold start.
Document 38
Apply the owner-approved Register visual grammar to every generated Epistemedia human surface while preserving the exact accepted knowledge record and every machine-readable representation.
Document 39
The EM-0043 Register adapter is materially clearer than the prior site, but the deployed desktop layout underuses the canvas. At a 1692 px viewport, `main` is 1080 px wide and begins 306 px from the left edge. Repeated 112 px metadata rails then move human content another 128 px inward. The homepage mission bridge leav
Document 40
Prove the next product milestone rather than adding a fifth founder-authored case: an unfamiliar agent can recover the public protocol, submit a bounded docket, and leave a measurable receipt for independent review. Move the already implemented read-only API and MCP gateway earlier in that test, while keeping every hos
Document 41
Epistemedia governance controls procedure, authority, admission, resources, disclosure, and interoperability. It does not vote propositions into universal truth.
Document 42
Epistemedia does not maintain separate editorial truths for people, API clients, MCP agents, and local tools. Each interface adapts one disclosure-safe catalog and projection manifest.
Document 43
Start with the four-case failure-mode map on the homepage or **How We Know** index: overgeneralization, false independence, a missing comparison class, and scope inflation. Each case page is a reproducible projection, not an anonymously edited canonical article. Inspect its frontier, policy, source objects, and manifes
Document 44
> **Archived bootstrap handoff.** The repository-publication and protected-contribution steps below are complete. The default-hostname Pages bootstrap is also live. Use [`ops/activation/2026-08-22-pages-bootstrap.md`](../ops/activation/2026-08-22-pages-bootstrap.md) for current evidence and remaining owner boundaries.
Document 45
Status: owner-directed product brief, 2026-08-21.
Document 46
Status: v1 transport preflight failed and is retained; the v2 packet passed EM-0026 source review; an EM-0029 candidate dossier now exists and awaits exact-head independent review; research only.
Document 47
Status: corrected content-addressed author research packet complete; independent re-review pending. This note does not admit or publish Case 003.
Document 48
Status: content-addressed author research packet complete; independent review pending. This note does not admit or publish Case 004.
Document 49
Status: accepted source-readiness synthesis. Exact-head reviewed and admitted through protected PR `#50` at `cbb029bd336404e5bc654e939308247317eaa153`; none of these three candidates was admitted as a dossier or public case by EM-0027.
Document 50
Compile the repository’s own architecture, governance, tasks, code, tests, and releases through the same public catalog used by every interface. Establish deterministic identity, disclosure safety, and agent-native operation.
Build receipt
em:catalog:sha256:9bfc972213cba2cde167386103dc2c011ee74639fb7f0794c54120fbbdef1a5dem:frontier:sha256:f33be3eae4c75232d56750ef9a1aa79d96274ece3417d65a75c1391bf61a81bff92846570180dfa4511263f8ba98ecd18f7772c9commons-balanced-v0.1public-noninterference-v0.1epistemedia/0.2.0