# Em 0019

- Object ID: `em:task:sha256:0b459a08d3f20676fcc9c537ad9b90fb6034ad5e5d89fca5f7ba168b36705a01`
- Kind: `task`
- Repository path: [`tasks/contracts/EM-0019.json`](https://github.com/yoheinakajima/epistemedia/blob/f92846570180dfa4511263f8ba98ecd18f7772c9/tasks/contracts/EM-0019.json)
- Content digest: `7cab5f51560979b2c3f04c46533bf42041b897fdc536d4371ee1bef9b0329121`

**Also filed under:** [Agent Operations](https://epistemedia.org/topics/agent-operations/), [Research Program](https://epistemedia.org/topics/research-program/)

## Source content

{
  "$schema": "https://epistemedia.com/schemas/task-contract-v1.json",
  "id": "EM-0019",
  "title": "Research the first How We Know lineage case",
  "status": "ready",
  "change_class": "research",
  "objective": "Select, source, review, and propose one real public How We Know dossier in which multiple apparent mentions can be compared with their underlying independent evidence lineages, preserving contrary findings and reporting a negative result if no candidate satisfies the admission bar.",
  "depends_on": [
    "EM-0018"
  ],
  "authority": {
    "allowed_paths": [
      "catalog/dossiers/how-we-know/**",
      "research/**",
      "docs/**",
      "ops/**",
      "runs/**"
    ],
    "forbidden_paths": [
      "constitution/**",
      "policies/**",
      "schemas/**",
      "src/**",
      "tests/**",
      "governance/events/**",
      ".github/**",
      "tasks/contracts/**"
    ]
  },
  "required_evaluation": [
    "primary or authoritative source identity and edition review",
    "exact source-span verification by an independently rooted reviewer",
    "license, quotation, snapshot, and disclosure review",
    "lineage and dependence review including unknown relationships",
    "active counterevidence and qualifier search",
    "reproduction of every public count and displayed relation from accepted dossier objects"
  ],
  "acceptance": [
    "the selected case is about truth, evidence, knowledge, or information rather than Epistemedia itself",
    "the case includes a useful human question and at least one material dependence, contradiction, qualification, or unresolved defeater",
    "every public factual statement maps to an exact accepted source span or is labeled as interpretation, hypothesis, or open question",
    "source editions, retrieval dates, custody, digests, locators, and licensing limitations are recorded",
    "raw mention and independent-lineage counts are derivable rather than editorially typed claims",
    "copied or shared upstream material does not receive independent evidential credit",
    "negative candidate searches and excluded cases are retained with reasons",
    "the work does not claim a universal resolution of a philosophical position",
    "make check passes without changing accepted source state"
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "One case is an instrumented vertical slice, not evidence of general corpus quality or user comprehension.",
    "Source availability or copyright may require public metadata and digests while restricting stored bytes.",
    "Model-generated extraction is candidate evidence and receives no authority without source-span review."
  ]
}