Merge collaboration templates and governance system

README.md

@@ -135,10 +135,12 @@ The simulations demonstrate the mathematical basis of the architecture. The next
 - [CONTRIBUTORS.md](CONTRIBUTORS.md) — Who built this
 - [CITATIONS.md](CITATIONS.md) — 34 academic references across 7 domains
 - [VALIDATION_SPEC.md](VALIDATION_SPEC.md) — Formal validation spec (Codex)
+- [validation/](validation/) — Benchmark configs, SOPs, records, and change-control artifacts
 - [CLAIMS.md](CLAIMS.md) — 15 falsifiable claims with evidence levels
 - [SIM_LIMITATIONS.md](SIM_LIMITATIONS.md) — Honest catalogue of what simulations do not prove
+- [templates/](templates/) — Collaboration templates for handoffs, decisions, experiments, claims, and red-team review
 - [SPECIFICATIONS.md](SPECIFICATIONS.md) — Engineering KPIs and falsification criteria
-- [sim/](sim/) — Python simulations — all six commands verified
+- [sim/](sim/) — Python simulations — current evidence summarized in CLAIMS.md
 - [LICENSE](LICENSE) — CC0 Public Domain Dedication
 
 ---

SIM_LIMITATIONS.md

@@ -38,13 +38,14 @@ Per Gemini's review: the digital twin is verified *within these bounds*.
 
 **Discovered by:** adversarial test failures (TestStructuredCorruption::test_corner_corruption_detected)
 
-**Observation:** Corruption isolated to the four corners of the hologram (4 × 30×30 = ~5.5% coverage) produces SSIM ≈ 1.000 — effectively undetectable. The FFT hologram stores less energy in corner regions.
+**Observation:** Corruption isolated to the four corners of the hologram remains weakly visible even at large coverage. In the current adversarial suite, four 60×60 corner erasures (~22% coverage) still produce SSIM ≈ 1.000, while an equal-area central erasure of the same total damaged pixels drops SSIM to ~0.037.
 
 **Root cause:** Fourier holography spreads spatial frequency energy non-uniformly. Low spatial frequencies (containing most image energy) are concentrated in the central region of the Fourier plane. Corner regions carry high-frequency detail that contributes less to overall SSIM.
 
 **What this means:**
 - Not all hologram regions contribute equally to reconstruction fidelity
-- A physical damage site in a corner region requires larger area to trigger VERIFY
+- Equal-area corner damage is dramatically less detectable than equal-area center damage
+- A physical damage site in a corner region requires much larger area to trigger VERIFY
 - Adaptive addressing (weighting corner regions more heavily) could compensate
 
 **Impact on claims:** H1 (PASS with caveat), H3 (OPEN)
@@ -53,6 +54,25 @@ Per Gemini's review: the digital twin is verified *within these bounds*.
 
 ---
 
+## L7 — Periodic Grid Corruption Can Alias With FFT Structure
+
+**Discovered by:** Codex repo review follow-up, 2026-04-09
+
+**Observation:** Some regular grid attacks preserve SSIM above the VERIFY threshold even at high coverage. In the current adversarial suite, a periodic 6×6 patch grid on a 12-pixel stride changes ~24.2% of the hologram yet still yields SSIM ≈ 0.970, while matched random corruption of the exact same changed-pixel count drops SSIM to ~0.191.
+
+**Root cause:** The attack pattern can align with the discrete Fourier structure strongly enough that removed energy aliases into a reconstruction that still looks globally similar under vanilla SSIM.
+
+**What this means:**
+- Detection is not monotone in damaged area for all structured attacks
+- Some periodic patterns are more dangerous than random damage of the same size
+- The current VERIFY metric is vulnerable to adversarially regular corruption layouts
+
+**Impact on claims:** H1 (PASS with caveat), H3 (OPEN)
+
+**Mitigation path:** Sweep structured attack families systematically, add address-weighted fidelity metrics, and test phase-offset or jittered grid attacks rather than only area-matched corruption.
+
+---
+
 ## L3 — Sim 4 Correction Is a Perfect Reset
 
 **Discovered by:** Codex repo review, 2026-04-09  
@@ -137,6 +157,7 @@ Per Gemini's review: the digital twin is verified *within these bounds*.
 | L4 | benchmark.py SSIM inconsistency | Medium | H4 | Update correction model |
 | L5 | Phase 0-A is analogy only | High | All | Phases 1–3 |
 | L6 | Sim 3 uses one graph model | Low | C1, C2 | Adversarial tests added |
+| L7 | Periodic grid alias window | Medium | H1, H3 | Structured-attack sweeps |
 
 ---
 

results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/config.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "experiment": "phase0a_transparency_analog",
+  "status": "fill_before_first_run",
+  "camera": {
+    "model": null,
+    "exposure_settings": null
+  },
+  "geometry": {
+    "camera_to_medium": null,
+    "light_to_medium": null
+  },
+  "thresholds": {
+    "ssim_warn": null,
+    "clean_floor": null,
+    "localization_tolerance": null
+  },
+  "notes": "Predeclare thresholds before the first capture run."
+}

results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Phase 0-A Notes
+
+- Operator:
+- Date:
+- Setup deviations:
+- Unexpected behavior:
+- Follow-up actions:

results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/plots/.gitkeep

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+

results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/raw/.gitkeep

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+

results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/run_sheet_2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Experiment Run Sheet
+
+## Header
+
+- Date: 2026-04-09
+- Operator: TBD
+- Experiment name: Phase 0-A transparency analog
+- Related claim(s): Sim 1 / VERIFY-style corruption detection only
+- Related simulation or protocol: `sim/sim1_holographic.py`
+
+## Goal
+
+Validate that a 2D optical capture pipeline can detect and roughly localize controlled corruption in a physical transparency analog using the same SSIM-style logic as Sim 1.
+
+## Non-Goals
+
+This experiment does not validate:
+
+- 3D quartz volumetric storage
+- GST phase switching
+- multi-wavelength addressing
+- femtosecond WRITE physics
+- full Uberbrain feasibility
+
+## Setup
+
+- Hardware:
+  - Camera: TBD
+  - Light source: TBD
+  - Transparency medium: TBD
+  - Mount geometry: TBD
+- Software/script version: TBD
+- Fixed parameters:
+  - Exposure settings: TBD
+  - Distance camera->medium: TBD
+  - Distance light->medium: TBD
+  - Ambient light condition: TBD
+- Environment conditions: TBD
+
+## Predeclared Thresholds
+
+- Primary threshold: SSIM warn threshold = TBD before data capture
+- Secondary threshold: clean-vs-clean floor = TBD before data capture
+- Localization tolerance: overlap or center-error tolerance = TBD before data capture
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. Freeze the setup and record hardware, geometry, and camera settings.
+2. Capture at least 10 clean baseline frames with identical settings.
+3. Apply one controlled corruption event and log intended location and approximate size.
+4. Capture at least 10 post-corruption frames with no retuning.
+5. Run the analysis script using the predeclared thresholds.
+6. Save raw artifacts, output plots, and a short summary in this result folder.
+7. Repeat the full clean -> corrupt -> measure cycle at least 3 times.
+
+## Artifacts
+
+- Raw files: `results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/raw/`
+- Config or parameter file: `results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/config.json`
+- Output plots: `results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/plots/`
+- Notes path: `results/2026-04-09_phase0a_transparency/notes.md`
+
+## Results
+
+- Primary metric: corrupted-vs-clean SSIM relative to predeclared warn threshold
+- Secondary metric: clean-vs-clean stability and rough localization quality
+- Expected outcome: clean frames remain above threshold; corrupted frames fall below threshold; damaged region is approximately localizable
+- Actual outcome: TBD
+
+## Pass / Fail
+
+- Result: TBD
+- Reason: TBD
+
+## Pass Conditions
+
+- Clean and corrupted captures are separable without post-hoc threshold tuning
+- The damaged area is approximately localizable
+- The result repeats across runs
+- The final writeup states the analogy boundary explicitly
+
+## Fail Conditions
+
+- Lighting drift or camera auto-adjustment dominates the signal
+- The threshold only works after retrospective tuning
+- Damage location cannot be approximately recovered
+- The team is tempted to describe the result as quartz/GST validation
+
+## Analogy Boundary
+
+This is a 2D optical analog experiment only. A passing result demonstrates physical SSIM-style corruption detection in an analog medium, not quartz holography, GST switching, or the full Uberbrain stack.
+
+## Next Action
+
+- Owner: TBD
+- Action: collect hardware details, predeclare thresholds, and create the matching analysis script and config file before the first capture run

templates/BENCHMARK_REPORT_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Benchmark Report
+
+## Header
+
+- Date:
+- Benchmark name:
+- Claim under test:
+- Commit SHA:
+- Seed(s):
+
+## Protocol
+
+- Module or script:
+- Parameter ranges:
+- Number of trials:
+- Output directory:
+
+## Baselines
+
+- Baseline 1:
+- Baseline 2:
+- Baseline 3:
+
+## Metrics
+
+- Primary metric:
+- Secondary metrics:
+
+## Results Summary
+
+- Mean:
+- Std:
+- Confidence interval:
+- Pass / fail against gate:
+
+## Failures and Edge Cases
+
+- Failure mode 1:
+- Failure mode 2:
+
+## Interpretation Level
+
+- Hypothesizes / Suggests / Demonstrates:
+- Why:
+
+## Required Follow-Up
+
+- [ ] Update claim registry
+- [ ] Update threshold/config if preregistered
+- [ ] Add or revise tests
+- [ ] Update docs
+
+## Related Artifacts
+
+- CSV:
+- JSON:
+- Plots:
+- Whiteboard note:

templates/CHANGE_PACKET_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Change Packet
+
+## Header
+
+- Packet ID:
+- Date:
+- Author:
+- Branch:
+- Lane: exploration / integration / emergency
+- Change class: C0 / C1 / C2 / C3 / C4 / C5
+- Risk: low / medium / high / critical
+
+## Scope Declaration
+
+- Summary:
+- Files expected to change:
+- Why this change is needed now:
+
+## Evidence Impact
+
+- Claims affected:
+- Evidence impact: none / low / medium / high
+- Linked artifacts:
+- Top-level wording impact:
+
+## Required Checks
+
+- Tests to run:
+- Docs to update:
+- Rollback path:
+- Follow-up tasks:
+
+## Review Notes
+
+- Biggest risk:
+- Best argument against this change:
+- Why we still think it should proceed:
+
+## Signoff Matrix
+
+- Rocks: PENDING / APPROVE / BLOCK / WAIVE
+  - Notes:
+- Claude: PENDING / APPROVE / BLOCK / WAIVE
+  - Notes:
+- Gemini: PENDING / APPROVE / BLOCK / WAIVE
+  - Notes:
+- Codex: PENDING / APPROVE / BLOCK / WAIVE
+  - Notes:
+
+## Git Gate
+
+- [ ] Scope matches actual diff
+- [ ] Evidence impact declared honestly
+- [ ] Required checks completed or skipped with reason
+- [ ] All four signoff fields filled
+- [ ] No blocker remains unresolved
+- [ ] Ready for exploration push
+- [ ] Ready for integration review
+- [ ] Ready for commit
+- [ ] Ready for merge to main

templates/CLAIM_CHANGE_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Claim Change Record
+
+## Header
+
+- Date:
+- Claim ID:
+- Owner:
+- Status: proposed / accepted / rejected
+
+## Change Summary
+
+- Previous wording:
+- New wording:
+
+## What Changed
+
+- Metric change:
+- Threshold change:
+- Evidence label change:
+- Status change:
+
+## Why
+
+Explain why the claim changed.
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+- Benchmark or test:
+- Commit or PR:
+- Relevant artifact path:
+
+## Falsification Impact
+
+Does this make the claim easier to satisfy, harder to satisfy, or simply clearer?
+
+## Reviewer Check
+
+- Does this change improve honesty?
+- Does this change weaken scientific rigor?
+- Was the threshold changed before the experiment that uses it?
+
+## Signoff
+
+- Reviewer 1:
+- Reviewer 2: