mirror of
https://github.com/allaunthefox/Research-Stack.git
synced 2026-07-31 03:05:21 +00:00
98 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
98 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# Archival Publication Strategy
|
|
|
|
This note defines the intended end-state publication posture for the project.
|
|
|
|
The working system may stay gated while it is still fragile.
|
|
The durable public artifact should not.
|
|
|
|
## End-State Principle
|
|
|
|
When a version is ready to become a historical record, it should be published in a way
|
|
that is:
|
|
|
|
- freely accessible
|
|
- hashable
|
|
- archivally legible
|
|
- easy to mirror
|
|
|
|
## Primary Historical Record
|
|
|
|
The intended end-state public record is an `archive.org` publication.
|
|
|
|
That makes sense for two reasons:
|
|
|
|
- it provides a public, historically legible artifact surface
|
|
- it aligns the compression work with a real preservation mission rather than with a
|
|
private demo-only posture
|
|
|
|
In this model, `archive.org` is the record, not the workshop.
|
|
|
|
## Optional Infrastructure Layer
|
|
|
|
If distributed infrastructure is needed later, content-addressed systems such as `IPFS`
|
|
may be used as a supporting layer.
|
|
|
|
The intended split is:
|
|
|
|
- `archive.org` as the primary public historical artifact
|
|
- `IPFS` as optional redundancy or distribution support
|
|
|
|
Redundancy should still be verified by hash, not assumed by hope.
|
|
|
|
## Why This Matters
|
|
|
|
Archive-scale storage is expensive.
|
|
If preservation institutions are running into real storage ceilings, better compression
|
|
is not just a benchmark exercise. It is a preservation multiplier.
|
|
|
|
That gives the work both:
|
|
|
|
- a financial rationale
|
|
- an ethical rationale
|
|
|
|
Better compression can help preserve more human record for the same physical and
|
|
financial budget.
|
|
|
|
## Human Absorbability
|
|
|
|
The public record should also be paced for human absorbability.
|
|
|
|
If a result pressures existing worldviews too abruptly, many readers will default to
|
|
dismissal stories before they can evaluate the artifact itself.
|
|
That is not a special failure of character.
|
|
It is a normal consequence of interpretive inertia.
|
|
|
|
This is one reason the project prefers a compression-first public story:
|
|
|
|
- it is bounded
|
|
- it is measurable
|
|
- it is easier to critique without demanding immediate agreement with every larger
|
|
implication
|
|
|
|
The aim is to leave behind a record that people can gradually understand, not merely a
|
|
record that is technically present.
|
|
|
|
## Release Sequence
|
|
|
|
The intended order is:
|
|
|
|
1. private iteration
|
|
2. gated review
|
|
3. controlled challenge or expert validation where needed
|
|
4. durable public publication when the artifact is ready
|
|
|
|
The archival publication step should happen after the artifact is stable enough to
|
|
stand as a historical record.
|
|
|
|
## Publication Expectations
|
|
|
|
When the public artifact is published, it should ideally include:
|
|
|
|
- the software or bounded public subset
|
|
- hashes and manifests
|
|
- provenance notes
|
|
- reproducibility notes
|
|
- enough surrounding context that the artifact is understandable years later
|
|
|
|
The goal is not just to upload files.
|
|
The goal is to leave behind an intelligible record.
|