Populate the Rights Article Lab research and applications

[erinepshovel-code]

Purpose

Begins substantive population of the Article Lab and establishes a shared contact structure across all eight Rights articles without flattening their distinct tensions.

What changed

• adds a data-backed Lab record for every Rights article
• adds two-direction reductio ad absurdum tests plus a bounded reading per article
• adds article-specific worst practices and best practices
• adds applications per article for medical, construction, engineering, agriculture, jurisprudence, transportation and distribution, child craft, information systems, emergency response, hospitality and sanitation, and community governance
• adds reviewed research contact for all eight articles
• expands the source ledger from four Article Two sources to fourteen cross-article sources
• renders support, dissent, mixed, and limit claims with source links and explicit evidence boundaries
• focuses the Lab index on the eight Rights articles while preserving generated routes for other canon units
• adds data, generated-artifact, browser, and accessibility regression gates

File plan

Path	Change	Purpose	Risk	Required evidence
src/_data/article_lab.json	create	article-specific absurd-limit, practice, and domain application records	accidental boilerplate or missing domain	research-ledger test
src/_data/research/*	expand	reviewed support, dissent, mixed evidence, and limits	overstating source scope	source linkage and limitation checks
src/lab/index.njk, src/lab/unit.njk	modify	expose the full Lab structure and evidence cards	template/data mismatch	Eleventy generation + generated tests
tests/*	strengthen	require eight records, eleven domains, research contact, route rendering, and accessibility	longer CI	full PR workflow
docs/research-method.md	expand	document authoring and evidence boundaries	none	content review

Research boundaries

The initial pack uses peer-reviewed reviews and articles, WHO frameworks, AHRQ implementation material, FEMA incident doctrine, IETF Best Current Practices, and the Belmont Report. Each source is bounded to the component it can support. Applications are operational hypotheses; they do not supersede professional standards, law, safety rules, or canon.

hmmm

This is the beginning, not evidence closure. Direct domain-specific dissent, international and Indigenous evidence, replication quality, agriculture and construction field studies, disability-led critique, and child-development research remain priority expansions.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 87ae8dd24f

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".