Add balanced Article Lab research

[erinepshovel-code]

Purpose

Begins a two-sided reviewed research program for the eight Rights Article Labs. The existing schema calls the assenting direction support and the challenging direction dissent; this change gives every Article at least one reviewed claim in each direction without treating citation counts as votes or research as substitute canon.

What changed

• adds seven reviewed sources with authorship, publication identity, stable links, retrieval date, relevance, and explicit evidence boundaries
• adds seven bounded Article Lab claims:
  • Article One — dissent on food-assistance work requirements and vulnerable-recipient exclusion
  • Article Four — support for teach-back and dissent on irreducible legislative complexity
  • Article Five — dissent against conditioning equal legal capacity on generalized competence testing
  • Article Six — dissent against reducing collective political power to violence
  • Article Seven — dissent from treating all ordinary categories as sharply definable before conversation
  • Article Eight — dissent from treating notice and individual consent as sufficient governance for all data practices
• retains the already two-sided Article Two and Article Three records
• documents how to use support, dissent, mixed, limit, and gap records without manufacturing false balance
• makes support-plus-dissent contact for every Rights Article an executable ledger invariant

The Article Lab renderer already resolves claims by canonical unit id, so the new cards appear through the existing data path without changing canon or duplicating research into the Lab application dataset.

Evidence and authority boundary

Each source is classified against one bounded claim, not for or against an Article as a whole. Source quality, relevance, method, and limitation remain visible. Legal doctrine, operational frameworks, experiments, historical comparisons, systematic reviews, and quasi-experimental studies retain their different evidentiary statuses.

The canonical text remains wayseer00/main:canon/INTERDEPENDENT_WAY.txt. No research record amends, supersedes, or silently interprets that source as canon.

Usage guidance

1. Open the exact canonical unit before reading its research cards.
2. Read each stance and evidence boundary together.
3. Compare methods and applicability rather than counting citations.
4. Add future work through stable source ids and claim records with an explicit limitation.
5. Run npm test or npm run check; the research-ledger test rejects missing sources, unknown references, duplicate identities, or an Article losing either reviewed direction.

Validation

• YAML parse completed for 21 sources and 21 claims
• source and claim ids are unique
• every claim resolves to a declared source and Article Lab unit
• all eight Rights Articles have at least one support and one dissent claim
• updated test module passes node --check
• GitHub Actions Verify generated site passed the complete build, validation, generated-site, Chromium browser, and accessibility gate on head 4e71af5f67f6fd7ab05450a8c979344e9bce9765

hmmm

This is an opening research tranche, not a comprehensive literature review. The next useful passes should deepen each Article with replication, systematic review, jurisdictional diversity, implementation evidence, and high-quality challenges to the present classifications.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4e71af5f67

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Add the omitted Webb coauthor

This source metadata is incomplete: the DOI landing page for this Statute Law Review article lists Robert Geyer as a coauthor with Thomas E. Webb, so the ledger's authorship/provenance record is inaccurate for the Article Four claim that depends on this source.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.