A GrytLabs research concept · Wasteland ⊕ ResearchHub ⊕ chunk graph

The Review Commons

A research application of the Decision Lineage Protocol: a shared primitive layer that turns heterogeneous research into composable, attributable, comparably-reviewed objects. Producers format locally into the commons; funders post review bounties; ORCID reviewers verify against ground truth and earn signed reputation. No token in between.

The commons is a translation substrate, not a journal. Heterogeneous research — different fields, methods, notations — resolves into shared, provenance-tagged chunks; that is what makes work composable, attributable, and comparable. Heterogeneity is the raw material, not the obstacle — the same bet the world-model vertical makes on raw simulation.

◆ DLP · Decision Lineage Protocol · one primitive, many uses
the same provenance-tagged chunk, pointed at different populations of knowers
this card
research vertical
The Review Commons
heterogeneous research → composable, attributable, comparably-reviewed publications. Reachable now — no GPUs, no partner.
the same primitive elsewhere
Other kinds of knowledge
nothing about the chunk envelope is specific to papers. The same stable ID, provenance and disclosure tag can carry other structured knowledge.
shared primitive: a chunk / lineage envelope — stable ID · provenance to a human origin · disclosure tag
the inversion, wherever it is used: the machine is a view; the human knowledge is the root
Lineage Wasteland · federation + stamp ResearchHub · funded review GrytLabs · chunk graph Open commons Independence control
AOn-ramp · define primitives → the commonsplugging in is a data-model act — describe your work in shared primitives, no code hooks required
Local formatting → Dolt commonsopen-source · purpose-driven
roleProducer · individual, entity, or ref-impl ORCID identity · an entity sits a repo out at chosen L0–L3 · a domain ref-impl (e.g. ML) is a specialized producer chunk graph
→
open toolLocal chunk formatter plug in = define your primitives in the open schema · also ingests JATS · BibTeX · Crossref/DataCite · RO-Crate open source
→
objectChunks stable ID + provenance + disclosure tag chunk graph
→
substrateDolt commons sovereign forks · federated · versioned wasteland
objects surface on the board
BThe board · fund & self-selectthe wanted board × funded bounties — and exactly what a reviewer sees before accepting
Post · fund · claimindependence enforced here
on the boardObject needing review carries its disclosure level into the listing chunk graph
→
demandFunder / beneficiary posts a bounty · fiat or grant · can't fund review of own work researchhubno token
→
the doordash linePre-accept visibility gate reviewer sees field · scope · effort · bounty — author & funder identity blinded independence
→
supplyReviewer self-selects ORCID · open marketplace · can't take own work researchhub
the work, and the reputation it mints
CReview · verify & stampadversarial verification against ground truth → portable, signed reputation · the reputation mechanics are the open seam
Verify → signreplaces the founder gate
the instrumentStandardized rubric fixed by object type / field · not author-able by either interested party independence
→
the workAdversarial verification N independent reviewers · each cites ground truth · severity-graded chunk graph
→
portableSigned reputation stamp GPG-signed · ORCID-bound · quality · reliability · severity · skills — accrual/decay/slashing TBD wastelandforward · open seam
publications are views over the commons
DOutput · views & citationthe claim is minted once and cited forever — the check proves comparability, not consensus
Project · verify · depositthe product
integrity ≠ truthProjection-check hash the canonical · verify the view is a true projection — comparability ≠ reconciliation chunk graph
→
viewValidated publication reports and papers · reference chunks by ID · composes across heterogeneous sources chunk graph
→
the productZenodo DOI + review stamp citable + credibly reviewed — the DOI gives permanence, the stamp gives trust live today
→
contributorDerivative discovery publish under your own name · citations to the source chunks built in researchhub
the money stays plain
The problem is that reviewers aren't paid — so don't wedge a volatile token between the work and the pay. ResearchHub's coin is the product; here, review integrity is the product. Pay in money.
EThe open-core linethe standard is free and complete; any services sit on top of it
Open · the commons

Complete, purpose-driven, not-for-profit

  • DLP chunk standard & schema
  • Local formatter (+ format ingest)
  • Projection / hash primitive
  • Dolt federation protocol
The on-ramp. It must never become the toll booth — adoption depends on it being genuinely free.
On top · out of scope here

Services built on the open layer

  • Hosting, organization controls and trust services would sit on top of the open commons
  • None of them are part of this prototype
Whatever is built on top, the on-ramp stays free.
the reconciliation

The Review Commons applies DLP to research: heterogeneous knowledge, convergent underneath, surfaced by a provenance substrate. Chunks do it for papers; the same primitive can carry other kinds of knowledge. Wasteland federates it; ResearchHub funds it; the chunk graph makes every claim a verifiable view — minted once, cited forever.

Lineage: wasteland federation + signed stamps · researchhub funded ORCID review (minus the token) · GrytLabs chunk graph, disclosure levels, projection-check · open the not-for-profit commons · control independence gates (pre-accept blinding, no self-review, neutral rubric).
Concept design. The reputation layer in Band C is the open seam: how a stamp accrues, decays, and gets slashed.
← The prototype · camsmith.xyz