Rosenberg independent validation protocol

This protocol is the final external gate for the frozen Paul Rosenberg case. It

does not count AI review, fixtures, internal testing, or producer judgment as

independent evidence.

The frozen manifest is

`rosenberg-validation-protocol-v1.json`(../../artifacts/provenance-research/rosenberg-validation-protocol-v1.json).

Every review and participant session must carry the dossier SHA-256 recorded in

that manifest. If the dossier changes, freeze a new protocol revision and repeat

the study rather than mixing responses across revisions.

Recruit without overstating the case

The exact unsent copy and contact rules are in

`rosenberg-validation-recruitment-v1.md`(../ops/rosenberg-validation-recruitment-v1.md).

The first professional circulation set is limited to three current, official

organization channels in `config/rosenberg-recruitment-candidates.json`; every

row remains `research_only`. The message discloses the AI-assisted lead, the

unproved final handover and photograph lineage, the uncompensated status, the

local-download privacy boundary, and the absence of organizational endorsement.

An approval-ready personalized copy now exists at

`rosenberg-validation-recruitment-joseph-chirum-v1.md`(../ops/rosenberg-validation-recruitment-joseph-chirum-v1.md).

It uses the existing public Sun & Rain Works operator identity and reply address

and explicitly discloses that an email return exposes the sender address to the

facilitator while keeping correspondence outside the evidence bundle. Its

current SHA-256 and requested scope are frozen in

`config/rosenberg-recruitment-approval.json`; `approval` remains null.

Before any contact, create a named short-lived approval bound to the exact

dossier, protocol, target-list, personalized-copy, and requested-scope digests,

then run:

pnpm research:recruitment:approval -- --copy=docs/ops/rosenberg-validation-recruitment-joseph-chirum-v1.md --approval=<approval.json> --check

The command fails closed for placeholders, changed copy or targets, unknown

channels, synthetic approvers, expired approval, or any unapproved claims,

privacy, compensation, professional-contact, non-specialist, or human-coder

scope. A passing approval still is not evidence that a message was sent or a

participant responded; retain provider receipts separately.

Run the study

1. Give an independent provenance researcher the frozen review task. They must

reproduce the answer from at least three source URLs, inspect RBS entry

`*5034`, identify a disagreement or non-comparable search outcome, and assess

the claim boundary. The reviewer can use the local-only return form on

`/research/rosenberg/validate`; it downloads a revision-bound JSON file and

does not upload the review. Before the review begins, the facilitator must

retain a private mapping from the generated reviewer code to the reviewer's

identity, affiliation, qualification, and conflict disclosure. Do not put

those direct identifiers in the downloaded file.

1. Run the counterbalanced baseline and Meta Museum tasks with at least three

genuine researchers. Retain elapsed milliseconds, the URLs each participant

used, whether relevant evidence was found, and whether the answer was

reproduced. `/research/rosenberg/researcher-study` generates a random

condition order, times both conditions, requires three HTTPS citations and a

substantive answer for each, records the facilitator-confirmed washout or

condition separation, and downloads a revision-bound local JSON response.

It does not upload, score, or establish participant eligibility.

1. Show the frozen interface to at least five genuine non-specialists. Ask the

two open-response questions without hints. Two human coders independently

assess whether each response states both the supported claim and its limit.

Participants can use `/research/rosenberg/study`; it generates a client-local,

pseudonymous JSON response bound to the frozen dossier and never uploads it.

Retain both coders' decisions. A distinct third human adjudicator is required

whenever the two coders disagree.

1. Copy

`rosenberg-validation-assembly-manifest-template-v1.json`(../../artifacts/provenance-research/rosenberg-validation-assembly-manifest-template-v1.json),

set an ISO `assembledAt` timestamp, and point it at the returned independent

review, three researcher exports, five reader exports, and five separately

retained human-coding JSON files. Keep those raw files under the study

controller's approved retention policy.

1. Assemble a new immutable evidence bundle. The command hashes every input,

rejects duplicate receipts, unsafe filenames, invalid coding, synthetic or

revision-mismatched sessions, and refuses to overwrite an existing output:

```powershell

pnpm research:validation:assemble -- <manifest.json> <new-evidence.json>

```

1. Run the fail-closed evaluator against that new bundle:

```powershell

pnpm exec tsx scripts/evaluate-rosenberg-research-validation.ts <evidence.json>

```

The evaluator fails unless there is an attributable independent approval, at

least three genuine researcher sessions, at least five genuine non-specialist

sessions, a median time improvement of 20%, an 80% researcher reproduction

rate across at least three sources, 80% independently coded comprehension of

both claim and boundary, and a complete unique receipt ledger matching one

review file, every researcher file, every raw reader file, and every human

coding file. A manually constructed score-only input cannot pass.

The participant export is intentionally not evaluator-ready: it contains no

correctness score. Use `applyIndependentRosenbergComprehensionCoding` only after

two genuine human coders have recorded their decisions; do not infer or fill

those decisions with AI.

The researcher comparison export is also richer than the evaluator row: it

retains randomized order, both condition answers, both citation sets, and the

washout confirmation. Validate it with

`validateRosenbergResearcherStudyResponse`, then use

`toRosenbergValidationSession` to derive the evaluator input without discarding

the original returned file.

The assembled bundle adds an `assembly` receipt ledger without replacing the

raw evidence. Each source entry records its safe basename, evidence kind, and

SHA-256. The assembly command never authorizes publication and never fills

missing participants, identities, coding decisions, or outcomes.

Passing these thresholds is necessary but not sufficient for publication.

Rights, sensitivity, editorial, and accountable operator approval remain

separate release decisions.

Review-file custody

The downloadable independent-review file records the exact dossier digest,

review time, qualification statement, three or more checked HTTPS sources,

reproduction checks, corrections, notes, and a revise-or-approve decision. It

also records that the reviewer is genuine, independent from production, and

mapped to a real identity by the facilitator. The application retains no copy.

The facilitator must validate the file, preserve it under the approved research

retention policy, and merge it into the frozen evidence template. A generated

reviewer code without the separately retained identity mapping is not

attributable evidence and cannot unlock publication.