Reproduce a research claim
Inspect a frozen dossier, follow its primary-source links, test the stated boundary, and download a pseudonymous review envelope for independent custody.
Open the frozen review protocolOpen research · independent challenge · no account
Contribute to open provenance research.
Reproduce a claim, document a correction, compare workflows, or challenge a method. Choose a bounded task and retain a transparent, revision-bound result.
No Meta Museum account is required. Nothing is uploaded by the review and study tools. They create device-local files that you decide whether and how to return to an accountable facilitator.
Choose a contribution
Start with the work you can independently verify
Record a correction
Use the same review protocol to identify a source disagreement, unsupported inference, missing limitation, or reproducibility failure. Corrections must be incorporated into a distinct version before they count.
Read the correction and attribution policyCompare research workflows
Qualified researchers can run a counterbalanced conventional-source and Meta Museum comparison. The client-local form records time, citations, and reproduction without certifying eligibility or scoring itself.
Run the researcher comparisonChallenge the method
Start with an open research question, inspect the methodology and source plan, then build a device-local evidence packet that preserves contradictions and alternative hypotheses.
Use the Open Research CommonsDevice-local correction
Create a correction envelope without uploading anything
Bind one proposed change to the exact packet digest and cited HTTPS evidence. The envelope is assembled and hashed in this browser. You decide whether and how to share the downloaded file with an accountable maintainer.
Return a public-safe correction
If the correction contains only public evidence and no identity, contact, confidential, restricted, ownership, or sensitive artwork information, you may return it through the structured repository form. The form is a proposal for independent review—not acceptance or publication approval.
Return a public-safe review
Challenge the packet in the open
If your review contains no personal, confidential, restricted, or sensitive artwork information, use the structured repository form to return its packet digest, checked sources, corrections, alternative hypotheses, novelty decision, limitations, and AI-assistance disclosure. You need a GitHub account, but no Meta Museum account.
Open the independent-review form
Do not use a public issue for identity evidence or private source material. A public contribution does not by itself establish reviewer qualification, independence, scholarly validation, novelty, publication approval, or compensation. A facilitator must separately verify any review proposed for A+ evidence.
What counts
Evidence, not activity
- Use the exact frozen revision and independently inspect cited sources.
- State disagreements, uncertainty, negative searches, and limitations.
- Keep direct identity and sensitive artwork information out of downloaded evidence.
- Retain citations and a receipt hash so another person can audit the result.
A visit, download, AI critique, self-review, or submitted file does not establish novelty, expertise, impact, demand, or scholarly validation. Consequential conclusions and publication always require attributable human review and separate approval.
Privacy and independence
Share less, verify more
Use a pseudonymous participant code in evidence files. Qualification, conflicts, consent, and any identity mapping stay under the facilitator's approved private custody and retention policy—not in the public packet.