Poesis
Usage / Use case Implemented
Review a model research question
Trace a non-normative modeling question to its explanations and recorded decision status.
Platform
What serves this use case
Features
- Research Lab: Causal model research Implemented
- Research Lab: Governance chain research Implemented
- Research Lab: DNA production research Implemented
- Research Lab: Decision register Implemented
Values
Values composed with this use case
- Value Partial
Inspect the model and its sources.
Evaluate adoption against versioned content, source mappings and visible research questions. Neutral stewardship remains a stated direction, distinct from consortium endorsement.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(10)
- Value Partial
Build toward neutral stewardship.
Pursue consortium stewardship through a visible model and reviewed evolution, with ownership, licensing and publication stated separately.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(6)
- Value Partial
Challenge assumptions explicitly.
Compare alternative explanations through research records and cases, distinguishing conceptual exploration from executed testing.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(6)
- Value Partial
Separate hypotheses from requirements.
Keep exploratory records separate from normative requirements and promote findings through specification governance.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(5)
- Value Implemented
Track open questions consistently.
Reference the same research question across cases and decisions using stable identifiers and visible status.
Supported by Features(4)
Realized through Use cases(1)
Pains
Pain points
- Pain point Partial
A modeling decision cites an example as though it were an executed test.
A reviewer cannot distinguish a plausible explanation from evidence that rules out alternatives.
Addressed by Capabilities(1)
Addressed by Features(6)
Experienced by Actor types(2)