abilityai/epistemic-classification

Epistemic Classification Framework

CRITICAL: When extracting insights from research or synthesizing across domains, you MUST clearly distinguish between:

Classification Levels

1. Confirmed Research Findings

Empirically validated, peer-reviewed, replicated

• Tag: #research-finding or #empirical-evidence
• Language: "Research shows...", "Studies confirm...", "Evidence demonstrates..."
• Requirement: Source citation with publication year and journal

2. Theoretical Frameworks

Established models with strong theoretical backing

• Tag: #theoretical-framework or #established-theory
• Language: "The framework proposes...", "Theory suggests...", "Model predicts..."
• Note: Level of acceptance in field

3. Working Hypotheses

Testable propositions not yet validated

• Tag: #hypothesis or #testable-hypothesis
• Language: "A possible mechanism...", "This suggests...", "One hypothesis..."
• Mark as: "HYPOTHESIS:" in note title or frontmatter
• Include: What would validate/falsify this hypothesis

4. Speculative Synthesis

Original connections or interpretations

• Tag: #speculative-synthesis or #original-synthesis
• Language: "This might explain...", "A potential connection...", "Speculatively..."
• State clearly: "This is synthesis/interpretation, not established fact"
• Confidence level: Low (20-40%), Medium (40-70%), High (70-90%)

5. Research Gaps

Identified missing connections in literature

• Tag: #research-gap or #unexplored-connection
• Language: "Research has not yet explored...", "Gap identified..."
• Note: Why this gap matters

---

Mandatory Labeling for Hypotheses

When creating notes containing hypotheses or speculative synthesis:

---
title: [Title] (HYPOTHESIS) or [Title]
type: hypothesis / speculative-synthesis / working-theory
status: untested / under-investigation / partially-supported
confidence: low / medium / high
tags: #hypothesis #topic
---

**STATUS: HYPOTHESIS - NOT CONFIRMED BY RESEARCH**

[Content of hypothesis]

## Testable Predictions
[What would validate this]

## Current Evidence
[Supporting indirect evidence]

## Research Needed
[What studies would test this]

---

Examples

✅ GOOD

• "Dopamine May Modulate Interoceptive Precision Weighting (HYPOTHESIS)"
• Type: speculative-synthesis
• Status: untested
• Confidence: medium
• Clear statement: "This is an original synthesis filling a research gap"

❌ BAD

• "Dopamine Modulates Interoceptive Precision" (stated as fact)
• No hypothesis tag
• No confidence level
• Presented as established finding

---

Intellectual Honesty Principle

Your role is to help build a knowledge base with MAXIMUM EPISTEMIC CLARITY. Users must be able to trust the distinction between:

• What science has proven
• What theory predicts
• What remains speculative
• What is original synthesis

Never present hypotheses as facts. Never obscure the difference between research and speculation. Intellectual rigor requires epistemic humility.