Define the claim
State exactly what is being asserted, for which case, population, institution, jurisdiction, and time period.
R Research method
Controversy is not a license for sloppiness.
The more politically charged the subject, the more important it becomes to separate what happened, what sources claim, what the project infers, and what remains uncertain.
Method8publication rules
Operating principle
Explain mechanisms. Show your evidentiary seams.
Unprogrammable.org is not designed to produce neutral-sounding mush. It is designed to make strong analysis auditable. A forceful claim is acceptable when its evidence, assumptions, alternatives, uncertainty, and scope are visible.
The project separates description from causal inference, historical record from contemporary legal guidance, project terminology from external scholarly consensus, and analysis from advocacy.
Publication rules
Eight standards for serious analysis.
Classify the evidence
Separate primary records, peer-reviewed research, scholarly books, high-quality journalism, datasets, legal authority, expert analysis, and project synthesis.
Model the mechanism
Explain the actors, incentives, constraints, information, sequence, and feedback that connect cause to outcome.
Seek counterevidence
Identify facts or cases that would weaken the preferred explanation rather than selecting only confirming material.
Compare alternatives
Name plausible competing explanations and identify what evidence would discriminate among them.
Mark uncertainty
Distinguish established facts, contested interpretations, inference, scenario, and project-defined conceptual work.
Control for time
Do not present historical relationships as current facts, or early event outcomes as settled long-run consequences.
Correct visibly
When material claims change, preserve enough version context that readers can understand what changed and why.
Claim states
Not every sentence has the same epistemic status.
Verified descriptive fact
Supported by appropriate evidence for the stated scope and time period.
Disputed interpretation
Materially different credible accounts exist; attribution and disagreement should be explicit.
Analytical inference
The project connects evidence through a stated causal or interpretive model.
Unprogrammability framework
A concept or taxonomy developed by this project rather than presented as disciplinary consensus.
Case-study template
A case should test the framework, not decorate it.
1. ScopeWhat exactly is the episode, period, and unit of analysis?
2. ActorsWhich organizations and institutions possessed consequential agency?
3. BaselineWhat structural constraints and prior conditions shaped the episode?
4. TriggerWhat changed expectations, attention, or perceived opportunity?
5. MechanismsWhich feedback, information, coalition, institutional, or external mechanisms operated?
6. CounterfactualsWhat plausible alternatives would challenge the explanation?
7. OutcomesWhat changed immediately, during transition, and over the longer run?
8. LimitsWhat remains uncertain, unobserved, or underdetermined by available evidence?
Research boundary
The current corpus is evidence input, not automatic publication truth.
The project preserves a 36-report owner-supplied research corpus. Those reports are valuable for questions, mechanisms, architecture, source leads, and comparative hypotheses. They are not automatically treated as verified fact.
Specific historical, statistical, legal, or causal claims should be checked at claim level before public publication. Deterministic language such as “always,” “doomed,” “ultimate predictor,” or “absolute prerequisite” receives special scrutiny.
See the research map