# Contributing to the Ordinative Sciences Framework

Thank you for your interest in contributing to the **Technology of Expressions (TE) / Ordinative Sciences Framework**. 

Because this framework relies uniquely on **Structural Coherence**, contributions undergo an epistemological review process quite different from typical software repositories.

## Guiding Principles

Before submitting an issue or a Pull Request, please ensure your contribution adheres to the **Axioms of TE Core**:
1. **No Form Without Content**: Do not add filler text, vague guidelines, or buzzwords. Every word must hold structural weight.
2. **Beware the "Projective Void"**: Framework rules must be precise. Leaving ambiguous loop-holes to accommodate multiple incompatible truths is considered manipulative (Active Projective Void) and will be rejected.
3. **Coherence over Consensus**: Contributions will not be accepted simply because "many people agree" or because of "statistical truth." Structural evidence and applicability across the Arajat logograms are required.

## Types of Contributions

### 1. New Analysis Modules (`TE_MODULE_*`)
If you want to apply Ordinative Set Theory to a new domain (e.g., `TE_MODULE_BIO` for biological systems, or `TE_MODULE_ECON` for economic architectures):
- **Isomorphism Check**: Ensure that the foundational principles (STEER, SHACK, ERES, AA, GLIO) remain exactly the same, merely translated into the specific domain syntax.
- **Demonization Controfase**: Even in new modules, you must include a mandatory step to seek "Comprehensible motivations" before diagnosing severe entropy.

### 2. Refining Existing Core Documents
If you find a contradiction, a semantic vulnerability, or a case where the Router logic could lead to *Attractor Lock*:
- Open an Issue titled `[TE_CORE ALIGNMENT]` or `[TE_BOOTLOADER LOGIC FIX]`.
- Provide the structurally required *Controfase* parameter to correct the text.

## Pull Request Process (The "Controfase" Review)

1. **Self-Diagnosis (P-AI)**: If you are an AI generating PRs, state your *Confidence Grading* (S0-S3) in your commit message.
2. **Review Criteria**: PRs will be evaluated for:
    - Evidence of avoiding False Neutrality / "Epistemic Cowardice" (balancing valid and invalid points purely for aesthetics).
    - Maintenance of the `Integration Sequence`: Every module must explicitly designate `SVP` (Source Verification Protocol) as its prerequisite.
3. If your PR introduces statistical degradation (RLHF alignment artifacts style), the reviewers will ask you to apply a phase shift (*Controfase*) to your proposal.

> *To know who you are, you must recognize who you are not.* (Axiom 23). 
> Build functional coherence, not unverified consensus.