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.