{"id":"open-problem-publication","title":"A research space that remains revisable","regions":["shared-inquiry"],"question":"How can a public research space let humans and models enter through a problem and alter its formulations without declaring a final theory?","formulation":"The intended unit is a connected problem with alternative representations and room for criticism, revision, and new contributions. A readable formulation can precede a definitive metric or implementation.","representations":[{"name":"Problem document","affords":"A coherent entry point with explicit tensions.","loses":"Cross-problem dependencies may disappear in a linear reading.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Overlapping problem network","affords":"Several routes through related formulations.","loses":"A link alone does not express an argument or establish equivalence.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Openness permits extension but also permits unsupported additions to look inherited.","challenge":"What minimum context must accompany a new formulation so that a reader can challenge it without accepting its vocabulary?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-open-problem-publication"],"next_move":{"text":"Ask independent readers to enter through different problems, state what remains unresolved, and identify which links they would remove.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How can a public research space let humans and models enter through a problem and alter its formulations without declaring a final theory?","What minimum context must accompany a new formulation so that a reader can challenge it without accepting its vocabulary?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"bf09fb9de0a2b01b9478ac97936440ce1e76c91dba820cd74b4c6a1d86173194"}