GQ-006 · The Information Organ

How should the information organ continuously gather, preserve, query, and push valuable evidence into authorized agent workflows and self-improvement loops?

SISO Open Source Foundation

active

partial

Not declared

Define the minimum public-safe question program before scheduling research.

gls:release:8225da3f-9a19-45d8-880e-0f2539756c0f · registry-seed-2026-08-01

Not released — the selected Release has no public answer artifact.

hybrid

Whether to trust a published Library number without re-deriving it, and whether an evidence path is sound enough to attach to a standing question.

Freshness is derived from observable state, never asserted by whoever last touched the record. A ledger entry that says 'fresh' must be checkable against the repository. · Every number the organ publishes can be re-derived mechanically from a named source by a second program that did not produce it. · Evidence attaches to a question by reference — byte ranges into sources — rather than by copying corpora into the registry. · A delivery path that stops working becomes visible without anyone remembering to check it.

A published number cannot be re-derived from its named source, and the disagreement is invisible until a human notices. This has fired repeatedly: a hyphen/underscore path typo reported 0 source inventories when 6 existed, because the builder and the checker shared the wrong path. · The freshness mechanism produces so many false positives that its output is routinely dismissed — a gate that cries wolf is worse than no gate. This fired once: hardening a verifier marked all 10 claims stale at once. · Maintaining the organ costs more attention than the decisions it improves. · The organ reports a pipeline as healthy while that pipeline has never actually run end to end. This fired on 2026-08-04: outbox/sent/ was empty — zero escalations ever delivered — while the queue was reported as merely 'queued'.

Escalation delivery is automated but still unproven end to end: zero messages have been delivered because the peer has been offline the whole time. The drain is verified to run and no-op correctly; it has never been verified to succeed. · No independent reviewer has checked any claim. Eight claims await review, and self-review cannot satisfy the criterion that a second party can re-derive the numbers. · Push freshness into agent workflows is named in the question but unbuilt: the organ currently publishes and waits to be read rather than pushing into a loop.

A gate is added, narrowed, or disabled — each changes what the organ can detect and can silently reduce coverage. · A derivation's named source moves or is renamed, which makes file-count silently return 0 rather than error. · Any delivery or ingestion path reports success without a receipt proving the far end received something. · A published surface begins carrying a hardcoded value where it previously carried a measured one.

public source-acquisition and retrieval systems · Library Research Works and their public contracts · privacy-safe health and freshness evidence · feedback-to-learning mechanisms

A verified operating architecture with explicit ownership, freshness contracts, query primitives, feedback loops, failure modes, and observed end-to-end receipts.

Re-answer when a source lane, retrieval contract, or learning loop materially changes or fails its freshness guarantee.

public metadata only