​

Quality floor and signal visibility

Enoch is useful only if operators can tell the difference between a run that completed, a signal worth preserving, an artifact ready for the paper corpus, and a result that is safe to reference publicly. This page is the public-facing quality-floor contract behind the ALI-15, ALI-20, and ALI-17 risk track:

• ALI-15: operator visibility into research quality and signal strength was too low.
• ALI-20: the system depended too heavily on agents to explain its own research quality.
• ALI-17: low-quality or trivial generated output could damage public perception without stronger gates and framing.

The response is to make the review boundary explicit everywhere: dashboard/status surfaces, docs, launch copy, corpus framing, and promising-signal exports.

​

The four-layer contract

Enoch uses four different review layers. They should not be collapsed into one green checkmark. A run can be operationally healthy and still be scientifically weak. A signal can be useful and still not be a paper. A paper-corpus artifact can pass structural gates and still require independent replication before anyone treats it as truth.

​

What operators should look for

When reviewing Enoch output, check these in order:

1. Run state and worker state — queue state, run id, worker callback, process-tree completion, and telemetry quiet-window evidence.
2. Evidence bundle — run notes, metrics, result files, logs, and declared-unavailable public surrogates.
3. Claim ledger — every material claim should point to evidence or be explicitly bounded as a hypothesis/limitation.
4. Decision artifact — the project decision should say whether the run is paper-positive, useful-signal-only, scale-blocked, negative, or inconclusive.
5. Public bucket — papers, promising signals, and private/archived weak signals must remain separate.

If any of those are missing, the right outcome is usually do not promote. Keep the record for diagnosis or follow-up, but do not let it become public proof.

​

Public buckets

​

Paper corpus

The paper corpus is for generated research artifacts that pass the current packaging/provenance and strict claim/evidence gates. They remain AI-generated artifacts, not peer-reviewed papers. Use this bucket when:

• the artifact has complete provenance metadata,
• material claims map to evidence references,
• limitations are visible,
• missing-public-evidence cases use declared-unavailable hashes or surrogates,
• the release validators pass.

​

Promising signals

Promising signals preserve useful or scale-blocked leads that are not paper-corpus artifacts. Use this bucket when:

• the run found a bounded signal worth remembering,
• compute scale, scope, or evidence maturity blocks publication,
• follow-up is plausible,
• public evidence is not copied,
• the record should guide future work rather than persuade an external audience.

​

Archive / low-value preservation

Low-signal, stale, local-only, or embarrassing outputs should not be promoted. Keeping them internally can still be useful for debugging model routes, worker behavior, prompt contracts, or quality gates.

​

Quality-floor language

Preferred language:

• “AI-generated research artifact”
• “evidence-bounded”
• “strict claim/evidence audit”
• “promising signal”
• “compute-scale blocked”
• “requires independent replication”
• “not peer reviewed”

Avoid language that implies:

• human authorship of generated reports,
• peer review,
• scientific correctness from a passing package check,
• that all preserved signals are publication-ready,
• that agent confidence is equivalent to evidence.

​

Release checklist

Before a public surface advertises an Enoch artifact or metric, verify:

• the count or claim matches the current corpus/promising-signal manifests,
• the page distinguishes packaging/provenance from strict claim/evidence audit,
• promising signals are not counted as papers,
• weak/local-only records are not advertised as external research results,
• links point to source repositories or generated evidence files,
• caveats are visible without requiring a private dashboard.

​

What this fixes

This contract reduces the ALI-15/20/17 risk by moving judgment out of agent prose and into inspectable surfaces:

• operators get a direct checklist for research quality and signal strength,
• public readers see what the system claims and what it does not claim,
• weak outputs have a safe bucket instead of an accidental launch path,
• the launch story becomes engineering-first: control plane, evidence, gates, and humility before generated output.

​

Related pages

• Authorship and provenance
• Promising signals export
• Paper artifacts guide
• Research facility