gnu.in.labs / Corpus Méthodologique & Hygiène Mental
0.1 · DRAFTFrançais ↗
← Portal / METHODOLOGYDRAFT16 min

Evidence & public truth

Identity
EC-M05
Classification
proposed-principle
Prerequisites
Git basics, Reading a test result
Artifacts
EVIDENCE.json; raw samples; median calculation; bounded claim.
Success
Another reader obtains 10 ms from all five values. This teaching calculation is not a real benchmark; five samples cannot establish a reliable p95.

Status: methodological draft, to be adapted — not ratified in consuming projects.

Match claims with evidence

A desktop screenshot proves a bounded visual observation; a Rust test proves an executable scenario; a benchmark proves a measure in its environment. None establishes stability of every API.

Class Meaning Example Limitation
E0 Intention signed mandate no execution
E1 Static symbol + commit no runtime success
E2 Executable reproduced test bounded scenario
E3 Measured median, spread, hardware environment-specific
E4 Observed dated trace/screenshot one observation
E5 Integrated cross-module path no sustained operation
E6 Operated monitored history not universal proof

Publication rule

Every strong claim points to claim_id, source_commit, UTC date, environment, command, exit status, artifact hash, limitations and reviewer. Stale evidence must be requalified.

Good measurement

Publish command, warmup, repetition count, hardware, CPU/GPU limits, variability and excluded cases. Throughput and p95 latency are not interchangeable.

Exercise

A README claims "2% idle GPU" after one screenshot. What language and experiments are required?

Self-checkRephrase as a bounded observation. Require defined metric, instrumentation, samples, hardware, load, baseline and uncertainty for a general claim.

Engineering problem

Fictional Beacon reports general latency from one favorable sample.

Reproducible method

  1. Define metric, unit and population
  2. pin code and environment
  3. warm up then run at least five repetitions
  4. retain every sample
  5. compute median and range
  6. link the public statement to the manifest and exclusions.

Responsibilities: the author proposes and records results; the reviewer challenges the oracle; the consuming project owner decides adoption.

Example, counterexample and failure

Fictional samples [9,10,10,11,100] ms: median 10 ms, range 9–100 ms. Counterexample: remove 100 without a predefined rule. Failure: engines use different sampling parameters; disclose the deviation and repeat a comparable experiment.

Artifacts and qualification

EVIDENCE.json; raw samples; median calculation; bounded claim.

Another reader obtains 10 ms from all five values. This teaching calculation is not a real benchmark; five samples cannot establish a reliable p95.

Transfer exercise

Apply this method to fictional Courier. Produce the artifacts above, then invent a case that invalidates an overbroad conclusion.

Transfer self-checkThe case is fictional and reproducible; baseline is identified; procedure and expected result are explicit; a failure is retained; the conclusion cites artifacts and limits. If any criterion is missing, revise before declaring the method applied.

References

Study edition · not ratified