How the map is held to a standard

An entry earns a place on the map only when it is public — a primary source anyone can read — touches continuity, and can be verified against that source. Major entries follow a fixed RFC format, so a claim shows its work rather than asserting it:

1. 01
   A hypothesis, stated plainly.
2. 02
   The supporting evidence, with sources.
3. 03
   The conflicting evidence — what cuts against it.
4. 04
   Adjacent work, cited, not absorbed.
5. 05
   The open questions that remain.
6. 06
   Where the abstraction breaks — the named counter-examples.

Published failures are a feature: a map that shows where its own abstraction breaks is more credible than one that always works.

Competitors, namespace collisions, and overlapping-language projects get the same cited, fair treatment as anyone else. No hit pieces, no passes. Editorial decisions — what appears on the map and how it is covered — are never purchased or influenced by any commercial relationship.

Mistakes are corrected in the open, never quietly rewritten. The published record supersedes rather than deletes — the same discipline the project studies. Corrections are welcome from anyone, and the dated field-updates record is where that history lives.

Before any editorial decision, three questions are asked:

1. 01
   Does this increase or decrease trust in the map?
2. 02
   Does this make the map more useful to someone trying to understand the field?
3. 03
   Would we still do this if there were no financial upside?

Anything that fails the third question does not belong on the map. The test governs the map surface only; it is what keeps the map from sliding into content marketing one reasonable step at a time.