org_frontier

org_frontier — the computational package

Python package for exact IIT-4.0 Φ on Boolean models of coordination, plus the empirical arms that use that instrument. Import paths stay org_frontier.* (python -m org_frontier.probes…).

Writing arms are not here. IGI, Hospitality & Society, Lima, Slacker, Hegel, and the OT proposal live under ../submissions/. This week's dates: ../NOW.md.

A computational lab applying exact IIT-4.0 Φ to organizational coordination, with a runnable research protocol that takes a question to a finished paper.

The thesis: a coordination form is dyadic when its cause-effect structure factors across the worker–system–counterpart partition (it demands literacy), and triadic when the structure stays irreducible (it demands algorithmacy). The classifier reads the verdict off exact Φ over the minimum-information partition. The instrument is validated on its own controls (the foundations/ arc).

Results are in-silico: exact Φ on small Boolean models of coordination. They are evidence about the models. A validation gap separates them from claims about real organizations. Every paper states this.

The four programs

The lab runs four programs on the one thesis, each a different lens on the same arrangement, with Φ the structural instrument the qualitative and recurrence arms are built around.

• Computational — exact Φ on Boolean models through the protocol below: the structural reading, and the corpus of threads, studies, and questions that forms the catalog of pre-disclosed priors.
• Qualitative — qualitative/: real coordination settings read against those priors, on the questions of process and meaning fieldwork answers, each prior held open. Its forward bridge is the field protocol in field/, which takes one real arrangement to a Φ verdict.
• Recurrence — recurrence/: Φ paired with cross-recurrence quantification, the behavioral reading of how the parties' states track each other over time and which one leads. A corpus sweep, twenty experiments, and the bridge at four and five parties map where structure and behavior agree and where they part; v8–v10 then read three open-source projects' real event histories, where the veto-player and disintermediation priors appear and governance style measurably changes the gate.
• Survey — survey/: the human-subjects arm. It measures algorithmacy as a lived competence through self-report from workers inside a real coordination arrangement, the measurement side of the validation gap the other three cannot reach. A pre-registered panel study; pre-fieldwork.

The computational program is detailed below. The qualitative, recurrence, and survey programs carry their own READMEs at the links above.

The research protocol — protocol/

A fixed six-stage pipeline, made runnable: review → deep research → five hypotheses fixed before computing → methods → run against the exact-Φ instrument → full quantitative paper, reporting nulls and refutations as first-class results.

• protocol/RESEARCH_PROTOCOL.md — the spec and quality gates.
• protocol/question_pipeline.js — the orchestration that runs all six stages for one question.
• protocol/methodology_review.md and protocol/literature/deep_research_report.md — the methodology validated against established norms (strong inference, multiple working hypotheses, pre-registration; the pre-analysis plan, not the bare pre-commitment, is what buys credibility).

The logbook and programs

• probes/PROBES.md — 134 exact-Φ experiments, each with question, hypothesis, method, and result. About a third are nulls or refinements.
• RESEARCH_PROGRAM_V2.md … RESEARCH_PROGRAM_V7.md — the iterative programs, each closing a wave and opening the next. V2–V6 produced the computational logbook; v7 broadened the lab beyond the single computational line, adding the qualitative and recurrence arms, and the survey arm followed.
• STRUCTURAL_FINDINGS.md — the synthesis: a coordination form demands algorithmacy when every party is bound into one irreducible joint determination. Substitutability collapses it; mediation depth does not; cheap proxies cannot detect it.
• RESEARCH_AGENDA_50_V2.md — 50 open questions queued for the pipeline.
• RESEARCH_NARRATIVE.md — how the program has progressed through Q73 (instrument → seam thread → outreach law → self-audit) and the path forward.
• RESEARCH_AGENDA_Q74.md — the runnable next questions (Q74+) derived from the path forward, ordered by priority.

Worked questions — questions/

Each question taken through the protocol gets its own directory with the review, literature, hypotheses, methods, probes, results, and a paper.

• questions/q43_thompson_interdependence/ — the first question run end to end through the automated pipeline: does the verdict reproduce Thompson's pooled/sequential/ reciprocal interdependence ordering? It does not. Four hypotheses confirmed, one refuted (probes 135–139). paper.

Sub-studies

• classifier/ — the literacy-or-algorithmacy classifier (Φ over the MIP → verdict).
• corpus/ — a curated library of named coordination forms with exact Φ, the verdict, and structural tags; plus the 256-form population census.
• multiparty/ — how the verdict changes as parties are added.
• principal/ — does the corporate principal join the irreducible core? Only under bidirectional coupling.
• proxy_bridge/ — can a cheap time-series proxy recover the verdict past the exact-Φ size ceiling?
• landscape/ — a worldwide survey of PyPhi usage and the open application gaps.
• thinkers/ — one paper per historical thinker on the triad: the claims read from the primary texts, rendered as Boolean forms, tested against exact Φ. First paper: Simmel. The paper standard is thinkers/PAPER_STANDARD.md.
• ergodicity/ — Ergodicity × Algorithmacy: when ensemble statistics about coordination transfer to an individual trajectory and when they do not. Open track; first cell studies/ergodic_components_vs_phi/; essay essays/ergodicity_and_algorithmacy.md.

Essays — essays/

• studying_algorithmacy.md — the method this lab runs: the instrument, how a form of work becomes a system PyPhi can read, the validate/pre-commit/report-nulls discipline, what it has established, and what it cannot do. The repo-specific methodology essay.
• literacy_or_algorithmacy.md — the thesis and how exact Φ decides which literacy a coordination form demands.
• ergodicity_and_algorithmacy.md — navigating a platform is a non-ergodic problem; navigating a text is not. The dynamical twin of the literacy / algorithmacy cut.
• pyphi_org_theory_catalog.md — a ~10k-word catalog of every experiment, with question/hypothesis/method/result.
• algorithmacy_outreach_paper.md — the capstone synthesis: the instrument and method, the structural law, the ten-study outreach program and its five-pillar law, the nine construct-hardening studies (Q74–Q85), and the validation gap. Cites CI-backed numbers.

Conventions

Every sub-project follows the protocol: validate the instrument on its own controls before any comparison, fix hypotheses before computing, compute rather than assert, report nulls as results, and write in the house style (../CLAUDE.md). Read the verdict on the major complex when a form has spectator nodes.