Dr. Waddell
Owned scope, permissions, every finding disposition, acceptance, and release.A practical method transfer guide
Do not copy the prompts. Copy the operating system.
The project was not one brilliant prompt or seven models debating in a room. Dr. Waddell built a small research organization in a folder: one accountable expert, models with separated duties, sources with traceable provenance, and gates that stopped a draft from quietly becoming truth.
Inputs stay in this browser and are not sent by this page. They are saved only if you copy or download the generated file.
The whole system
One workflow. Two systems. Four human gates.
Models do bounded work. Versioned artifacts carry that work forward. The subject-matter expert controls every consequential gate.
Human authority
The subject-matter expert stays above the whole process.◆ Approve the plan ◆ Authorize evidence access ◆ Decide every finding ◆ Accept and release the work
-
01Frame
Question + decision
Name what must be understood, which decision it informs, the boundary, and what could change your mind.
Works hereHuman + research architectArtifact handoffProject brief + measurable objectives -
02Design + freeze
Rules before results
Set the method, source rules, instrument, thresholds, role split, claim ceiling, and review plan.
Works hereArchitect + methods reviewerArtifact handoffApproved design + preregistered rules◆ Human approves the plan -
03Gather
Discover, admit, verify
Search broadly, admit evidence by fit, verify metadata and locators, and preserve important exclusions.
Works hereSource researcher + human permissionsArtifact handoffSource register + admitted evidence◆ Human authorizes access -
04Analyze
Work independently
Apply the frozen rules to controlled inputs. Where the decision warrants it, compare separated analysts or coders.
Works hereCoder ACoder BAnalystArtifact handoffFrozen inputs + locked submissions -
05Challenge
Review, repair, verify
Number every criticism. The human disposes it; a bounded repair follows; a verifier checks the exact change.
Works hereChallenger → adjudicator → repairer → verifierArtifact handoffFindings + decisions + repair proof◆ Human decides each finding -
06Accept
One evidence base
Accept the canonical research source only after its evidence, limitations, reviews, and unresolved residuals are visible.
Works hereHuman decision authorityArtifact handoffAcceptance record + canonical source◆ Human accepts the release
The challenge loop can send work backward.A material method, source, or analysis defect returns to Design, Gather, or Analyze. The change is recorded and rechecked; it never silently rewrites the result.
The governed workspace runs under every stageThe folder is the handoff bus.
Handoff + objectivesDesign + role planSource registerFrozen inputs + hashesFinding + decision ledgerEvidence matrix + release
Accepted evidence baseOnly this source feeds public outputs.
- Research paper
- Presentation website
- General-reader article
- Podcast / audio
See how this project staffed the workflow 7 executed variants · 6 model families
Assignments changed by artifact and phase. These are representative credits, not permanent one-model-one-role labels; independence was assessed for each task.
Claude Opus / Fable
Research design, literature, instrument, preregistration, analysis drafts, and translation work.GLM 5.2Nemotron 3 Ultra
Applied the frozen instrument independently; submissions were locked before comparison.DeepSeek v4 ProKimi K3
Cross-family challenges, base adjudication, repaired-row re-adjudication, and final reviews.Claude OpusGPT-5.6 sol
Registered/social analysis, source and value verification, and the attributed existential judgment.Claude Opus / FableGPT-5.6 sol
Paper production and QA, figures, article, podcast pipeline, presentation, method site, and deployment.Provider marks identify credited services only; no sponsorship or endorsement is implied. Icon glyphs from Lobe Icons 1.94.0 (MIT); trademarks remain property of their respective owners.
No model was asked to do the whole research project. Each received a bounded job, exact inputs, a definition of done, prohibited moves, and a stop condition. The human decided what the work meant and whether it could advance.
Behind the process
The eight moves.
These are the reusable moves. The religion study supplied the content, but none of that content is required to use the method on a new question.
Write the decision before the prompt
Name who needs to decide what, for whom, and by when. A topic is not yet a research question.
Creates: project brief and decision ownerMake the question capable of losing
Define the unit, boundaries, rival explanations, claim ceiling, and evidence that would count against the preferred answer.
Creates: research design and prohibited inferencesDefine done before drafting
Break the work into objectives. Give each one observable acceptance criteria, review evidence, and a human acceptance gate.
Creates: objective program and evidence matrixBuild a source funnel
Discover widely, admit narrowly, verify metadata and locators, and preserve every important rejection so it is not repeated later.
Creates: source register and collection gapsAssign roles, not personalities
Separate conflicting duties across models or provider families as the assurance level requires. Record every overlap.
Creates: role matrix and bounded work ordersFreeze choices before outcomes
Register thresholds, proxies, substitutions, exclusions, and sensitivities before collecting the values those rules govern.
Creates: preregistration and frozen input identityTurn criticism into decisions
Give every finding an ID. The human repairs, accepts as residual, rejects with evidence, or defers. Then someone verifies the repair.
Creates: review record, decision ledger, repair proofPublish outward from one source
Accept the canonical research output first. Build the report, briefing site, article, and audio from it, then check each for fidelity.
Creates: one evidence base for several audiencesThe model scaffolding
A team designed around disagreement.
A different model is useful only when it carries a different duty and a different failure mode. Seven unstructured opinions are still one unstructured process.
| Role | Job | Conflict to prevent |
|---|---|---|
| Human operator | Owns the question, risk, source permissions, every disposition, acceptance, and release. | Never delegated to model consensus. |
| Research architect | Turns the subject matter question into a design, criteria, instrument, and work orders. | Does not quietly change the method after seeing outcomes. |
| Source researcher | Finds candidates, verifies metadata and access, records fit, and preserves locators. | Discovery does not equal admission. |
| Analyst or coder | Applies frozen rules to controlled inputs and reports uncertainty. | Does not edit the instrument or adjudicate its own ambiguity. |
| Adjudicator | Resolves disagreements against authoritative sources and the registered rule. | Should not be the instrument or answer-key author. |
| Adversarial reviewer | Tries to find overclaim, omitted alternatives, wrong values, weak sources, and broken boundaries. | Should not share authorship duties or a provider family when called independent. |
| Verifier | Recomputes numbers, identities, links, and structural claims. | A green check proves consistency, not truth. |
| Translator or producer | Creates the brief, site, article, or audio from the accepted research source. | Does not introduce new unsupported findings. |
Independence is a property of the assignment, not the model name. A second variant from the same provider family can corroborate. It should not be labeled independent without a defensible reason.
Scale the machinery
Use enough rigor for the decision.
The Terminal Experiment used the Level 3 control set labeled “audit-grade” here. Most client and internal studies should begin one level lower, then add controls when the consequences justify them.
Level 1
Explore
For early sensemaking that remains tentative.
- Written scope and claim ceiling
- Source register with locators
- Separate critique pass
- Exploratory label throughout
Level 2 · Recommended start
Defensible
For work another person may rely on.
- Objectives and acceptance criteria
- Rules frozen before outcome analysis
- Cross-family author and reviewer
- Numbered findings and human decisions
- Source and value verification
Level 3
Audit-grade
For contested, regulated, or high-stakes work.
- Blind calibration or dual coding
- Sealed keys and hash gates
- Acceptance evidence matrix
- Mechanical verifier
- Immutable, reproducible releases
Run it on your question
Build the first instruction.
Give Synaptic Code the problem and the decision context, not a giant request for an answer. It will build the workspace and return the design choices for human approval before research begins.
Your Synaptic Code starter
Complete the two required fields, then generate a tailored Markdown starter. Put the downloaded file in a fresh project folder and open that folder in Synaptic Code.
Download the blank research starterThe full lifecycle, role rules, record templates, gates, and kickoff prompt in one vendor-neutral Markdown file.
Download the full workspace operating modelThe exact portable infrastructure specification used here: handoff, objectives, decisions, review separation, and verifier.
What this does not promise
The method carries limits with it.
Reusing the operating method does not reproduce this study's quality, speed, cost, or result. Those depend on the question, evidence, people, models, and decisions in the new project.
No autonomous authorityThe subject matter expert remains accountable for design and acceptance.
No automatic independenceIndependence must be designed, disclosed, and protected per artifact.
No data permissionThe starter does not authorize use of client, personal, restricted, or regulated data.
No audit-grade shortcutControls create an inspectable record. They do not make a poor method correct.