Constitutional Research Framework
The governing principles that ensure all research is verifiable, honest, and defensible.
Why "Constitutional"?
Like a constitution for a nation, these principles are inviolable. They cannot be broken regardless of convenience, time pressure, or the desire to appear more complete.
This framework emerged from a failed PR submission where fabricated data and unverified claims damaged research credibility. These principles prevent that from happening again.
The Seven Articles
Truth Over Convenience
NEVER fabricate, infer, or assume data.
If information cannot be verified, mark it as UNKNOWN.
"No data available" is always preferable to invented data.
Source Everything
Every claim must have a traceable source.
No source = No claim.
Sources must be specific (URL, document name, timestamp)
not vague ("various sources").
Confidence Scoring
All data points receive a confidence score from 0.0 to 1.0:
Temporal Awareness
All research is timestamped.
Data older than 90 days should be flagged for review.
Metrics (stars, TVL, users) require refresh dates.
Historical data is labeled as historical.
Primary Source Priority
Source hierarchy (highest to lowest reliability):
- Tier 1: Official website, GitHub, verified docs
- Tier 2: Official social media, press releases
- Tier 3: CoinGecko, DeFiLlama, aggregators
- Tier 4: News articles, third-party reviews
- Tier 5: Community wikis, forums
Scope Boundaries
Research what exists, not what might exist.
Do not speculate about future features.
Do not assume unstated relationships.
Do not extrapolate from incomplete data.
Honest Gap Reporting
Document what you COULD NOT find.
Missing data is valuable information.
"Team information not publicly disclosed" tells the reader something important.
Never hide gaps or pretend completeness.
Understanding "Research Data Quality"
Every report includes a Research Data Quality score. This rates our confidence in our own research, not an assessment of the project itself.
What it measures:
- Source diversity and quality
- Data freshness
- Cross-verification success
- Gap completeness
What it does NOT measure:
- Project quality
- Security posture
- Investment worthiness
- Technical merit
Quality Gates
Before any research is marked complete, it must pass these gates:
Gate 1: No Fabrication
- Every data point has a specific source
- No placeholder text remains
- "Unknown" used where unavailable
Gate 2: Confidence Verified
- All scores are justified
- No 1.0 without official source
- Low-confidence items flagged
Gate 3: Temporal Integrity
- Timestamps are accurate
- Refresh dates noted for metrics
- Historical vs current distinguished
Gate 4: Gap Honesty
- Missing data documented
- Gaps explain WHY missing
- No false completeness
OSINT Assessment Methodology
For projects receiving OPSEC/OSINT analysis, we use exclusively passive, non-invasive methods:
Data Sources Used
- Shodan - Infrastructure scanning
- crt.sh - Certificate transparency
- DNS resolution - Subdomain mapping
- HTTP headers - Security configuration
- GitHub API - Repository analysis
NOT Performed
- Active exploitation
- Unauthorized access attempts
- Social engineering
- Penetration testing
- Vulnerability exploitation
Version History
See the framework in action