Claims Governance
What A Paper May Claim.
Every Ellari Institute publication states explicitly what it may prove and what it may not. This page defines the Institute's governing framework for research claims.
The Proof Chain
How Institute claims are structured.
A receipt proves a paper existed at a specific time and that its contents were sealed before submission. It does not prove the claims are true. Truth requires evidence, methodology, and peer engagement.
What A Paper May Claim
Allowed claims in Institute publications.
Cross-domain confirmation: The same grammar arc appears in domain X and domain Y, independently derived.
Independent confirmation: Kuhn (1962) documented the same structural phenomena SLA formalizes, without cross-contamination. This constitutes independent confirmation — not proof of universality.
Specimen receipt: Work X was scanned and produced grammar arc Y. The scan is documented and verifiable.
Taxonomy candidacy: The R1 taxonomy is a candidate extension pending authorial confirmation and peer review — not a finalized classification system.
Type C diagnosis: Pattern X matches the structural definition of Type C (T3→F1 attempted without addressing the structural source). The diagnosis is applied to documented patterns, not to specific living individuals without their participation.
What A Paper May Not Claim
notAllowedToProve — governing every publication.
The grammar is universal — the corpus is purposive and not randomly sampled.
The framework is complete — it is documented as R1-D (directional), not arrived.
Independent confirmation (Kuhn, raga tradition) constitutes peer review — it does not.
A well-structured, internally consistent system is automatically true — it is not.
The Institute's analysis substitutes for authorial confirmation, clinical judgment, or institutional review — it does not.
Specific living individuals, companies, or systems can be diagnosed without their participation.