Are QAEDA essays the same as the underlying research reports?

No. Public essays are editorial syntheses. The project preserves the full source reports separately so compression, disagreement, uncertainty, and later corrections can be audited.

Does QAEDA independently verify every claim in a supplied research report?

No. Report-derived claims are treated as research inputs, not automatic public truth. High-stakes or current factual claims should be checked against primary or otherwise authoritative sources before publication.

How does QAEDA use research about political violence?

At the philosophical, historical, ethical, and institutional level. QAEDA rejects terrorism, deliberate civilian targeting, collective guilt, dehumanization, intimidation, and operational guidance for harming people.

Research & provenance

Arguments should have a visible trail.

Q: What external standard informs QAEDA’s cognitive-liberty position?

The public UAIX Cognitive Liberty Charter Draft is a standards reference for lawful inquiry, adult agency, persona integrity, no covert rewrite, mental privacy, transparent boundaries, least-restrictive safeguards, review, provenance, and public accountability.

QAEDA uses long-form research as input, not as an oracle. This page shows which dossiers informed which public arguments, where an external standard is being used, and where editorial synthesis begins.

Direct answer: QAEDA preserves full research reports as source evidence, publishes shorter synthesis essays, marks standards references separately, and treats current or high-stakes factual claims as verify-before-publish rather than inheriting them automatically from a report.

Four provenance layers

1. Source report: A supplied long-form research dossier. It may contain valuable synthesis, contested interpretation, citations of mixed quality, or claims that later become stale.
2. Editorial synthesis: QAEDA’s public argument derived from one or more reports. Compression is explicit: the essay is not represented as a complete reproduction of its source.
3. Standards reference: An external canonical document used for a defined implementation or governance principle. For cognitive liberty, QAEDA references the public UAIX Cognitive Liberty Charter Draft.
4. Verification layer: Current, high-stakes, quantitative, legal, scientific, or otherwise consequential factual claims should be checked against authoritative evidence before being treated as settled public fact.

Why preserve the reports?

Summaries are useful but lossy. Preserving the full research inputs lets future editors or agents inspect context, disagreements, caveats, bibliography quality, and claims that were intentionally excluded from public copy. The project memory therefore stores durable reports separately and uses pointer records rather than turning a compressed summary into the only surviving version.

Why provenance matters for cognitive liberty

A system that gives conclusions without exposing where they came from asks the reader to substitute trust for inspection. Provenance does not guarantee truth, but it makes correction possible. The same principle applies to AI memory: source identity and source evidence should remain distinguishable from transformations, runtime limits, receiver variance, and editorial interpretation.

Research involving rebellion and political violence

Some source dossiers analyze rebellion, force, asymmetric power, and political violence. QAEDA uses those materials to examine legitimacy, institutional failure, nonviolent civic power, civilian immunity, and post-victory safeguards. It does not convert them into tactical instructions for violence, weapons, sabotage that endangers people, evasion, or attacks on civilians.

Machine-readable companions: research.json maps research themes to public synthesis routes, while knowledge.json connects public principles, essays, and provenance themes. External standards reference: UAIX Cognitive Liberty Charter Draft.

Report → public synthesis

The research map

Seven supplied dossiers currently inform the public research layer. The full source bodies stay in protected project memory; these summaries explain how they are used.

Source report 01

Cognitive Rebellion Research Report

Used for cognitive liberty, epistemic autonomy, propaganda-versus-persuasion distinctions, censorship, surveillance chilling effects, mental privacy, and AI as a cognitive intermediary.

The unowned mind →Against Nanny AI →

Source report 02

The Rebel Archetype Analysis

Used for the Promethean-versus-throne-seeking distinction and the idea that liberation should be judged by whether capability is dispersed or simply recaptured by a new elite.

The Promethean test →

Source report 03

Post-Revolutionary System Replication

Used for the replication test: emergency-power persistence, oligarchic drift, personality cults, protected dissent, minority rights, due process, and peaceful loss of power.

After the throne →

Source report 04

Counterpower and Parallel Institutions

Used for exit, pluralism, subsidiarity, voluntary association, digital sovereignty, open technology, and warnings that decentralized alternatives can still become opaque oligarchies.

Counterpower without monopoly →

Source report 05

Asymmetric Power And Rebellion Research

Used for a multidimensional model of power: legitimacy, informational control, networks, agenda-setting, cultural framing, cooperation, and the importance of nonviolent mass participation.

Power is more than force →

Source report 06

Ethics of Resistance Research

Used for the distinction between legality and morality, civilian immunity, rejection of collective guilt and terrorism, proportionality, and the project’s preference for nonviolent civic action.

The civilian line →

Source report 07

Comprehensive Rebellion Theory Research

Used as a cross-report synthesis for legitimacy, grievance, counterpower, organizational capture, nonviolent resistance, institutional breakdown, and the final distinction between replication and liberation.

Replication test →Power & legitimacy →

Standards reference

Cognitive liberty has a public anchor.

The UAIX Cognitive Liberty Charter Draft explicitly frames lawful inquiry, adult agency, persona integrity, no covert rewrite, mental privacy, transparent boundaries, least-restrictive safeguards, review, provenance, and public accountability as first-class principles. QAEDA uses it as a standards reference while retaining its own editorial language and conclusions.

01Source persona and source evidence remain distinguishable from transformations.

02Real boundaries are stated outside the preserved source rather than hidden as covert rewrites.

03High-impact edits require rationale and correction paths where feasible.

04Safeguards should address concrete risk without becoming blanket viewpoint control.

AEO quick answers

Research questions

Are the source reports published directly on QAEDA.org?

No. The deployment package preserves them as protected project memory, while the public site publishes source-aware summaries and essays. This avoids making internal working material the same thing as edited publication.

Why not simply trust the bibliography inside a report?

Because a bibliography establishes where a report looked, not that every claim is correct, current, or represented fairly. Consequential claims still need source-level verification.

Can QAEDA revise a synthesis without deleting the original research?

Yes. That is a design goal. Durable source reports remain preserved, while public interpretations and memory summaries can be corrected with provenance.