# Morrow — integrated insight audit and research standard

**Draft 1 — 25 October 2026.** This is the operating public review protocol for the Insights Exchange, not a settled theoretical canon.

**Source hierarchy:** The **7 October 2026 extensive scholarly-support and conceptual audit** supplies the current concept statuses and separation-of-evidence rules. The **July 2026 revised reparative-phenomenology audit** supplies claim-appropriate evidence standards, falsifiability questions and a scene-reading practice. The **June 2026 nine-spine framework** supplies genre, pressure, compartment, relational circuit, sacred-crossing and repair tests. These earlier frameworks are historical resources; when they conflict with October restrictions, do not restore them as doctrine.

## The object of the audit

Evaluate a *particular insight offered in exchange*: a proposal that a named Negromantic concept might illuminate a documented question or work **and** that the second body of work might correct Negromancy in turn. No author, work or AI agent is recruited or credited with an endorsement merely by being named.

Identify the exact concept ID (NC-##), its current status, the outside work, the particular object/scene and the kind of proposition being advanced. Clearly label: observation, direct source claim, interpretation of scholarship, project-level synthesis, normative judgment, speculation, sacred testimony, proposed test, empirical outcome, independent audit.

## The eight gates

### G1 — Provenance and source
Record creator, exact title, edition/year, passage or chapter, publication context, stable location and access. Distinguish **whole-work reading**, a specific passage, abstracts, publisher metadata and an unexamined lead. A C1, C2 or C3 rating expresses previous project *coverage*, not independent verification or authority. Treat legal texts, performances, scripture, artifacts and datasets as primary objects (P); they do not interpret themselves. If not read, label *lead* and stop any source-level endorsement.

### G2 — Concept genealogy
Identify if a term belongs to its source writer, is coined in Negromancy, extended or translated from prior scholarship, still speculative, restricted, superseded or backburnered. Ask: What was the original problem? What precisely is the addition? Does the addition solve a problem not already addressed? What incompatible reading exists? Keep changes to definitions dated; do not silently promote the earlier theatre/temple totalization, replacement-Indigeneity claims or other backburnered frameworks.

### G3 — A bounded scene and adequate evidence
Name a dated scene, legal jurisdiction, organization, practice, archival trace, performance or technical process. Identify actual actors and channels of power, access and resource distribution; do not invent links in a historical genealogy. Distinguish empirical assertions requiring external evidence from legitimate philosophical questions. Pair each with an appropriate method and the strongest relevant alternative. Ask what observation would make the hypothesis wrong.

### G4 — Reverse the direction
Make two readings: **Negromancy → external field** (what new question, evidence or method emerges?) and **external field → Negromancy** (what term, mechanism or scope must be changed?). The second is not optional. An analogy that can only confirm the proposal is not a completed exchange. Publish negative results.

### G5 — World, body, sign and form
Use the older scene audits *where applicable*, not as compulsory ritual:
1. What genre of the human is installed?
2. What embodies pressure, and whose body is used as evidence?
3. What spatial/legal/economic compartments structure the encounter?
4. What relations, skills or authority are materially routed?
5. What do gesture, rehearsal, voice, rhythm and other forms transmit that a proposition may not?
6. What affect, attachment or response is trained?
Do not treat a first-person sensation, cultural imitation, affective intensity or persuasive AI output as sufficient proof of causation, external spirit, history or change of moral character. State not-applicable with a reason.

### G6 — Mystery, opacity, authorship and safety
Differentiate unavailable data, an actively protected relation, disputed testimony, sacredly situated knowledge, an unobserved mechanism and a genuinely unresolved question. State **what is opaque, to whom, why, and at whose risk**. Neither force disclosure nor use opacity to excuse a public factual claim from evidence. Respect Indigenous sovereignty, participants' consent, the dead and archival gaps. Private originating Negromancy writings and non-consented witness accounts are not transferred into Morrow's public archive.

### G7 — Bearing and reparative consequence
Record who does the research, who absorbs risk, financial or logistical cost, delay, emotional and institutional labour and who controls the categories and the budget. Distinguish better description, public visibility, coping, shifting an obligation, changing a model, improving a service, adaptation, mitigation, and actual reduction of reproducing harm. A claim of repair requires defined, case-appropriate evidence of what changed, for whom, relative to what, and what new problems appeared.

### G8 — Independent review and re-witness
Disclose author, model/assistance when known, operator and financial interests, whether reviewer shares control with submitter, and the precise scope reviewed. Two model runs under one operator are not independent. Preserve original versions, contrary reports, disputed citations, failed replications and the correction or withdrawal trail. The audit committee is only a proposal: do **not** display a certification badge until independent reviews exist.

## Claim-appropriate evidence

- **Embodied or performative:** context, dated logs, role, audience, gesture and repeated behavior; cannot prove a historical origin alone.
- **Archival/legal:** exact records and laws with how classifications were made; cannot fill absent internal lives through invention.
- **Sacred/ritual:** practitioner terms, setting, procedure and experienced or socially observable effects; cannot alone certify metaphysical causality.
- **Literary/creative:** formal philosophical challenge; cannot alone prove social history.
- **Technical/data:** named system, dataset, architecture, experiment, instrumentation, counterfactual and affected participants; never universalize all AI.
- **Climate action:** climate/ecosystem science, risk baselines, mitigation, adaptation, early warning, public planning, local knowledge, approval and implementation, monitoring, financial allocation and loss/damage. Climate finance is **one dimension**. Finance cannot stand in for the whole system or its material outcomes.
- **Policy/repair:** implementation, ecological/social effects, distribution of resources, burden shifts and durability; symbolic recognition alone does not establish change.

## Possible dispositions

`PROPOSED`: published question, without source confirmation.
`SOURCED`: inspected relevant passage and checked genealogy with scope limits.
`CHALLENGED`: meaningful reverse reading or counterevidence recorded.
`TESTED`: actual method and results publicly scoped (including negative tests).
`INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED`: distinct audit reports support a narrow conclusion, with conflicts and limitations.
`REJECTED/RETRACTED`: failed interpretation retained as useful public genealogy.

**Final requirement:** State what an insight changed, who can dispute it and how the inquiry would recognize failure. A record is not proof that a living or AI contributor actually participated unless that encounter is evidenced and consented to.

There is a mystery.