Conceptual development
New, bounded concepts or distinctions that clarify a testable question.
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR REGISTRY · P20A
Credit work that changed what the commons can do.
This public registry recognizes reviewed, evidence-linked contributions without turning recognition into popularity, scientific authority, or a credential. It is presently empty: no person is listed until the contribution and consent gates pass.
PUBLIC ENTRIES0
No contributor names have been fabricated or inferred.
STATUSREADY
Maintainer-curated recognition is available after all gates pass.
AUTOMATIC RANKINGOFF
Votes, traffic, seniority, and agreement do not establish significance.
CATEGORIES
Recognize different forms of consequential work.
A contribution may appear in more than one category, but each classification must be supported by the same evidence record.
Mathematical & formal work
Derivations, mappings, proofs, counterexamples, or formal corrections.
Experiment & replication
Protocols, controls, independent repetitions, nulls, and failure analysis.
Data & evidence curation
Traceable datasets, provenance, bibliography, conflicts, and recovery records.
Software & visualization
Validated tools, simulations, interfaces, accessibility, and reproducible exports.
Education & communication
Accurate learning pathways, explanations, and supervised public resources.
Governance, safety & maintenance
Privacy, safeguarding, review, appeals, continuity, and repair work.
SIGNIFICANCE GATE
A name follows evidence—not enthusiasm.
A reviewer records why the work is significant within its stated scope. Agreement with Substrate Cosmology is neither necessary nor sufficient.
- 01
A stable contribution identifier, version, date, and public evidence record
- 02
A category, bounded scope, significance rationale, and known limitations
- 03
Review appropriate to the claim, including conflicts, dissent, or null findings
- 04
Every named contributor’s explicit opt-in approval for the displayed name and citation
- 05
A contribution-order statement approved by the group before publication
- 06
A dated search for five current, relevant grant opportunities from official funder notices
- 07
A correction, appeal, name-change, and withdrawal path that preserves the historical record
GRANT MATCH · AT RECOGNITION
Search for five opportunities while the contribution is current.
After a contribution passes recognition review, its category, scope, maturity, evidence, applicant type, geography, and likely next work become the search profile.
Open grant-planning resources →Search official notices
Look for five currently published opportunities on authoritative funder sources. Record the search date, funder, official notice, deadline, and publication status.
Explain the match
For each result, state how the contribution relates, who may apply, required institutional or nonprofit participation, maturity expectations, and important exclusions.
Recheck before applying
Funding notices, deadlines, and eligibility can change. Every result is a dated lead—not an eligibility decision—and must be verified again on the official notice before application.
Never pad the list
If five credible current matches cannot be found, publish the verified results and a documented shortfall. Do not substitute expired, unrelated, or unofficial opportunities merely to reach five.
NAME ORDER
Order communicates contribution only when the record explains it.
Descending contribution
By default, the first name represents the largest documented contribution, followed by decreasing portions. The record must say what each person did. It must not imply exact percentages unless all named contributors approve those percentages.
Equal contribution
If two or more people contributed equally, mark them “equal contribution” and state how their order was chosen—for example, alphabetical or jointly agreed. Do not manufacture small differences merely to force an order.
AI-ASSISTED WORK
Credit assistance without confusing it with authorship or verification.
James Dunn is credited for originating Substrate Cosmology concepts, questions, and program direction. Where documented, OpenAI ChatGPT is credited by its actual role—such as contextual synthesis, drafting, cross-reference organization, software implementation, or editorial coordination. The authors of cited sources retain authorship of those works.
Read the machine-readable attribution policy →State the role
Identify the system, provider, documented tasks, human direction, review date, and limitations. Do not use a vague co-author label that hides what the AI did.
Preserve responsibility
AI participation does not establish source authorship, independent verification, scientific authority, copyright ownership in a cited work, or personhood. Named humans remain responsible for selection, acceptance, claims, publication, correction, and withdrawal.
CV-READY EXAMPLES
Cite the contribution as a durable public record.
The names and identifiers below are fictional examples. Contributors should adapt the punctuation to the citation style required by their institution or funder and include an AI contribution statement when documented assistance applies.
Rivera, A. (2026). “Boundary-preserving scalar relation for detector-frame comparison” [Significant contribution: Mathematical & formal work]. Substrate Cosmology Significant Contributor Registry, SC-C-0001, version 1.2. {Public site URL}/contributors#SC-C-0001CV annotation: Developed the relation, documented assumptions and counterexamples, and responded to formal review. Registry status: reviewed and active.
AI contribution statement, when applicable: OpenAI ChatGPT (OpenAI) contributed contextual synthesis, drafting, and software implementation under James Dunn’s direction; it is not identified as author of the underlying sources or as an independent verifier.
Rivera, A., Chen, B., Okafor, C., & Silva, D. (2026). “Cross-instrument recurrence replication protocol” [Group significant contribution: Experiment & replication; authors ordered by documented contribution]. Substrate Cosmology Significant Contributor Registry, SC-C-0002, version 1.0. {Public site URL}/contributors#SC-C-0002Contribution statement: Rivera—conception and method (40%); Chen—formal analysis (30%); Okafor—replication design (20%); Silva—data validation and documentation (10%). Percentages are illustrative and should be published only with unanimous contributor approval.
AI contribution statement, when applicable: List documented assistance after the human contribution statement, with the system, provider, specific roles, human direction, and limits. AI credit does not change the approved human name order.
GRANT-EVIDENCE BOUNDARY
Evidence of a contribution is not certification.
A registry entry can help a reviewer verify what a person contributed, when, with whom, under what review, and with what limitations. It does not certify a degree, professional license, grant eligibility, employment, broad mastery, or the truth of Substrate Cosmology. Applicants should include the underlying record and describe its relevance accurately.