created 24 August 2026 · last modified 24 August 2026
the program in stages
Roadmap.
Eleven stages from program architecture to general theory synthesis. Each stage carries a status, a one-line claim, the reason it sits where it does in the queue, and the gate that closes it. The program works the path top-to-bottom; modules outside the path do not advance.
the rule
Each module must become independently legible, independently testable, and independently publishable before it is used to support the larger theory.
S0
Program ArchitectureIn development
The program presents itself before it asks to be evaluated, so scope, sequence, and falsification conditions are visible from the first click.
Why it comes here
Nothing else in the program can be read accurately until the structure surrounding it is legible. The architecture is the precondition for honest review.
Gate
A complete public surface — Program page, Roadmap, Papers, Methods, Risks, and Falsification — each navigable and aligned on the same module taxonomy.
S1
Paper 1: Ostrom-PercolationDrafted
Ostrom's eight design principles can be read as maintenance functions on a trust network whose connectivity follows a percolation threshold.
Why it comes here
This is the paper that anchors the program. Until it is submitted, every later module is speculative attachment to an unsubmitted core.
Gate
Manuscript v1.0, supplement, code and data DOI, and cover letter complete. Primary venue: a commons-governance journal. Fallback: a complex-systems journal.
Submission window: 2026→ see P1 on Papers
S2
Public Research SiteIn development
A research program that intends to be testable should be readable in public before it asks the public to test it.
Why it comes here
The site exists to host the work, not to precede it. It launches the moment Paper 1 is submission-ready, and not before.
Gate
Site live with Program, Roadmap, Papers, Methods, Risks, and Falsification. Limitations and falsifiers surfaced, not buried.
S3
Reconciliation Dynamics (Paper 2)Scaffolded
Betrayal and repair can be modeled as coupled dynamics — a betrayal accumulator with decay, a recovery term, and identifiable bifurcation thresholds.
Why it comes here
Reconciliation is the narrowest extractable mechanism inside the larger trust equation. Publishing it alone tests whether the math survives outside its parent theory.
Gate
Mathematical paper with phase portraits, bifurcation analysis, and a minimal simulation, submitted to a complex-systems or applied-math venue.
S4
Trust Force Equation (Paper 3)Drafted
A relational trust score from operational variables — capacity, presence, reciprocity, betrayal, decay — comparable head-to-head against existing computational trust models.
Why it comes here
The equation cannot be the program's flagship until its variables are coded by people other than the author. Operational definitions are the precondition for the theory paper to count as theory.
Gate
Coding manual complete, two or more external coders trained, inter-rater reliability calculated and reported, score benchmarked against Marsh, Jøsang, and FIRE on shared cases.
S5
Presence and AttestationIn development
Presence decomposes into proximity and attention, amplified by creation and witness — and this decomposition is what separates attestation from surveillance.
Why it comes here
Presence is the variable inside the trust equation that does the most work and is the least defined. It earns a short paper before it earns a chapter.
Gate
A short theory paper or essay defining the four-term decomposition, the surveillance-versus-attestation distinction, and three test cases drawn from existing institutions.
S6
Temporal Edge Persistence (DP9 Empirical)Hypothesis
Periodic renewal of relational ties predicts edge persistence above a measurable threshold, in at least one bounded empirical domain.
Why it comes here
DP9 is the program's first claim that can be falsified with field data. It cannot be promoted past hypothesis until one domain is studied end to end.
Gate
A single domain selected — acequia, open source, Wikipedia, small-scale fisheries, or mutual aid — with a pre-registered hypothesis, dataset, analysis plan, and result reported regardless of direction.
S7
Governance DiagnosticsConceptual
The framework can be reduced to a practitioner audit — a checklist that lets a working institution locate its own failure modes against the design principles.
Why it comes here
Diagnostics belong after the underlying theory has been peer-reviewed at least once. A premature audit tool would carry more authority than the science behind it.
Gate
A field-tested audit instrument with one institutional partner who has used it and reported back, in writing, on what it caught and what it missed.
S8
AI Institutional AlignmentConceptual
Alignment of AI systems is an institutional problem before it is a technical one, and the design-principle frame names what current alignment proposals are missing.
Why it comes here
This module is held back on purpose. Publishing it before Paper 1 would let the program be read as AI commentary rather than as institutional theory.
Gate
Position paper drafted only after Paper 1 is in review, and only after at least one of the empirical or operational modules has cleared its own gate.
S9
Three-Force ScalingDrafted
Trust, information, and physical constraint behave as three coupled forces, and institutional resilience is the rate at which a system cycles between them.
Why it comes here
Synthesis is allowed only after the components hold up alone. This module sits behind Stages 3, 4, and 6 in the queue by design.
Gate
A theory paper or long-form essay that integrates the three forces only with reference to modules that have already been independently published or submitted.
S10
General Theory SynthesisNot ready
A monograph that integrates the modules into a single account of relational trust infrastructure, written only after each module has stood on its own.
Why it comes here
The synthesis is last, not first. Treating it as the destination is the discipline that keeps every preceding module honest.
Gate
Each prior module independently legible, independently testable, and independently published or accepted. Until then, the general theory remains a program-level frame, not a claim.
the critical path
01
Paper 1 submission
02
Public site launch
03
Reconciliation Dynamics
04
Trust Force operationalization
05
DP9 empirical study
06
General synthesis
The tempting and wrong path runs the other way: general-theory website first, sweeping claim second, flagship paper third, evidence last. That path creates maximum exposure before the theory has earned enough protection.
How to cite
APA 7th ed.
Perkins, C. (2026, May 6). Roadmap. Kinetic Trust Protocol. https://kinetic-trust-protocol.net/research/roadmap
Plain text
Chris Perkins, "Roadmap," Kinetic Trust Protocol, https://kinetic-trust-protocol.net/research/roadmap (accessed May 6, 2026).