What would show that ArtiProof works — and what would count against it?
ArtiProof is research-ready: it can be tested, contradicted and improved through a documented research programme. That is a readiness statement, not a research result. ArtiProof does not yet claim broad independent validation. Independent replication remains pending.
Test proportionality in bounded pilots: record gross additional effort, time spent clarifying or creating evidence, evidence reused and any decision-relevant findings beyond a competent comparator. Report observed and estimated benefits separately, with their assumptions. Assess whether the additional effort is justified by the decision value in that context. Preserve null, negative and contradictory results.
Evidence for one question does not answer the next.
Method validity
Are the concepts and assessment rules coherent enough to support the intended fitness-for-reliance judgement?
Implementation usability
Can organisations and assessors apply the method without disproportionate burden or continuing help from its designer?
Sustained integration
Does the practice remain part of real organisational work, rather than disappearing after a pilot or assessment?
Observable knowledge-assurance effect
Does using the method improve an organisation’s ability to identify, understand, trust, preserve or recover consequential knowledge?
A positive result at one level does not establish the next.
A deliberately narrower challenge
The v0.8 Empirical Challenge, whose authoritative stage status is maintained on the Status page, asks:
The design uses unseen public-administration cases and isolated comparison arms. The research record should show whether a strong comparator already identifies the same issue; whether ArtiProof identifies a recurring residual issue; whether that issue changes a responsible decision; whether the method creates false positives or disproportionate burden; and whether conclusions depend on interpretation by the method designer.
No positive result is claimed here.
What would count against the method?
- Competent existing governance already identifies all material issues.
- Residual issues do not change responsible judgement.
- False positives or burden outweigh the value found.
- Conclusions require intervention by the method designer.
- English and Dutch versions produce materially different evidentiary thresholds.
- Independent assessors cannot reproduce the material reasoning from the same evidence, scope, consequence framing and shared guidance.
Negative findings remain evidence. They should be recorded rather than edited away.
What remains pending?
Even a positive v0.8 result would not establish independent replication, broad independent validation across organisations and contexts, reproducibility across independent assessors, sustained integration into operational work, or observable improvement in organisational outcomes.
This research programme also does not create certification, accreditation, conformity, legal-compliance, regulatory-approval or third-party-assurance claims.
The status page states the current research stage, evidence boundaries and conditions for moving to the next stage.
ArtiProof is ready for research, but has not yet been broadly validated by independent researchers. The first independent replication is still pending. More about the research.