Where does the ArtiProof method stand?
Here you can find what has been developed, what evidence is available and what still needs to be investigated.
The available research is limited and has largely been led by the method’s designer. We do not yet know whether the benefits justify the extra work in practice. Reusing existing evidence is intended to save effort; whether it does so needs testing. Findings from a particular study currently apply only to its conditions.
A review may confirm reliance, set conditions, reveal a weakness or find insufficient evidence. Whether the method adds anything to existing practice is a separate research question.
ArtiProof is ready for research, but has not yet been broadly validated by independent researchers. The first independent replication is still pending.
v0.8 - Empirical Challenge
This research stage was designated on 31 August 2026. The design calls for a method fixed in advance and separate comparison arms using competent existing practice on new cases. The protocol should exclude designer intervention and retrospective changes to measurement rules, and report outcomes separately. This describes the study design; it does not report that independent groups have already carried out the study.
What is being tested?
Does ArtiProof find relevant problems that a good existing approach misses? Does it sometimes flag problems that are not there? How much extra work does it require?
What would count against it?
If an existing approach already finds the same problems, the extra findings do not affect decisions, results still need the designer’s interpretation or the work costs more than it contributes.
What allows movement to v0.9?
The method must repeatedly identify a relevant problem that a good existing approach misses. The finding must affect the judgement, justify the effort and be usable without interpretation by the designer.
| Dimension | Current public status | Not claimed |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual architecture | Defined and frozen for the v0.8 challenge | Not an exhaustive ontology or universal governance system. |
| Independent usability | Sufficient to enter v0.8; broader evidence still developing | No claim of broad implementation maturity. |
| Incremental value | Active falsification target | No assumption that ArtiProof adds value beyond competent existing governance. |
| Assessor reproducibility | Open empirical question | Not established across independent assessors and contexts. |
| Observable outcomes | Not established | No proven causal improvement in organisational outcomes. |
| Certification / accreditation | Not available | No certification, accreditation, conformity or legal-compliance claim. |
| Proportionality and additional burden | Open empirical question | No established low-burden or cost-effectiveness claim across contexts. |
Negative findings matter too.
v0.8 is a research phase. If ArtiProof duplicates work, takes too much effort or still requires help from its designer, we record that. Those findings matter just as much for its development.