Research Notebook Entry #005: Establishing the Research Purity Law: Preventing Overclaiming, Feature Creep, and Theory Drift

Research Status

Active Research Framework Under Development

Evidence Level: Concept Development / Research Governance

Research Question

How can this research framework remain scientifically disciplined while it is still in development?

Purpose of This Entry

This entry documents the governance rules being adopted for the Accessible Human Capacity Study before further measurement development, app planning, or public-facing study materials are created.

The purpose is to protect the project from:

• overclaiming
• premature novelty claims
• unsupported conclusions
• feature creep
• theory drift
• turning a research instrument into a wellness product

Background

During early development, the project generated several working concepts, including:

• Capacity Accessibility
• Human Distance
• Human Gravity
• Human Expansion
• an 8-week app-based research instrument

These concepts helped define the initial research direction.

However, continued concept generation without evidence could weaken the project. A credible research program must be able to pause, test assumptions, compare against existing literature, and revise or remove ideas when evidence does not support them.

For that reason, the project is adopting a formal research discipline standard before moving further.

The Research Purity Law

Every screen, question, feature, construct, and public statement must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

1. Does this improve the scientific quality of the study?

Examples include:

• clearer measurement
• stronger validity
• better reliability
• improved standardization
• reduced bias
• stronger reproducibility
• better data quality

2. Does this improve the participant’s ability to provide accurate, honest, and complete data?

Examples include:

• clearer wording
• lower participant burden
• reduced confusion
• improved accessibility
• better completion rates
• less fatigue
• easier daily participation

If the answer to both questions is no, the feature, screen, statement, or construct does not belong in the study.

Automatic Rejection Rule

The research app will not include features unless they directly support scientific quality or accurate data collection.

At this stage, the project rejects:

• streaks
• badges
• points
• levels
• avatars
• decorative worlds
• gamified rewards
• motivational claims
• unsupported wellness promises
• unnecessary educational modules
• emotional storytelling that alters participant expectations

These features may be appropriate in some consumer apps, but they do not currently belong in this research instrument.

No Therapeutic Claims

The study app and website materials must not claim that the framework:

• treats depression
• treats anxiety
• treats OCD
• treats ADHD
• reduces symptoms
• heals trauma
• replaces therapy
• replaces medication
• provides diagnosis
• provides clinical guidance

At this stage, the project may only say that it is investigating whether perceived access to human capacity can be measured and studied.

Construct Discipline

Only four experimental constructs are currently permitted in the framework:

• 1. Capacity Accessibility
• 2. Human Distance
• 3. Human Gravity
• 4. Human Expansion

No additional constructs should be introduced unless evidence from literature review, expert critique, or participant data justifies them.

This rule exists to prevent theory expansion from replacing scientific testing.

Current Investigation

The current investigation is not whether the framework sounds compelling.

The investigation is whether the framework can survive comparison with existing science.

The project must determine whether Capacity Accessibility and Human Distance are:

• distinct constructs
• partial refinements of existing constructs
• combinations of existing constructs
• unnecessary because current measures already capture the same ideas

Evidence Reviewed

No formal external evidence is reviewed in this entry.

This entry records a governance decision for the research process before further literature mapping and measurement development.

Observations

Several observations guide this governance decision:

• 1. Research ideas can become weaker when they expand faster than evidence supports.
• 2. Public-facing language can accidentally imply validation before validation exists.
• 3. App features can influence participant expectations and reduce data clarity.
• 4. Measurement tools must be protected from decorative or motivational elements that may bias responses.
• 5. Transparent limits strengthen credibility.

Working Interpretation

The current working interpretation is that the Accessible Human Capacity Study will be stronger if it remains narrow, testable, and transparent.

The project does not need more concepts at this stage.

It needs:

• literature mapping
• construct comparison
• expert review
• careful measurement development
• eventual feasibility testing

Competing Explanations

Explanation 1

Strict governance will improve the credibility and reproducibility of the research program.

Explanation 2

Strict governance may make the public-facing project feel less exciting, but more scientifically trustworthy.

Explanation 3

Some rejected features may later become useful in a separate consumer product, but not in the research instrument.

Explanation 4

If future evidence supports the need for additional features or constructs, they may be considered through a documented revision process.

Decision Log

Since Entry #004:

• The project has adopted the Research Purity Law.
• App features must now serve scientific quality or accurate participant data.
• The framework is limited to four experimental constructs.
• The project will not claim therapeutic benefit, clinical validation, or novelty.
• Future changes must be documented in later notebook entries rather than quietly rewriting earlier entries.

Remaining Questions

Several questions remain unresolved:

• Which existing constructs most closely overlap with Capacity Accessibility?
• Should Human Distance remain a standalone construct or become part of Capacity Accessibility?
• Can the proposed constructs be measured without duplicating existing tools?
• What level of app simplicity produces the best participant compliance?
• What expert review process should be used before pilot testing?
• What language is safest and clearest for public study pages?

Next Research Step

Continue the literature mapping phase, beginning with psychological flexibility.

This construct will be reviewed for:

• formal definition
• measurement tools
• evidence base
• relationship to distress and functioning
• overlap with Capacity Accessibility
• overlap with Human Distance
• implications for revising or preserving the current framework