What this publication contains

Updated 4 November 2026. This page describes the recorded run and keeps its checks apart from the work proposed next.

The study's frame contains 705 communities. Community coding produces codes, second-order themes and case accounts. The aggregator compares this material, builds an account of organizing and returns the model to the community coders. The census decisions are recorded with the data, and downloading the data does not repeat them.

The run is finished. Its final publication, f27566528a51, records all 18 stages closed, ending at E2b on 28 October 2026. Earlier checkpoints keep their own source commits and saved-state dates. A finished run shows that every stage closed; whether its explanation is correct is the question the checks below address.

Read a result

Follow r/PlaceNL from coding to the population model, or explore the population model, its organizational forms and all community profiles.

Start with the final D6 account and figure. Then read the E1 audit and experience, followed by E2's handling review and proposed next instrument. Together they set the explanation beside its limits and the proposed repairs.

The D4 tree and the final D5 form accounts show how the forms were developed. D5b and D6b stay available as earlier records; later work changed their stages. The C5 account is a historical version, and D6 holds the final account.

For one community, compare r/PlaceNL at the coding close with its local model at R6. The pages show the saved text with participant IDs substituted, and they compare the original file hashes with the recorded parent. The known limits of the historical close apply to them.

Trace one quoted item from the R6 account to its code and archived thread. This follows one evidence path through the model.

How the model is checked

An account can read well and still misread the record. The paper groups its checks at three levels.

Coding: does the account fit its evidence?

Scripts check cited quotations against source items. A resolved quotation shows that the text exists; whether the reading of it is sound is a separate question. The paper also reports paired coding of 298 communities with two models. This site does not yet present a scored comparison of those codings, and the count is no estimate of reliability.

Composition: do claims hold across cases?

Human audits can test selected inferences across cases. The run also kept critical readings, returned its model to the community coders, and checked how well local accounts could be reconstructed. r/PlaceNL's return shows a revision and its limits; E1 explains the reconstruction check.

Two further population models are planned for comparison: induction supported by an algorithm from term frequencies, with no coding agent, and a separate aggregator that works from tables across cases. Both are future work.

Source: what does another view reveal?

The central r/place subreddit falls outside the frame of 705 communities. At C4, the Field agent's interim reading of it prompted tentative additions and qualifications to the community-based model. Finishing that analysis and comparing it with the population model remain future work.

Inspect one recorded review and correction for a narrower audit with file versions and explicit limits. Agents and their roles explains who did each part and where human judgment came in.

What is shared

Saved reading pages cover 35 aggregator checkpoints and 28 community checkpoints, two for each of 14 selected communities. Launch commands opens 18 of the aggregator checkpoints, one at the close of each stage, and 24 community checkpoints from 12 communities: the coding close and the local model (R6) of each. Other entries offer a record only.

Read saved outputs without starting an agent. Interview a checkpoint to ask new questions about it. GitHub downloads are public; hosted interviews for reviewers are not enabled. Run the study explains the separate routes to reproduce the study and their prerequisites.