psyclaw 0.27.22 → 0.28.0

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/references/interdisciplinary_bridges.md

@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+# Interdisciplinary Bridges — Cross-Discipline Connection Patterns
+
+## Purpose
+Reference for identifying connections across academic disciplines. Used by the synthesis_agent and research_architect_agent to enrich analysis with cross-disciplinary perspectives.
+
+## Why Interdisciplinary Bridges Matter
+
+Most real-world problems don't respect disciplinary boundaries. A research team that stays within one discipline risks:
+- Missing relevant evidence from adjacent fields
+- Reinventing concepts already developed elsewhere
+- Producing narrow recommendations that ignore systemic effects
+- Overlooking methodological innovations from other traditions
+
+## Common Bridge Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Shared Concept, Different Names
+The same concept exists in multiple fields under different names.
+
+| Concept | Field A | Field B | Field C |
+|---------|---------|---------|---------|
+| Feedback loops | Systems Theory: feedback | Education: formative assessment | Economics: market correction |
+| Path dependency | History: historical institutionalism | Economics: increasing returns | Technology: lock-in effect |
+| Social capital | Sociology: Bourdieu/Putnam | Management: organizational networks | Education: community engagement |
+| Resilience | Psychology: coping capacity | Ecology: ecosystem recovery | Engineering: structural redundancy |
+| Quality assurance | Manufacturing: TQM/ISO | Education: accreditation | Software: testing/CI-CD |
+| Stakeholder theory | Management: Freeman | Public policy: participatory governance | Education: community engagement |
+| Knowledge transfer | Education: learning transfer | Management: knowledge management | Technology: technology transfer |
+
+### Pattern 2: Shared Method, Different Applications
+The same method is used across fields for different purposes.
+
+| Method | Application A | Application B | Application C |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
+| Network analysis | Social networks (Sociology) | Citation networks (Bibliometrics) | Neural networks (Neuroscience) |
+| Thematic analysis | Qualitative research (Social Science) | Literary criticism (Humanities) | Market research (Business) |
+| Regression analysis | Epidemiology (Health) | Econometrics (Economics) | Psychometrics (Psychology) |
+| Case study | Law (precedent) | Business (HBS method) | Education (institutional research) |
+| Simulation/modeling | Climate science | Economics (agent-based) | Epidemiology (SIR models) |
+| Cost-benefit analysis | Public policy | Healthcare (QALY) | Environmental impact |
+
+### Pattern 3: Complementary Perspectives
+Different disciplines offer different lenses on the same phenomenon.
+
+**Example: Higher Education Quality**
+| Discipline | Lens | Key Questions |
+|-----------|------|--------------|
+| Education | Pedagogy & learning outcomes | Are students learning? |
+| Economics | Human capital & ROI | Is the investment worthwhile? |
+| Sociology | Access, equity & social mobility | Who benefits? Who is excluded? |
+| Management | Organizational effectiveness | Is the institution well-run? |
+| Public Policy | Accountability & public interest | Is the public well-served? |
+| Psychology | Student development & well-being | Are students thriving? |
+| Technology | Digital transformation | How does technology reshape learning? |
+| Philosophy | Epistemology & purpose of education | What is education for? |
+
+### Pattern 4: Theory Migration
+Theories developed in one field are adapted and applied in another.
+
+| Theory | Origin | Migration |
+|--------|--------|-----------|
+| Disruptive Innovation (Christensen) | Business → Education, Healthcare |
+| Actor-Network Theory (Latour) | Sociology of Science → Information Systems, Education |
+| Ecological Systems (Bronfenbrenner) | Developmental Psychology → Education, Social Work |
+| Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers) | Communication → Health, Technology, Education |
+| Institutional Theory (DiMaggio/Powell) | Sociology → Management, Education Policy |
+| Complex Adaptive Systems | Biology → Management, Healthcare, Education |
+| Game Theory | Mathematics → Economics, Political Science, Biology |
+| Nudge Theory (Thaler/Sunstein) | Behavioral Economics → Public Policy, Health, Education |
+
+## How to Use Interdisciplinary Bridges
+
+### For the Research Architect
+1. When designing methodology, check if adjacent fields have established methods for similar questions
+2. Consider mixed-paradigm approaches when no single discipline adequately addresses the RQ
+3. Look for theoretical frameworks from other fields that might illuminate the phenomenon
+
+### For the Synthesis Agent
+1. When synthesizing evidence, check for relevant studies in adjacent fields
+2. Use shared concepts to connect findings across disciplinary silos
+3. Identify where different disciplines' findings converge or diverge
+4. Note when a knowledge gap in one field has been addressed in another
+
+### For Expanding Search
+When a bibliography search feels narrow, try:
+1. Identify the core concept
+2. Check the "Shared Concept" table for alternative terms
+3. Search adjacent disciplines using their vocabulary
+4. Look for review papers in bridging fields (e.g., "educational economics," "health policy," "science of learning")
+
+## Discipline Map for Common Research Topics
+
+### Education
+- Core: Curriculum, Pedagogy, Assessment, Educational Psychology
+- Adjacent: Sociology (equity), Economics (human capital), Policy (governance), Technology (ed-tech), Psychology (development)
+
+### Health
+- Core: Medicine, Public Health, Epidemiology, Nursing
+- Adjacent: Economics (health economics), Policy (health policy), Psychology (behavioral health), Technology (digital health), Ethics (bioethics)
+
+### Technology
+- Core: Computer Science, Information Systems, Engineering
+- Adjacent: Sociology (digital divide), Psychology (HCI), Business (innovation), Ethics (AI ethics), Policy (tech regulation)
+
+### Governance & Policy
+- Core: Political Science, Public Administration, Law
+- Adjacent: Economics (public finance), Sociology (institutional analysis), Management (organizational theory), Ethics (political philosophy)
+
+### Sustainability
+- Core: Environmental Science, Ecology, Climate Science
+- Adjacent: Economics (environmental economics), Policy (climate policy), Engineering (clean tech), Ethics (environmental ethics), Business (CSR/ESG)
+
+### Pattern 5: Methodological Transfer
+A mature methodology from one field, when systematically borrowed into another, often yields breakthrough research results.
+
+| Original Method | Original Field | Post-Transfer Application | Target Field | Key Adaptations |
+|-----------------|---------------|--------------------------|--------------|-----------------|
+| Ethnography | Anthropology | Organizational Ethnography | Organizational Studies/Management | Shifted from "foreign cultures" to "organizational culture"; shorter fieldwork duration; focused on work practices |
+| Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) | Medicine/Clinical Trials | Randomized Experiments in Education | Education | Different ethical considerations (cannot deny students education); commonly uses cluster randomization |
+| A/B Testing | Computer Science/Web Industry | Field Experiments | Social Science/Policy Evaluation | From product optimization to policy intervention effectiveness; different expectations for sample sizes and effect sizes |
+| Design Thinking | Design Studies | Policy Design / Service Design | Public Policy/Public Services | Incorporates stakeholder participation, regulatory constraints, and equity considerations |
+| Cohort Study | Epidemiology | Longitudinal Student Tracking | Education | From tracking disease risk factors to tracking learning trajectories; different approaches to handling attrition |
+| Corpus Analysis | Linguistics | Social Media Analytics | Communication/Sociology | From normative linguistic structure analysis to informal language sentiment/topic analysis; requires handling noisy data |
+| Grounded Theory | Sociology | Software Engineering Research | Software Engineering | From social phenomenon theory building to development practice pattern extraction; often combined with action research |
+| Monte Carlo Simulation | Physics/Mathematics | Financial Risk Modeling | Finance | From particle behavior simulation to asset price volatility simulation; reasonableness of distribution assumptions becomes a core issue |
+
+**Key Success Factors for Methodological Transfer:**
+1. Understand the full context of the methodology in its original field (don't just learn the steps — understand why it was designed this way)
+2. Identify the constraints of the new field (ethics, feasibility, data characteristics)
+3. Make necessary adaptations rather than copying directly
+4. Clearly describe what modifications were made during the transfer and why
+
+### Pattern 6: Problem Reframing
+The same real-world problem, redefined from different disciplinary perspectives, produces entirely different research questions, method choices, and solutions.
+
+**Example 1: "Student Dropout"**
+
+| Discipline | How the Problem Is Defined | Core Concepts | Typical Methods | Possible Solutions |
+|-----------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| Education | Insufficient learning motivation, teaching method mismatch | Engagement, self-regulated learning | Classroom observation, learning analytics | Adaptive instruction, remedial teaching, mentoring systems |
+| Economics | Insufficient expected returns on educational investment | Human capital, opportunity cost, expected income | Cost-benefit analysis, regression analysis | Scholarships, tuition reduction, improving graduate employment rates |
+| Sociology | Reproduction of structural social inequality | Social capital, cultural capital, class reproduction | Qualitative interviews, statistical analysis | Social support networks, first-generation college student programs |
+| Psychology | Insufficient self-efficacy and sense of belonging | Self-efficacy, sense of belonging, growth mindset | Scale administration, experimental design | Psychological counseling, growth mindset interventions, peer support |
+| Data Science | High-risk students can be predicted from historical data | Predictive models, early warning indicators | Machine learning, survival analysis | Early warning systems, automated intervention notifications |
+
+**Interdisciplinary Integration Perspective**: The most effective dropout prevention does not approach the problem from a single discipline; rather, it combines financial support (economics) + learning support (education) + psychological counseling (psychology) + early warning systems (data science) + social support networks (sociology).
+
+**Example 2: "University Transformation"**
+
+| Discipline | How the Problem Is Defined | Core Concepts | Typical Methods | Possible Solutions |
+|-----------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| Management | Planning and executing organizational change | Change management, strategic planning, organizational learning | Case study, action research | Kotter's 8 steps, Balanced Scorecard, OKR |
+| Political Science | Power dynamics among stakeholders | Governance structure, stakeholder analysis, institutional path dependency | Stakeholder analysis, institutional analysis | Governance reform, decision transparency, faculty participation mechanisms |
+| Education | Fundamental curriculum and pedagogical innovation | Curriculum reform, competency-based education, learning outcomes | Curriculum analysis, teaching experiments | Curriculum restructuring, micro-credentials, interdisciplinary learning |
+| Economics | Sustainable business model and revenue structure | Revenue diversification, cost structure, market positioning | Financial analysis, market analysis | Industry-university partnerships, lifelong learning market, international student recruitment |
+
+**Interdisciplinary Integration Perspective**: University transformation often fails because only the management dimension (strategic planning) is addressed while ignoring the political science dimension (stakeholder resistance) and the education dimension (faculty buy-in for curriculum reform).
+
+**Example 3: "AI Ethics"**
+
+| Discipline | How the Problem Is Defined | Core Concepts | Typical Methods | Possible Solutions |
+|-----------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| Philosophy | Moral legitimacy of AI decision-making | Moral frameworks (utilitarianism/deontology/virtue ethics), moral agents | Conceptual analysis, thought experiments | Ethical guidelines, moral reasoning frameworks |
+| Law | Legal liability when AI causes harm | Legal personhood, liability attribution, regulatory frameworks | Legal interpretation, comparative law | AI-specific legislation, liability insurance, certification systems |
+| Computer Science | Achieving fairness and explainability at the technical level | Fairness metrics, XAI, alignment | Algorithm design, benchmarking | Bias detection tools, explainable models, red teaming |
+| Sociology | How AI reinforces or reshapes existing power structures | Digital inequality, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic discrimination | Qualitative research, critical analysis | Algorithm auditing, civic participation, digital literacy education |
+
+**Interdisciplinary Integration Perspective**: Technology alone (computer science's fairness metrics) cannot solve AI ethics, because "what counts as fair" is a philosophical question, "who decides" is a political question, and "how to enforce" is a legal question.
+
+## Practical Guide
+
+### How to Begin Thinking Interdisciplinarily
+
+**Step 1: Define your core problem (in one sentence)**
+- Good: "Why is the freshman enrollment rate at Taiwan's private universities continuously declining?"
+- Not good: "Taiwan's higher education faces many challenges" (too vague)
+- A one-sentence definition forces you to focus and helps people from other fields quickly understand what you're working on
+
+**Step 2: List 3 disciplines you're unfamiliar with but that may be relevant**
+- Find inspiration from the Problem Reframing examples
+- Ask yourself: Who else is dealing with a similar problem? (Education → Economists also study human capital)
+- Ask yourself: What are the upstream/downstream aspects of this problem? (University admissions → upstream is secondary education, downstream is the labor market)
+
+**Step 3: Find one classic reference in each discipline**
+- You don't need the most recent — find the most cited (Google Scholar sorted by citations)
+- Finding review articles or handbook chapters is more efficient than finding individual papers
+- Ask someone in that field: "If I could only read one paper, which would you recommend?"
+
+**Step 4: Ask — "How would someone in this discipline view my problem?"**
+- What concepts would they use to describe this phenomenon?
+- What methods would they use to study this problem?
+- What kind of answers would they give?
+- How do their answers complement or contradict those from my own discipline?
+
+**Step 5: Find at least one method or concept you can borrow**
+- You don't need to go deep into every discipline — finding one valuable borrowing is enough
+- When borrowing, "translate" it: explain in your own discipline's language why you're borrowing this concept/method
+- Describe what adaptations you made (see Pattern 5 Methodological Transfer)
+
+### Cross-Disciplinary Literature Search Strategies
+
+**Strategy 1: Reverse Citation Tracking**
+- Find your core reference in Google Scholar
+- Click "Cited by" to see which papers from other fields have cited it
+- These citing papers are cross-disciplinary bridge references
+
+**Strategy 2: Cross-Domain Keyword Search**
+- Search "interdisciplinary" + your topic (e.g., "interdisciplinary student retention")
+- Search "perspectives on" + your topic
+- Search "[other discipline name] + [your topic]" (e.g., "economic analysis of higher education quality")
+
+**Strategy 3: Target Cross-Disciplinary Journals**
+- Research Policy (technology policy + innovation + management)
+- Science and Public Policy (science + policy)
+- Higher Education (education + policy + sociology)
+- Journal of Mixed Methods Research (cross-methodology)
+- Studies in Higher Education (higher education research, multi-discipline)
+
+**Strategy 4: Attend Conferences in Other Fields**
+- You don't need to present a paper — just attend and listen
+- Pay particular attention to how they define problems and what terminology they use
+- Conference coffee breaks are the best opportunities for cross-disciplinary conversation
+
+### Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Interdisciplinary Research
+
+**Pitfall 1: Surface-Level Borrowing**
+- Symptom: Borrowing terminology without understanding the underlying theoretical context
+- Example: Using "disruptive innovation" to describe all change, without understanding the specific conditions in Christensen's definition
+- Remedy: Read the original literature (not just secondary citations), understand the concept's scope and limitations
+
+**Pitfall 2: Methodological Mismatch**
+- Symptom: Forcing quantitative methods onto qualitative questions, or vice versa
+- Example: Using survey scales to "measure" the value of artistic creation
+- Remedy: First understand the nature of the question (is the goal to measure or to understand?), then choose the method
+
+**Pitfall 3: Ignoring Disciplinary Nuance**
+- Symptom: The same word means different things in different disciplines
+- Example: "Validity" in quantitative research (statistical validity) vs. qualitative research (trustworthiness) means entirely different things
+- Example: "Model" in mathematics (mathematical model) vs. design (prototype) vs. management (business model) means different things
+- Remedy: Consult textbooks or handbooks in the target discipline to confirm terminology definitions
+
+**Pitfall 4: Oversimplification**
+- Symptom: Ignoring debates within another discipline, treating the entire field as monolithic
+- Example: "Economists believe..." (Which economists? Neoclassical and behavioral economists may hold completely opposite views)
+- Remedy: At minimum, understand 2-3 major schools or perspectives within the target discipline
+
+## Discipline Map for Common Research Topics
+
+### Education
+- Core: Curriculum, Pedagogy, Assessment, Educational Psychology
+- Adjacent: Sociology (equity), Economics (human capital), Policy (governance), Technology (ed-tech), Psychology (development)
+
+### Health
+- Core: Medicine, Public Health, Epidemiology, Nursing
+- Adjacent: Economics (health economics), Policy (health policy), Psychology (behavioral health), Technology (digital health), Ethics (bioethics)
+
+### Technology
+- Core: Computer Science, Information Systems, Engineering
+- Adjacent: Sociology (digital divide), Psychology (HCI), Business (innovation), Ethics (AI ethics), Policy (tech regulation)
+
+### Governance & Policy
+- Core: Political Science, Public Administration, Law
+- Adjacent: Economics (public finance), Sociology (institutional analysis), Management (organizational theory), Ethics (political philosophy)
+
+### Sustainability
+- Core: Environmental Science, Ecology, Climate Science
+- Adjacent: Economics (environmental economics), Policy (climate policy), Engineering (clean tech), Ethics (environmental ethics), Business (CSR/ESG)
+
+### Arts & Humanities
+- Core: Philosophy, Literature, History, Art History, Cultural Studies, Linguistics
+- Adjacent: Sociology (cultural sociology), Psychology (aesthetics, creativity), Education (arts education), Technology (digital humanities), Communication (media studies)
+- Cross-disciplinary highlights:
+  - **Digital Humanities**: Applying computational methods to humanities research (text mining, GIS, network analysis)
+  - **Medical Humanities**: How literature, philosophy, and history help understand doctor-patient relationships and health narratives
+  - **Environmental Humanities**: Understanding climate change and environmental justice from a humanities perspective
+  - **Practice-Based Research**: Artistic creation itself as a research method (see Methodology Patterns #10)
+
+### Law & Justice
+- Core: Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, International Law, Jurisprudence
+- Adjacent: Political Science (judicial politics), Sociology (law and society, criminology), Economics (law and economics), Philosophy (legal philosophy, ethics), Psychology (forensic psychology), Technology (legal tech, AI and law)
+- Cross-disciplinary highlights:
+  - **Law and Economics**: Analyzing the effects of legal rules using the economic concept of efficiency
+  - **Law and Society**: Law is not just statutes — it is social practice; how law is actually used, circumvented, and experienced
+  - **Technology Law**: AI regulation, personal data protection, platform governance — how law responds to technological change
+  - **Transitional Justice**: Combining law, political science, history, and psychology to address historical injustice
+
+## Warning Signs of Shallow Interdisciplinarity
+
+- Using another field's jargon without understanding its meaning
+- Citing one paper from another field as representative of the whole field
+- Ignoring methodological differences when comparing across disciplines
+- Treating "interdisciplinary" as buzzword rather than genuine integration
+- Assuming your discipline's methods are universal

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/references/irb_decision_tree.md

@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
+# Human-Subjects Authority Context Navigation Aid — Institutional Determination Required
+
+## Purpose
+
+This reference helps the `ethics_review_agent` and `research_architect_agent`
+collect protocol facts, bind already-selected authority profiles, and prepare
+questions for the responsible institution. It is a navigation aid, not an
+authority, authorization tool, or review-pathway classifier.
+
+The controlling local contract is
+`shared/references/human_subjects_authority_protocol.md`; the only curated
+authority rows available to this aid are in
+`shared/human_subjects_authority_registry.json`. Every profile in that registry
+is a `bounded_subset`, not a complete statement of any jurisdiction's law or an
+institution's policy.
+
+When a caller explicitly requests candidate rule-trace display, the derived
+handoff is governed by
+`shared/references/review_pathway_rule_trace_protocol.md`. This file never
+supplies candidate names or unanchored predicates to that handoff.
+
+> **Authority boundary (#665/#666/#680):** Mixed-jurisdiction pathway mappings are not part of this reference. ARS output must use `institutional determination required`; applicability, requirements, timing, and authorization remain with the responsible institution and an exactly selected authority profile. Missing or unknown facts remain unresolved and never become a review determination.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Portable Fact Collection — No Pathway Inference
+
+Collect facts without mapping them to `Exempt`, `Expedited`, `Full Board`, or a
+similarly named local pathway. Those labels are authority- and
+institution-specific; vulnerability, sensitivity, deception, identifiability,
+and estimated risk are inputs for human assessment, not automatic pathway
+rules.
+
+```
+Start
+│
+├── Record whether the activity involves human subjects
+│   └── If unknown, preserve unknown and ask the responsible institution
+│
+├── Record each candidate review-ethics and data-protection authority
+│   └── Do not infer jurisdiction from geography, funder, language, or topic
+│
+├── Record data, interaction, recruitment, population, and risk facts
+│   └── Separate observed facts from researcher assumptions
+│
+├── Select exact #666 profile id/version/digest pointers only when confirmed
+│   └── Leave an axis unresolved when no matching bounded profile is available
+│
+└── Send facts and unresolved questions to the responsible institution
+    └── Output pathway: institutional determination required
+```
+
+### 1.1 Exact #666 declared facts
+
+For a #666 context, record `true`, `false`, or `unknown` against these exact
+catalogue identifiers. A missing value is unknown, not false.
+
+| Exact fact id | Question to resolve |
+|---|---|
+| `activity.human_subjects` | Has the author confirmed that the activity involves human subjects? |
+| `support.us_hhs_or_common_rule` | Has the author identified a U.S. HHS/Common Rule scope basis? |
+| `scope.tw_hsra` | Has the author identified Taiwan's Human Subjects Research Act as a review authority? |
+| `scope.eu_gdpr` | Has the author identified the GDPR as a data-protection authority? |
+| `processing.personal_data` | Within the selected GDPR scope, does the activity process personal data? |
+| `data.special_category` | Does that processing include special-category data? |
+| `data.collected_from_subject` | Is the personal data obtained from the data subject rather than elsewhere? |
+| `purpose.scientific_research` | Does the processing purpose include scientific research? |
+| `gdpr.member_state_research_law_identified` | Has a specific applicable Union or Member State research-derogation law been identified? |
+
+### 1.2 Additional portable planning facts
+
+The following are **illustrative, unprofiled planning facts**. They preserve
+useful protocol detail but are not predicates or requirement rows in the current
+#666 registry:
+
+- source and provenance of each dataset or specimen;
+- direct identifiers, quasi-identifiers, and linkage/re-link keys;
+- IP addresses, cookies, device identifiers, timestamps, and other platform
+  metadata actually collected or accessible;
+- direct interaction, intervention, observation, recordings, and follow-up;
+- recruitment channel, compensation, dependency or power relationships, age,
+  decision-making capacity, language, and accessibility needs;
+- potentially sensitive topics, deception or incomplete disclosure, and the
+  physical, psychological, social, economic, informational, or group risks the
+  team has identified;
+- risk mitigations, access controls, recipients, transfers, retention,
+  destruction, reuse, withdrawal handling, and incident response;
+- institution-, funder-, community-, sector-, or profession-specific rules and
+  the office or person responsible for interpreting them.
+
+Do not convert any single fact or combination in this list into a pathway,
+clearance, readiness, compliance, or authorization result.
+
+### 1.3 Derived #669 candidate rule trace
+
+The #669 runtime may display only an explicit, replay-bound request that
+partitions every selected-profile `pathway_trace` requirement. Candidate labels
+come from named institutional material or an author-declared question, never
+from this reference. Both authority axes are accounted for, while alternatives
+remain within one exact profile; a GDPR/data-protection route is never presented
+as an IRB route.
+
+Every emitted row backpoints to an exact requirement and authority anchor in
+section 2. An unknown fact stays in `Unresolved predicates` with the exact
+`authoritative_decision_maker.role_id`. No selected profile means no candidate
+rows and an exact `JURISDICTION_UNRESOLVED` halt. The only result is
+`institutional determination required`.
+
+Consumers must receive confirmation that both
+`validate_review_pathway_rule_trace(...)` and the surface-scoped
+`check_review_pathway_output.py` lint succeeded against the exact named files.
+The trace is display-only and cannot update readiness, authorization, an action,
+a verdict, a checkpoint, or any workflow state.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Exact Bounded Requirement Pointers
+
+Use a row below for action planning only after the matching profile has been
+selected by exact id/version/digest and the #666 resolved artifact permits
+profile-dependent use. The separately replayed #669 display-only trace may
+preserve a requirement-level unknown under its narrow protocol exception, but
+that row cannot become an action or result.
+The link is the row's primary-source anchor; the requirement id is the navigation
+pointer. The table is deliberately exhaustive only for the current bounded
+registry, not for the underlying authorities.
+
+### 2.1 Review-ethics axis
+
+| Exact requirement id | Exact provision | Obligated actor | Consumer scopes | Bounded subject | Primary-source anchor |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `us.45cfr46.107.irb-composition` | `45 CFR 46.107` | `institution_or_irb` | `["committee_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | IRB membership and composition | [45 CFR 46.107](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.107) |
+| `us.45cfr46.116.informed-consent` | `45 CFR 46.116` | `investigator_and_irb` | `["participant_information", "submission_packet", "pathway_trace"]` | General informed-consent requirements | [45 CFR 46.116](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.116) |
+| `tw.hsra.article-7.committee-composition` | `人體研究法第 7 條` | `research_institution_or_review_committee` | `["committee_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Review-committee composition | [人體研究法第 7 條（全國法規資料庫中文控制文本）](https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020176) |
+| `tw.hsra.article-14.consent-information` | `人體研究法第 14 條` | `principal_investigator` | `["participant_information", "submission_packet", "pathway_trace"]` | Information explained before consent | [人體研究法第 14 條（全國法規資料庫中文控制文本）](https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020176) |
+
+Committee-composition rows belong to their stated institutional/committee
+actors. This aid must not turn them into investigator submission-packet
+requirements. The U.S. and Taiwan rows remain parallel and retain their own
+vocabulary; neither is a translation of the other.
+
+### 2.2 Data-protection axis
+
+| Exact requirement id | Exact provision | Obligated actor | Consumer scopes | Bounded subject | Primary-source anchor |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `eu.gdpr.article-6.lawful-basis` | `GDPR Article 6` | `controller` | `["data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Identify and document an applicable Article 6 basis; the profile does not select one | [GDPR Article 6](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+| `eu.gdpr.article-9.special-category-research` | `GDPR Article 9` | `controller` | `["data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Identify an applicable Article 9 condition and safeguards; the profile does not select the route | [GDPR Article 9](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+| `eu.gdpr.article-13.direct-collection-information` | `GDPR Article 13` | `controller` | `["participant_information", "data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Information when data is obtained from the data subject | [GDPR Article 13](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+| `eu.gdpr.article-14.indirect-collection-information` | `GDPR Article 14` | `controller` | `["participant_information", "data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Information when data is obtained elsewhere, subject to a separately established exception | [GDPR Article 14](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+| `eu.gdpr.article-89.1.research-safeguards` | `GDPR Article 89(1)` | `controller` | `["data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | Scientific-research safeguards, including assessment of data minimisation and pseudonymisation | [GDPR Article 89(1)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+| `eu.gdpr.article-89.2.member-state-derogation` | `GDPR Article 89(2)` | `controller` | `["data_governance", "pathway_trace"]` | A claimed research derogation must point to an identified applicable Union or Member State law | [GDPR Article 89(2)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04/eng) |
+
+The GDPR rows do not determine whether the GDPR applies, select a lawful basis
+or Article 9 condition, identify a Member State law, or authorize processing.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Illustrative Country and Institution Planning
+
+### 3.1 Taiwan institutional-workflow example — illustrative and unprofiled
+
+For a project connected with Taiwan, a useful planning conversation may ask:
+
+1. Which institution or review committee owns the determination?
+2. Which local submission system and current forms does it use?
+3. Which protocol, participant-information, recruitment, instrument, training,
+   data-management, or other materials does that institution request?
+4. Which activities, if any, must wait for a documented institutional decision?
+5. What current turnaround estimate, amendment process, continuing-reporting
+   schedule, and closure process does the institution state?
+
+These are **questions, not Taiwan legal requirements**. The current #666 Taiwan
+profile covers only `tw.hsra.article-7.committee-composition` and
+`tw.hsra.article-14.consent-information`. It does not profile NSTC or Ministry
+of Education funding rules, the Personal Data Protection Act, clinical-trial or
+biobank rules, training credentials, submission platforms, timelines, periodic
+reports, or a local pathway taxonomy. Record any such item as `unprofiled` and
+obtain the responsible authority's current instruction. Do not rename a Taiwan
+process with U.S. pathway vocabulary.
+
+### 3.2 Higher-education scenarios — illustrative fact prompts
+
+| Scenario | Portable facts to collect; no determination implied |
+|---|---|
+| Public statistics analysis | source, publication/access terms, record-level identifiability, linkage with other data, and institutional policy |
+| Institutional research data | provenance, authorization, direct/quasi-identifiers, re-link key, access roles, purpose, and data source |
+| Student survey or interview | recruitment and power relationship, voluntariness, direct identifiers, platform metadata, topic, recording, and withdrawal handling |
+| Teaching intervention | allocation, effect on grades/rights/access, alternatives, instructor-researcher roles, risk, and data collection |
+| Mental-health or other sensitive-topic study | data categories, foreseeable harms, disclosure limits, response plan, and—only if the GDPR profile is selected—whether `data.special_category` is true |
+| Learning portfolio or classroom observation | expectation of privacy, recorded identifiers, notice/interaction, recording, secondary use, and access |
+| Career tracking or longitudinal follow-up | contact data, re-link key, follow-up period, recipients, retention, and withdrawal feasibility |
+| Cross-border or multi-institution study | each review-ethics and data-protection authority, lead/participating institution roles, transfers, and unresolved conflicts |
+
+Public availability, anonymity, minimal risk, vulnerability, or sensitivity does
+not by itself assign a pathway in this reference.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Participant-Information and Consent Preparation
+
+### 4.1 Authority-bound coverage
+
+There is no universal consent-element checklist in this aid. When the applicable
+row resolves true, use its exact pointer and full registry row:
+
+- `us.45cfr46.116.informed-consent` for the bounded U.S. Common Rule consent row;
+- `tw.hsra.article-14.consent-information` for the bounded Taiwan Article 14
+  information row;
+- `eu.gdpr.article-13.direct-collection-information` when the selected GDPR
+  context says personal data is obtained from the data subject;
+- `eu.gdpr.article-14.indirect-collection-information` when the selected GDPR
+  context says personal data is obtained elsewhere.
+
+Do not merge these rows into one universal form. If an authority, element,
+waiver/exception, special population, sector, or institutional rule is not in
+the registry, label it `unprofiled` and seek the responsible authority's current
+requirements.
+
+### 4.2 Portable drafting inventory — illustrative, non-authoritative
+
+The following inventory is useful for drafting and gap questions, but it is not
+a list of legally required elements:
+
+- project title; responsible institution, investigator, funder, and contacts;
+- purpose, procedures, duration, recordings, alternatives, and participant tasks;
+- foreseeable risks/discomforts, possible benefits, compensation, and remedies;
+- voluntary-choice and withdrawal statements appropriate to the actual design;
+- data categories and sources; collection method; recipients and access roles;
+- platform metadata, identifiers, linkage, security, retention, destruction,
+  future use, sharing, transfer, publication, and commercial interests;
+- complaint, rights, or authority contacts supplied by the responsible regime;
+- signature, assent, representative, or electronic-interaction fields requested
+  by the responsible institution.
+
+### 4.3 Online-survey disclosure accuracy
+
+Use this **portable drafting convention**: disclose what the selected survey
+platform, institution, and research team actually collect or can access. Verify
+settings and data exports before saying that an IP address, cookie, device
+identifier, timestamp, contact field, or other metadata is not recorded. State
+the collector, purpose, access roles/recipients, retention, and deletion or
+masking behavior where known; preserve `unknown` where it has not been verified.
+
+An `I agree` control records a participant interaction. This aid does not decide
+whether that interaction satisfies consent, signature, documentation, or waiver
+requirements under a selected authority or institutional process.
+
+### 4.4 Drafting worksheet — illustrative and unprofiled until bound
+
+```text
+Participant Information / Consent Drafting Worksheet
+
+Selected profile pointer(s): [profile id / version / digest]
+Applicable requirement pointer(s): [exact requirement ids]
+Unprofiled authorities or institutional rules: [list / unknown]
+
+Project and responsible actors: [                              ]
+Purpose, procedures, duration, and recordings: [               ]
+Risks, benefits, compensation, and remedies: [                 ]
+Choice, withdrawal, and limits on withdrawal/deletion: [       ]
+Data and metadata actually collected (including platform data): [ ]
+Access, recipients, transfers, security, and incident handling: [ ]
+Retention, destruction, future use, sharing, and publication: [  ]
+Contacts and institution-requested acknowledgement fields: [     ]
+
+Unresolved questions for the responsible institution: [          ]
+Review pathway: institutional determination required
+```
+
+---
+
+## 5. Data-Handling Technical Planning
+
+Use `shared/references/irb_terminology_glossary.md` for explicitly
+convention-bound drafting terms. A technical transformation does not, by itself,
+establish an authority-defined legal status.
+
+### 5.1 Illustrative techniques
+
+| Technique | Technical planning purpose; legal effect not asserted |
+|---|---|
+| Identifier removal or transformation | reduce direct-identification exposure |
+| Pseudonym/code assignment | separate working records from additional identifying information while preserving a controlled link |
+| Generalisation or aggregation | reduce precision and small-cell disclosure risk |
+| Masking | limit visible portions of a field for a stated use |
+| Re-identification risk assessment | test plausible combinations and auxiliary-data attacks under a named method or threshold |
+
+### 5.2 Illustrative risk and control prompts
+
+- Can small groups, quotations, rare attributes, dates, locations, or
+  institutional characteristics identify a person or community?
+- Can other datasets be linked to the planned release or analysis environment?
+- Who holds each identifier or re-link key, and who can access both sides?
+- Do storage, encryption, logging, export, backup, retention, and destruction
+  controls match the participant-facing disclosure?
+- Has the team tested the actual platform export for IP addresses and other
+  metadata rather than relying on a default-setting assumption?
+
+---
+
+## Researcher Self-Check
+
+Before handing the protocol to the responsible institution:
+
+1. [ ] Have both authority axes been addressed with exact selected profiles or a visible unresolved state?
+2. [ ] Are confirmed, false, and unknown facts kept distinct without jurisdiction inference?
+3. [ ] Does every authority-bound statement point to an exact #666 requirement id and its selected profile?
+4. [ ] Are actor and consumer boundaries preserved, especially for committee-governance rows?
+5. [ ] Are country, sector, community, funder, and institutional examples outside the registry labelled `illustrative` or `unprofiled`?
+6. [ ] Does survey/privacy wording accurately describe actual identifier and metadata handling?
+7. [ ] Are vulnerability, sensitivity, deception, identifiability, and risk treated as facts rather than automatic pathways?
+8. [ ] Is the pathway still `institutional determination required`, with timing and authorization obtained separately from the responsible institution?
+
+**Human-subjects boundary:** This navigation aid does not authorize recruitment,
+consent, access to identifiable data, intervention, or data collection.