A measurement instrument that cannot state what would prove it wrong is an opinion with charts. This page is IGRM's standing invitation: here is exactly what would falsify it, here are the tools to try, and here is the promise — serious submissions publish on this site unedited, with a response, whether or not we survive them. Finding a real error earns a permanent entry in the corrections ledger, which is the point of having one.
Claim: every published number is a deterministic function of the committed raw data.
Break it: clone the repo, run scripts/reproduce.sh --use-cache
(~5 minutes, no credentials), and produce a diff outside the documented tolerances.
The procedure and every tolerance's reason: REPLICATION.md.
Claim: every dictionary, threshold, weight, and episode list was registered before the numbers it produces were seen; every change since is a dated, append-only amendment.
Break it: the entire history is public git. Find one construct choice whose registration postdates the result it favors, or one amendment that rewrote rather than appended.
Claim: the hit-rate is computed against a pre-registered episode list (n=21), frozen before grading, misses counted forever.
Break it: propose an episode set we should have detected and did not —
or show the frozen list was curated to flatter. The registered list, criteria, and
exclusions are in validation/ with full history.
Claim: every statistic named on any page exists in a published payload, and every payload field is documented in the codebook.
Break it: find one page-claimed number absent from its payload (CI enforces this; beating our own test is a finding), or one receipts article whose text does not match the registered phrase that claims it.
Claim: the sampling bands are honest Wilson 95% intervals passed through the identical transform as the point values, and moves inside overlapping bands are called indistinguishable on the front page.
Break it: recompute a band from the committed day-cache and get a different interval, or catch the site narrating a within-band move as real.
Claim: the signal is not an artifact of one substrate's quirks; drift is measured and published, and cross-source agreement is checked against an independent demand-side series.
Break it: replicate a channel on an independent corpus and show the series disagree where ours claims signal (this is exactly the Media Cloud study on our own roadmap — doing it first, and better, would be a genuine contribution).
Open a GitHub issue with the adversarial-review template: start one here. State the claim you are attacking, your method, and your result. Anonymous submissions are fine. What qualifies as "serious": anything with a runnable method — code, a diff, a dated episode list, a reproducible query. What doesn't: vibes.
The promise, restated: submissions and their outcomes publish here unedited. A confirmed break goes in the corrections ledger permanently. Nothing on this page is ever softened after the fact — this paragraph included.