Concepts
1,410
Impact
Knowledge you can trace. Claims you can audit.
Every concept traced to its source, every claim to its status — and nothing here is yet claimed as solved.
Established field knowledgeThe lab's own constructs
Explore the coverageThe coverage map
Knowledge that crosses the field lines.
Breadth only matters if it connects. Mapped onto the disciplines the field already names, almost every finding reaches past a single one — the work converges rather than scatters. Each chord is the count of findings that span two disciplines; hover a discipline to trace where they meet.
Impact · Coverage
What we've charted. What the field hasn't built.
Our impact is measured first as honest landscape: the breadth of knowledge we have mapped, and the gaps we have named but no one has yet closed. This is landscape and gap research — every number below is charted or named, never claimed as solved. Each parked gap is a “who it affects” waiting to be told in the socio-economic reporting this page will eventually carry.
Findings
424
Disciplines
15
Gaps named
113
Program
World Model Initiative (WMI)
One coding · multiple readings
One corpus, read two ways.
The same body of research answers two questions. Toggle between what the lab knows and what the field hasn't built yet — then click any bar to drill in.
Concepts charted
1,410
Disciplines
15
Established
978
Lab-built
432
Discipline
Information & computing
851 concepts · 44%the lab’s own
Top knowledge clusters
- governance-infrastructure constructs45
- governance-substrate constructs38
- governance mechanisms20
- geometric deep learning18
- governance primitives11
Bar length is the breadth charted in each discipline; gold is the share that is the lab’s own constructs rather than borrowed theory. Information & computing is where the lab builds most. Source: L0 projection of rwp-wr-find / rwp-wr-concepts / rwp-wr-oq / vol-001 catalog / master_bibliography.bib / abstract-cards.
How to read this
Three words do all the work.
The corpus is deliberately honest about its own status. Knowing what each count does and does not claim is the whole point.
Charted
1,410 concepts
Concepts mapped across the disciplines the field already names — 978 borrowed from established theory, 432 the lab's own. Breadth charted, not breadth endorsed.
Named
113 gaps
Gaps the corpus identifies by name across 424 findings. Surfacing what the field has not yet built is itself the finding — the lab's dominant epistemic move.
Parked
343 acknowledged
Gaps that are acknowledged, not remediated. Finding status stays overwhelmingly tentative. Nothing here is marked solved — the win condition is left open on purpose.
Every count is generated from the lab's own registries and recomputed when they change. Read it as a map of the territory, not a scoreboard.