Call for field testers: witnessed research intake receipts

[HarperZ9]

Project Telos is looking for field testers for gather: accountable research intake for difficult sources, with provenance receipts and witnessed digests.

The question this repo should help answer:

Can a messy intake workflow leave enough evidence that another person can check what was gathered, what source it came from, and what remained unverified?

Useful test lanes:

• Doctor/admin or clinic-adjacent research: public policy pages, PDFs, guidance docs, and source snapshots. Do not use private patient data.
• Media/newsroom research: public claims, source links, archived pages, and source digests.
• Open-source security or supply-chain research: advisories, release notes, repo docs, and public issue trails.
• Grassroots funding/research scouting: public grant pages, eligibility docs, dates, and required materials.

What I am looking for:

• Verification against real public workflows.
• Bug reports where receipts do not preserve enough source context.
• Cases where a digest says too much, too little, or the wrong thing.
• Suggestions for better source/failure labels.
• Early traction from people who would actually use witnessed intake.

Project links:

• Main site: https://harperz9.github.io
• Field guide: https://harperz9.github.io/field-guide.html
• GitHub profile: https://github.com/HarperZ9
• Related flagships: https://github.com/HarperZ9/index https://github.com/HarperZ9/forum https://github.com/HarperZ9/crucible https://github.com/HarperZ9/telos

Stage label: public, solo, early, pre-revenue, not independently audited. Please test with public or synthetic material first.