Public Content Integration Hub

The goal here is not "what to write" but "where it should live." To prevent duplication and fragmented navigation, the public entry points and merge destinations are fixed here first.

Do not start from mixed year cards. For paper-level frontier anchors, start with Paper Collection: the technical fast lane. For the unresolved-question map and literature placement by U-number, move next to Research Harvest. For the human in vivo side, keep WBE 101: human observability ladder open in parallel so route family is fixed before route role / human-proxy role, and so those are fixed before proxy class, operational maturity, and calibrator role.

Recent living-human papers no longer support starting from one vague category such as human proxy evidence. Lucchetti et al. (2025) define a five-metabolite 1H-MRSI similarity scaffold, whereas Li et al. (2025) use 7 T dynamic deuterium MRSI with blood-input kinetic modeling to estimate glucose-metabolic rates. Zhao et al. (2020), Petitclerc et al. (2021), and Petitclerc et al. (2026) split choroid-plexus perfusion, blood-to-CSF transport, and joint BBB-versus-BCSFB exchange. Villemagne et al. (2022), Hiraoka et al. (2025), and Tyacke et al. (2018) show that SMBT-1 target validation / quantification and I2BS PET are not one astrocyte row. Biechele et al. (2023), Ogata et al. (2025), and Yan et al. (2025) show that TSPO, CSF1R, and COX-2 are not one immune row either. Therefore, this hub now treats route family as the first split. After that, use Verification: Human Proxy Composition Card to state whether the paper is acting as a cohort prior, cross-sectional contrast, same-subject baseline, within-subject change witness, or perturbation-response witness.

Recent primary papers do not support one compressed 2025-2026 frontier. Terceros et al. (2026), Dewa et al. (2025), and Bukalo et al. (2026) sharpen local causal maintenance-state dependence, whereas Hirschler et al. (2025) and Dagum et al. (2026) sharpen bounded living-human observability. Those papers differ in species, direct observable, and spatial unit. Therefore, this page now routes technical updates by inferential object first, not by year order first.

Do not route it automatically to the human-observability lane. Same-subject is one possible proxy role, not a route-family substitute and not an automatic promotion. First type the route family, then decide whether the paper is functioning mainly as a cohort prior, cross-sectional contrast, same-subject baseline, within-subject change witness, perturbation-response witness, or a bridge-limited carry-over claim. If preservation route, elapsed time, regime continuity, registration scope, or cross-day drift are central to the claim, route the public rule to Verification: State-Continuity Bridge Card and the learning support to Wiki: State-Continuity Bridge before using the result as a human-state argument elsewhere.

Treat Perspective as the long technical synthesis page where structural-scaffold gains, hidden-state burdens, human observability ceilings, and implementation objections are kept on one axis. Use WBE 101 to align claim levels first, Roadmap for dependency order, and Wiki: Theory Page Reading Guide only when you need the remaining theory-specific map.

If you want the whole site organized into the three modes of getting the overview, learning from basics, and actually fixing or contributing, see Wiki: Three Ways To Use This Site.

If you want only the practical distinction among Verification, Datasets, the L0 practice section in Datasets, the casework section in Verification, and the proposal integration section in Issue, see Wiki: Practical Page Reading Guide. This page keeps the public-page role map; the wiki provides the practical breakdown.

If you want a one-page view of whether to go next to a small fix, condition design, external-dependency decomposition, or L0 implementation prep after reading the Issue page and its collaboration section, see Wiki: Five Routes After the Participation / Collaboration Page.

If you want a learning-oriented guide to choosing among public pages, the wiki, the Issue body, the external dependency section inside Issue, and the operations area, see Wiki: The Basics of Deciding Where New Information Belongs.

If you want a one-page guide to reading known/unknown sections, accuracy assumptions, and external dependencies on information-portal pages, see Wiki: How To Read "What Is Known / Not Yet Known".

If you want to standardize how to use the blocks at the top of each page, "how to read this page," "who it is for," "accuracy assumptions," "what is currently known," and "check the basics in the wiki," see Wiki: How To Read Public Page Headers.

If Research, Perspective, the framework section, the proposal integration section, the Issue body, and the external dependency / collaboration section all look like the same kind of writing, see Wiki: Facts, Hypotheses, Proposals, and Execution Tasks. Separating what each page records makes integration decisions easier.

If you want guidance on how far to use public pages and the wiki as entry points, and when to return to DOI links, source sections, or Issue history, see Wiki: Using Summaries, Original Sources, and Issue History.

If you want a single route showing whether something you read should flow back into literature organization, theory organization, a proposal, an issue, or an external dependency task, see Wiki: Connecting Reading To Change.

Before creating a new page, check whether the content can naturally fit as a section inside an existing one. The more pages the site has, the more reading order and responsibility boundaries fragment, and beginners become more likely to get lost. If the material fits an existing page's purpose, prefer integration over splitting.