An institutional position
Explains a principle, decision or approach used by XTF, with its reasoning, scope and current status.
Knowledge / Research
Build a stronger method before a stronger claim.
XTF research and methods help participants, reviewers and readers understand how a question was framed, what evidence was used and where the work remains uncertain.
Research is part of the work, not decoration around a finished idea.
What this section is for.
XTF intends to publish materials that make early innovation easier to investigate, review and continue: research frameworks, field guides, project methods, evidence notes, institutional positions and careful scans of a question or field.
These formats do not turn every XTF publication into academic research or establish findings beyond the method used. Each item should identify what kind of material it is, who prepared it, which sources support it, what review it received and what it cannot conclude.
Current institutional method material is available in Ideas & evidence. No unverified study result or invented publication record is presented here.
01 / Publication formats
Tell readers what kind of material they are reading.
Consistent labels help distinguish institutional guidance, project evidence, review and broader research.
A practical way to work
Provides a repeatable framework, questions, steps or documentation format that can support inquiry or review.
A record from the work
Documents a question, method, observation, prototype, revision or next decision at its real stage.
A structured critique
Records the scope of a review, the evidence considered, important questions and the reviewer’s limits or conflicts.
A map of an existing landscape
Summarises relevant work, actors, approaches and open questions without claiming to be a complete systematic review.
Material preserved in context
Keeps a previous version, program document or institutional update available with its date and archived status clear.
02 / Minimum publication record
Ideas should travel with their sources and limits.
Every substantive item should provide enough context to be understood, cited, questioned and corrected.
Title, author and affiliation
Name responsibility for the work and distinguish personal, project and institutional positions.
Published, revised or archived
Show whether the item is current, when it changed and which version a reader is using.
Question and intended use
Explain what the item is trying to understand or enable and what audience or decision it serves.
How the material was produced
Describe source selection, observation, testing, analysis or review at a level appropriate to the claim.
Traceable evidence
Identify relevant primary sources, prior work, datasets and project records so readers can examine the basis.
What remains uncertain
State scope, missing information, assumptions, conflicts and conclusions the material cannot support.
Connections and dependencies
Link to the program, project, previous version or external work needed to understand the material in context.
A stable way to reference it
Provide the responsible author or institution, title, publication status, URL and relevant version information.
03 / Research cycle
A useful method can show where it changed.
Documentation should begin before the conclusion and continue through review and revision.
01Question
02Sources
03Method
04Evidence
05Review
06Revise
04 / Review
Review should clarify the strength of the material.
Not every format requires the same process, but the process used should be understandable.
Clarity, sources and status
Confirms that the format, responsible author, links, dates, source references and publication state are complete.
Question, approach and inference
Examines whether the method fits the question and whether the conclusions stay within the evidence.
Domain-specific scrutiny
Uses relevant expertise to examine technical choices, feasibility, safety, assumptions and material omissions.
People, systems and consequences
Considers affected perspectives, access, consent, privacy, public value and possible unintended effects.
Relationships that affect interpretation
Identifies relevant roles, interests, sponsorship, authorship or involvement in the work being reviewed.
What changed after review
Preserves material changes and unresolved questions instead of implying that review eliminated all uncertainty.
Current status: the research library is being structured around verified material.
What can be read now.
The Ideas section currently publishes institutional method positions on framing questions, matching evidence to claims, building prototypes to learn and documenting sources and limits.
Verified project-specific materials will be connected to the Portfolio. XTF will not publish placeholder papers, invented authors or unsupported findings to simulate a research catalogue.
05 / Research FAQ
A publication label should tell the truth about the method.
This section sets standards for a growing library without implying material that has not been verified.
Is every XTF publication peer reviewed?
No. The publication format and review status should be stated. Editorial, method, technical and external review are different processes.
Does a Foundation note represent research findings?
Not automatically. A Foundation note explains an institutional position or method and should identify the evidence and limits relevant to it.
Can project teams publish negative results?
Yes, when the record is suitable and permissions allow. A well-documented result that changes or stops a direction can be highly useful.
How should a source be selected?
Choose sources relevant to the question and claim, prioritise primary and authoritative material where possible and explain important gaps or disagreements.
Will unpublished student work be accepted by email?
Do not send sensitive or unpublished work without a confirmed route and terms. Public opportunities will explain submission, data and rights requirements.
Where can I report an error?
Send the item title, URL and specific concern to hello@xtf.org. XTF will review verifiable factual issues.