CBSR · research with explicit boundaries
Citable by Construction | CBSR research summary
A methodology for machine-readable comparative law: separate claim kind, provenance and legal force; enforce structural citation gates; publish disagreements and verification debt.
Research question
The paper asks how a regulatory knowledge base can stop software from treating a market observation as law, a draft as operative, or an unverified transcription as confirmed. It makes claim_class, evidence_tier and binding_status orthogonal rather than compressing them into one confidence score.
Method and contribution
Build gates check source locators, claim purity, legal force and signal provenance. Computed conclusions are compared with authored analysis; disagreement is published as a finding. The portable contribution is the evidence discipline, while dimensions and the stablecoin signal table remain domain-specific.
What it does not establish
The enforcement gates detect certain errors; they cannot replace primary-source legal review. A structural subset does not establish source freshness, independent reconciliation or permission to execute. The public verification backlog is part of the method's output, not an exception to it.
Read and cite the original
- SSRN record for the working paper
- Exact committed methodology manuscript
- Manuscript provenance at the pinned commit
Cite the exact version you read. This explanatory HTML is not a new edition of the paper, an independent review, or a claim that later legal developments validate the original argument.