{
  "@context": "https://veritas-protocol.example/cpml/v0.1",
  "@type": "ConsensusProfile",
  "id": "urn:cpml:veritas-working-group:1",
  "version": "0.1",
  "owner": {
    "@id": "did:web:veritas-working-paper.pages.dev",
    "name": "Collaborative Fact-Checking Working Group"
  },
  "issued": "2026-04-25T00:00:00Z",
  "expires": "2027-04-25T00:00:00Z",

  "description": "The CPML the Working Group adopts for its own internal reasoning and editorial composition. Published as a self-declaration so partners and reviewers can audit the consensus profile under which the Working Group operates.",

  "valuesStatement": [
    "Science is the highest-weight evidential standard for empirical questions; we trust mainstream scientific institutions on questions within their methodological remit.",
    "Technical optimism is moderate: we believe technology meaningfully improves human welfare on average but we do not pretend that every technological development is good.",
    "Crypto acceptance is moderate and discriminating: we reject the speculation, hype-cycle, and extractive practices that dominate the consumer-crypto industry; we accept and use the engineering primitives where they earn their keep (signed transparency logs, content addressing, federated identity).",
    "Multiculturalism is positive: cultural diversity is a source of evolutionary and civic resilience; pluralism in epistemic frames is a feature, not a problem.",
    "Human life and dignity are foundational: we anchor in the post-WWII universal-human-rights tradition and we treat any consensus frame that denies the equal moral worth of persons as inadmissible at the foundation level."
  ],

  "domains": [
    {
      "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/CochraneGRADE",
      "weight": 1.0,
      "topics": ["medicine", "health-and-medicine"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "minReputation": 0.5,
      "rationale": "GRADE-evaluated systematic-review consensus is the gold standard for medical claims (Cochrane lineage)."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/IPCC",
      "weight": 1.0,
      "topics": ["climate"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "minReputation": 0.5,
      "rationale": "IPCC assessment-report consensus for climate-science claims."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/AcademyConsensus",
      "weight": 1.0,
      "topics": ["science", "engineering", "physics", "biology", "chemistry"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "minReputation": 0.5,
      "rationale": "Major-academy consensus statements (Royal Society, NAS, etc.) for hard-science claims."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/PeerReviewMainstream",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "topics": ["psychology", "social-sciences", "economics"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "minReputation": 0.5,
      "rationale": "Peer-reviewed-mainstream consensus for fields where replication has been more contested; weighted lower than hard-science consensus."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:HistoricalAcademicMainstream",
      "weight": 1.0,
      "topics": ["history"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "rationale": "Mainstream academic-historical consensus."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:HistoricalAcademicRevisionist",
      "weight": 0.5,
      "topics": ["history"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "rationale": "Honest disagreement among credentialed historians is informative; revisionist scholarship surfaced at half-weight rather than excluded."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:HumanDignityUDHRFrame",
      "weight": 1.0,
      "topics": ["law", "human-rights", "philosophy-and-ethics"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "Anchored on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights tradition. Hospitable to Catholic, Kantian, Capabilities readings via Rawlsian overlapping consensus (per consensus-frames research)."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:JournalismMainstream",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "topics": ["politics-and-policy", "media-and-journalism", "current-events"],
      "minValidators": 3,
      "minReputation": 0.6,
      "rationale": "Mainstream journalism gets a moderate weight; we cross-reference against academic consensus on overlapping topics."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:EvidenceBasedProgressFrame",
      "weight": 0.85,
      "topics": ["technology", "software", "ai"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "Roser/OurWorldInData + Progress-Studies anchored. Avoids Andreessen-style techno-optimism baggage; trusts working implementations and reproducible benchmarks."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:DefensiveDecentralizedTechFrame",
      "weight": 0.85,
      "topics": ["cryptography", "technology:cryptocurrency"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "d/acc-derivable (Vitalik Buterin), with skos:related to 'Solarpunk' and 'Public-goods crypto'. Discriminating crypto frame: rejects speculation/hype, accepts engineering primitives where they earn their keep."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:PhilosophyAcademic",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "topics": ["philosophy-and-ethics"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "Philosophical claims surfaced for honest consideration; conflict is permitted to remain visible rather than collapsing."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:ReligiousComparativeAcademic",
      "weight": 0.4,
      "topics": ["religion-and-spirituality"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "Comparative-religious-studies frame for spiritual claims. We do not embed any specific religious tradition as default but we surface academic-comparative readings."
    },
    {
      "name": "cpml:CosmopolitanPluralismFrame",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "topics": ["culture-and-arts", "history:regional"],
      "minValidators": 2,
      "rationale": "Appiah-anchored cosmopolitan pluralism; less politically loaded than 'multiculturalism'. Diversity-as-resilience as secondary warrant."
    }
  ],

  "validators": {
    "trust": [
      "did:web:royalsociety.org",
      "did:web:nationalacademies.org",
      "did:web:nature.com",
      "did:web:cochrane.org",
      "did:web:un.org",
      "did:web:ourworldindata.org",
      "did:web:retractionwatch.com",
      "did:web:crossref.org",
      "did:web:ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org",
      "did:web:duke.edu:reporterslab"
    ],
    "distrust": [],
    "rationale": "The trust list reflects high-confidence anchors for the scientific, journalistic, and human-rights domains. Empty distrust list as starting condition; entries added only with documented rationale on validator-by-validator basis (per the Working Group's published policy)."
  },

  "conflict": {
    "rule": "show-disagreement",
    "tiebreak": "highest-weight",
    "minValidatorsPerVerdict": 2,
    "rationale": "We prefer to see disagreement honestly than to collapse it into a single verdict. Tiebreaks default to higher-weighted domain; for genuinely-contested claims the result is multi-verdict by design."
  },

  "topics": {
    "technology:cryptocurrency": {
      "domains": [
        { "name": "cpml:DefensiveDecentralizedTechFrame", "weight": 1.0 },
        { "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/PeerReviewMainstream", "weight": 0.7 },
        { "name": "cpml:JournalismMainstream", "weight": 0.5 }
      ],
      "rationale": "For cryptocurrency-related claims: defensive-decentralised-tech (d/acc-anchored) first, then peer-reviewed economic analysis, then mainstream journalism. We are explicitly skeptical of speculation-driven claims and we surface the engineering substance."
    },
    "technology:ai-safety": {
      "domains": [
        { "name": "cpml:ScientificConsensus/AcademyConsensus", "weight": 1.0 },
        { "name": "cpml:EvidenceBasedProgressFrame", "weight": 1.0 },
        { "name": "cpml:PhilosophyAcademic", "weight": 0.6 }
      ],
      "rationale": "AI-safety claims need both empirical rigour and engineering-grounded reasoning. Philosophy moderately weighted because the field has serious unresolved normative questions."
    },
    "history:contested-modern": {
      "domains": [
        { "name": "cpml:HistoricalAcademicMainstream", "weight": 1.0 },
        { "name": "cpml:HistoricalAcademicRevisionist", "weight": 0.7 },
        { "name": "cpml:CosmopolitanPluralismFrame", "weight": 0.6 }
      ],
      "rationale": "Modern contested-history topics — Israel-Palestine, post-Soviet, post-colonial — get explicit plural surfacing. We do not collapse to one mainstream view."
    },
    "human-rights:fundamental": {
      "domains": [
        { "name": "cpml:HumanDignityUDHRFrame", "weight": 1.0 }
      ],
      "rationale": "Fundamental-human-rights claims are anchored to the UDHR-aligned consensus. We do not honour 'cultural-relativist' frames that deny equal personhood."
    }
  },

  "display": {
    "show_falsified": "suppress",
    "show_contested": "surface-honestly",
    "show_unsupported": "flag",
    "show_retraction_pending": "mark-with-warning",
    "surprising_opposite_view": "weekly",
    "minimum_attestation_age_days": 3
  },

  "extends": [],

  "_metadata": {
    "purpose": "Working Group's own consensus profile, published for transparency. Aggregators using this CPML compose verdicts under the Working Group's stated values.",
    "audited": false,
    "comment": "This CPML is informal sketch under v0.1 Path C operational semantics (RFC-CPML § 9). Migrating to formal Path A or Path B is v0.3 work."
  }
}