AKASHICOMNI v0.5.0 · PUBLIC REVIEW · 7 OCTOBER 2026
Bring a question. Make your reasoning reviewable. Leave the next researcher a useful place to begin.
Ready for manual, human-reviewed use. Plug these templates and prompts into a notebook, document or AI-assisted research workflow. No installation or account is required to access the kit.
The manual kit is now accompanied by Thinking Space, a first working draft for the hackathon. Complete PRISM integration and independent effectiveness validation remain development work. Read the specification · Check current status
IMPLEMENTED · FIRST HACKATHON DRAFT
Open Thinking Space under Lifestyle Tools → A plain-English visual path offers one section at a time, an expanded view, larger text and optional research detail. Save and resume JSON records with source-access notes, dependencies, twelve-perspective coverage, optional modules, synthesis, disagreements and earlier draft snapshots.
A draft PRISM Inquiry Module can travel beside the complete workspace. The reduced module is checked against a pinned interface; it is not a complete PRISM adapter, authenticated review or database connection. Native round-trip and mapping checks cover file preservation, not the truth of a claim.
Read the transfer guide · Use the reviewer and co-design guide · Bring it to the hackathon
Independent domain review, comparative evaluation and neurodivergent co-design remain pending. Source-quality fields and component-mapping notes help record the work; they do not perform source verification or complete the proposed HOMESENSE synthesis.
Common Sense Is Not So Common: a proposed argument-mapping collaboration
HELP SHAPE THE NEXT DRAFT
AkashicOMNI is the method: 12 perspectives + synthesis. Thinking Space is the tool for working through and recording an inquiry. The method remains v0.5.0 while the first interface draft is tried and improved.
Capture a thought, choose a question, explore alternatives and select a next step. Switch views, save the full JSON record and reopen it. Research detail adds source notes, perspective coverage and a draft PRISM transfer.
Open the toolBring a confusing label, a step that repeats work or an access barrier. Explore different reading, attention and interaction needs with neurodivergent collaborators, at their chosen pace.
Use the feedback guideCompare with a simpler review, check sources independently and review the PRISM mapping across tools. Preserve disagreements and results that show no benefit. Complete integration and effectiveness evaluation remain open.
Choose a research questionRecord the task, what happened, the suggested change and how to check whether it helps. Use that evidence to decide which interface or method changes deserve a future version.
READERS CAN HELP BUILD THIS
Pick a starting point. Bring your own question or improvement. Use the existing templates and tool now; document proposed additions so someone else can understand, try and review them.
Choose one question, add material you can inspect and record its limits. Save the result for another reader to continue.
Use the review templateAdapt the reusable inquiry prompt for your discipline or everyday task. Keep sources, alternatives and uncertainty visible.
Copy the starter promptExplain what it notices, which question it helps with and where it stops being useful. Record it in the tool’s optional-modules field.
Describe your contributionSuggest clearer words, a shorter path, a different view or an accessibility improvement. Test it with people whose needs it is meant to serve.
Use the session guideCompare a real export and import. Document the exact versions, what transfers and what needs manual review. Preserve the original record.
Read the transfer guideState the problem, inputs, output, assumptions, evidence limits and a small test. Include results that show confusion or no improvement.
Download the contribution brief“Plug ’n’ play” means reusable starting points and contribution opportunities here. Automatic plugin installation and complete cross-tool integration are not available. Changes to the shared method or software need review; optional contributions do not silently change the 12-perspective baseline.
Share a proposal through the contact page · Explore the full framework map
A SMALL, COMPLETE FIRST INQUIRY
See the worked comparison for a complete illustrative reading. Its two answers were produced by the same assistant; it is an example, not independent validation.
COPY · ADAPT · ATTRIBUTE
Sources, access, alternatives, twelve-perspective coverage, synthesis and review history in an editable Markdown record.
Download template (.md) →Add your question and source material. Ask for a bounded answer and explicit research gaps; check the result yourself.
Read and copy the prompt ↓A portable brief for the missing evidence, a rival explanation, a next study and the result that would matter.
Download gap card (.md) →Use the files in your existing editor. Cite v0.5.0 and record the date, scope, access limits and reviewer status. The templates are manual records, not validated software exports. Source material retains its own attribution and reuse requirements.
OPEN QUESTIONS FOR OTHER RESEARCHERS
These are proposed investigations arising from the specification’s recorded limitations and this starter-kit review. They are not findings or a comprehensive claim about gaps in the wider literature. Check existing work before treating a question as novel.
SUGGESTED UPGRADE PRIORITIES
First implementation priority: claim-review records and PRISM integration. Completing the record mapping would help the existing constituents work together while preserving evidence limits and review history. Independent evaluation, source-quality checks and accessible design can proceed alongside that implementation. This is a set of complementary priorities, not a requirement to finish one before exploring the others. The first draft now implements fuller workspace records, native file transfer, a narrow PRISM projection and adjustable views. The remaining work below includes integration, substantive review and evaluation; independent validation is not claimed.
| Part | Suggested upgrade | How to check the improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Claim-review records + PRISM First implementation priority | Map perspective coverage, source access, dependencies, disagreements and revision history between tools. | Export and re-import contrasting records; compare every field, preserve unknown information and report any loss or ambiguity. |
| Independent evaluation Research priority | Ask independent domain reviewers to assess contrasting claims and compare v0.5.0 with a simpler review. | Define criteria before comparison, document reviewer independence and preserve disagreements. Look for useful improvements without assuming that a longer answer is a better one. |
| Source quality and traceability Evidence priority | Resolve missing source access, identify shared studies or datasets, and distinguish quoted source claims from added interpretation. | Trace important conclusions to inspected passages. Record unavailable evidence and dependencies; confirm that repeated accounts are not counted as independent support. |
| HOMESENSE integration | Connect insights across posts with explicit sources, overlaps and unresolved differences. | Produce a source-linked synthesis that a reviewer can trace back to the original passages, including contrary or divergent contributions. |
| Connections between ACTC, METAD, UMASC and CUT | Define what each component contributes, receives and produces, with assumptions and worked examples. | Review each mapping against its source bundle. Identify where a relationship is conceptual and where an implemented interface has actually been tested. |
| EXPAND² workflow | Test which steps improve an answer and simplify those that merely repeat work. | Compare with a simpler review using predefined criteria for accuracy, omissions, usefulness and effort; retain disagreements and null results. |
| Researcher interface Accessibility throughout | Offer concise and expanded formats developed with neurodiverse researchers. | Evaluate comprehension, task completion, effort and preferences while retaining source access, uncertainty and review history in both formats. |
Individual constituent version changes would follow specific, documented changes and a compatibility review. No automatic version bump is proposed for every constituent. Read the detailed component review ↓
CONSTITUENT REVIEW
The priority is complete integration and evaluation. Several constituents already have recorded clarifications. The work below identifies what to document, implement or test before asserting additional capability; it does not assign new component versions.
Basis: the published component register and its recorded implementation limits. Live upstream posts and comments could not be reverified during this update; the listed identifiers are the recorded source bundles, not a fresh claim about the latest upstream versions.
| Constituent | Recorded basis | Useful next work |
|---|---|---|
| ACTC + optional PP | ACTC v2.0 + v2.0.1 addendum; PP v1.0 + v1.0.1 within that addendum | Document how each conceptual role maps to review questions. Keep agency/context/temporal analysis distinct from assertions of a physical mechanism. |
| METAD | v2.1 + v2.1.1 addendum | Make input, output, assumptions and attribution explicit before presenting a conceptual relationship as an executable connection. |
| UMASC | v7.2 + v7.2.1 addendum | Keep classifications and cross-scale analogies distinct from empirical equivalence; add worked boundary examples. |
| CUT | Original v4.0.3 + v4.0.4 addendum | Preserve the distinction between the broader symbolic source and OMNI’s past, present and future views in every mapping. |
| HOMESENSE | 700 charter Working Draft v1.1 + v1.1.1 addendum; later posts have separate identifiers | Complete the proposed source-linked review across posts. Record disagreements and avoid treating phase numbers as upgrades to the entire framework. |
| AWAKEN · HIERATIC · ADAPT · REGENERATE · TRANSCEND | Public entry points and edition or series identifiers; no single shared version scheme | Document the source passage and intended contribution of each component before proposing a version change. This review establishes no need for an automatic version bump. |
| EXPAND² + synthesis | DISCERN and DEEPEN, followed by synthesis; optional inquiry prompts | Evaluate clarity, reviewer effort and incremental usefulness. Simplify where the process repeats work without improving the answer. |
| Claim-review pilot + PRISM | Partial claim-review pilot; separate Thinking Space workspace and draft module projection | Thinking Space preserves these fields in its portable workspace. Review the reduced module mapping with PRISM collaborators; complete wider integration without discarding information or authenticating self-reported review. |
| Optional QM · MM · PP / external QMM | Source-specific optional modules; QMM is an external hypothesis | Require explicit definitions and a reviewed mapping for each proposed bridge. Shared words do not establish a common mechanism or a completed integration. |
For a proposed component upgrade, record the exact source bundle, purpose, inputs, outputs, assumptions, mapping, missing fields, compatibility and review state. Preserve the original terms and unresolved differences. A crosswalk between concepts is not yet a working adapter.
v0.5.0 is an incremental method progression with a substantial practical addition: a usable, shareable research workflow. The kit keeps the existing twelve perspectives and synthesis; it does not require every constituent to change version together.
LEAVE A CLEAR NEXT STEP
Share a reviewed record or gap card in the NeuronsToNirvana community or your own research group. Include the exact question, inspected sources, method version, reviewer status and the contribution you are seeking. A correction, contrary result or simpler approach is a useful contribution.
Suggested title: [AkashicOMNI v0.5.0 · G02] Does the fuller record improve this review? Replace the gap ID and question with your own. Label preliminary work and preserve the previous record when you revise it.
Human-directed, AI-assisted starter kit. Proposed questions and component recommendations are editorial work, not an independent audit. Earlier analyses retain their original versions and dates.
CLOSING REFLECTION · MANY MINDS, SHARED INQUIRY
Progress grows when different minds can question, disagree and discover together. Keep imagination spacious, evidence traceable and the next step rooted in care. Neurodiversity belongs within the inquiry: make room for different ways of noticing, thinking and participating.
Many minds. One living Earth.
Question. Listen. Learn.
Let kindness lead. Let evidence guide.
Keep the fire of wonder alive.
Original Psytrance-inspired words for reflection; not a quotation or audio sample. Gather around the Sacred Fire →
