AVAILABILITY & DEVELOPMENT · 7 OCTOBER 2026

Ready to use.
Open to improvement.

AkashicOMNI v0.5.0 Public Review Specification is available for manual, human-reviewed analyses. v0.4.5 remains the previous released reference. The earlier September HOLD decision described the candidate at that time; it does not block use of the published manual specification.

AVAILABLE FOR MANUAL USE · PUBLIC REVIEW

Start with the researcher kit → · Choose an open research question →

CURRENT POSITION

Use the method. Test its value.

Method · v0.5.0 available

AkashicOMNI uses 12 perspectives + synthesis. Its specification, reusable templates and AI-assisted prompt support human-reviewed inquiry now.

Tool · Thinking Space draft

Thinking Space adds fuller records, save/resume files, adjustable views and a draft PRISM Inquiry Module projection. It is separate from the bounded claim-review pilot. Complete integration and independent review remain in development.

Effectiveness · open question

Independent review, comparisons with simpler methods and usefulness across domains remain to be established.

The 7 October update clarifies availability, adds researcher resources and introduces a first hackathon draft with file-transfer checks. Thinking Space is an interface for the method, which remains v0.5.0. Independent evaluation and complete integration are still to do. See what works now and choose a contribution.

THE MANUAL REVIEW RECORD

One claim. A reviewable record.

Retain these fields at a level proportionate to the question. A full reading considers all twelve analytical perspectives, recording APPLIED, NOT_RELEVANT or INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION with a reason, followed by synthesis. Disclose the scope of a narrower reading; do not force an irrelevant connection.

Claim

One precise proposition, scope, date and method version.

Source

Identity, access actually obtained, provenance and reuse rights.

Boundary

Observation, testimony, interpretation, hypothesis and speculation separated.

Comparison

Relevant lenses, strongest alternative, counter-evidence and disagreements.

Outcome

A bounded conclusion, uncertainty and what could change it.

Governance

Consequences, privacy, cultural authority, reviewer and correction history.

THREE RETROSPECTIVE TRIAL CASES

Different claims. The same discipline.

These are mappings of already published articles, not completed validated Claim Review Records or independent checks of all underlying sources.

Eliminating the Impossible? ↗

Already visible: A source-linked philosophical claim, rival accounts and the contested step from surviving a filter to being true.
Remaining work: Common record and second review of rival definitions.
Current boundary: Conclusion unresolved.

Beyond the Jar ↗

Already visible: Personal testimony, product-label facts, seller claims, Indigenous context and CARE questions kept distinct.
Remaining work: Batch-level provenance and appropriate authority before any stronger product or cultural claim.
Current boundary: Maker, composition and authorisation unverified.

BQ001 · Consciousness beyond the individual? ↗

Already visible: Competing models, source distinctions and specific questions that could distinguish explanations.
Remaining work: Select a bounded claim for the common record; check source independence and denominator.
Current boundary: BQ001 remains unresolved; accepted canonical edges: zero.

FIRST FORMAL DRAFT TRIAL · 26 SEPTEMBER 2026

Cogitate: a test of the record itself.

Read Claim Review Trial 01 → It states one bounded research claim, distinguishes the experiment from its later data descriptor, records supportive and challenging results, applies the OMNI entries and sets a revision condition. This AI-assisted draft awaits independent human review and does not independently validate the method or complete the software work.

HISTORICAL CHECKLIST · 26 SEPTEMBER

Questions still worth testing.

Publish the common template and apply it to at least three contrasting, bounded claims with traceable source access.
Check omissions, adverse evidence, disagreements, citations, rights, privacy and cultural authority; record who reviewed each case.
Show what the method makes clearer or corrects relative to v0.4.3. Agreement among lenses within this project is not independent corroboration.
Classify the version change, document compatibility and limitations, then publish the specification and release notes.

7 October progress note. The Public Review Specification and manual starter kit are available. The September checklist is retained for its evaluation questions, including its original v0.4.3 comparison baseline; its completion is not asserted. Independent comparisons and further trials are open contribution opportunities.