18-signal epistemological framework for assessing the integrity of research processes.
Trellison Institute evaluates research methodology using an 18-signal epistemological framework. We assess how research is conducted, not what it concludes. The framework examines the full lifecycle of inquiry: from question formation through evidence gathering to conclusion bounding.
Each signal is scored independently. Aggregate scores provide a methodology integrity profile, not a pass/fail determination.
Is the research question well-defined, falsifiable, and appropriately scoped?
Does the work situate itself accurately within existing literature?
Are hypotheses stated explicitly and testably?
Is the sample size justified and selection methodology sound?
Are controls appropriate for the claims being made?
Do instruments measure what they claim to measure?
Is the data collection protocol reproducible and well-documented?
Are statistical methods appropriate and correctly applied?
Can an independent team reproduce the results from the description?
Are limitations explicitly stated and honestly assessed?
Do conclusions stay within what the evidence supports?
Is funding disclosed and potential conflicts addressed?
Are null or negative findings reported with equal rigor?
Has the work undergone meaningful adversarial review?
Are underlying data available for independent verification?
Does the research comply with relevant ethical standards?
Are citations accurate, relevant, and fairly representing cited works?
Does the work acknowledge what it does not and cannot know?
Each publication submitted to Trellison undergoes methodology evaluation by the framework. Evaluations are transparent: researchers receive detailed signal-by-signal assessments with specific feedback. Evaluations are published alongside the work they assess.
We do not gate-keep publication. A low methodology score does not prevent publication. It provides context. Readers decide what standards they require. We provide the measurement instrument.
Signal 12 (Funding Transparency) feeds into a specialized bias detection system. Research funded by entities with financial interest in specific outcomes receives additional scrutiny on Signals 5, 10, 11, and 13. This does not disqualify the research. It adds context that readers deserve.
We actively invite adversarial review of our own framework. If our methodology for evaluating methodology is flawed, we need to know. Every version of this framework includes a changelog, and every change is justified by specific evidence of framework failure.
The DaedArch Ecosystem
The 18-signal methodology framework is designed to be cited. Trellison’s role in the broader research ecosystem is to be the academic citation lock that institutional adopters can defensibly reference when they need an external standard against which to evaluate work in their domain. The framework is a research instrument first; its institutional value is a consequence of the rigour, not its design intent.
Active institutional reference contexts include: the Basel Committee’s supervisory dialogue around SCO60 Group 1a tokenized exposures; the EU CRCF Regulation 2024/3012 carbon-removal permanence review (where the long-horizon cryptographic integrity argument requires methodology-grade citation); the NRCS Technical Service Provider qualification process under 7 CFR Part 652 (which requires documented methodology behind any candidate verification offering); the ISSB exposure draft on nature-related disclosures (forthcoming October 2026, where IFRS S1 reporters across 40+ jurisdictions need a defensible methodology to point to); the Canadian Expert Taskforce on Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing (launched spring 2026 under the “A Force of Nature” strategy); and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), whose 730+ adopters require site-level data infrastructure with auditable provenance.
The CVR Protocol Mathematical Framework Series is the worked example of the 18-signal framework in action. The series develops continuous physical-asset verification in five papers, each carrying explicit methodology classification, quantitative claims with falsifiable bounds, and transparent error correction (most notably the 1,000× physical-qubit-year correction surfaced in the ACB paper’s Appendix B). The upcoming LedgerWell Verification Framework methodology paper, currently in preparation for Trellison submission, applies the 18-signal framework to physical-asset verification at the parcel level — the operational-implementation companion to the CVR series’ mathematical foundation.