Four modes for collaboration with the researchers in Trellison's carbon capture portfolio — designed to protect scientific independence and publish integrity commitments on the record.
Trellison engages methodology leaders as peers. Every mode below is offered in good faith, with a clear conflict-of-interest disclosure, explicit consent requirements, and an understanding that the researcher's scientific independence is protected.
Joint peer-reviewed publication on proof-pack replication, methodology validation, or MRV framework comparison. Trellison contributes data, tooling, and computational support; the researcher contributes methodology design and scientific authorship. Standard author-order conventions apply; Trellison does not require acknowledgement of affiliation.
Shared funding of a research programme in which proof-pack tooling is one of several evaluated instruments. Trellison does not fund work with expectations of favourable findings. Funding terms are published; veto rights over publication are excluded.
Trellison accepts research sponsorship from institutions, foundations, and industry consortia aligned with open-data carbon removal. Sponsorship relationships are published on the site with start date, amount range, scope, and a statement on editorial independence.
Researchers serve on the Trellison methodology board (standing or ad-hoc) to review proof-pack schema, scoring rubrics, and evaluation protocols. Advisors receive a modest honorarium and a clear conflict-of-interest disclosure, and are not required to use Trellison tools in their own research.
Opening a partnership conversation begins with a methodology brief — a short document that describes the proof-pack component we want to validate, the replication data we can make available, and the research question the collaboration would address. The brief is circulated before any financial conversation.
Where proof-pack tooling is directly relevant to the researcher's published work (as with Reinhard & Planavsky's radical-transparency thesis), we offer alpha access to the tooling without any obligation. Independent evaluation by the researcher is encouraged. Negative evaluations are published alongside positive ones.
Feedback from visitors, translated into business terminology and listed below. Use the assistant in the corner to add a comment.