Sync main into contrib

org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/PRE_REGISTRATION.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ new dated entry under "Amendments," never an edit to what was registered.
   v1.0. A substantial change to the consent, the study design, or the protocol requires a Research
   Progress & Review Form to the IRB before fielding.
 - **Field site.** Hult Cohort Program, Fall 2026 cohort.
-- **Design registered on.** `<COMMIT DATE — set by the commit that lands this file>`, before Wave 1 opens.
+- **Design registered on.** 2026-09-08 (landed on `main` in commit `05f49e8`, PR #728; the file has not changed since), before Wave 1 opens. [Placeholder filled by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, from the git history.]
 - **Waves.** W1 baseline (before week 1); W2 (week 4, after the first build-and-review cycle); W3 (end of
   session, week 16).
 - **Population.** All enrolled participants; voluntary; not a condition of enrollment or assessment.

submissions/CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# CFP fit review of the fifteen arms after *Organization Science* AI-Enabled Frontiers
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026. Each arm's abstract, argument and outline were read against the
+verbatim lines in its `cfp/README.md` (as digested 26 Oct and annotated 27 Oct). Where an abstract
+failed to answer a line the call names, or missed a required element, a targeted edit was made to
+the Claude draft and recorded here and in the file's header. No author prose was touched. The author's
+read-aloud remains the last gate.]
+
+## Summary
+
+| Arm | Fit before | Edit made | Still open |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| AlgorLit 2027 | Good. Four required headings, five keywords, no author name. Engages the field's own definitions. | README names the thematic area to select (01; 03 secondary). | The 15 Oct / 15 Nov date. |
+| *JITCAR* | Partial. Addressed accountability and contestability; did not answer the call's line on how organizations *assess* the consequences of AI-enabled decisions under institutional constraints and incentives. | One sentence rewritten to answer that line. | A case journal may want a case; length unknown. |
+| SPM2027 | Good. Names opacity as lived, Simmel as framework, anxiety; abstract within 150–250. | README names Axis 1 (Axis 2 for the affect line). | Biography; postphenomenology card is secondary depth. |
+| SASE (Network J) | Good for MC09, which it names. Network J's own language (participatory evaluation systems, digital reputations) was not used. | A Network J closing supplied as an alternate. | Route choice. |
+| CEPE 2027 | Good. Accountability and AI-mediated systems; power and responsibility; APA; 600–800 words. | None. | Rolling review: send early. |
+| EURAM 2027 | Partial. The implications paragraph spoke to "OB and HRM" without the track's words (job quality, autonomy, fairness, transparency, accountability). | Implications paragraph now names job quality, autonomy and fairness. | Dropped by default under ruling g. |
+| EGOS sub-theme 64 | Strong. Opens on the convenors' question, closes on humanness and connection. Did not touch their "bending, hacking, or resisting" line. Outline budgeted 3,000 words of body, but the 2027 guidelines put references inside the 3,000. | Practices tied to bending rules one did not write. Outline rebudgeted to 2,500 body plus references. | Sub-theme 03 versus 64 (default 64). |
+| *ISJ* | Partial. Uses the call's "human–machine–institution interface"; did not address workers' voice and agency. | One sentence connects the three properties to voice through the system. | Call page unread; length and types unknown. |
+| *I&O* Hype | Good. Producers and certifiers map onto "intermediaries and the infrastructure of hype"; mandates onto governance. | One sentence maps the four questions onto the call's three fronts. | Call seen only on an aggregator; PDW date. |
+| *I&O* Assemblages | No abstract (stub). | None. | If the 31 Jan 2027 date on the journal index is real, the arm needs an abstract on assemblages as triads, interpretive and field-level, per the stub's README. |
+| *Organization Science* Agency | Strong. Opens on "who acts", answers the call's accountability and competence-reassignment lines, avoids general commentary. | Closing sentence uses the call's "production of action". | INFORMS PDF unread; portal opens 1 Nov. |
+| *MISQE* | Good. Rests on agent autonomy, so it passes the substitution test; practitioner checklist. | Practices framed as intervention points for agents acting with limited supervision. | Evidence is product documentation (Insight route); conflict-of-interest disclosure. |
+| *JMS* | Partial. Truth and arbitration answered the call's mediation line; polarization and blame games, both in the call's title or text, were absent from the abstract. | Two clauses added; abstract now 199 words. | Cards at abstract depth only; AI-use declaration. |
+| *SIJ* | Strong. Black-box verdicts, human oversight, transparency and customer contestation all answered. "Service failures", the call's object, was not named. | One phrase names responsibility for service failures. | Fradkin 2021 caution (FLAGS 9); length unknown. |
+| *Personnel Psychology* | Weak on the call's defining term. The call is about the lived experience of *generative* AI at work. The abstract asserts that generative AI drafts appraisals and gates work, but the registered study (`org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/STUDY.md`) describes a developer cohort coordinating through platforms it builds and a peer-review gate, and never mentions generative AI. | None. A text edit cannot supply the setting. | See below. |
+
+## *Personnel Psychology*: the setting has to show generative AI
+
+The abstract cannot be made to fit by wording. Three routes, for the author:
+
+1. **Add a generative-AI block to the protocol before wave 2.** If participants build with coding
+   agents and generative tools (likely in an AI engineering cohort, but not recorded in the study),
+   measure that use at waves 2 and 3 and report it as the setting's generative-AI exposure. This
+   needs the Research Progress & Review Form the pre-registration already anticipates.
+2. **Use the GauntleTT cohort**, which the Lima abstract describes as an AI engineering program, as
+   the sample or a second sample. It needs its own IRB.
+3. **Retarget.** Without generative AI in the setting, the scale paper fits a general measurement
+   venue better than this special issue.
+
+Until one is chosen, the abstract's first two sentences are claims about the world, not about the
+study, and a reviewer will read them as such.
+
+## What was checked for every arm
+
+Required elements (length, headings, keywords, anonymity), the call's verbatim topic lines, the
+venue's audience and genre (case journal, executive journal, phenomenology society), and whether the
+abstract names the call's object in the call's own words at least once without quoting the call.
+Overlap between arms was not re-audited; the 26 Oct audit's split table stands.

submissions/CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Working defaults for the eight CFP rulings
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026. The 26 Oct audit named eight rulings (a–h) that gate drafting across
+the CFP arms. The author has not ruled. To let the carding and verification work proceed, each ruling
+below is taken as a **working default**. A default binds nothing. Where the author's ruling differs,
+the arms listed under "Arms affected" need their ABSTRACT, ARGUMENT and OUTLINE re-read against the
+new ownership. Record the author's rulings in this file, dated, and strike the default.]
+
+| # | Ruling | Working default | Arms affected | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| a | Three-place forum claim | CEPE owns the logical form (Peirce, Simmel, Bovens). FAccT owns the two audit tests (joint contest of one verdict; explanations that separate the counterpart's input from the rule's). | CEPE, FAccT | default |
+| b | Competence plus collective voice | ILPC (submitted 26 Oct) owns the frontier of control and the counterpart as ally. SASE owns the four features, stratification and the masking effect. | SASE Network J | default |
+| c | Competence plus standing | *Organization Science* Agency owns standing at the organizational level. Exetasis owns democratic sovereignty. | *Organization Science* Agency, Exetasis | default |
+| d | One vocabulary for the three facets | The OT paper's wording wins: interpreting, specifying intent, tracking. The codebook's counterpart inference, signal compression and rule-change tracking are relabelled at the next codebook edit, with the old labels kept as aliases so the fielded instrument is unchanged. ECIS went out on 26 Oct with its own wording and is not reopened. | *Personnel Psychology*, codebook | default |
+| e | One home each for three motifs | Moral crumple zone: CEPE. The two failure modes (pacifying the algorithm; treating the system as a neutral channel): the OT paper, cited by EGOS 64 and EURAM, not restated. Selznick reversal: SASE. | CEPE, *Organization Science* Agency, EGOS 64, EURAM, ILPC, SASE | default |
+| f | EGOS sub-theme 03 or 64 | Sub-theme 64. See the comparison below. | EGOS | default |
+| g | EURAM concurrency | Reject the risk unless the OT decision timeline makes acceptance before 22 June 2027 implausible. The OT paper is targeted for submission 31 Dec 2026; a first decision before June is plausible at that journal, and EURAM bars papers "published or accepted for publication" before the conference. Default: EURAM is dropped unless the author accepts the risk or chooses a different paper for ST09_03. | EURAM | default |
+| h | Citing the OT paper under blind review | In anonymized submissions: "Author (under review)" in text and a reference-list entry "Author. (under review). Details withheld for blind review." In non-blind submissions and abstracts sent by email: "Hunt (under review), *Organization Theory*." Never a preprint, working-paper link or Google Doc. | every spinoff | default |
+
+## Ruling f: the two EGOS drafts side by side
+
+The author's Google Doc "Algorithmacy - EGOS Short Paper Submission" (modified 11 Oct 2026) targets
+sub-theme 03 (Hyper-Real). The repo arm [`egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/`](egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/)
+targets sub-theme 64 (Rage Against the Digital Machine). EGOS allows one short paper per main author.
+
+| | Sub-theme 03 draft (Google Doc) | Sub-theme 64 arm (repo) |
+|---|---|---|
+| State | Full short paper: abstract, introduction, two sections, three practices, discussion, 20 references. About 1,500 words of body. | Abstract (about 330 words), P/P/C argument, outline. No paper. |
+| Question answered | How workers coordinate when a hyperreal system (simulation, digital twin, predictive model) evaluates them. | The convenors' own question: who sets the rules of play, and what keeps human connection alive. |
+| Fit to the sub-theme text | Hyperreality is carried by Baudrillard and Baskerville et al.'s "ontological reversal"; the triad is the paper's own frame, and the simulation motif sits on top of it. | The sub-theme's call names opaque algorithms, rules of play, bending and resisting, and human connection. The arm answers those lines directly. |
+| New evidence | None beyond the OT paper; it restates the three practices with the OT paper's cases. | Anticipatory compliance (Bucher, Schou & Waldkirch 2021) as new evidence for the first failure mode; the Simmel mediator/arbitrator contrast. |
+| Overlap with the OT paper | High. The three practices, the dyadic-inheritance critique and the Fuller & Smith / Lopez lineage are all the OT paper's. | Medium. The two failure modes are the OT paper's and are cited to it (ruling e); the connection argument is new. |
+| Risk | A reviewer who later reads the OT paper finds the same paper twice. "AI Disclosure" header names AI use; fine for EGOS, but the hyperreal framing is thin in the body. | The short paper is unwritten; the length cap is unverified. |
+
+Default: sub-theme 64. The convenors ask the question the construct answers, and the sub-theme 03 draft
+would be the OT paper under a hyperreal heading. The sub-theme 03 draft keeps one asset the arm should
+take: its reference list is already checked against the Lima library, and Karunakaran, Orlikowski &
+Scott (2022) on crowd-based accountability is a source the sub-theme 64 outline lacks. If the author
+prefers sub-theme 03, the repo arm is closed and the Google Doc gets the citation audit instead.
+
+## Consequences applied today
+
+None of the defaults changes any ABSTRACT.md. The arms already follow the audit's split table, which the
+defaults confirm. Two records were adjusted:
+
+- [`CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md) treats EURAM as dropped by default
+  (ruling g) and EGOS as sub-theme 64 (ruling f).
+- The plan's abstract word counts were wrong: it counted whole files. Counted on the abstract body
+  alone, AlgorLit is 390 words (cap 500), SPM 185 (cap 250), CEPE 621 (range 600–800) and SASE 841
+  (about 1,000 expected). No cuts are needed; SASE could take 150 more words if Network J is pursued.

submissions/README.md

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ This week's work is listed first in [`../NOW.md`](../NOW.md).
 
 ## Calls for papers opened 26 Oct 2026, by due date
 
-[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026.] Each folder holds a CFP digest, an abstract, a premise/premise/conclusion argument, an outline and a flags list, all marked as Claude's drafts for the author's ruling. Nothing has been submitted. The search behind them is summarised in each `cfp/README.md`. The *Exetasis* arm (20 Dec 2026) is not part of this batch: it moved to a v5.2 abstract with Antonio Scala's plan on its own branch (PR #851). Overlaps, concurrency risks and the rulings needed are in [`CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md`](CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md).
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026.] Each folder holds a CFP digest, an abstract, a premise/premise/conclusion argument, an outline and a flags list, all marked as Claude's drafts for the author's ruling. Nothing has been submitted. The search behind them is summarised in each `cfp/README.md`. The *Exetasis* arm (20 Dec 2026) is not part of this batch: it moved to a v5.2 abstract with Antonio Scala's plan on its own branch (PR #851). Overlaps, concurrency risks and the rulings needed are in [`CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md`](CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md). The research-and-build plan for the arms after the *Organization Science* AI-Enabled Frontiers entry, with a schedule and a drop order, is [`CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md). Working defaults for the eight rulings that gate drafting are in [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md). A fit review of each arm against its call, with the targeted edits it produced, is [`CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md).
 
 | Due | Path | Piece |
 | --- | --- | --- |

submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/README.md

@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
 | Confirmation | before 1 Mar 2027 |
 | Full paper (4,000–6,000 words) | after acceptance; date not stated |
 
+**Thematic area to select on the form:** 01, Critical algorithmic literacy (primary); 03, Algorithmic governance, if a second can be given. [Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
 **Angle:** algorithmic literacy is defined for a user facing a system, while algorithmacy covers coordinating with a counterpart through it. The literacy myth is a caution.
 
 **Relation to other arms:** draws on [`../berthon_ethics_course/`](../berthon_ethics_course/) (literacy history). It is distinct from [`../io_hype_ai_literacy/`](../io_hype_ai_literacy/), which studies the market for AI-literacy remedies.

submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md

@@ -20,3 +20,25 @@
 - "algorithmic literacy emerges as a key competence for understanding, questioning and exercising critical citizenship in digital environments"
 - Thematic area 01: "Critical algorithmic literacy"; "Education and algorithmic awareness".
 - Thematic area 03: "Algorithmic governance"; "Transparency and accountability"; "Platform power and responsibility".
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** This session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403, "connect_rejected"), and WebFetch returned DNS failures (ENOTFOUND) for the same hosts. No page was read directly. Everything below is search-engine snippet text as rendered by the search tool, which is weaker than a page read; it is marked as such.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/key-dates/ — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT tunnel failed, 403 (proxy policy). Failed.
+- Call PDF — not reachable (same host block). Failed.
+- WebSearch (three queries on algorlit AMS 2027 dates) — succeeded; returned snippets of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/ and https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/about/.
+
+**Abstract deadline: 15 Nov or 15 Oct 2026? — still unverified; the conflict is now documented on two of the organizers' own pages.**
+- Snippet of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/ (timeline block; the search index dated it about 131 days old): "15 OCT. 2026" as the abstract submission deadline, glossed as the "deadline to submit your paper or panel proposal".
+- Snippet of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/about/: the "submission deadline is 15 November 2026".
+- The 26 Oct direct read of the key-dates page gave "15 November 2026 · 23:59 Madrid time" with a calendar link encoding 15 October. The 27 Oct snippets reproduce the same split (timeline says October, prose says November). The most recent direct evidence (26 Oct read) is 15 November; the search index is older. Write to the organizers before relying on either.
+
+**Timezone:** "23:59 Madrid time" from the 26 Oct read only; no snippet carried a time. Still unverified by a second source.
+
+**Abstract length:** snippet of the main page says "Submit your abstract (500 words)"; the 26 Oct read of the submission guidelines said "Between 300 and 500 words". Not contradictory (500 is the ceiling).
+
+**Other dates in snippets (consistent with 26 Oct):** notification "15 January 2027"; confirmation "before 1 March 2027"; "Proposals without registration will be withdrawn from the programme."