Make the chain from source to claim visible.
This page describes a research method for BIAA learning content and Academy prototypes. It does not claim completed publications, validated findings, institutional partners or a formal research centre.
Innovation pages apply this method while preserving clear prototype labels.Start with a traceable source
A research note should record where information came from, when it was accessed, who produced it where known, what type of source it is and why it is relevant. Primary and authoritative sources are preferred for consequential technical claims.
- 01Separate direct evidence from summaries and commentary
- 02Preserve enough detail for another reader to locate the source
- 03Check rights and attribution before publishing an image or extract
Match the strength of a claim to the evidence
Observation, inference, hypothesis and conclusion are different. A model result should not be presented as a field result, and a planned test should not be written as completed work.
- 01State the conditions under which evidence was collected
- 02Record uncertainty, missing data and plausible alternatives
- 03Revise the claim when new evidence changes the picture
Maintain a transparent prototype register
Academy prototypes such as Pipe Coding and PipeGuardian need dated status, source inventory, proposed requirements, test records and limitations. Learner work must be labelled separately.
- 01Proposed, simulated, bench-tested and field-tested are not interchangeable
- 02Negative and inconclusive results remain useful evidence
- 03Operational, safety or performance claims require risk-appropriate review
Publish for reproducibility and learning
A useful public note explains the question, method, evidence, limits and next test in language a reader can audit. Sensitive data, unsafe procedural detail and unlicensed material should not be disclosed.
Explore Academy prototypes
Innovation pages apply this method while preserving clear prototype labels.