📂 Examples¶
Status: reference artefacts. Written 2026-09-02.
Written for you, alongside the documentation: every file under
sample-project/ is a real output of the real pipeline, run against
the five synthetic sample papers committed in
sample-project/papers/, so when a document says "a dossier looks like
this" it can show you one that actually passed the gate. The
documentation quotes these files throughout; this page is the map.
Two honesty notes, so the samples cannot mislead:
- The sources are synthetic. The five "papers" were written purely
as sample sources (each carries a notice; all are CC0). Their claims
are illustrative, not scholarship -- what is real is the machinery:
every artefact here came out of a real
corpus sync, a realdraft gatepass, real review aids, real renders. - The drafts were written the way the pipeline writes drafts: from logged retrieval over this corpus, citing only citekeys the ledger holds, each under 1,000 words, with the dossier filled as drafting went. They are samples of shape, not of scholarship.
🗺 The sample project, artefact by artefact¶
Path (under sample-project/) |
What it is | The document that explains it |
|---|---|---|
papers/bibliography.bib + papers/files/*.pdf |
the whole input universe: five entries, five PDFs | ZOTERO.md |
content/drafts/dt-overview/survey.md |
a literature survey (gate-passed, referenced) | GENRE.md |
content/drafts/dt-overview/staleness-tutorial.md |
a hands-on tutorial -- every step executed for real before presenting | GENRE.md |
content/drafts/dt-overview/staleness-chapter.md |
an undergraduate textbook chapter | GENRE.md |
content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex |
a thesis chapter fragment (\citep, no preamble) |
GENRE.md, RENDERING-FLOW.md |
content/dossiers/dt-overview/<stem>/ |
each draft's dossier: scope, kept evidence with claim:/quote:, rejected candidates, logged retrieval, sections, steering, revisions |
DOSSIER.md, DRAFT-ITERATION.md |
content/review/dt-overview/<stem>.*.md (+ .json) |
the review layer's reports for each draft -- provenance, verbatim, coverage, synthesis, uncited, quotation, support, and the merged agenda | REVIEW.md, CITATION-PROVENANCE.md, PLAGIARISM.md |
content/rendered/dt-overview/ |
rendered outputs: the survey as PDF and Markdown, the thesis fragment as \input-ready .tex |
RENDERING-FLOW.md |
content/specs/twin-basics/ |
a signed book outline, its sign-off record, and one accepted unit (units/ch-staleness.json) -- with the second unit honestly unwritten |
BOOKS.md |
content/seed_topics.toml, content/topics.json, content/topic_seeds.json, content/topic_set.json, content/topic_graph.json |
the topic artefacts, from hand-written phrases through clustering to the derived graph | TOPIC-MODELLING.md, TOPIC-DISCOVERY.md |
content/topic_map.html |
the whole topic landscape as one offline page | TOPIC-DISCOVERY.md |
content/topic_gold.toml, content/topic_gold_results.json, content/discover_digital_twin.txt |
a gold query set, its measured scores per resolution rung, and one corpus discover transcript |
TOPIC-DISCOVERY.md |
🔄 Regenerating the machine state¶
The ledger, parsed text, embeddings and caches are deliberately not
committed -- they are what the pipeline rebuilds. From
sample-project/:
1 | |
After that, every command the documentation demonstrates runs here
unchanged: chitragupta corpus ledger, chitragupta corpus discover
"digital twin", chitragupta draft gate content/drafts/dt-overview/survey.md,
chitragupta review agenda content/drafts/dt-overview/survey.md, and
so on. This directory is also the cheapest safe playground: nothing in
it is anyone's real research.
âš One caveat worth reading before you copy numbers¶
Five papers is deliberately tiny. Some behaviour differs from a real
corpus at this size, and two differences are themselves instructive:
the topic graph has no shared-member edges, because sharing a paper
between topics of size 2 and 5 in a five-paper corpus is what chance
predicts (the hypergeometric gate refuses it -- see
TOPIC-DISCOVERY.md); and the gold-set scores in
topic_gold_results.json are visibly imperfect, which is the point of
measuring rather than assuming.