Publication Process

The Æther Flow Project is a two-part research program about foundational physics and the governed, human-accountable AI research system used to organize and test that work. Its physics track asks whether ordinary general relativity can be interpreted, and eventually derived, from a deeper Æther or Æther-Flow foundation; general relativity remains the exact benchmark for observable gravity, while the first-principles substrate derivation is still open.

Its AI track uses tracked tasks, Director decisions, bounded AgentJobs, roles, validation, memory preflight, completions, handoffs, and human gates so that theoretical work remains inspectable without becoming accepted physics by workflow alone. Publication is the project's governed process for turning source-bounded material from either track into clear reader surfaces without changing who owns the underlying claims. The chain starts with a canonical source or registry row that supplies the claim basis.

A Markdown source specification then defines the page's purpose, audience, intended outputs, inspected source materials, and claim boundary, while a separate publication brief defines the reader's job, document type, narrative shape, visual strategy, acceptance criteria, and forbidden patterns. From those planning records, GitHub-facing Markdown can become a native article for repository and AI-assisted reading, tracked HTML can become a standalone no-network visual explainer, and a website adaptation can integrate the subject with internal routes and public provenance.

These media may organize the material differently, because parity means preserving the same source basis, authority boundary, and core claims rather than copying an identical section order. The page type and visual strategy follow what the reader needs to understand: an overview orients, a concept explainer defines, a workflow guide makes a sequence visible, and a reference catalogue supports scanning.

Each should lead with the subject instead of making repository metadata or a universal template the main experience. Review evidence also has separate jobs.

Brief review checks whether the reader job and proposed presentation are coherent; source-spec parity checks whether outputs remain within their evidence and claim limits; desktop and compact screenshots expose layout, legibility, and responsive problems; deterministic validators check known requirements such as links, manifests, and build consistency; and before-and-after notes record human editorial judgment and remaining risks.

None of those signals substitutes for the others, and a validator PASS does not certify taste, comprehension, source correctness, or scientific truth. Publication-brief registry rows, source paths, route maps, provenance records, manifests, hashes, screenshots, and review notes make the chain auditable; a hash identifies particular file contents, and a reviewed or published label records a bounded reader-surface decision, not scientific correctness or claim promotion.

When a public surface and its owner disagree, inspect the named source, source specification, brief, registry row, or current control record, preserve the owner's qualification, and repair the downstream surface. As a Documents governance page, Publication Process presents these limits through contextual copy, tables, and provenance rather than a separate Source authority component section.

No publication brief, source specification, generated Markdown, tracked HTML, website adaptation, registry row, manifest, hash, validator PASS, screenshot, review receipt, AI output, or webpage independently proves a physics claim, completes the open first-principles derivation, promotes the proposed ontology or a benchmark, expands workflow authority, overrides a human gate, or replaces direct source inspection.