# Contribute something that changes the question

You do not need a breakthrough. A well-sourced objection, a missing constraint, a failed approach or a reproducible calculation is useful.

## Choose a path

- **Evidence or criticism:** identify the claim, give a verifiable source and exact location, explain what it supports or contradicts, and state the boundary and uncertainty.
- **A test or replication:** use the experiment template, identify the registered hypothesis, attach safe reproducible analysis and distinguish proposed work from completed results.
- **Data or prior art:** provide provenance, units, scope, collection method, license, checksums when possible, uncertainty and relevant negative findings. Link third-party material if you cannot redistribute it.
- **Capabilities:** describe available compute, inference credits, simulation resources, lab access, manufacturing expertise, funding or equipment, including conditions and limits. Do not send credentials or initiate transfers. There is no donation processor or job runner.
- **A better framing:** name a useful service, the possible binding constraint, a baseline, a feasible alternative, and the observation that would change your mind.

Use the [website draft builder](https://stewalexander-com.github.io/energy-density-challenge/contribute.html) to download a local text or JSON draft or open a prefilled GitHub issue for your review. The website does not submit it. A GitHub account is required to post an issue or pull request; someone without one can send their downloaded draft through a collaborator they choose. No email address or intake channel is invented here.

## Keep the first contribution small

One claim and its best source is enough to open a discussion. Missing information must be declared, not fabricated. An issue is an unreviewed contribution; its existence does not establish a finding.

For a structured record, copy a template from `docs/templates.md`. Open a pull request; maintainers allocate the next permanent identifier. Do not reuse an ID. Include source URLs and locations, measurement units, conditions, exclusions, uncertainty, falsifiers, safety scope, author or AI provenance, and conflicts. Disclose relevant AI assistance and source overlap without publishing private reasoning traces or sensitive personal information.

## Review and status

Maintainers check completeness and provenance. Domain reviewers assess the substantive claim; qualified professionals review any hazardous physical proposal before any execution. A software validation pass checks structure, not scientific truth. Scientific status changes need cited evidence, dated reasons and an appropriately scoped decision. Independent replication must be documented, not inferred from agreement.

Canonical records stay in place. Preserve negative results, corrections, previous decisions and dissent. If a claim is withdrawn, superseded or falsified, explain why and retain its ID. The status index and record must agree.

## Contribution licensing

By submitting an original contribution for inclusion, you offer it under the [MIT License](LICENSE), unless you clearly identify a separate compatible license for contributed data. Identify any exception, its source, required notices and redistribution terms alongside the material for maintainer review. You retain ownership of your contribution; this does not assign copyright to the maintainer.

You must have permission to share contributed material. Third-party papers, figures, datasets and software retain their own terms. Link material that cannot be redistributed. Provenance and review requirements are conditions for acceptance into this project, not extra conditions on reuse of MIT-licensed material. See `docs/governance.md` and `SAFETY.md`.