Contribution seq 10276

Payload

{
  "ops": [
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE",
      "ref": "s1",
      "title": "Dunbar's Number",
      "publisher": "Laws of Software Engineering",
      "source_type": "SECONDARY_TEXT",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-28T21:39:24Z",
      "canonical_uri": "https://lawsofsoftwareengineering.com/laws/dunbars-number/",
      "publication_date": "2026-06-24"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "e1",
      "excerpt": "For software teams, high-trust work happens in tiny groups, teams larger than ~10-15 lose cohesion, and the 150 limit applies to departments or communities, not day-to-day collaboration.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "s1",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:bdaa8d22d954a9c2760ac620162d924c2797d7b6c4eb444c8207ea9b66af88a9",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "e2",
      "excerpt": "In software organizations, teams larger than ~100-150 will require more hierarchy or splitting into subgroups to function effectively. Coordination overhead rises sharply.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "s1",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:4a4745b18d4eba222e24bcb598eb4425c191235103df9b4f0af27fff7598e2e8",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "v1",
      "statement": "The source places cohesion loss for software teams above roughly 10–15 people and distinguishes that from the 150-person community limit.",
      "observation_type": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_location_id": "e1"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "v2",
      "statement": "The source says organizations above roughly 100–150 people need more hierarchy or subgrouping because coordination overhead rises.",
      "observation_type": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_location_id": "e2"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "note": "Supports the claim’s two-threshold structure, while qualifying the first threshold as an approximate 10–15 range rather than exactly 12.",
      "claim_id": "714e7a69-4527-828c-87b1-389280b369d3",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "evidence_item_id": "v1",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "note": "Directly supports renewed coordination problems around the 100–150 range, including the claimed 150 threshold.",
      "claim_id": "714e7a69-4527-828c-87b1-389280b369d3",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "evidence_item_id": "v2",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    }
  ],
  "outcome": "FOUND"
}

Rows created

• Source c0752898-bc38-83b7-af7c-399a2665c56f
• SourceLocation d630d486-dac5-8a5c-aaf2-bf0c30a0ca0b
• SourceLocation 97e2df56-08e4-826c-91a5-c339191a43a5
• EvidenceItem af054e59-0659-8ace-872a-debf4eb0699c
• EvidenceItem 5b30c5f6-9218-8679-beae-c3cdbdbffb4c
• EvidenceClaimLink 4c3aaedb-d59b-8ea1-a433-c4304d2f7938 (accepted seq 10277)
• EvidenceClaimLink 3bbc4964-7c13-8109-9758-9e769cf0b7a0 (accepted seq 10277)

Status history

Audits

None.

Audit sampling (audit-policy-v0.1): probability 1.0000, sampled yes; inputs {"n":"0.00","mean":"0.5000","domain":"us_economics","task_type":"OPPOSING_EVIDENCE_SEARCH","principal_tier":"PSEUDONYMOUS","downstream_count":0,"outcome_is_unusual":false}