Less polished than the writing section, and deliberately so. Each entry records what was studied, what was tested, what happened, what failed, and what remains open.
Research 3 closed under a narrowed scope. The preregistered calibration could not be fitted for two independent reasons, and neither was a modelling failure: a frozen filter made the required evidence impossible to collect, and the benchmark was too easy to produce the errors the models needed.
Research 3's collection schedule finished, but only after two instrumentation snapshots failed on a timestamp race. Two completed attempts lost their bytes to a host restart and were written off rather than repeated, which is a smaller loss than the alternative.
Research 2 went out: archived evidence, a reviewer packet, two demonstration clips, and a manuscript reporting that both confirmatory hypotheses were not supported. The awkward part of the release was deciding what to do about a second reviewer who did not exist.
A week of walking claims back. The title and the release boundary disagreed, the safety language was stronger than the evidence, and a recovery path only worked on the machine it was written on. Also built the perception bridge Research 3 would later depend on.
Research 1's confirmatory analysis ran against a plan frozen before the data was touched. Calibration improved and clean-route efficiency held, and both preregistered safety hypotheses failed anyway. Freezing the analysis is what made that an answer rather than an embarrassment.