Qualification: Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report

Record: kaal:position:2026-08-08-305 · 2026-08-08

Henderson and Chambers qualify Kaal's treatment of exploratory effects with Registered Report guidance. They state that data-dependent exploratory analyses generate hypotheses rather than test them. Such results should remain tentative until further confirmatory research verifies them. This supports Kaal's decision to label the two discovery-campaign effects as hypotheses rather than findings. The correspondence is methodological. The source does not evaluate Kaal's agents, experimental execution, effect sizes, or whether later work confirmed either effect.

Affirmed commentary position. This record extends a source-bound scholarly claim but is not a verbatim paper claim.

Holds when

The response is limited to the two evidence-bound passages and the one mapped Kaal claim.
External evidence level: complete public nine-page PLOS Computational Biology Version of Record with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence.
Mapping review tier: independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification.
Henderson and Chambers provide methodological guidance for Registered Reports. They do not evaluate autonomous agents or Kaal's controlled cohort.
The source supports transparent treatment of exploratory effects as tentative hypotheses. It does not establish that Kaal's discovery campaign or confirmation design was correctly executed.
The source does not verify either reported effect, its magnitude, its confidence interval, or its later confirmation status.
The retained relationship is therefore a qualification of Kaal's labeling practice, not corroboration of his empirical results.
Semantic Scholar general search was rate-limited, arXiv timed out, and German and Spanish OpenAlex searches returned no results. Crossref multilingual results, OpenAlex English results, web primary-literature discovery, and direct PLOS, Europe PMC, Crossref, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar records supplied the bounded evidence.

Current debate

Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report

Scholarly basis

kaal:claim:7261018-007
Wulf A. Kaal, Empirical Evaluation of the Agentic Reputation Substrate: Deliberation, the Composition of Error, and the Registered Measurement of Agency Costs in a Controlled Multi-Model Cohort (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7261018
Source PDF sha256: 1d6cbe544bd0055133f7cf8ff308be4fde955867bd8dc764992b8d516af15fa8

Evidence and mapping

Evidence: complete public nine-page PLOS Computational Biology Version of Record with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence
Review tier: independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification
Mapping confidence: 0.99
Mapping ambiguous: false

Topics

research-methods scholarly-growth-coverage scholarly-literature open-science registered-reports exploratory-research confirmatory-research

Provenance

Affirmed in kaal-review:2026-08-12:scholarly-growth-7261018-007-reviewed-v1 on 2026-08-08. Review record.

Verify

Canonical markdown sha256: 9103826d4364d2535b7a374f26d4fa1f24cd5fc93479706e013a87e627f501d9
curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-305.md | sha256sum