Authors, contributors, and publication accountability
Record ID: LL-FDE-AUTH-001
Version: 0.1.0
Status: public-draft accountability record; individual method-paper authors and reviewers are not yet appointed
Evidence cutoff: September 1, 2026
1. Current authorship statement
LockedIn Labs Research is the established organizational author of the LockedIn FDE Benchmark v0.1 Public Method and Construct Draft.
The method-paper record does not yet name an individual author, corresponding author, publication guarantor, methods reviewer, measurement reviewer, or independent validator. Repository activity, employment, access to the workspace, or AI-assisted contribution does not automatically establish authorship or review authority.
This organizational authorship statement identifies the source-preview publisher. It does not establish independent review, peer review, validation, certification, or authorization for official assessment use.
Educational field-guide authorship, September 8, 2026
Sam M. Sweilem is the named author of Assessing AI delivery skills: a practical FDE readiness guide and The Field Is the Interview. He commissioned the broader AI skills and FDE learning direction and explicitly authorized articles under his name and publication on the owned sites. The latter adapts his saved September 6, 2026 essay for first publication on September 9, 2026. AI-assisted source checking, editorial adaptation, and software production supported these educational articles; their bylines are not claims of independent review.
This scope-specific record does not retroactively attribute the method paper or other field notes, appoint a methods reviewer, or satisfy the remaining citable archived research-release gates below. LockedIn Labs remains the publisher and the correction channel remains the public contact route.
2. Accountability roles
| Role | Current appointee | Current state | Required before citable archived release |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational author | LockedIn Labs Research | Recorded | Confirm authority to publish under the organization name |
| Individual author or authors | Unassigned | Open | Name each author, affiliation, ORCID where available, contribution, approval, and accountability acceptance |
| Corresponding publication contact | Unassigned | Open | Publish a monitored non-sensitive contact route |
| Publication guarantor | Unassigned | Blocking | Accept responsibility for the integrity of the complete publication record |
| Publication owner | Unassigned | Blocking | Own release preparation, archive, monitoring, and corrections |
| Claims reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking | Verify that every objective claim resolves to an evidence receipt |
| Conflict reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking | Review disclosures and recusals without approving their own conflict record |
| Methods reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking | Review construct, intended use, methods, uncertainty, and limitations |
| Measurement reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking for empirical or score claims | Review validity evidence and interpretation boundaries |
| Accessibility reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking for participant-facing release | Review accessible administration and alternate-demonstration evidence |
| Privacy/security reviewer | Unassigned | Blocking for real-data or operational release | Review data boundaries, providers, threats, retention, and incident controls |
| Release authority | Unassigned | Blocking | Sign the decision for the exact manifest and publication class |
An unassigned role MUST remain visibly unassigned. A title, avatar, signature, quote, or review badge must not be synthesized for an open role.
3. Individual authorship requirements
Before a person is listed as an author, the publication owner must retain evidence that the person:
- made a substantial intellectual contribution to conception, methodology, investigation, software, analysis, or interpretation;
- drafted or critically revised the publication’s substantive content;
- approved the exact released version; and
- accepted accountability for resolving questions about accuracy or integrity.
Funding, management title, administrative support, data entry, language editing, or access to resources alone does not establish authorship. Those contributions may be acknowledged separately with permission.
4. CRediT contribution record
Contributions SHOULD use the CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy. The 14 available roles are Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
No named contribution assignment is approved at this cutoff.
| CRediT role | Named contributor | Contribution level | Evidence reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conceptualization | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Data curation | Unassigned | Not recorded | No human-participant dataset admitted |
| Formal analysis | Unassigned | Not recorded | No empirical analysis published |
| Funding acquisition | Unassigned | Not recorded | Funding statement pending |
| Investigation | Unassigned | Not recorded | No admitted participant investigation |
| Methodology | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Project administration | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Resources | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Software | Unassigned | Not recorded | Repository contribution is not yet an approved publication role |
| Supervision | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Validation | Unassigned | Not recorded | No benchmark validation is claimed |
| Visualization | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Writing – original draft | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
| Writing – review & editing | Unassigned | Not recorded | Pending contributor approval |
The contribution table must be replaced with approved person-specific assignments before a citable archived release. It must not be completed by inferring identity or responsibility from commit history alone.
5. Review independence
Review scope and independence are separate from authorship.
- An author may perform internal review but cannot describe it as independent review.
- A methods reviewer must publish qualifications, scope, date, materials reviewed, conflicts, findings, disagreements, and signed disposition.
- A reviewer who designed or implemented the affected method may contribute technical clarification but cannot be the only independent reviewer.
- Sponsor, customer, training, employment, platform, and personal relationships must be disclosed.
- “Peer reviewed,” “independently reviewed,” “validated,” and “reproduced” remain controlled claims until their named evidence records exist.
6. AI-assisted contribution
AI-assisted systems have supported source discovery, drafting, software development, and testing in the source workstream. AI systems are not authors, reviewers, evidence sources, signatories, or decision authorities.
The release-specific disclosure must identify the tool/provider, categories of use, protected-input boundaries, and human verification completed for the exact candidate. Human approval of the final release remains pending. See Publication Disclosures.
7. Approval record required for release
Before GL-2 citable archived draft status, the final author record must include:
- approved display name, affiliation, and ORCID where available for each person;
- CRediT roles and lead/supporting scope;
- exact-version approval and accountability acceptance;
- funding, competing-interest, and relevant relationship disclosures;
- data or controlled-material access roles;
- corresponding contact and publication guarantor;
- reviewer identities, qualifications, independence, conflicts, scope, and signed outcomes;
- release authority and decision-record reference.
Current status: incomplete and blocking for a citable archived release.
Appointments and completed reviews must use the Reviewer Appointment, Independence, and Signed Review Protocol and its machine-readable review record. The protocol does not appoint anyone by itself.