Engagement pathways for those prepared to work within a falsifiable architectural framework.
Collaboration with the Institute is organized around conceptual alignment and experimental accountability, not around short-term projects or predefined deliverables. Collaboration is intended for researchers, clinicians, and institutions prepared to operate within a framework that prioritizes falsifiability, interpretive discipline, and architecture-wide evaluation.
The Institute collaborates selectively, when partnership strengthens the rigor, scope, or testability of architectural claims.
How Collaboration Works
Collaborative work begins with alignment on first principles, definitions, and admissible interpretations. Proposed activities are evaluated by whether they advance tests of architectural feasibility, stress-test architectural claims under oncogenic load, or extend translational evaluation across biological and clinical contexts.
Collaboration proceeds only when responsibilities, interpretive boundaries, and decision authority are clearly defined. Experimental contribution alone is not sufficient; collaborators are expected to engage with downstream interpretation and evidentiary standards.
Engagement Pathways
Collaboration may take several forms:
- Collaborative Research
Joint investigation of architectural dependencies, feasibility boundaries, or architecture-wide vulnerabilities under defined experimental conditions. - Academic Exchange
Structured exchange of ideas and methods, including visiting fellowships, focused workshops, or co-development of experimental protocols. - Clinical Frameworks
Collaboration with clinicians and clinical research groups to evaluate architectural readouts, feasibility loss, and architecture-wide responses in patient contexts. - Scientific Communication
Contribution to formal discourse through symposia, monographs, or peer-reviewed work that advances or challenges architectural interpretations.
Ideal Collaborators
The Institute seeks collaborators who value rigor over narrative plausibility, and who can carry responsibility through interpretation, not only experimentation.
Prerequisites include openness to falsification, clarity of responsibility, and respect for interpretive boundaries.
Contact the Institute
Initial contact should include a brief description of the proposed engagement and its relevance to architectural evaluation. Submissions are reviewed for conceptual alignment and feasibility before further discussion.