Ambition deserves a clear evidence trail.

A useful explanation should leave you better equipped to ask questions. That is the standard I want GalaxyLink to meet.

Our library connects scientific ideas, company programmes, practical engineering questions and original founder perspectives. The differences between those kinds of material matter. This page explains how we intend to preserve them as the publication grows.

What a source can establish

A primary source takes us closer to the original work: a research paper, technical reference, experiment record or an organisation's own announcement. It still needs interpretation. A company announcement establishes what the company has said; its targets may remain untested. A scientific result belongs to its methods, assumptions and scope.

We aim to put citations beside material factual claims and explain why the source is relevant. The date of an event, the date a source was published and the date we reviewed it are different facts. Discovering an old document does not turn it into new news.

Where sources disagree, readers should be able to see the disagreement. Where a source is unavailable, we should acknowledge that limitation rather than imply that we inspected it.

Evidence, interpretation and possibility

Our labels help distinguish an established principle, a company announcement, a research finding, a GalaxyLink experiment, a proposed direction and a speculative concept. A single article can contain more than one category.

We use hypotheses to ask productive questions. We do not treat a plausible story as a measured outcome. A conceptual rendering illustrates an idea; it does not establish that hardware has been built.

Original founder perspectives express Eby's priorities and reasoning. They are identified as perspectives, and any factual claims within them still need appropriate support.

What our experiments mean

An experiment should state its question, inputs, method, comparison, result and limitations. We should make the record inspectable where we have the rights to do so.

Our first scheduling study is an offline simulation with synthetic inputs. Its results do not establish customer savings or performance in a real facility. The more complicated packing rule performed poorly in the initial example. That finding belongs in the record because it helps expose the model's assumptions and the next questions to test.

Before making a real-world improvement claim, we would need representative authorised data, a competent baseline, fair accounting and a result that survives independent scrutiny.

Authorship and AI assistance

GalaxyLink's original articles are published under Eby Mathew's authorised editorial direction and byline. Research organisation, drafting and retrieval may use AI assistance. Attribution does not mean Eby personally performed every engineering task or that an AI-generated draft has been independently verified.

Our publication process is intended to connect material claims to supporting evidence and hold content that fails its checks. Automated checks can miss errors. A reader should be able to follow the sources, examine the evidence and report a problem.

The research assistant is designed to answer from authorised published material. Maintaining that searchable knowledge base is how the application learns about the project; it is not a claim that the underlying model retrains itself on every new article.

Corrections and changes

A material correction should state what changed and why. Updating an article must not erase the fact that an earlier version contained a different conclusion. Source changes and experiment revisions should be reflected in the record and in the assistant's searchable material.

If you find an error, send a correction. Identify the article and claim, explain the concern, and include a source where possible. A challenge supported by evidence helps make the whole library more useful.

Our purpose

GalaxyLink should make ambitious ideas easier to understand without making them look more certain than the evidence allows. Curiosity opens the investigation. Clear records let other people assess where it leads.