Methods & Principles

Working orientation

RDCJ Research operates as a laboratory rather than a publication pipeline. The work begins with questions, but it does not assume that the quickest route to an answer is necessarily the most reliable one. Inquiry is treated as a structural practice: building conceptual scaffolds, testing mappings across domains, and allowing formalisms to emerge when they can be justified rather than when they are demanded.

The aim is not to replace established scientific, mathematical, or cultural methods, but to examine the conditions under which different methods become valid, useful, or misleading—particularly in domains where meaning, interpretation, and human decision-making are part of the system being studied.

Principles of inquiry

  1. Questions before conclusions
    Questions are treated as primary research objects. A good question can outlive a correct answer; it can be refined, decomposed, or reframed without losing its identity.
  2. Structural comparison across domains
    Many investigations proceed through comparison: identifying recurring structures across mathematics, computation, language, music, geometry, and cultural symbolic systems. Similarity is not assumed to imply equivalence; it is used as a prompt for careful mapping and constraint testing.
  3. Minimal commitments, explicit assumptions
    Where possible, the work avoids premature metaphysical or theoretical claims. When assumptions are required (ontological, formal, computational, or cultural), they are stated explicitly and revised when they fail.
  4. Constraint-aware formalisation
    The laboratory is cautious of reductionism in domains where meaning, context, and interpretation are constitutive. This is not a rejection of formalisation; it is a refusal to treat formalisation as the only legitimate mode of inquiry.
  5. Form follows evidence
    The output form is chosen based on what the inquiry produces: sometimes a paper, sometimes a catalogue, sometimes an artefact. A result is considered valid when it becomes communicable, structurally coherent, and—where appropriate—testable.

Research workflow

Capture → Structure → Test → Publish → Iterate

  • Capture
    Notes, fragments, diagrams, prompts, reading trails, and anomalies are collected without forcing early coherence.
  • Structure
    Candidate structures are extracted (definitions, relationships, transformations, symmetries, constraints).
  • Test
    Structures are tested through:
    • internal consistency (does the framing contradict itself?)
    • cross-domain mapping (does it preserve meaning across contexts?)
    • constructive pressure (can it generate new questions, models, decision frameworks, or artefacts?)
  • Publish
    Outputs are released as:
    • papers (claims, arguments, definitions)
    • catalogues (structured collections and mappings)
    • artefacts (music, interfaces, physical or computational devices)
  • Iterate
    Publications are treated as provisional. They may be refined, split, recombined, or recontextualised in later synthesis.

Evidence and validation

Validation depends on the type of structure under investigation, not on a single universal criterion.

  • Formal and mathematical work
    Evaluated through definitional clarity, internal coherence, derivation, and constraint satisfaction.
  • Computational work
    Evaluated through implementability, reproducibility, and behavioural clarity.
  • Symbolic and cultural systems analysis
    Evaluated through structural coherence, comparative explanatory power, and the ability to generate non-trivial distinctions about meaning and decision-making.
  • Artefacts
    Validated as operational interfaces: they must make a structure perceptible, interactable, and meaningfully constrained, rather than merely illustrative or aesthetic.

Across all categories, the primary failure mode avoided is premature certainty.

Publication posture

RDCJ Research publishes in public, but does not optimise for reach. The default stance is slow release: fewer pieces, higher coherence, and explicit versioning.

Drafts may be visible. Some work will remain incomplete. This is not treated as a flaw, but as an accurate reflection of inquiry unfolding over time.

Boundaries

  • It does not present speculation as settled fact.
  • It does not treat symbolic systems as supernatural claims; they are studied as embedded logics and cultural technologies.
  • It does not attempt to resolve all questions through a single framework.
  • It prioritises depth over coverage, structure over rhetoric, and constraint over generality.

Commercial posture

RDCJ Research is not operated as a commercial consultancy or service offering. In the rare event that external organisations request direct engagement, any work is structured separately via JZNSK Ltd and considered strictly on a bespoke basis.

Such engagements are evaluated primarily on alignment, scope, and opportunity cost, and are priced accordingly to reflect the depth, seniority, and non-routine nature of the work involved. Availability is therefore limited, and commercial rates are intentionally positioned to preserve the laboratory’s independence and long-horizon focus.