RMP.4:2 - Problem

Research accounts are often written from the final result backwards. Earlier plans disappear, a missed observation becomes a blank cell, failed computations are omitted, and consequential human or AI choices become an undifferentiated “processing” step. A reader sees the conclusion but cannot examine how the available material came to bear on it.

Preserving everything is not a sufficient answer. Large collections can omit the decisive exclusion or timing information, be inaccessible in practice, or disclose material that its holders have not authorized for that use. A public summary may be readable while lacking the detail needed for a particular criticism.

How can a practitioner preserve enough of actual inquiry to make its important connections inspectable, recover inherited work honestly, and expose the exact limits of loss, reconstruction and restricted access?