Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Follow-up research note reframes local LM use towards exploratory analysis in methodological transition.
This upload contains a follow-up research note and supporting internal design/review materials from the Architecture of Limitation / AoLOS K1S local experimentation track. The central note, “K1S Minimal Probe Closure and the Reframing of Local LM Use as Exploratory Stewardship,” records the outcome of K1S v0.6/v0.6.1 minimal probe testing using local and foundation-model comparison surfaces. The work does not claim validation of K1S, AoLOS, or any model substrate. Instead, it documents a methodological transition: local LM use is reframed from diagnostic reliability testing toward exploratory analysis under stewardship review, where visible collapse, source-boundary failure, and substrate-ceiling signals retain experimental value. The included materials document the development of K1S as a scientific expression surface, the narrowing of runner/wrapper/contract hygiene, the identification of resource-surface and source-boundary risks, and the decision to freeze the minimal local-probe branch after v0.6.1 unless a structural flaw appears. The note also records the stewardship conclusion that further work should return to the original K1S purpose: K0/K1 scientific-language alignment with adjacent literature while preserving K1-level exploratory richness. Included files: Schaut, F. ministral_local_lm_k0_resource_surface_drift_report.md, 2026-07-05. Schaut, F. K1S_Design_Note_Scientific_Expression_Surface.md, 2026-07-06. Schaut, F. K1S_Design_Update_Regrounding_After_Minimal_Local_Probe_Phase.md, 2026-07-06. Schaut, F. K1S_v0_6_Ministral_3_14B_Instruct_5_Run_Steward_Review_under_K1.md, 2026-07-06. Schaut, F. K1S_v0_6_1_Ministral_3_14B_Instruct_5_Run_Steward_Review_under_K1.md, 2026-07-08. This upload should be read as a research note and technical workflow record, not as a benchmark paper, model-comparison study, or validation claim.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franky Schaut (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: