We give a complete, citable specification of Hyper-Literal Reverse Engineering version 5 (HLRE v5), a formal methodological alternative to the traditional scientific method, designed for investigations in which the researchers — human or artificial — face flexible search spaces, post-hoc selection pressure, and narrative smoothing. This paper publishes the full v4.1 core in complete form — claim layers with separate evidential burdens, the seven-gate workflow, parameter-informed postulation with the five-component record and novelty budget, formal mechanism requirements with parameter and choice ledgers, numerical-search discipline with null controls, prediction and validation with the prediction register, dependency trace, and independence levels I0–I4, comparative evidence with complexity control, epistemic vocabulary control, the semantic-debris protocol with four-layer hyper-literal reconstruction, claim grades and statuses, the ten standard records, and the operating checklist — together with the five v5 closure amendments distilled from a full-scale audit in which the v4.1 protocol was applied and still permitted published errors: (i) a first-class dependency ledger; (ii) a framing audit against novelty inflation; (iii) a retraction discipline with a single withdrawal ledger; (iv) an error-family taxonomy; and (v) human gates (source gate, balance gate) required before deposition whenever every verification pipeline is artificial. This paper is the canonical reference for the methodology; works produced under it cite this paper rather than reproducing its specification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCrary et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: