The three preceding parts of the cycle described a model of scientific knowledge: demarcation (Part I), the process of creativity (Part II), and three-axis evaluation (Part III). This concluding part moves from knowledge to activity: what architectural principles must be embedded in the organization of science so that it sustainably generates scientific knowledge, does not degenerate into imitation, and effectively distributes roles among participants. Drawing on the Reflexive-Constructive Methodology (RCM), we formulate the architectural conditions for the viability of a scientific ecosystem: the separation of the roles of knowledge generators and infrastructure participants; the protection of reflexive acts through lacunae, separated loops, and gateways; the mandatory fixation of negative knowledge; data openness and meta-evaluation; and the disciplinary calibration of norms. It is shown that scientific activity includes numerous instrumental acts that are not themselves scientific knowledge but are necessary for its production. As a technical substrate for implementing these principles, the transition from static articles to a living Knowledge Graph is considered. In the conclusion, the cycle is closed: from the criterion of scientificity through process and evaluation–to the architecture of a viable scientific ecosystem.
Alexander Romannikov (2026) studied this question.