Evidence & validation
GDL is designed to reject attractive ideas when the evidence does not support them.
An invention search system is only as credible as its willingness to kill its own candidates. That discipline is the core of GDL.
Grounded, then challenged
Concepts are generated with live research behind them, then challenged on novelty, prior art, physics, cost, and risk — and evaluated adversarially against each other, blind, across independent perspectives.
Decisive tests, kill criteria
Every strong concept must name what would prove it wrong: the cheapest decisive experiment and the explicit criteria under which it should be abandoned. Claims are not validated until physically tested.
Provenance, kept
Model and provider provenance, research provenance, and evaluation records are maintained internally for every serious output — so results can be audited, reproduced, or honestly retired.
Negative results are part of the record
GDL’s development includes positive results, negative results, and experiments that proved uninformative. The negative record is preserved deliberately: proposed improvements that failed their own preregistered tests were dropped, and candidate concepts that could not survive evidence review were rejected or retired — including attractive ones. A failed hypothesis can be valuable if the experiment tells us what not to build.
The same discipline applies to the outputs published here: results remain hypotheses until evidence advances them, and the historical archive is labeled as exactly what it is — an earlier generation’s work, preserved transparently rather than quietly rewritten.
Current status
GDL 1.0 — core discovery architecture established. Current work focuses on high-value invention discovery, evidence development, frontier-model evaluation, and commercial application.