We are looking for people willing to attack the architecture, not merely agree with it.
The Constitution advances by surviving examination. The most useful thing you can send us is a failure: a scenario where an invariant breaks, an exam the stack cannot pass, a mechanism that quietly grants someone root.
Researchers
Formal work on causal diversity, authenticated fossils, standing, and the open problems on the research page.
Engineers
Building ZETA-style records, BRIDGE prototypes, and execution gating that hold up outside a whiteboard.
Philosophers
Ontology insufficiency, consent under asymmetry, standing without anthropocentric defaults.
Governance researchers
Separated powers, plural authorization, and institutions that survive their strongest member.
Independent evaluators
Red-teaming the Constitution against its own frozen exams, and writing new exams it fails.
Funders
Supporting constitutional infrastructure research without acquiring root over it.
Institutional collaborators
Laboratories, universities, and governance bodies stress-testing the architecture in their own contexts.
Both addresses are placeholders pending launch. If you can see this sentence in production, the deployment checklist was not finished.