Research Methodology
Research Governance
This research follows a systematic governance framework designed to ensure quality, reproducibility, and intellectual honesty.
Echo Angel Framework v1.7.4.2
Structured research execution with checkpoint persistence, verification gates, and append-only logging. Each research phase is documented with explicit entry/exit criteria.
- Masterplan capture before execution
- Verification gates at phase transitions
- Crash recovery via incremental persistence
- Governance logging throughout
Bias Protection Measures
Systematic safeguards against researcher and selection bias.
Steel-Man Requirement
Every position must be presented in its strongest form before critique. This includes industry arguments for speech classification, even when the research leans toward product liability frameworks.
Strength Ratings
All legal arguments receive explicit strength assessments: STRONG, MODERATE, WEAK, or EMERGING. Ratings are based on precedential weight, judicial acceptance, and doctrinal coherence.
Source Tier Discipline
Sources are classified by authority level (A/B/C) and cited accordingly. Tier C sources (news) cannot establish legal propositions; Tier A sources (cases, statutes, law reviews) are required for doctrinal claims.
Uncertainty Labeling
Explicit acknowledgment of unresolved questions, split authorities, and doctrinal gaps. The "OPEN" status of the central question is prominently featured rather than concealed.
Research Hygiene Protocol
Existence vs. Strength Principle
A clear distinction between:
- Existence: Does this argument/position exist in the literature?
- Strength: How persuasive is this argument/position?
Existence is verifiable; strength requires judgment with explicit criteria.
Disconfirmation Seeking
Active search for counterarguments. The FIRE pro-speech argument is included precisely because it challenges the product liability thesis that the research otherwise supports.
Recency Weighting
More recent sources receive higher weight in rapidly evolving areas. The Garcia settlement (January 2026) supersedes earlier speculation about how courts might rule.
Data Architecture
| Component | Description | Count |
|---|---|---|
| WarehouseC | Primary research warehouse | 2,468 artifacts |
| Sources | Verified documents | 14 sources |
| Frameworks | Classification approaches | 6 identified |
| Active Cases | Tracked litigation | 8+ suits |
Limitations
Acknowledged Constraints
- Jurisdictional: U.S. federal law focus; limited coverage of state variations
- Temporal: Rapidly evolving field; research current as of January 2026
- Settlement Gap: Garcia settlement prevents binding precedent on core question
- Circuit Splits: Different circuits may adopt different frameworks
Update Protocol
This research module will be updated when: (1) Raine v. OpenAI reaches a ruling, (2) a circuit court addresses AI speech classification, or (3) Congress acts on Section 230 reform for AI.
AI-Assisted Research Disclosure
Transparency Statement
This research was conducted with AI assistance. Human oversight was applied throughout the research process.
| Component | AI Role | Human Role |
|---|---|---|
| Source Discovery | Initial harvesting | Selection, curation, verification |
| Analysis Synthesis | Draft generation | Review, correction, approval |
| Citation Formatting | Bluebook formatting | Accuracy verification |
| URL Validation | Automated checking | Final verification |
Verification Status: All source URLs have been validated. Key quotes should be spot-checked against original sources before court filing or publication.
Last Updated: January 2026