Record AR-INQ-001 · Institutional contact
Specific disagreement is
the most useful message.
This facility improves fastest when someone points at a relationship the engine has modelled the wrong way round, a claim that exceeds its evidence, or a control that does not do what its label says. The form below is structured to make that kind of message easy to write and easy to act on.
01Before you writeAR-INQ-001·01
Eight enquiry types,
and what each one is for.
The routing exists because the eight categories need different things from you. A defect report needs a page and a reproduction; a collaboration proposal needs a dataset and a method; a question about the application needs to say which module. Choosing the right one is most of the work of getting a useful answer.
A note on what makes a report useful
“The Monte Carlo page is wrong” cannot be acted on. “On the Monte Carlo page the completion probability rises when I increase risk per trade, which contradicts the drawdown reading immediately beside it” can be, and would be investigated the same day it arrived. Specificity is not a courtesy here; it is the entire difference between a message that changes the build and one that does not.
02Enquiry recordAR-INQ
Enquiry form.
This is a demonstration of the intended enquiry record. It validates your entry in your browser and returns a reference, and then it stops — because there is nothing behind it.
This form transmits nothing
There is no server, no endpoint, no email relay and no database attached to it. Nothing you type leaves your browser, nothing is stored between page loads, and the reference number it returns is generated locally and recorded nowhere. It exists to demonstrate the intended intake structure and its validation behaviour. Do not enter anything you would not be content to type into a text editor and close without saving.
Demonstration intake form — validation only, nothing is transmitted or stored
What the form checks
The same validation module runs the early-access register. It is the intended intake behaviour of the application, demonstrated in the only place a static site can demonstrate it: on itself.
If you need to reach a person
A working channel will be published when there is capacity to answer it properly. Publishing an address that is not read is worse than publishing none, so this page does not do it. Watch the facility status board — the channel opening will appear in the build log.
Facility status board →03Scope of correspondenceAR-INQ-001·03
What will be answered,
and what will not.
Stated in advance so nobody spends effort writing a message that was never going to receive the answer they wanted. The second column is not evasion; several of those requests would be unlawful, unwise or dishonest to fulfil.
Will be answered
Will not be answered
04Research collaborationAR-INQ-001·04
What a collaboration
looks like here.
The Foundry's research output is a set of records, each carrying a proposal, a method, a configuration, a finding and a status that can be failed. A collaboration means adding to that record set under the same conditions — including the condition that a negative result gets published as readily as a positive one.
Three kinds of proposal are genuinely useful. Replication: you have run an analysis whose method can be restated precisely, and you want it re-run under the validation protocol used here, with the disagreements documented. Data: you hold a trade record of adequate size, with risk amounts and costs intact, and you are willing for structural analysis of it to be published in aggregate and anonymised form. Objection: you believe a modelled relationship is wrong, and you can say what evidence would settle it.
What a collaboration is not: a route to a private consultation, a co-marketing arrangement, or an endorsement. Joint work is credited by name where the collaborator wants to be named, its limitations are published alongside it, and the party proposing it does not get editorial control over the finding.
On sending trade data
Do not send trade records through this form — it transmits nothing, so they would be lost, and even if it did work, an unsolicited dataset arriving without an agreed handling basis is a liability rather than a contribution. Describe the dataset instead: instrument coverage, date range, trade count, whether risk amounts and costs are present, and what you would want done with it. The handling basis is agreed before anything is sent.
What a proposal should contain
05Reporting an accessibility problemAR-A11Y-REP
If this site does not work
with your technology, that is a defect.
Not a preference, not an edge case, and not something to be worked around by the reader. The accessibility statement sets out what was implemented and what was informally checked; it also states plainly that no formal audit has been carried out, which means undiscovered failures are likely rather than possible.
01
What to include
The page, the assistive technology and version, the browser and operating system, what you were trying to do, and what happened instead. If a control was reachable but not operable, say which key you pressed.
02
What counts
Anything unreachable by keyboard, any focus that disappears, any status conveyed only by colour, any control below a comfortable touch size, any text that reflows badly at 200 per cent zoom, any motion that persists after you have asked for it to stop.
03
What happens next
Accessibility defects are prioritised above feature work. The fix is recorded in the build log, and where a limitation cannot be fixed quickly it is added to the known-issues list on the status board rather than left undocumented.
Known before you report it
Two limitations are already documented and do not need reporting unless you want to argue about the approach: the animated canvas scenes are marked decorative and cannot be read by assistive technology, with everything they depict stated in the adjacent prose; and the dense figures carry a text summary rather than point-by-point navigation of their data. Both are set out in full, with reasoning, in the accessibility statement.
Read the accessibility statement →06Response expectationsAR-INQ-001·06
No promised timescale.
This page does not commit to a response time, and the reason is simply that it could not be honoured. The Foundry is not a staffed support function. It has no ticket queue, no service agreement and no obligation of the kind those imply, and inventing a “within 48 hours” line would be exactly the sort of frictionless promise the rest of this site argues against.
What can be said honestly is how correspondence is prioritised when it is read. Defects that affect the accuracy of a published claim come first, because a wrong number on a site about honesty is a category error. Accessibility failures come next. Substantive methodological objections after that, because they take real work to evaluate properly and a hurried reply is worse than a considered one. General questions are answered when they are not already answered somewhere on the site.
The most reliable signal that a message was acted on is not a reply. It is the build log: a correction that arrived from a reader appears there as a dated entry describing what was wrong.
Faster than writing
Or say nothing,
and go and break something.
The instruments are the argument. Move the friction control until the edge disappears, then work out at which timeframe it disappeared and why. If the model behaves in a way you can show is wrong, that is a message worth sending — and you will have the specifics in hand when you send it.
Demonstration form · nothing transmitted · no cookies · no tracking