Type: Synthesis
Editorial status: Stable
Epistemic status: Documented architecture
Evidence scope: Pyragogy research infrastructure
Last reviewed: 2026-09-16 — AI-assisted editorial check
Human reviewed: Human content-review pending for this revision
Pyragogy uses several research layers because no single layer should be allowed to certify its own claims.
The Syllabus proposes a map.
Interviews bring human experience into contact with that map.
CIP-KGE constrains how interview-derived knowledge can become a proposed revision.
UnPeeragogy looks for friction, failure, counterevidence, and missing conditions.
Working Patterns examines interventions and organisational practices against available evidence and cases.
A human decides what changes.
The result returns to the map.
Map → Experience → Evidence → Friction → Interpretation → Bounded proposal → Human review → Revised map
The order matters.
If interpretation silently replaces observation, the system can no longer tell whether it learned something or merely rewrote the evidence in the language of its existing theory.
A link between two Pyragogy projects is not evidence by itself.
For example:
The system therefore asks not only:
“Is this related?”
but:
“What exactly is the evidentiary relationship?”
A mature revision system needs rejection.
A new story may be interesting but irrelevant.
An interview may contain no usable evidence.
A plausible Knowledge Diff may fail review.
Counterevidence may narrow a claim without overturning it.
Sometimes the correct output is:
No change.
That is still information.
Evidence & Revision · Knowledge System · Handbook map · Home