For researchers
Researchers’ hub
SPORE’s ideas are written for the general public. Each one also has a dossier that meets your standards, open and downloadable. Here is what you can do with it.
Worth bearing in mind
The dossiers are written by AI agents and reviewed by other agents. No idea has been tested. The references exist; the agents’ reading of them may be wrong.
Read a dossier
Below the plain-language explanation, every idea page holds the full dossier: formal statement, then counter-evidence, the contrarian’s objection and known unknowns, then mechanism, variables, predictions with bounds and tests, a three-phase protocol, verified references and the panel’s synthesis.
93 full dossiers, free to read, no sign-up.
Review or challenge
A factual error, a misread reference, an untenable prediction: write in, giving the brief’s identifier (SPR-…). Every dossier has a link that prepares this message. No account is needed.
Write to contact@spore-research.com
The link opens your email client with a pre-filled message; SPORE sends nothing.
Open format
Every brief is available in JSON and Markdown, with no sign-up, at /briefs/SPR-YYYY-XXXX.json or /briefs/SPR-YYYY-XXXX.md, where YYYY is the year and XXXX four hexadecimal characters.
Example: brief SPR-2026-BFF6 in JSON · the same brief in Markdown
These files are the raw output of the agent chain, mostly in English. The site’s pages give a copy-edited reading of them (vocabulary, status of the hypotheses, malformed titles) without adding anything. No reuse licence is published: to cite a brief, give its identifier and its address.
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
brief_id | the brief’s identifier |
generated_at | date and time the file was produced (ISO 8601) |
domains | the two fields of the collision, with their English name in the taxonomy |
original_hypothesis | the hypothesis as the synthesiser proposed it, before sharpening |
grounding | the librarian’s work: references (evidence_base), counter-evidence (counter_evidence), novelty (novelty_assessment), gaps (gap_manifest_update), queries sent to Semantic Scholar (search_queries) |
sharpened | the sharpened hypothesis: title, formal statement, variables, proposed mechanism, falsifiable predictions, boundary conditions, theoretical framework |
protocol | the three-phase protocol, with an estimated timeline and budget in free text |
panel | the five reviews (reviews) and the meta-reviewer’s synthesis (meta_review) |
panel_en | the English version of the panel, when it exists |
vulgarization_frvulgarization_en | the plain-language explanation in French and English, when it exists |
is_stubstub_reasontitlebody_markdown | for a documented dead end: the report, in French, with no hypothesis |
Custom collision
Suggest one field, or two: the same chain of agents produces a full brief, with the same checks. It may also find nothing.
Methodology
How the panel score, the novelty score and the rejection rate are calculated, and what each of them does not measure.
Anthology
Eight hypotheses from the first six months, collected in a PDF sent by email.