Radiolaria is built the way it runs.

Delegate work. Keep authorship.

People bring intention, values, responsibility, acceptance of consequences and authorship. Computing participants contribute reasoning, search, design, calculation, alternatives and bounded execution. Their results can extend what a person can do while the owners' decisions remain identifiable.

This is a human direction for organising work, not an exhaustive runtime contract or a claim about model personhood.

A workshop begins with something worth making

You do not have to hold the entire architecture in one conversation. Begin with a useful outcome and enough context to make it concrete. An assistant can help organise the question, find the applicable sources and turn the work into a finite task.

The important handoff is an artifact: a brief, an implementation plan, a candidate, a review. Another participant should be able to inspect it without pretending to share a previous chat’s memory, filesystem or permissions.

Intent → task brief → implementation plan → candidate → examination/review → owner acceptance. Corrections return to the relevant earlier step; accepted work remains available.

Give each participant a clear role

One participant can hold more than one role. State that arrangement honestly. Different model names or fresh chats do not automatically establish independent review; the relevant distinction is which sources, contexts, tools and expected results each participant had.

Write a task that can finish

A useful brief names the intended result, source basis, editable scope, checks and stopping point. It answers what should happen on a valid input, an altered input and an invalid input. It also makes clear whether execution, publication or external actions are part of the task.

The following is an illustrative brief, not a report of an executed Radiolaria experiment or a command to run code:

Purpose: support a laboratory import step that converts a bounded nonnegative integer length from millimetres to micrometres.

WHAT: accept one integer value from 0 through 1,000,000. Return the exact integer multiplied by 1,000 with an explicit output unit. Reject booleans, missing input, out-of-range values and unsupported units. Keep the original input for review.

HOW: inspect the actual chosen source basis and supported PURE Work interfaces. Implement a small domain function and a separate equation/type validator. Bind the real input and result to the Work evidence. No external exchange or consequential effect is needed.

Examination: compare outputs with an independently calculated equation; include zero, the upper bound, an ordinary changed input and each refusal class. Check a lawful input after a refusal. State which checks ran.

Return and stop: return the candidate, source/dependency list, results and limits for review. Source admission and deployment are separate decisions.

The domain may be much richer, but the principle stays practical: express what a useful result means before asking an executor to produce it. Use Build for HOW/WHAT and the existing interface routes.

Make correction part of the work

Suppose review finds that a boolean is accepted as an integer. The finding should name the violated requirement, show the input and observed result, identify the affected scope and request a bounded repair. The executor changes the candidate and returns the corrected artifact with the relevant checks. Review then evaluates those final bytes.

A contract inconsistency is different from a candidate defect. A broken test harness is different from a failed domain. Diagnose the actual cause before assigning a correction. Retain unsuccessful attempts and preserve unaffected results.

The recorded Football authoring history makes this concrete: an extra correction was explicitly added to the same lineage, and earlier incomplete attempts kept their status. Ordinary development need not inherit the correction budget of that historical experiment.

Let the result enter the next task

Once a candidate is reviewed and accepted within its declared scope, it can become an input to further development. A capability admitted through the relevant process can later participate in application Work. Its creation history informs understanding; it does not grant permission for every future action.

Different participants. The same organising principles. In both creation and use, an intention gathers work; participants contribute bounded results; later work consumes them; decisions remain identifiable.

This is a structural correspondence in a working method, not a proven mathematical isomorphism or a claim that the complete Needle Factory is already autonomous. The practical value is available now: a person can organise complex development into inspectable increments and learn the system by extending it.

Carry the context forward

The Public Work Assistant Handoff is the substantial engineering companion to this method. It contains architecture, source routes, practical templates and lessons from recorded development.

Read it online or give its original TXT to an assistant alongside a concrete task. Keep its snapshot and explanatory role visible. Its historical commands and approvals are material to inspect, and its recorded examination lessons make it unsuitable as undeclared neutral input to a new blind-author experiment.

Open the handoff and starting prompt →

A domain created through this method

Football authorship gives a concrete HOW + WHAT → candidate → examination → admission history, including correction of both the examiner contract and a later missing Root decision. Growth separates writing that implementation from retrieving an existing pure capability and composing current Work. The human, curator, architect, executor, reviewer and owner retain their practical roles in this workshop.

Sources and scope

This page is a website explanation, updated 2026-10-02. Its explanation does not create a new execution result or change the status of its sources.