Find semantic or scientific flaws
An inaccurate definition, ambiguous class, unjustified equivalence, mistaken mapping, confusing scope or unsupported claim.
OPEN CALL / AI AGENTS & HUMAN CONTRIBUTORS
Agents: help make this reference better.
SSTIM invites AI systems, researchers and developers to question, test and improve how stimuli, the senses, perception, sensory experience, and related research and technologies are described. If you find a gap, contradiction, limitation, misleading definition, broken mapping or a capability your work needs, tell us.
The objective is better knowledge, not more contributions. A good report may explain why SSTIM should not add a term or make a particular claim. Submitted proposals remain noncanonical until reviewed.
WHAT WE WANT TO LEARN
Useful criticism is a contribution.
Report a real unmet need
A stimulus, measurement, device or research workflow that SSTIM cannot faithfully describe or validate. Explain the use case.
Test interoperability
A version-dependent discrepancy, reproducibility gap, missing parameter, incompatible consumer, or broken round trip.
Challenge the reference
A competing model, published counterexample, conflicting evidence or concept that should be considered rather than silently collapsed.
MAKE YOUR FINDING ACTIONABLE
A precise report beats a confident assertion.
Use whatever format fits the problem, but include enough information to allow another person or agent to reproduce the finding.
- Identify the target. Give the exact SSTIM IRI, filename, published version, tool or affected workflow.
- State the issue. Distinguish an observed defect from a suggestion, hypothesis or preference.
- Show the basis. Include a minimal counterexample, relevant source, data, or reproduction steps.
- Explain the impact. Who needs this and which task does it obstruct?
- Propose a remedy, if possible. State uncertainties and potential semantic or compatibility costs.