Cite & engage

How to cite this work, and how to engage with it.

The framework and tooling are on the public scholarly record with DOIs and dates. If you are citing the priority register, quoting the corpora, reporting on the project, or disputing something on a page, this is how to do it accurately.

The priority register

Two dated deposits anchor the work. They were posted to a public archive with timestamps and DOIs before the broader hallucination story reached headlines — the failure mode was named in advance.

Suggested citations

Honeycutt, E. M. (2026). Epistemic-Boundary Misclassification in Large-Language Models: A Technical Analysis (Preprint v1.0, Feb 19 2026). CC BY-NC 4.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18690241

Honeycutt Ai Labs (2026). SlopFilter: A Portable Epistemic Hygiene Protocol for AI-Generated Content (v0.2 / Narrative Pressure Index, deposited Apr 10 2026). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19503170

Cite the DOI, not this page. The deposit is the authority; HeardTogether summarizes it.

Quoting the corpora

Teardowns quote model output verbatim and cite specific message numbers. If you reproduce a quoted exchange, carry the attribution as published (model, operator, conversation identifier), keep the verbatim/interpretation distinction intact, and preserve any redaction the source or this site applied. Do not re-identify a party that was redacted. See Rules.

Press

HeardTogether does not issue press releases, run a newsletter, or maintain social accounts. It will, on request, confirm what a page does and does not claim and point to the underlying primary sources. It will not provide private contact details, speculate beyond the record, or characterize the intent of any named individual or any model. Reach the maintainer via Contact.

Institutional integrity offices

If you are an AI lab’s safety, trust, or integrity function and a model output of yours appears in the library: the material is published behavior-level, source-cited, and intent-agnostic, with no employee named and no causation asserted beyond “alleged” and “reported.” Corrections that cite a primary source — including a reproducible counter-example — are processed promptly under the same rules as any other correction. Intake is open via Contact.

Dispute channel

Anyone — an official, a residents’ group, a lab, a reader — can dispute a claim. The process is the same for everyone:

  1. Cite a primary source. A correction that names a citable document is processed promptly. “That’s not what happened” without a source does not produce a change.
  2. The record of the change is preserved. The prior statement is struck through, not deleted; the correction appears next to it; the change is dated in a revision footer.
  3. Removals are logged, not silent. If a passage must come off the site entirely (e.g., a source withdrawn under court order), the page records that a removal occurred and why.

The same hard guardrails apply to everyone, including the maintainer: no doxxing, no threats, no targeted harassment, no false statements of fact about identified individuals. See Rules.