Team
Who founded the cooperative
Our core team is Jo McBurnie (Co-founder: concept, delivery, and Canadian institutional relations), Shawn McBurnie (Co-founder: architecture, engineering, and methodology), and Daniel McBurnie (Co-founder: distribution, outreach, and audience development). We gratefully acknowledge community members who have provided insight and test data.
How the suite was built
Each product in the suite was developed through an iterative process of methodology design, comprehensive audit, and structured remediation. Veridi v2.6 reflects twelve rounds of remediation addressing over ninety audit findings; Pragma v1.2 closed the 2026-03-22 cross-methodology audit backlog with grounded scholarly citations across evidence quality, credibility revolution, transferability, political economy, and normative philosophy; Praxis v1.2 resolved all six prior golden-scenario partials and introduced the S-1 Outcome Tracking protocol.
The combined v1.2 validation across the three products tested 192 claims and scenarios:
- Veridi v2.7 — 96 of 97 claims pass at the v2.6 baseline (98.97%); 1 partial, 0 failed. Tests span eight subject domains, nine verdict categories, and Veridi’s 12 documented gaming vectors. v2.7 is an additive patch (April 2026) extending the self-reference gate to cover the LLM substrate; ADV-026 added as regression coverage. No prior verdicts changed.
- Pragma v1.2 — 54 of 55 claims pass (98.2%); 1 robust-regardless arithmetic-path note, 0 failed. Tests cover transferability scenarios, normative protocol, and Implementation-Constraint reasoning.
- Praxis v1.2 — 39 of 40 scenarios pass (97.5%); 1 documentation-level reconciliation, 0 failed. Tests cover all 9 pathway types across leverage matching, sustainability risk, and gaming countermeasures.
Combined: 189 of 192 (98.4%). The validation processes, results, and their limitations are documented in the validation report and the changelog.
Advisory and review
We welcome external review of all three methodologies. The full set of methodology files is available for inspection, and we actively seek feedback from fact-checking professionals, policy researchers, organizing practitioners, and anyone with relevant expertise.
If you have a claim, policy question, or action goal you believe one of the products will handle incorrectly, we want to hear about it. Testing against scenarios designed to break each methodology is how each one gets stronger.