365-day plan — public expression, source access, algorithmic accountability

Days 0–30: Correct the frame

Deliver: revised mission, homepage proposal, dated correction ledger, source taxonomy, mapping of existing pages. Owner: editor + one developer. Gate: independent readers should understand that the primary project is inquiry, sharing and discoverability rather than secrecy. Avoid invented traffic baselines.

Days 31–90: Make dissent accessible

Deliver: three versioned cross-source trails, original-source nodes, counterargument labels, contribution/rebuttal intake, editorial and licensing choices, simple RSS/catalog export. Gate: usability testers find original relevant documents and can distinguish a disputed claim from established evidence. An accessible static site is sufficient.

Days 91–180: Test pluralism and partner discovery

Deliver: pre-registered 30–100 lawful research queries; paired search/AI tests; independent reviewer calibration; a publicly documented cases register of verified omissions or misattributions; 5–10 voluntary publishing collaborators. Gate: source coverage improves without creating false balance or spam. Publicly report limitations.

Days 181–270: Develop common infrastructure

Deliver: interoperable source manifest and feed import/export; multilingual participation experiment; editorial correction UX; source trace visualizations. Consider Webmention only with verification, anti-spam and SSRF controls. Gate: maintenance cost and abuse load are sustainable.

Days 271–365: Optional agent research + open results

Deliver: an optional AG-UI agent viewer only if user studies show an advantage over static navigation; claim-to-citation audits; participation and representation analysis; independent review; open implementation materials. Gate: increased human agency and source access—not just more AI interaction time.

Sample measures

Task success (source located without requery), evidence-label comprehension, citation accuracy, view diversity in audited reference sets, documented correction response, number of active independent publishers, multilingual entries, broken-link rate. Do not equate “more viewpoints” with truth or “not ranked” with intentional suppression.

Governance

Independent editorial review, transparent inclusion and challenge rules, source conflict labels, public corrections, voluntary contribution/licensing, accessibility and safety checks. This is a suggested project, not a committed staffing or funded delivery schedule.