{ "schemaVersion": 1, "updatedOn": "2026-10-15", "referenceZIP_SHA256": "6cb5e3b52c27391051ddfe5f0896d05d6e240a87ec442269fdbe7739ec9397ab", "scope": "An editorial register of completed archive observations, completed synthetic method controls, and proposed follow-up investigations. No independent participants, institutional approvals, partnerships, or approved access requests are claimed.", "projects": [ { "id": "R01", "title": "Composition of a dated installation", "status": "completed observation", "question": "What does this reference contain beyond its main executable?", "method": "Enumerate the ZIP directory and aggregate file counts and uncompressed sizes by extension; distinguish directory entries from files.", "inputs": "ZIP directory metadata; executable size; the whole ZIP is read separately for its container digest.", "alternatives": "Published CSV is enough to inspect the reported totals; a local inventory can reproduce them without transferring protected payloads.", "finding": "15,476 files and 113 directory entries; 15,870,202,692 uncompressed bytes. The main executable is 14,858,360 bytes, about 0.094 percent of that total.", "limits": "Extensions were not validated as formats. Counts and sizes do not establish cultural importance, runtime dependencies, or a complete service.", "nextTest": "Compare a separately acquired manifest and identify disagreements before drawing a version-history conclusion.", "paper": "/research/provenance-and-reproducibility", "evidence": ["/research/data/reference.json", "/research/data/composition.csv"] }, { "id": "R02", "title": "Literal interface composition", "status": "completed observation", "question": "Which explicit include relationships connect five fixed default-interface roots to companion files?", "method": "Resolve XML Include text and HTML include-body file attributes in two declared directory scopes. Record exact and case-only matches, hashes, parse limits, and graph availability masks.", "inputs": "Five roots, matched include targets, and a reliable inventory. The tool hashes the ZIP in a separate pass to identify its input.", "alternatives": "The published graph supports review of results. A targeted local subset can repeat these relationships; the entire client is unnecessary for the measured graph.", "finding": "180 reached files and 175 include occurrences; 174 exact matches and one case-only match. InventoryWindow.html reaches six files totaling 159,775 bytes.", "limits": "Literal includes do not establish load order, rendering, complete runtime dependencies, or gameplay behavior. No parse or traversal limit was reached in this run.", "nextTest": "Independently repeat the graph with a lawfully held copy and report any disagreement, including case-resolution assumptions.", "paper": "/research/interface-architecture", "evidence": ["/research/data/ui-relationships.json", "/research/data/ui-relationships.csv"] }, { "id": "R03", "title": "Version chronology and provenance boundaries", "status": "completed documentary comparison", "question": "How does the presence of selected interface filenames compare with dated publisher announcements?", "method": "Compare case-insensitive selected-basename observations with official September 2025, October 2025, and January 2026 update records; distinguish embedded build strings from publication dates.", "inputs": "Selected-file inventory and the dated publisher records linked in the paper.", "alternatives": "Readers can evaluate the comparison using the published observations and sources. A publisher-authenticated manifest would provide stronger provenance evidence.", "finding": "ClaimWindow.html occurs once, at 2,712 bytes. SendMoneyWnd.html and BankWindow.html were not found. The executable contains the string Sep 11 2025.", "limits": "Chronological consistency does not authenticate the publisher, independently verify release number 630, or prove that all files belong to one release.", "nextTest": "Seek an independently obtained comparison manifest and preserve contradictions instead of discarding them.", "paper": "/research/provenance-and-reproducibility", "evidence": ["/research/data/reference.json", "/research/data/availability-review.json"] }, { "id": "R04", "title": "Container identity and member identity", "status": "completed synthetic controls", "question": "Can packaging change a ZIP digest while leaving its named file payloads unchanged?", "method": "Create original tiny XML fixtures in memory. Compare baseline, repackaged, changed-payload, and missing-member containers against declared predictions.", "inputs": "The authored fixtures and standard-library Python method; no EverQuest files are used.", "alternatives": "The JSON exposes observed digests and comparisons. The small public script independently reproduces the experiment.", "finding": "Repackaging changed the ZIP digest while preserving member digests. Separate controls detected a changed payload and an absent member.", "limits": "These are method controls, not observations about the client's actual packaging history or behavior. Container bytes can vary between compressor implementations.", "nextTest": "Repeat with a different ZIP implementation and compare member-level findings even when container bytes differ.", "paper": "/research/provenance-and-reproducibility", "evidence": ["/research/data/reproducibility-controls.json"] }, { "id": "P01", "title": "Independent whole-installation coherence comparison", "status": "proposed; no independent comparison obtained", "question": "Is this reference consistent with an independently and lawfully acquired installation, or does it combine components from different histories?", "method": "Begin with local file manifests: normalized relative name, size, and content digest. Compare matching, missing, additional, and changed entries; then investigate a bounded set of disagreements.", "inputs": "Independent reference evidence and consent to publish sanitized aggregate differences. Full file transfer is not a starting requirement.", "alternatives": "Run tools where each copy is held and exchange manifests or aggregate disagreements. Request selected inputs only when a specific unresolved question requires them and a lawful basis exists.", "finding": "No comparison result is reported. Coherence, modification history, and acquisition provenance remain unresolved.", "limits": "Two matching installations could share the same prior source. Agreement is not automatically independent publisher authentication.", "nextTest": "Define independence criteria before accepting a comparison and record conflicting evidence and the acquisition facts that can be disclosed safely.", "paper": "/research/provenance-and-reproducibility", "evidence": [] }, { "id": "P02", "title": "Controlled presentation behavior", "status": "proposed; no runtime study performed", "question": "Which relationships predicted by static interface definitions are exercised in a suitable isolated execution environment?", "method": "Specify an authorized environment and one observable presentation task; establish a baseline, change one permitted variable, and log reproducible outcomes without contacting a live game service.", "inputs": "A suitable lawful installation, documented dependencies, an explicit task, and sufficient resources for that task. Necessary inputs must be justified separately.", "alternatives": "Try static analysis and locally executed instrumentation before sharing files. A component subset may answer some questions; broader inputs may be justified for others.", "finding": "No rendering, compatibility, accessibility, performance, or dependency outcome is claimed.", "limits": "A local rendering result would not reconstruct historical server state or establish access to an official service. The archive does not provide that environment.", "nextTest": "Write the success and failure criteria in advance, identify legal and safety constraints, and retain negative or inconclusive outcomes.", "paper": "/research/preservation-and-service-context", "evidence": [] }, { "id": "P03", "title": "Preservation adequacy and recovery evidence", "status": "proposed; no custodial consortium or recovery exercise claimed", "question": "What evidence would show that a preserved object remains intact and useful for a stated research task?", "method": "Define significant properties, record a baseline, verify digests on a schedule chosen by actual custodians, and test recovery against a stated task with documented outcomes.", "inputs": "A documented preservation role, appropriate storage, verification records, and an independent lawful basis for any complete-copy transfers.", "alternatives": "Publish digest verification and recovery reports without distributing protected file contents. Existing authorized custody may be sufficient; additional copies require their own rationale.", "finding": "No independent custodians, geographically distributed holdings, periodic checks, or recovery success are asserted by this proposal.", "limits": "A torrent is a transfer mechanism, not evidence that a preservation arrangement exists. Integrity does not establish usability, provenance, or distribution permission.", "nextTest": "Specify the loss or failure scenario, the protected properties, and a test that can fail before claiming preservation success.", "paper": "/research/preservation-and-service-context", "evidence": [] } ] }