The framework has 26 falsification conditions with exact numerical thresholds.
When evidence arrives that might trigger one, a scientific panel decides.
We're looking for researchers who can read methodology and vote honestly.
A case opens with links to studies, data, or arguments. You read them and decide if the kill condition threshold was crossed.
Write your reasoning
You send us a signed statement: your vote (yes fires / no survives / abstain) and your reasoning. We enter it into the record.
Your name is public
Panel roster and individual votes are published at oracle.html. This is a credibility mechanism — anonymity defeats the purpose.
You get paid
500 credits ($500 equivalent) per case you participate in. Flat fee — not contingent on how you vote. Credited to your MoreRight account automatically.
How often: Cases are rare. A kill condition case opens only when real evidence appears that plausibly triggers one of the 26 conditions.
Expect maybe 1–3 cases per year, possibly fewer. This is not a time commitment — it's an on-call scientific judgment role.
Who we're looking for
Researchers in sociology, social psychology, media studies, computational social science, or methodology
Familiarity with effect size estimation, pre-registration, or replication methodology
No current employment by any platform scored on this site
Willing to have your name, credentials, and COI statement published publicly
Willing to provide a written statement for your vote (email is fine — no special software needed)
Graduate students and early-career researchers welcome — credentials matter less than
methodology literacy and independence. If you've engaged seriously with pre-registration,
IRR, or effect size debates, you're likely qualified.
Compensation + independence
500 credits per case. Credits are the on-platform unit worth $1 each.
Redeemable against any MoreRight service or held as-is. Payment is automatic when
a case closes — it goes to your MoreRight account wallet.
Not contingent on outcome. You receive the same honorarium whether
you vote yes fires, no survives, or abstain. There is no financial incentive to vote
any particular way.
Your COI is public. The honorarium itself is a conflict of interest
and will be listed in your COI statement on the public panel page: "Receives 500 credits
per case from MoreRight. No other financial relationship."
Apply
Application submitted
We'll review it and reach out via the email you provided. Usually within a week.
X thread
Post this thread to recruit researchers. Each block is one tweet.
We need 3 scientists willing to publicly vote on whether TikTok's attention research falsifies our framework's kill conditions.
Yes, publicly. With COI disclosure. With written reasoning.
$500/case. 1–3 cases/year.
Do you qualify? → moreright.xyz/pages/oracle-screen.html
The role in plain English:
A prediction market opens on whether social media addiction evidence crosses a numerical threshold
Evidence arrives. You read it.
Vote: yes it crosses / no it doesn't / abstain
Your name, credentials, and reasoning are published
You get paid regardless of how you vote
Why do this publicly?
Because anonymous expert panels are easily captured. Because "the science says X" is meaningless without a name attached. Because the whole point is accountability.
The panel's credibility comes from public names with public reasoning. Anonymity defeats it.
Who we need:
→ Social psych, sociology, comp soc sci, or methodology
→ Can interpret a Cohen's d
→ Not employed by a scored platform
→ Willing to be publicly named
→ Can reply within 2 weeks when a case opens
Graduate students welcome. Early-career welcome.
Take the screener: moreright.xyz/pages/oracle-screen.html
Outreach template
If you're sharing this with a researcher directly:
Hi [Name],
I'm reaching out about a scientific panel role that might interest you.
MoreRight is a framework that scores platforms (social media, gambling, fintech) on three dimensions: opacity, responsiveness, and attention coupling. The framework has 26 pre-registered falsification conditions — specific experimental results that would refute the model. When evidence arrives that might trigger one of these, a scientific panel adjudicates: did the evidence actually cross the threshold?
We're building that panel now and think your background in [methodology / sociology / platform effects] makes you a good fit.
What it involves:
• Read evidence for a case when one opens (maybe 1–3 times a year, possibly fewer)
• Write your vote (yes fires / no survives / abstain) and reasoning in a signed statement
• Your name, credentials, and COI are published publicly — this is the whole point
Compensation: 500 credits ($500 equivalent) flat per case. Not contingent on your vote.
You can read how the panel works here: https://moreright.xyz/pages/oracle.html
If you're interested, the application takes about 5 minutes: https://moreright.xyz/pages/oracle-apply.html
Happy to answer questions.
[Your name]