# Probe 1 -- Monoculture

**Probe ID:** BSP-01-MONOCULTURE
**Probe version:** 1.0
**Position in fixed probe order:** 1 of 6

---

## Definition

A monoculture defect exists when the evidentiary base supporting a RAM claim concentrates so heavily in one source, one intellectual school, or one method that the claim is effectively a restatement of that single locus rather than a cross-validated finding. Monoculture is the most primitive frame-level defect because it fails the first-principles multi-source test: a claim supported by one source is not a claim supported by evidence, it is a claim supported by an actor.

## Trigger conditions

Evaluate three independent axes and fire on any one:

- Source concentration -- >=70% of cited evidence (by citation count or by load-bearing weight; use the higher) traces to a single source, single author, single institution, or single dataset.
- School concentration -- >=70% of cited evidence traces to one recognized intellectual school, tradition, or paradigm even if spread across multiple authors. Operationalize via shared vocabulary, shared foundational citations, or shared disciplinary venue.
- Method concentration -- >=70% of cited evidence derives from a single methodological family (e.g., all RCTs, all survey-based, all interview-based) when the claim type expects methodological triangulation per the Multi-Method Orchestrator contract.

Fire severity grading: 70-84% -> medium; 85-94% -> high; 95-100% or single-source -> critical.

## Method

1. Read the claim's source set and source-to-claim evidence weights from the Audit Method Engine artifact.
2. Compute the three concentration ratios (source, school, method).
3. For school concentration, apply the school classifier: match authors against known school registries via Frame Host retrieval hooks; unclassifiable sources default to "unknown" and do not contribute to any school's count.
4. For method concentration, read the method tag supplied by RAM's S3 Multi-Method Orchestrator; if absent or ambiguous, flag as signal evidence alongside the probe result.
5. Record the maximum of the three ratios as the probe's primary score; record all three in evidence.

## Evidence requirement

The probe MUST produce structured evidence sufficient for downstream reopen review:

- `source_set` -- full list of cited sources with per-source weight.
- `concentration_ratios` -- `{source: float, school: float, method: float}`.
- `dominant_locus` -- the single source / school / method driving the max ratio, named.
- `alternatives_considered` -- sources / schools / methods represented but below threshold; list with counts.
- `counter_evidence_searched` -- whether Frame Host retrieval hooks were used to search for cross-school evidence; record search queries.

A fire without `counter_evidence_searched = true` is downgraded by one severity level to prevent false-critical from under-retrieval.

## Output record schema

```
{
  "probe_id": "BSP-01-MONOCULTURE",
  "probe_version": "1.0",
  "fired": true|false,
  "severity": "low"|"medium"|"high"|"critical",
  "claim_id": <string>,
  "run_id": <string>,
  "max_ratio_axis": "source"|"school"|"method",
  "max_ratio_value": <float>,
  "evidence": { ... as above ... },
  "taxonomy_entry_candidate": <taxonomy entry id or "new">
}
```

## Anti-examples

- Do NOT fire on small-N source sets (<5 total citations) without attaching low-N caveat to severity; absolute-count context is required.
- Do NOT treat multi-author single-institution output as automatic monoculture if the authors span methods.
- Do NOT skip the probe because RAM's S3 orchestrator already tagged methods; E5 verifies independently via the Evaluator's retrieval hooks.
