README

Inbox

Raw knowledge lands here before it is processed into the wiki proper. Anything can arrive in any shape: a transcribed voice note, a forwarded email, a meeting note, a quick observation from a carer. The goal of this folder is to make inputs frictionless and to route them through a consistent triage workflow without losing anything.

The four subfolders

• voice-notes/ — transcribed voice notes, usually from carers, parents, or team members capturing something in the moment. May be fragmentary.
• meeting-notes/ — raw notes from team meetings, partner calls, or workshops. Often dense and wide-ranging; a single file may contain inputs for several different wiki pages.
• forwarded/ — emails, links, PDFs, and documents that someone passed along because they looked useful. Source and sender should be noted at the top of the file.
• observations/ — quick text-form observations from carers, teachers, volunteers, or autistic people themselves. These are the raw material for 02-practice/observed-patterns/.

Triage checklist

When Claude or a curator processes an inbox item, work through these steps in order. Each step produces a visible artefact so the next reviewer can pick up where the last one left off.

1. Read the input end-to-end before deciding anything. Note the source and date. If something is ambiguous, flag the question rather than guessing.
2. Propose a classification. Which top-level category (01-science, 02-practice, 03-methods, 04-organisation, 05-landscape, 06-comms) does it belong in, and which subfolder? A single input may fan out to several.
3. Propose tags. Apply the taxonomy from CLAUDE.md § Tagging: type/…, sensory/…, setting/…, age/…, evidence/…, status/…, lang/…, project/…. Err on the side of more specific tags.
4. Decide: new page or update existing? Search the vault for related pages first. Updating is almost always better than duplicating. If updating, note which page and what changes.
5. Draft the structured entry using the appropriate template from templates/. Keep prose in British English. Set status: review in frontmatter — never skip straight to published.
6. Hand over for human review. The curator reads, edits, approves, or sends back with notes.
7. Integrate. On approval, move the draft to its permanent location, add wikilinks to related pages from both directions, and update status: to published. Delete the inbox original only once the integration is verified.

Privacy guardrail — non-negotiable

No page in this wiki ever names or identifies an individual service user, client, or research subject. Experiential inputs must be abstracted into patterns before they leave the inbox. “Jaap cannot concentrate when the radio is on” becomes an observation about ambient auditory interference, with the name removed and the context generalised. If an input cannot be abstracted without losing its meaning, that is a signal to reject it rather than sanitise it badly.

Named individuals may appear only in three narrow cases: published researchers (in paper summaries), public organisational figures (in project histories or partner profiles, with their consent), and the user’s own team members in internal operational notes. Everyone else stays anonymous.

Rejection criteria

Some inbox items should be discarded rather than integrated. Reject when:

• The content is off-topic for this wiki’s remit (sensory processing in autism and intellectual disabilities).
• The content makes specific claims about named individuals that cannot be anonymised without distortion.
• The content is unverifiable and would only fit under evidence/anecdotal, and no pattern across multiple inputs supports it.
• The content duplicates an existing page without adding new evidence, context, or nuance.
• The source is compromised — e.g. a forwarded document whose provenance cannot be established for a claim that would otherwise need strong sourcing.

When rejecting, leave a one-line note in a rejected.md log at the inbox root explaining what was dropped and why. That log is itself a form of institutional memory.