Research Design: Wall-projection protocol metadata, safety, and subjective-report context

[ProhibitedTV]

Parent roadmap: #3
Related: #4, #5, #12, #18, #22

Objective

Expand the wall-projection capture model into a structured research-design module for LaserLab. The software should preserve enough experimental context to analyze wall-projected laser footage responsibly, while keeping safety, legality, human-subject ethics, and scientific caution front-and-center.

This issue should not turn LaserLab into instructions for substance use or human-subject experimentation. It should support analysis of already-recorded footage and, where applicable, externally approved/ethically collected subjective reports.

Research background to encode in docs

LaserLab should explain, conservatively, that the relevant optical basis includes:

• diffraction and interference patterns from laser interaction with surfaces, gratings, filters, and intermediate materials;
• wavelength, power, beam geometry, surface texture, camera exposure, and ambient lighting as major confounders;
• subjective perception as a separate data stream from image/video evidence;
• the need to compare any perceived code-like formation against matched controls and null models.

Avoid claims that any wavelength, substance state, or subjective report proves language, origin, intent, or external agency.

Equipment metadata fields

Add or document manifest fields for the experimental setup:

Laser system

• nominal wavelength, e.g. 650 nm red;
• labeled output power, e.g. 5 mW, with a note that classification must be verified from the device label and applicable safety standard;
• manufacturer/model if known;
• measured output power if available;
• beam divergence / focus notes if known;
• mount type, e.g. handheld, clamp, tripod, lab stand;
• whether the beam path is fixed during capture.

Optical components

• diffraction grating type/spacing if used;
• filters or attenuators if used;
• intermediate material/layer description;
• distance from laser to optical component;
• distance from optical component to wall/surface;
• notes about reflections, glare, or secondary beams.

Projection surface

• surface type: matte wall, textured paper, painted drywall, fabric, etc.;
• gloss/reflectivity notes;
• visible texture/uniformity notes;
• approximate projection area;
• laser-to-wall distance;
• angle of incidence, e.g. approximate 45 degrees when known;
• room lighting conditions.

Camera capture

• camera/device model if known;
• resolution/FPS/codec;
• exposure/ISO/gain/focus/white balance when known;
• tripod/fixed camera notes;
• camera-to-wall distance;
• saturation/clipping estimate;
• compression or social-media reupload history.

Controlled surfaces and variable design

Support analysis plans that compare wall-projection captures across:

• matte wall vs textured paper vs other non-glossy surfaces;
• no grating vs grating/filter/intermediate layer;
• different ambient lighting levels;
• repeated sessions with the same geometry;
• different wavelengths/powers only when legally and safely available;
• stable geometry vs intentionally changed geometry.

Each variable should be tracked explicitly so reports do not conflate optics, surface texture, camera artifacts, and subjective interpretation.

Suggested matched controls

For the wall-projection model, guide users toward controls such as:

• same wall, same camera, same focus/exposure, laser off;
• same wall and laser geometry, but without intermediate material/layer;
• same surface/material, but altered/neutral optical path where appropriate;
• dark/sensor-noise clip;
• repeated capture of the same setup to measure persistence;
• alternate non-glossy surfaces to test texture dependence.

Safety and ethics boundaries

Add safety copy and validation warnings:

• Require laser safety warning text before accepting participant-observation metadata.
• Recommend trained operators, beam stops, fixed mounts, and avoiding eye-level beam paths.
• Never instruct users to stare into a beam or suppress blink/aversion responses.
• Warn that device laser class/output must be verified; do not assume marketing labels are accurate.
• Add warnings for reflective surfaces, mirrors, glass, glossy paint, jewelry, and unexpected secondary beams.
• Keep all DMT/substance content limited to research context, retrospective/self-reported context, or externally approved study metadata.
• Do not include procurement, dosing, administration, or intoxication instructions.
• If a study involves participants, documentation should say it belongs under appropriate legal/ethical review and informed consent outside the app.

Subjective-report support

Add an optional, separate subjective-report schema that can be attached to footage without being treated as detector evidence:

• participant/session pseudonymous ID;
• observation context label, e.g. sober, unknown, retrospective report, externally approved study condition;
• age-confirmation flag only, not personally identifying birthdate;
• exclusion flags for photosensitive/epilepsy risk where ethically collected;
• perception notes or questionnaire summary;
• timestamp links between report segments and video frames;
• confidence/self-rating fields;
• free-text report redaction/privacy warnings.

Reports should clearly separate:

1. image/video detector results;
2. optical setup metadata;
3. subjective perception reports;
4. interpretation limitations.

UI tasks

• Add a Study Context or Capture Protocol section in setup.
• Add checklist items for laser safety, fixed geometry, non-reflective surface, matched controls, and saturation.
• Add optional subjective-report import/entry fields with privacy warnings.
• Make it easy to mark a run as footage-only, retrospective report attached, or externally approved participant study metadata.
• Keep the UI simple: default users should only need to fill in a few high-value fields, with advanced metadata expandable.

Report tasks

• Include a wall-projection protocol summary in HTML/JSON reports.
• Show equipment/setup metadata before candidate evidence.
• Label subjective reports as contextual, not proof.
• Include limitations for missing safety/setup metadata.
• Preserve enough metadata for another reviewer to attempt a repeat capture.

Acceptance criteria

• Manifest supports structured wall-projection setup metadata.
• Researcher workflow docs include a safe, conservative wall-projection capture protocol template.
• UI checklist warns about safety, reflectivity, controls, and saturation.
• Subjective reports can be attached without being mixed into image-detector evidence scores.
• Reports clearly separate optical evidence from subjective perception context.
• No documentation or UI provides DMT procurement, dosing, administration, or intoxication instructions.

Notes

The goal is to make LaserLab useful to psychonaut communities and science-minded reviewers without overclaiming. The app should help ask: what is visible in the footage, what changed in the optical setup, what matched controls show, and how subjective reports relate to — but do not prove — the detected visual structure.

[ProhibitedTV]

Community source note from uploaded PDF IPIL_158_1.pdf:

The supplied community paper appears to be Danny Goler's IPI Letters article, “Detailing a Pilot Study: The ‘Code of Reality’ Protocol, A Phenomenon of N,N-DMT Induced States of Consciousness.” It is directly relevant to this issue and should shape the metadata/docs, but LaserLab should treat it as background/source material rather than as a replication manual.

Important implementation takeaways:

• The target setup is explicitly a 650 nm laser projected through a diffraction grating onto a non-reflective surface, with the observer/camera viewing the projected pattern on the surface.
• The diagrammed geometry is a wall/surface projection setup with a laser, diffraction grating, projection surface, and observer field of vision, roughly room-scale rather than a generic educational laser video.
• Materials called out by the source include tripod mounting, non-reflective projection surfaces such as flat doors/concrete-like surfaces, and a diffraction grating lens.
• The reported phenomenon is described as code-like/geometric characters running within diffraction lines, with claims of persistence and cross-participant similarity.
• The article itself includes laser safety, psychedelic safety, and legal-compliance disclaimers, but also contains controlled-substance procedure details. LaserLab docs/UI should not reproduce operational DMT administration instructions.

Recommended additions for this issue:

1. Add a source_literature or community_reference metadata section so reports can cite the source that motivated a capture protocol without embedding unsafe operational steps.
2. Use the paper's optical setup as a capture-template archetype: 650nm laser -> diffraction grating -> non-reflective wall/surface -> observer/camera.
3. Add setup fields for grating presence, surface type, room-scale distance, observer/camera field of view, and whether the pattern contains visible diffraction-line bands.
4. Add docs language that separates:
   • optical setup claims;
   • subjective participant reports;
   • detector evidence from footage;
   • limitations and safety/legal boundaries.
5. Explicitly warn that community papers may contain subjective claims and procedure descriptions that are not equivalent to controlled evidence.

This reinforces #22: LaserLab should optimize for real wall-projection diffraction footage from the community, while preserving conservative language, safety boundaries, matched controls, and falsifiable detector outputs.