The joke may be merciless. The evidence must be honest.
Morale Zero keeps satire and science deliberately close—but not mixed.
Science does not write the joke.
The science defines defensible territory. The satire exposes a recognizable organizational contradiction inside that territory. Then verification checks that the joke did not distort the mechanism.
STUDY → CLAIM
A paper contributes evidence to an atomic proposition. Papers are not treated as beliefs.
CLAIM → MECHANISM
The system asks what defensible human or organizational mechanism the evidence supports.
MECHANISM → CONTRADICTION
Editorial work finds observable behavior, stated intent, actual condition, and the human tension between them.
CONTRADICTION → SATIRE
The joke must survive as writing. The science later returns only to verify that nothing stronger was implied.
Score Claims, not papers.
Source quality and Claim confidence are different things. A prestigious synthesis can still be indirect. A single strong study can matter without becoming canon by itself. Claim language must match study design.
Laugh first. Learn second. Reflect third.
Reality before absurdity. Clinical seriousness. Corporate language as raw material. No moralizing. No cartoon villain required.
The behavior should feel observed, not merely invented.
The research explains the mechanism. The satire is allowed to remain satire.
Morale Zero does not require content today.
The root variables draw on established research traditions, but the combined Eight are not presented as a prevalidated unified scientific scale.