Substantive engagement is welcomed and reviewed.

Four ways to engage

1. Submit named commentary

Named commentary is the highest form of contribution and the channel through which expert response shapes future versions of a working paper. A submission is an attributed response of 500 to 1500 words, suitable for publication in the Commentary directory and — where substantively important — for incorporation into the next version of the paper.

A commentary submission should be:

• 500 to 1500 words. Shorter is fine; longer needs a strong reason.
• Attributed. Your name, your institutional affiliation as you wish to present it, a one-line bio.
• Substantive. A specific argument, critique, addition, or alternative — not a general endorsement or rejection.
• Citable. Footnoted to primary sources where it makes claims of fact.

To submit, write to jesse@fitforgov.com with the text inline or attached. The editor reviews and selects commentary for publication based on substance, sourcing, and the diversity of perspectives represented — not on agreement with the thesis.

2. Open a Pull Request

For specific proposed edits to the text — typo and copy-edit fixes, citation corrections, source improvements, sentence-level revisions with rationale — open a Pull Request on the corresponding GitHub repository. The PR body should:

1. Identify the section, paragraph, and sentence(s) being changed.
2. Explain the change in one or two sentences.
3. Cite the source of any factual claim being added or corrected.
4. Sign with your name (and institution, if you choose).

PRs are reviewed within reasonable time. The editor may merge, request changes, or decline with reasons. Declining a PR is not a personal judgment — the working paper has an editorial position and not every change advances it.

Working Paper No. 1 repository: github.com/cherishwins/npsi-site/working-paper-1.

3. File an Issue

For factual questions, technical critique, or general substantive comment that does not propose a specific edit, open an Issue on the corresponding GitHub repository. Tag with one of:

• factual-correction — a date, number, or attribution that is wrong
• technical-critique — a financial-architecture, legal, or settlement question
• political-feasibility — Canadian, Korean, or American political reception
• indigenous-consent — First Nations consent, Bill C-48, corridor-specific
• de-dollarisation — currency architecture, BIS pilots, reserve-management implications
• general-comment — anything else substantive

Issues are read; substantive ones may be addressed in subsequent versions with attribution. Anonymous Issues are read but carry less editorial weight than named ones.

4. Cite or share

Working papers are released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0). You may share, adapt, and build upon any working paper — including for commercial purposes — provided you give appropriate credit, link to the license, and indicate whether changes were made. Citation format:

James, J. (Ed.). (2026). A Canada–Korea Pacific Infrastructure Facility: A defensive bilateral co-issuance architecture for middle-power sovereignty (NPSI Working Paper No. 1, v1.0). North Pacific Strategy Initiative. https://npsi.ca/wp1/

What contributions are most useful

In rough order of editorial value to a working paper:

1. Factual corrections. Wrong date, wrong number, wrong attribution, mistaken citation. These are merged quickly.
2. Sourcing improvements. A better primary source for an existing claim, or a citation for a claim that currently lacks one.
3. Technical critique of the financial architecture: bond structure, derivative overlay, KPI calibration, settlement, legal wrapper, currency tranching, smart-contract scope.
4. Political-feasibility review — particularly from readers with direct policy or institutional experience.
5. Indigenous consent and corridor specifics — particularly from Nations along any plausible Pacific corridor, the FNMPC, and First Nations-led infrastructure projects.
6. Strategic framing — challenges to the safe-asset substitution argument, the de-dollarisation claims, or the stress-scenario analysis.
7. Named commentary for the Commentary directory: 500–1500 word attributed responses suitable for publication.

Less useful, and likely to be declined:

• General agreement or general disagreement with the thesis without specific substantive content.
• Style preferences not connected to clarity or accuracy.
• Anti-American polemic, or framing changes that move a working paper away from its disciplined defensive-counterparty-risk-diversification stance.
• Comments on questions internal to the Korean peninsula.

Code of conduct

Engage with the substance. Disagree with arguments. Do not attack people. Personal attacks, harassment, and bad-faith engagement will result in repository bans. The editor reserves discretion over what crosses these lines.

NPSI working papers exist to support serious dialogue between people with different views and experiences. The contribution channels are designed to make that dialogue productive. We ask all contributors to engage in that spirit.