Build and challenge a qualitative codebook

Begin with a question, not a word count

The 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments both use equality language. Does that make their claims interchangeable? Read who is speaking, to whom, for what purpose and in what setting. The later declaration adapts an earlier political form to demand women’s rights. The repeated words matter, but a frequency alone cannot explain their historical use.

The studio supplies six selected fragments, three from each declaration. They are public-domain primary text transcribed by the National Archives and National Park Service. The selection is intentionally small and contrasts principles, grievances, a qualification and a proposed strategy. It is not a random sample of political writing. Follow the full-source links to inspect what the excerpt boundaries leave out.

Define the thing you will count

A unit is one fragment. A code is a category assigned under a rule. Here the initial categories are equal-rights principle, denial or exclusion, and proposed collective action. Each has an inclusion condition and an exclusion condition. You may assign several codes to one fragment because ideas can coexist.

For an invented worked example, consider “Every tenant should have a voice; we ask the council to hold a hearing.” Under rules that include political voice and explicit requests, the fragment receives both principle and action codes. It is still one fragment. Two assigned codes do not imply two speakers, two events or two independent pieces of evidence.

Now try an invented practice contrast: “The meeting lasted an hour.” Under those same rules, no code applies. Record that you reviewed it. Leaving a passage unread is a different state: an empty box alone cannot tell an analyst which happened.

Treat disagreement as an analytical question

The franchise grievance names a right and alleges its denial. One definition may reserve the principle code for general assertions of equality; another may include any explicit assertion of a right. Before counting disagreement, compare definitions and the exact wording. A justified broader rule is possible, but it must be applied consistently to the other passages.

The author’s illustrative coding is available as a worked comparison. It is neither an actual independent second coder nor a hidden answer key. Matching it is not an assessment of historical understanding. Even two people applying the same misleading rule can agree completely.

Capture your first coding and rationale before opening the illustration or changing a definition. Revise one inclusion or exclusion rule, identify all affected fragments and recode them. Save a second capture. Explain whether the change clarified your research question or merely made a preferred conclusion easier to obtain.

Count with the right denominator

A descriptive count states which code was applied, to how many reviewed fragments, under which rules. If four fragments are reviewed and two contain a code, that is two of four reviewed fragments. It is not two of six reviewed fragments, and not half of a historical population. Overlapping codes mean category totals can exceed the number of fragments.

A document can state a principle while historical institutions exclude people from it. Coding the principle does not establish that the right was enjoyed. Likewise, a proposed petitioning strategy is evidence of a proposal, not proof of implementation or success. A grievance is evidence of the authors’ claim; its factual scope needs additional historical investigation.

Seek a case that complicates your account

Test the claim that every selected fragment proposes change. The caution fragment may challenge that description under a narrow action definition. Then read its surrounding paragraph: a qualification can play a role in an argument for change without itself being a proposed action. Explain the distinction between the fragment you coded and the argument of the complete document.

Do not discard a contrary case simply to improve a pattern. You may narrow the claim, refine the codebook, expand the corpus or acknowledge a tension. Preserve the original decision and the reason for revision.

Make the work reproducible

Download the analysis JSON. It contains the source text and provenance, selected unit boundaries, original and active definitions, reviewed status, code decisions, rationales and claim. Capture also saves your annotations so restoring an earlier analysis restores the definitions that gave its codes meaning. Earlier captures created before annotation support retain their original data and leave current annotations in place.

For an independent extension, specify how you would select additional documents, choose comparable fragments and handle differences in genre, time and authorship. Another analyst must be able to understand your procedure, even when they disagree with your interpretation. Reproducibility is not proof that the interpretation is sound; historical reasoning still needs contextual evidence and review.

Extend the corpus: does context change the code?

Try and predict

Keep your original six-fragment capture. This companion gives you longer passages to investigate a different question: how do the declarations connect rights, caution and proposed responses? Predict whether the short caution fragment will receive the same code when read as a complete sentence and beside surrounding sentence groups. A code describes your chosen unit; context helps interpret its role in a larger argument.

Before reading the comparison below, write two competing action-code rules. For example, one could require a concrete organizing activity; another could include a stated conditional right or duty to change government. Neither rule is automatically better. Choose a research question that makes each useful and identify what each would miss.

Experiment with fixed and changed boundaries

Read the local corpus below, including each selection note. For the first pass, use each supplied passage as one unit and apply both rules to exactly the same units. Record decisions and textual reasons in the joint display—a table aligning two interpretations of each unit. Then split the 1776 rights passage at the start of its government-response clause. Give both new units suffixes such as .a and .b, record their first and last words, and recode. Do not edit the source text to make a preferred pattern easier to count.

Read the bounded contextual corpus

The first three passages form a continuous run in the 1776 transcription; the next three form a continuous run in the 1848 transcription. LearnAI divided these runs into sentence groups: they are not complete source paragraphs. Each original places the selected run within a larger paragraph. The final strategy paragraph is a separate selection, delimited by blank lines in the NPS transcription. These are public-domain historical texts, not complete declarations. IDs identify this companion's passages, not archival paragraph numbers.

Reading vocabulary: prudence means cautious judgment; transient means short-lived; usurpation means taking authority without a rightful claim; despotism means oppressive rule. A tract is a short publication, and “pulpit” refers here to religious speakers or institutions. These definitions help read the claims without assuming the claims establish outcomes.

context-1776-rights

Declaration of Independence · 4 July 1776. Rights and government-response sentence group within a larger source paragraph; immediately followed by the caution group.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

context-1776-caution

Declaration of Independence · 4 July 1776. Complete prudence sentence within the same source paragraph, immediately after the rights group.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

context-1776-change

Declaration of Independence · 4 July 1776. Conditional-change sentence group in the same source paragraph, immediately after the caution sentence; the subsequent grievance introduction is omitted.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

context-1848-rights

Declaration of Sentiments · July 1848. Rights sentence within a larger visual source paragraph; immediately followed by the response sentence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

context-1848-response

Declaration of Sentiments · July 1848. Government-response sentence in the same visual source paragraph, immediately after the rights sentence.

Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

context-1848-caution

Declaration of Sentiments · July 1848. Prudence sentence in the same visual source paragraph, immediately after the response sentence; the following conditional-change sentences are omitted.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

context-1848-strategy

Declaration of Sentiments · July 1848. Separate complete visual strategy paragraph, delimited by blank lines in the NPS transcription; intervening text omitted from this corpus.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.

Build a reproducible comparison

This companion worksheet is temporary: it clears on reload or leaving the page. Download it or copy the JSON below before navigating. Both include these passages, their provenance and your complete log. This export is separate from the saved six-fragment studio and cannot be imported into that studio.

Question, unit boundaries, competing rules, joint display, contrary case and reflexivity log QUESTION AND SELECTION Question: Why these passages? Which relevant passages or perspectives are absent? Read each source in context before interpreting its claims. List any further passages consulted: SEGMENTATION Use the stable passage IDs below. Define a unit (paragraph, sentence or bounded clause), with its first and last words. Keep a complete unit list including excluded or unread units and reasons. Unit list and boundaries: COMPETING RULES Rule A — include / exclude: Rule B — include / exclude: Keep the same boundaries for the first comparison. State how you treat cautions, conditional responses and explicit strategies. JOINT DISPLAY For every unit write: ID | boundaries | reviewed/unread/excluded | rule A decision | rule B decision | wording and rationale. Use “no applicable code” separately from “unread”. Allow multiple codes only if the rules permit it. SEGMENTATION SENSITIVITY Split or join one unit. Give its old and new IDs/boundaries, recode, and explain what changed. Do not compare raw counts with a changed denominator without explanation. CONTRARY CASE AND REVISION Initial claim: Passage that complicates it: Revised bounded claim: What external evidence would be needed to investigate actual implementation? REFLEXIVITY AND REPRODUCTION How did my question, selection and expectations shape the interpretation? Which decision could another analyst reasonably dispute? What changed after consulting surrounding text? Assistance or public examples consulted: Version/date and changes since prior export: Download contextual analysis JSON

Show selectable JSON to save without a download

Select all the text in this read-only field, copy it and save it in a local text file with a .json extension. It updates as you edit the worksheet and contains the same data as the download. Keep each revision under a distinct filename.

Complete contextual analysis JSON { "format": "rights-context-companion-v1", "rights": "Public-domain historical texts. Source metadata and analytical worksheet are original LearnAI teaching material. No modern institutional image or commentary copied.", "transcriptionChecked": "2026-10-28", "selection": "Two continuous runs divided by LearnAI into three sentence groups each, plus one separately selected visual strategy paragraph. These divisions do not reproduce source paragraph boundaries. Not complete declarations, a random sample, or independent witnesses to one event.", "sources": { "1776": { "title": "Declaration of Independence", "date": "4 July 1776", "creator": "Second Continental Congress", "href": "https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript", "transcription": "National Archives transcription of the Stone engraving; spelling and punctuation follow that transcription." }, "1848": { "title": "Declaration of Sentiments", "date": "July 1848", "creator": "Seneca Falls convention", "href": "https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/declaration-of-sentiments.htm", "transcription": "National Park Service transcription; LearnAI-selected sentence-group boundaries are recorded below." } }, "passages": [ { "id": "context-1776-rights", "source": "1776", "position": "Rights and government-response sentence group within a larger source paragraph; immediately followed by the caution group", "text": "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." }, { "id": "context-1776-caution", "source": "1776", "position": "Complete prudence sentence within the same source paragraph, immediately after the rights group", "text": "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." }, { "id": "context-1776-change", "source": "1776", "position": "Conditional-change sentence group in the same source paragraph, immediately after the caution sentence; the subsequent grievance introduction is omitted", "text": "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." }, { "id": "context-1848-rights", "source": "1848", "position": "Rights sentence within a larger visual source paragraph; immediately followed by the response sentence", "text": "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." }, { "id": "context-1848-response", "source": "1848", "position": "Government-response sentence in the same visual source paragraph, immediately after the rights sentence", "text": "Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." }, { "id": "context-1848-caution", "source": "1848", "position": "Prudence sentence in the same visual source paragraph, immediately after the response sentence; the following conditional-change sentences are omitted", "text": "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." }, { "id": "context-1848-strategy", "source": "1848", "position": "Separate complete visual strategy paragraph, delimited by blank lines in the NPS transcription; intervening text omitted from this corpus", "text": "In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country." } ], "worksheet": "QUESTION AND SELECTION\nQuestion:\nWhy these passages? Which relevant passages or perspectives are absent?\nRead each source in context before interpreting its claims. List any further passages consulted:\n\nSEGMENTATION\nUse the stable passage IDs below. Define a unit (paragraph, sentence or bounded clause), with its first and last words. Keep a complete unit list including excluded or unread units and reasons.\nUnit list and boundaries:\n\nCOMPETING RULES\nRule A — include / exclude:\nRule B — include / exclude:\nKeep the same boundaries for the first comparison. State how you treat cautions, conditional responses and explicit strategies.\n\nJOINT DISPLAY\nFor every unit write: ID | boundaries | reviewed/unread/excluded | rule A decision | rule B decision | wording and rationale.\nUse “no applicable code” separately from “unread”. Allow multiple codes only if the rules permit it.\n\nSEGMENTATION SENSITIVITY\nSplit or join one unit. Give its old and new IDs/boundaries, recode, and explain what changed. Do not compare raw counts with a changed denominator without explanation.\n\nCONTRARY CASE AND REVISION\nInitial claim:\nPassage that complicates it:\nRevised bounded claim:\nWhat external evidence would be needed to investigate actual implementation?\n\nREFLEXIVITY AND REPRODUCTION\nHow did my question, selection and expectations shape the interpretation?\nWhich decision could another analyst reasonably dispute?\nWhat changed after consulting surrounding text?\nAssistance or public examples consulted:\nVersion/date and changes since prior export:\n", "limits": "Learner-authored analysis; no automatic grading or mastery claim. This separate download does not modify or import the existing six-fragment studio records." }

Understand what changed

Compare an author's worked interpretation after recording yours

An action rule limited to named organizing activities includes the separate 1848 strategy passage. A broader rule including conditional political responses can also include the 1776 rights/change passages and the 1848 response passage. The prudence sentences constrain the grounds for change. Under either example rule they need not count as explicit organizing plans, yet they contribute to an argument about when change is justified. A third rule could code cautions as a separate category; explain that revision and apply it consistently.

Splitting the 1776 rights passage can separate a general principle from a conditional response that originally occupied one unit. More coded units after splitting does not establish more support or greater historical importance. Keep the passage IDs, new boundaries and denominator together. LearnAI separates the 1848 rights statement and response into two passages here, while grouping the corresponding 1776 wording together. Both originals place this material within larger paragraphs. Counts across the supplied passages therefore reflect our selected boundaries as well as the wording. Join each three-passage run and compare the results again.

This is an author-created interpretation, not a second independent coder. Another reading can be defensible if its rules, boundaries and evidence are explicit. These documents have different historical settings and a textual relationship; their recurring phrases are not independent reports establishing an event twice.

Apply: seek a contrary case and audit your selection

Test “every selected passage is an immediate practical plan.” Identify a passage that complicates the claim and revise the claim without deleting that passage. Then test a narrower claim about how caution and response interact in one continuous run. Point to at least two neighboring passages, not just a repeated word.

The added strategy passage makes concrete organizing language easier to find. State why it was included and how omitting it would change this particular comparison. Consult the linked full documents to identify one omitted passage relevant to your question. Record its boundary and source in your log; do not infer that an omitted passage contains no theme. Distinguish a historical author’s allegation, a proposed action and evidence that an action actually occurred.

Continue with a reproducible record

Export an initial log and a revised log with different filenames. Include your question, selection reasons, complete unit list, both code rules, decisions, contrary case, changed claim and assistance used. Reflexivity means examining how your own selection and expectations shaped the analysis. State one decision another reader could reasonably challenge.

For high-school practice, complete the two three-passage runs and explain one changed boundary. For college work, justify a further permitted public document, specify a comparable selection rule before coding it, and submit both versions with a decision log for review. This packet still does not supply an independently assessed corpus study, actual coder agreement or broad qualitative-methods mastery. Do not collect interviews or personal disclosures for this activity.