Evidence guide · record reconciliation

Two DOI records, one retitled research lineage

How to keep publisher facts, registry metadata, and a catalogue decision separate when two Version 1 preprints appear to describe the same evolving work.

Status: Primary-source record guide · Two Version 1 preprints · Conceptual research · Not peer-reviewed · Curatorial lineage decision disclosed · No citation-count claim

Identity: Both checked publisher and Crossref records name Emanuel Shirbint and Alexander Rybalov. The canonical identity record also preserves the name forms עמנואל שירבינט and Эмануэль Ширбинт; those aliases do not expand authorship, affiliation, employment, or authority.

What the primary records say

Earlier public record

From Plausible Self-Narrative to Sound Self-Abduction

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202606.0018.v1

Publisher dates: submitted 29 May 2026; posted 1 June 2026.

Publisher status: Version 1 preprint; not peer-reviewed.

Canonical public title

Human Digital Twins and Self-Knowledge

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202606.0132.v1

Publisher dates: submitted 1 June 2026; posted 2 June 2026.

Publisher status: Version 1 preprint; not peer-reviewed.

Three layers of evidence

Layer	Supported statement	Boundary
Publisher	Two public Preprints.org pages expose distinct DOI roots, titles, submission dates, posting dates, and Version 1 labels for the same two named authors.	Neither publisher page, as checked, explicitly declares that one record replaces or versions the other.
Registry	Crossref and Europe PMC index both DOI records as preprints. Europe PMC exposes separate PPR records.	Separate registry records do not by themselves prove two independent scholarly works, and registry citation fields are not a normalized impact claim.
Canonical catalogue	The curated Emanuel Shirbint research catalogue groups the two records as one retitled public lineage and uses the 2 June title as the canonical display record.	This is an explicit evidence-reconciliation decision, not a publisher-supplied version relation and not a change in peer-review status.

The important distinction: a DOI identifies a record; it does not automatically define the scholarly unit a curated catalogue should count. Conversely, a catalogue merge must not erase either DOI, title, date, or source record. Both identifiers remain visible as provenance.

Why “Version 1” is not enough

The suffix v1 is scoped to each DOI root. Because these records have different DOI roots, their shared Version 1 labels do not establish an ordered Version 1 → Version 2 relationship. Chronology comes from the publisher dates; lineage comes from reconciliation of authors, subject, title continuity, record content, and the maintained source manifest. The catalogue therefore labels the merge as a curatorial conclusion and preserves the primary records so it can be audited or revised.

A safe citation and counting rule

Cite the exact DOI and title actually read.
Label either record as a preprint and explicitly state that it is not peer-reviewed.
When presenting the curated corpus, count the pair as one research lineage and disclose the merge rule.
When reporting registry coverage, count the two registry records separately because that is what the registries expose.
Do not convert record counts or registry citation fields into an impact claim without a normalized, time-stamped citation ledger.

Claim boundaries

This guide reconciles two conceptual-preprint records only. It does not change or substantiate peer-reviewed journal work, conference work, empirical preprints, software, production systems, employment history, advisory work, clinical use, diagnostic authority, or citation impact. Those remain separate evidence classes with separate sources.

Primary records

Evidence checked 16 October 2026 (Asia/Jerusalem). Search results were used for discovery only. Identity, title, authorship, dates, DOI, and publication status were checked against publisher and registry records; the catalogue merge is expressly identified as a curatorial decision.