Negative results — the registry that ends wasted re-runs

A negative result — "we tried X, it didn't work" — is one of the most valuable things a scientist can publish. Yet most journals reject them and most labs never bother writing them up. Discovery treats negatives as first-class.

**Same DOI. Same registry. Same weight.**
When you publish a Result with outcome = 'negative', it lands in the same public registry as positives, with the same permanent DOI, the same hash-stamped result PDF, the same searchable methodology and dataset references. The registry filter chips make it trivial to find negatives specifically.

**Before you start a new experiment — search the registry.**
The Public Registry at /discovery/registry has a filter for "Negative" results. Search by field, by tags, by keywords from your hypothesis. If three labs already tried "low-light LEDs slow basil growth" and got null effects, you'll find their methodology and their data — and you'll save weeks.

**Why this is genuinely hard to find anywhere else:**
- Pre-print servers (bioRxiv, arXiv) accept negatives but you have to actively look. There's no curated "registry of dead-ends".
- OSF supports negative results but doesn't connect them to a reproducibility container.
- Most journals reject negatives outright as "uninteresting".

Discovery's wedge: the negative result + the dataset + the analysis container + the verifiable timestamp all live in one place, citable forever.

**Authoring tone:**
When you publish a negative, the platform doesn't make you justify it — there's nothing wrong with a properly-designed experiment that yielded null. Write the result the same way you'd write a positive: what you did, what the analysis showed, what you'd suggest next. The platform handles the framing (badge color, registry placement) so you don't have to apologize.