Add plain-language explainer companion report for the CoLab website

[Copilot]

Implements the issue's "Explainer Companion" prompt: a UN-style research report that explains, for a non-technical audience, what this repository (the NYU CGA Ethical Tech CoLab public website) does.

Added

• Ethical-Tech-CoLab-Paper.md, a plain-language report modeled on the sample CERAI-Paper.md. Sections: Foreword, Executive Summary, Background, Objectives, site organization, how it's built, what it presents, maintenance, limitations, audience, and conclusion. Content derived from the repo (README.md, src/content/site.ts, route structure, docs/).

Style constraints from the prompt (applied)

• No em dashes; replaced with commas, colons, semicolons, or separate sentences.
• No en-dash ranges; hyphens where appropriate.
• Softened AI-tell phrasings to plain statements.
• No inline/mid-sentence bolding; only the title carries heading styling.
• Attribution block aligned to "NYU Center for Global Affairs" and "masters research."

Notes for reviewers

• Filename uses Ethical-Tech-CoLab-Paper.md in place of the prompt's Title-Paper.md placeholder; open to a different name.
• Documentation-only change; no code paths touched.

[carolina-moron]

Round-2 peer review — 23 July 2026

Reviewed as part of the org-wide round-2 pass. Still a draft; here is what to check before promoting it.

The gap it fills is real

There is no explainer paper for the website repo on main today — verified. Every other CoLab project has a plain-language companion (CERAI-Paper.md, VANGO-Paper.md, and so on) and the site itself does not. Filling that is worth doing.

Check before promoting out of draft

1. main has moved 37 commits since this branch was cut (20 July), and several of those change what the paper would be describing — 7ed3d89 defined the HASTE headline metric and split evidence from adoption, ecbf087 and 93fa541 carried peer-review corrections into the reports, 3d0e384 switched After the Corridor to a PDF offer. Re-read the draft against current src/content/ before merging.

2. Do not describe the site as presenting peer-reviewed work without qualifying it. As of today only 4 of 23 substantive repos have a peer review on main — ai-carbon-footprint, arts-provenance-agent, diplomatic-simulator, evacuation-inform-index-carolina. Eight more reviews exist but are sitting in open PRs. If the paper claims a review process, it should describe the process accurately, including that the reviews are still landing.

3. Check the limitations section against the org's actual state. Two items an honest limitations section would name: 25 of 27 public repos have no LICENSE file, and there is no SECURITY.md anywhere in the org despite eight repos taking security fixes this week.

4. grant-valuation-tool is a public org repo that the site does not link. If the paper enumerates the portfolio, either include it or say deliberately that it is internal tooling.

Credit where due

src/content/site.ts:591 already handles the private-guide problem correctly — the Getting-Going and CloudGPU guides are marked access: "internal" rather than advertising links that 404 for anyone outside the org, with a comment explaining why. That is the standard the rest of the paper's claims should meet.

---

Part of the org-wide round-2 review of all 27 Ethical-Tech-CoLab repos.