Lines of inquiry — A named line of the record’s own argument, so that a line can be set aside as a whole and what depends on it can be found. Retracting a line is a status change on its members, never a deletion (ADR-032).
Will-organization — what organizes practical efficacy in an agent, and how that organization becomes precarious.
10 of 52 ARG documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARG-001 | Moving severity classification, or adding a business-critical override, changes outcomes without changing the rule, so precedence, jurisdiction and suspension come apart | The constructed line of support (Sections 5.3–5.5). Independent of ARG-003: undercutting the analogy leaves this standing. | Active |
| ARG-003 v2 | In the Dual State ordinary norms governed conduct while a prerogative order held authority over whether they bound, so a constraint can govern conduct without governing its own authority | The historical line of support for CLAIM-086 (Section 5.6). Undercut except in its structural respect (CLAIM-032). | Active |
| ARG-005 | The reluctant writer’s precommitment device changes what they do without changing what they want, so the conditions of efficacy govern which regime acts | The individual-scale line of support for CLAIM-027 (Sections 1, 3.5), independent of Northstar: it does not rest on the supposition that a firm is an agent. | Proposed |
| ARG-007 | Stability does not entail viability, and the emergency regime keeps its operation and its governance while its transformation capacity degrades, so effective action and the capacity to govern among regimes are different achievements | The argument for the paper’s main result (Section 6.11). Linked: all three premises are needed. Canguilhem is not among them. | Active |
| ARG-009 | Northstar-A and Northstar-B differ only in escalation authority and act differently, so escalation authority helps govern efficacy | The institutional line of support for CLAIM-027 (Sections 5.1–5.2), an interventionist contrast (THEORY-138). Conditional on the supposed agent. Two of its critical questions are unanswered. | Proposed |
| ARG-016 | Valuations that do not cross, read through coordination dynamics, make flow a synchronization of interests | CLAIM-162 calls flow intrapersonal synchronization: on CLAIM-169’s account of interests, an activity whose immediate and longer-run rewards coincide has no crossing curves, so nothing is overridden (THEORY-070). The word comes from coordination dynamics (THEORY-069), where synchronization has a coupling, an order parameter and transitions. Valuations that fail to cross have none of these, so the analogy carries the word and not the mechanism. Open, because candidate parts are named and none is measured. | Proposed |
| ARG-043 | Bencherki’s checklist and daycare, one end state with opposite verdicts, show a normative judgment about an organization that depends on a history its end state does not show | From the connections pass of 2026-10-31 (CLAIM-518’s note of that date). In Bencherki 2017 (LIT-1901), the army presents two community-made services as its own. One is co-individuation, the other usurpation. The difference is who did the work and whether it is acknowledged, which the end state does not contain. Proposed: part of the difference lies in present attribution, and the cases come from a documentary whose framing Bencherki follows. | Proposed |
| ARG-046 | Tsoukas and Chia’s reading of Total Quality in the US Navy is an organizational instance of changing efficacy while the competing proposals stay fixed | From the connections pass of 2026-10-31 (CLAIM-122’s note of that date). Junior officers’ suggestions were made before and after Total Quality; afterwards they “earned legitimacy”. That looks like CLAIM-122’s case at an organization’s scale. Rejected as evidence: the new template also changed what members noticed and proposed, so the proposals were not held fixed, and the rival, a change in what was preferred, is not excluded. | Rejected |
| ARG-049 | The pauses, averted gaze and reversal in the MSF transcript show internal conflict as a gap between the precedence a motive claims and the authority it is granted | From the connections pass of 2026-10-31 (CLAIM-484’s note of that date). The transcript Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy reanalyse records the marks CLAIM-484 names. Rejected as evidence: the same marks fit the paper’s reading, disindividuation before a demand from outside, and no claim or grant is recorded apart from the marks. | Rejected |
| ARG-051 | Mind-wandering, read as Metzinger reads it, is an individual-scale case in which a capacity the agent keeps, veto over its own mental processes, loses and regains efficacy through a change in a condition of efficacy and not in the competing processes, so it is a further instance of the conditions of efficacy governing which regime acts, the first in the record for suspension in one mind | Filed 2026-11-01 on reading Metzinger 2013, 2015 and 2017. The analogy holds in structure: second-order mental control is kept through an episode of mind-wandering (on the 2015 “moderate” reading) and is not effective, and its return is put down to a change in its representation, not in the competing thoughts. It would give CLAIM-027 an individual-scale instance of suspension, which ARG-005 says the record lacks. Proposed, because the two questions that decide it are unanswered: the mechanism is not shown to be the same, and Metzinger’s own account of an episode’s onset makes a goal state, not a relation, its cause. The interventions that would answer both are his H1 and H3, untested. | Proposed |