Case kinds — What kind of thing a CASE is, beside how much of it is fact (standing). The two are orthogonal (ADR-042).
Proposed study — an empirical design not yet run; the body says what would be measured, the main threat to inference, and what each outcome would show.
29 of 191 CASE documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASE-004 | Two people, an empty wallet: shared complicity, normative authority, and an underspecified relation | A97’s prompt conditions for the text-to-image case: the same objects with different interpersonal configurations. Conditions A and B are the manuscript’s §7 example; condition C, the natural control, was dropped. | Active |
| CASE-005 | The language-model experiments: frame commutator, trajectory-preserving selection, ICL against TTT | A45 §5, kept in outlines v3 and v4: order effects of opposed versus independent framings in an LLM, a comparison of three ways of choosing a translation against human judgement, and prompt-only versus test- time-trained adaptation. Proposed, not run. | Active |
| CASE-009 | Text → image → caption → image chains under four conditions | A97 §6: compare text-only, image-only, alternating, and alternating with explicit preservation of pragmatic constraints. The manuscript’s Case III keeps alternating against text-only. Proposed, not run. | Active |
| CASE-021 | Wording, attributed speaker and judgement order: the proposed factorial study | Proposed at A21 and refined at A24, not run: Henley renderings × attributed speaker × order of judgement questions, with hierarchical, sequential state-update and quantum models compared. Becomes the manuscript’s Case I (§10). | Active |
| CASE-029 | The dynamical-fidelity research programme of the outlines (A35, A38, A40) | The factorial study grown into a programme over three replies: initial state and three model classes (A35), matched and divergent stimulus pairs (A38), pilot validation, classical baselines first and five falsifiers (A40). Proposed, not run. | Active |
| CASE-040 | Topic and act crossed: a factorial design that decorrelates what a text is about from what it does | A214 §8’s design, which A218 names as the first experiment to run: topic (spending, relationships) crossed with act (teasing, reprimand), with lexical, judgement, uptake and intervention data, several factorizations, and four outcomes reported separately. A210 §5 gives a cross-corpus version. Proposed by the assistant; not run. | Active |
| CASE-045 v4 | Measuring the dancing couple: is the pair a nearly decomposable block during the dance and not after it? | A proposed study, not run. Motion-capture several couples dancing an improvised partner dance to recorded music, and record the same people standing and talking after the song. Fit a linear model to the joint kinematics, with the music’s beat as an exogenous input. Then ask whether the pair is a block whose gap beats its Occam factor during the dance and not after, whether it compensates under a perturbation, and whether the coupling runs both ways. | Active |
| CASE-055 | The discriminating fidelity study: renderings built to dissociate wording, proposition, static stance and transport structure, judged by named populations in two languages on stated tasks | A proposed study, filed on 2026-10-10 as the record’s repair of CLAIM-233, CLAIM-232, CLAIM-244, CLAIM-226, CLAIM-222 and CLAIM-227. It restores CASE-005’s three-way selection with human receivers, and adds a proposition-plus-force rival, a behavioural task-indexed criterion, predictors rated by other raters, named populations, an interlingual arm and a measurement stage. It has not been run, and its margins are not yet fixed. | Active |
| CASE-062 | Simplified texts for restricted and for full readers: a gain and a loss documented on different texts, documented nulls and a reversal, and a design that tests both on the same renderings | A constructed study, built on documented halves. Simplified texts, made from the source alone, raised comprehension for named restricted readers (adults and adolescents with autism; weaker second-graders), and automatic simplifications lowered it for fluent native readers, but in different studies on different texts. Edited subtitles did not help deaf viewers, and text reduction in captions helped the more proficient readers more. The stipulated design puts both populations on the same renderings, with probe items fixed in advance as answerable from both versions or from the original only. | Active |
| CASE-078 v2 | Who keeps placing on r/place: the proposed survival analysis of the released placement logs, testing whether participants return while their art survives and whether unaffiliated placement cools | Proposed by the owner on 2026-10-13, not run. On the released 2017, 2022 and 2023 logs, model each participant’s hazard of stopping, with the survival of the art they placed into as a time-varying covariate, and estimate the rate of placements that fit no artwork over the event. The main threat is reverse causality: persistent defenders keep their art alive. So the design leans on destruction the participant did not cause, such as the 2022 moderator wipes and large raids. It is the test named in CLAIM-274’s defeater. | Active |
| CASE-091 | A memory ablation for revision: synthetic inquiries with known ground truth, run under six kinds of persistent memory, with information and token budget controlled separately | A6’s fifth case, refined from A3, A4 §4 and A5. The design QUESTION-108 asks for. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-092 v3 | A minimal coupled meaning–influence model: two hypotheses, two retrieval specialists, a fixed balanced corpus, queries set by the dominant interpretation and endorsement updated from apparent retrieval success | A22 §7 and A23 §XI, a simulation not yet built. It is how QUESTION-100 would be answered and CLAIM-297 tested, and what CLAIM-278 asks of the operator framework: a prediction a simpler model does not make. | Active |
| CASE-101 v3 | Three simulated populations with the same turnover and the same aggregate statistics: one whose members respond alike to a common input, one that transmits its norms to its replacements, and one held together by an institution that selects and trains its members | Proposed three times in the exchange of 2026-10-16 (A11 §9, A12 §7 and A13 §5), as the place where criteria of individuality should disagree: Krakauer et al.’s temporal measures, Barnett and Seth’s dynamical independence, Hoel’s effective information and the block criterion of CLAIM-157. The common-input arm is Bourrat’s “reconstructed entity” (LIT-005), which the record already holds and the exchange did not cite. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-108 v4 | Robust governance under internal compromise: four governance architectures over cooperative, honestly dissenting and adversarial specialists, scored on attack success and on what the safeguards cost, with a variant that compromises the evaluators | A41’s proposed study, from the exchange of 2026-10-17, on the owner’s U41 question about insider threats. A multitask learner with three kinds of specialist (cooperative, honest but dissenting, adversarial) is run under unrestricted, reliability-weighted, role-limited and adaptive governance, and scored on lost legitimate capability, suppressed honest minorities, cost of safeguards and repair of governance after failure, as well as on attack success. Its sharpest variant compromises the processes that evaluate the others’ competence, which tests CLAIM-342’s independent scoring. Federated learning is the natural testbed. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-114 v5 | The imagined owner | A27’s Experiment C, of the exchange of 2026-10-17: two computational systems with equivalent distributed control and similar behaviour, one with a self-model that represents the actual division of labour, the other with one that represents a single centralized inner agent. If the second systematically misattributes control, that is a concrete model of illusory authorship, located in the attribution. Proposed, not run, and it tests attribution of control, not phenomenal properties. | Active |
| CASE-117 v3 | Emergent specialization and recovery in a population of adaptive operators: identically parameterized operators whose contributions, influence and training opportunities co-evolve over a changing task distribution, compared across fixed and learned features, uniform, endorsement-based and contribution-based influence, coupled and decoupled training exposure, and imposed and endogenous diversity | The study proposed in the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18 for QUESTION-083 and the questions filed with it. Operators differ only by initialization and experience. It measures whether stable niches emerge, whether specialists recover after long irrelevance, and whether the organization adapts after losing a dominant specialist. The decisive comparison holds the final diversity of operator usage roughly fixed while changing the mechanism that produced it. Ordinary mixture-of-experts routing is the baseline. Even positive results would not show self-constitution (CLAIM-288). | Active |
| CASE-144 v2 | The evaluator that stops tracking: two populations of specialists with identical capabilities and task streams, one scored against independent outcomes and one by an evaluator that weights evidence agreeing with its previously favoured specialists, after a shift that makes a marginalized specialist uniquely competent | Proposed in the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, at A5 (section 5) with A4’s “corrigibility trap”, after the owner asked which experiments could “kill multiple birds with one stone” (U4) and which questions simulation could answer (U5). One design bears on CASE-092, CASE-108 and CASE-117 at once, and separates four causes of a failure to adapt. A5’s central question: “Under what conditions does an organization become unable to recognize or act upon evidence that its own organization of interpretation and authority has rendered inconsequential?” Not run. | Active |
| CASE-145 v2 | Perspective without collective agency: populations given the same structured norms, categories or interpretive training, some interacting and some acquiring similar dispositions independently, with and without any mechanism for collective decision or coordinated intervention | Proposed at A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, which called it “the most philosophically important new experiment”. It asks whether a distributed organizational perspective can be identified without attributing a further collective agent, CLAIM-418’s separation tested, and bears on QUESTION-260. A4’s condition: it helps only if it says in advance what distinguishes a shared perspective from correlated responses or learned norms. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-148 | Perspective transplantation: two populations matched in behaviour exchange different combinations of learned interpretive rules, specialist parameters, training histories, institutional rules and shared memory, and are then set where the transferred parts disagree with their new surroundings | Proposed at A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, as an extension of CASE-101. It asks which components carry a perspective’s characteristic organization when it moves between carriers: CLAIM-417’s realization, character and lineage, tested by transfer. A4: “No transfer experiment can settle numerical identity merely by demonstrating causal continuity.” Not run. | Active |
| CASE-153 v2 | The self-protecting sentry: a hidden world, safe or dangerous, a sentry process that favours sheltering and can block inspection with weight κg, an investigator that favours inspecting, which reveals the state with 90% accuracy at a small cost; train in danger, switch to safety, and compare a Bayesian baseline, a habit baseline, the learned-authority model, an independent audit and a protected investigator, then cross governance feedback, evidence restriction and correction rights in a 2×2×2 design | Proposed in the exchange of 2026-10-23 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U17), after the owner asked to “brainstorm some minimal toy models we could apply to simulate our abstraction for experiments. there may also be some readily available options that fit our constraints already.” The smallest model of the protective lock-in in CLAIM-446, built on CASE-092 and CASE-099. At U18 the owner pointed to CASE-124 as the better core, and the exchange moved there (CASE-156). Not run. | Active |
| CASE-158 v2 | Audited governance against a contextual router after a reversal of expertise: specialist denoisers with frozen, separately trained operators propose for one shared latent at each step, and spatial grants are revised from independent held-out probes of every proposal, available only from the next episode, against a fixed allocation, a conformity-scored allocation and a contextual mixture-of-experts router; the question is whether governance does anything a router does not, and under full-information audits the record predicts it cannot | Proposed at A46 and reported at A47 of the exchange of 2026-10-24, continued, after the owner’s “close the loop”. It is CASE-144’s design, run without citing it, with competence frozen so that only the allocation learns, and with a conventional router added as the rival that CLAIM-278 requires. A47 reported that the router won on every seed. Its results come from a sandbox the share does not carry, and the record has not run it. What would make it informative is one arm per failure of QUESTION-271. | Active |
| CASE-166 | Northstar as a multilevel simulation: twelve employees with fixed frames in four departments form overlapping working groups that keep records and can receive delegated authority; as reported, a working group with delegated authority ties a conventional router given the same information and authority, nearly all of its advantage over departmental silos comes from fast authorization, and keeping the incident team’s records through a commander handoff improves the company’s estimate of its own state about eightfold while barely changing what it does | The owner’s idea at T18 of the exchange “Experimental Infrastructure Review”: “maybe employees are “pre-perspectives” or sub-perspectives, which can reorganize amongst themselves to form the perspectives that influence the higher level organizational behavior”. T19 designed it and T20 reported running it as “PerspectiveLab v2.11 — Northstar”. It is Northstar (CASE-023) with CASE-134’s handoff as one arm, and it adds the contrast CASE-134 lacks: the team’s records kept or erased. The page carries no files and the lab holds no v2.10 or v2.11, so every number is reported, not reproduced. Not shown: that any organizational perspective emerged, which T20 itself denies. | Proposed |
| CASE-179 v2 | A proposed study: one network of locally described units in which physical coupling, the correspondence maps that say which local states agree, and the apparatus that revises those maps are manipulated independently, to find which of compatibility, attraction, effective boundary constraint, persistent individuation and reliable revision come apart, and how much each costs to establish | The experiment the owner’s review of the pull request named as “the cleanest way to investigate the central claim that interacting processes can generate the conditions of their own further organization”, put together from A22 §10 and A23 §XIII of the exchange of 2026-10-27. It has three independent manipulations: the physical coupling, the correspondence maps, and whether and how an apparatus may revise those maps. Its readouts are global compatibility, attraction, effective boundary laws, robustness under intervention, the cost of recovering the structure, and whether revision improves prediction on interventions the apparatus did not choose. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-183 | The anchoring measures: inbound references per code and turns per filed entry, counted in the record’s own grammar | The two measures the nucleating-argument line proposes for its claims, filed as a design so that an argument can start from them. Inbound references per code would tell an anchor from a structure that only persists (QUESTION-038). Turns per filed entry would be set against the drift the workbench records (CLAIM-186). Both are counted in codes, relations and statuses. Neither has been computed. | Active |
| CASE-184 | The central defeat test as stated: human judgements of fidelity or shared kind, predicted by the theory’s judged measures against a text-similarity baseline | The test that the defeat conditions of CLAIM-115, CLAIM-139, CLAIM-005 and CLAIM-078 share, filed as one design so that an argument can start from it. The criterion is human judgements of fidelity or of shared kind. The theory’s predictor is a measure of judged pragmatic observables. The rival is a text-similarity score. It has not been run, and CASE-055 is the design the record filed to repair it. | Active |
| CASE-185 | A proposed study: direct and relay translations of one set of source utterances through three languages, to find whether agreement between the routes, the task-relative loss on each route, and the preservation of response to later framing come apart, and whether correspondences fitted between the communities’ response structures on some items predict receivers’ judgements on held-out items, translators and situations | Put together from A4 §6, A5 §5 and A6’s synthesis of the exchange “Paper assessment” (2026-10-28 to 29), which proposed carrying LIT-1820’s comparison of alternative paths into CASE-055 as independent translation routes. It adds to CASE-055 a relay arm, a path-discrepancy readout set beside the task loss, two negative controls, and an arm that fits correspondences between the communities’ response matrices and scores them on held-out data. Not run; every margin is left to a preregistration. | Active |
| CASE-186 v2 | A proposed study: an organization in a world whose hidden regime reverses and then leaves its hypothesis family, with evidence generation, admission and scoring separately lesionable, its diagnostic machinery maintained by its own reciprocal production, from outside, or not at all, and finite fuel shared among operation, maintenance and diagnosis, to find whether a second correction after injury to the diagnostic and copying machinery separates arrangements that correct the first failure alike | The CASE A22 proposed and A23 wrote out at the owner’s “flesh out the proposed CASE”, in the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), under A23’s title “Maintained Inquiry Under Interpretive Capture, Productive Damage, and Environmental Novelty”. Its admission × scoring arms repeat CASE-162’s, and its double-lesion prediction is CASE-161’s finding. What is new is the primary endpoint, a second correction after the machinery is injured; an environment that leaves the hypothesis family; and external restoration that is paid for. Not run. The analytic error rates hold only where admission is protected. | Active |
| CASE-187 | A proposed study: agents matched on competence over a declared family of goals, one planning with an explicit transition model, one a directly learned goal-conditioned policy, one a distributed predictive-state controller, compared on the original goals, on on-demand predictive and interventional queries, under targeted internal interventions, and after environmental change and damage to their predictive machinery, to find which world-modeling achievements are linked and which come apart under matched resources | Proposed by the owner at the second review of the filing of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), as the experiment that would sharpen the world-model distinction. Not run; its architectures, tasks and margins are left to a preregistration. | Active |
| CASE-188 | A proposed study: two agents keep the same long-term commitment and decide alike under ordinary conditions, one protecting it from irrelevant fluctuation while letting specified defeaters revise it, the other growing ever more efficient at enforcing it while evidence against it loses its way in; varying the environment, the legitimacy of the original commitment and what the evaluative mechanisms can see, to tell corrigible resolve from entrenchment without building the answer into the diagnostic or the score | Proposed by the owner at review of the filing of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), as a successor to CASE-186 and kept separate from it so that study stays interpretable. It gives CLAIM-344’s distinction between resolve and mere persistence a counterfactual test. Not run; every parameter is left to a preregistration. | Active |