One entry per document, generated from frontmatter — edit the fragments in
this directory, then run luria index.
Quantum foundations (0) — what quantum theory says about the world — contextuality, epistemic restrictions, interference, reconstructions and toy theories, quantum thermodynamics.
Contextuality (6) — whether outcomes can be explained without reference to the context of measurement — Kochen–Specker and Bell contextuality and their sheaf-theoretic form, generalized (Spekkens) contextuality, noncontextual models and their limits, and contextuality outside physics: 008 · 021 · 035 · 037 · 053 · 095
Mathematics (15) — mathematics read for itself — category theory, topoi and sheaves, spectral geometry, set and measure theory — including mathematical frameworks applied to other fields: 001 · 017 · 035 · 037 · 039 · 057 · 083 · 095 · 097 · 115 · 118 · 119 · 126 · 179 · 190
Game theory (1) — strategic interaction and its equilibria — evolutionary stability, repeated games, bargaining, coordination, signalling and conventions — in biology, economics and philosophy (ADR-019): 155
Network science (1) — the structure and dynamics of networks — dimension, curvature and Ricci flow, community detection, consensus and synchronization: 160
Complex systems (34) — emergence, information decomposition, individuality, self-organization — how collective behaviour arises from parts: 034 · 036 · 074 · 075 · 078 · 079 · 092 · 099 · 106 · 111 · 112 · 116 · 117 · 120 · 124 · 144 · 145 · 148 · 149 · 153 · 156 · 158 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 164 · 166 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 186 · 189 · 190 · 191
Probabilistic modeling (16) — Bayesian inference and statistical models outside deep learning — nonparametric priors, topic models, samplers: 001 · 004 · 009 · 017 · 029 · 065 · 082 · 087 · 089 · 093 · 096 · 097 · 160 · 162 · 163 · 165
Neuroscience (2) — brains and nervous systems — representation, coding and dynamics measured in biological tissue: 107 · 137
Natural sciences (1) — physics, astronomy, planetary and earth science, chemistry, biology and medicine read outside any machine-learning claim: 039
Ecology (8) — how organisms interact with each other and their environment — symbiosis and host–microbe partnerships, competition, herbivory and trophic interactions, community structure, resilience and regime shifts in ecosystems (ADR-028). How a partner comes to live inside another and depend on it is endosymbiosis (ADR-055): 024 · 047 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 171 · 173 · 177
Endosymbiosis and reductive evolution (6) — how one organism comes to live inside another and depend on it, and how that ends — reductive genome evolution by drift, deletional bias or adaptive loss (including the Black Queen dependencies of free-living microbes), complementary loss across partners, nested symbioses and symbiont splitting and replacement, endosymbiotic gene transfer, protein import and host control of transmission, organellogenesis and organelle loss, and eukaryogenesis. The ecology of a partnership is ecology (ADR-055): 167 · 168 · 171 · 173 · 174 · 177
Thermodynamics (1) — the second law and its extensions read for themselves — entropy and entropy production, irreversibility, nonequilibrium steady states and their stability, dissipative structures, fluctuation theorems and stochastic thermodynamics, and the thermodynamics of computation and of life (ADR-020): 190
Operations research (3) — optimization of real systems — routing, scheduling, facility location, combinatorial algorithms: 127 · 135 · 138
Society and governance (21) — law, politics, policy, security and institutions — court records, doctrine, democratic theory, information operations: 002 · 003 · 016 · 023 · 050 · 108 · 110 · 122 · 123 · 132 · 133 · 135 · 138 · 150 · 151 · 157 · 169 · 170 · 172 · 175 · 176
Information theory (7) — entropy, channels, coding and capacity read for themselves — including information-theoretic accounts of work, memory and inference outside machine learning: 043 · 062 · 083 · 101 · 125 · 154 · 164
Representation learning (6) — how learned systems come to represent their data — self-supervised and contrastive objectives, spectral embeddings, information bottlenecks, knowledge-graph embeddings, and whether representations converge: 005 · 020 · 041 · 042 · 071 · 187
Learning theory (7) — why learning generalizes and how it proceeds — compression and description length, Kolmogorov complexity and sufficient statistics, rate–distortion and PAC-style bounds, model selection; and training dynamics: solvable models of learning trajectories, stages, plateaus and phase transitions in training, and the implicit bias of optimisation. A work whose subject is how to train a model better is ML practice and goes to the anthology (ADR-036): 113 · 117 · 118 · 144 · 155 · 157 · 158
Compositionality (2) — how the structure and meaning of a whole come from its parts and how they are combined — the principle of compositionality and compositional semantics, the emergence of compositional structure in languages under transmission, and composition and binding in learned models (generalization to unseen combinations, attribute binding, composing distributions or concepts). A work on making a model generalize compositionally is ML practice and goes to the anthology (ADR-031): 004 · 009
Mathematical statistics (5) — the theory of statistical inference read for itself — comparison and sufficiency of experiments (Blackwell, Le Cam deficiency), statistical decision theory, the sufficiency theorems (Fisher–Neyman, Basu, Bahadur) and bounds on estimation. Bayesian modelling is probabilistic-modeling (ADR-031): 042 · 087 · 152 · 159 · 165
Information retrieval (3) — finding what is relevant to a need — document and query representation, relevance and aboutness, ranking and feedback, and the geometric, probabilistic and logical models of retrieval: 094 · 095 · 132
Databases and data structures (0) — how stored data is organized so that it can be found and kept current — physical database design and index selection, materialized views and the choice of which answers to precompute, adaptive and self-organizing structures, lower bounds on lookup, caching and paging; and the cost of organizing ahead of use against organizing in use. Read for itself, not as ML practice: learned indexes and other machine-learning approaches go to the anthology (ADR-045).
Design rationale (6) — recording the reasoning behind a design or decision as it is made — issues, positions and arguments, options and criteria (IBIS, gIBIS, QOC and their successors) — and why such capture systems are or are not used: who bears the cost of capture and who gets the benefit, premature formalization, cognitive overhead, and the groupware adoption problems behind them (ADR-030): 088 · 091 · 131 · 178 · 180 · 183
Social science (18) — economics, psychology, anthropology and sociology — empirical and theoretical work on people and societies that is not law or policy: 052 · 054 · 065 · 068 · 078 · 103 · 127 · 130 · 133 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 146 · 147 · 149 · 150
Causality (4) — causation and the structure of causal relations — causal order, definite and indefinite, and its combinatorics, topology and geometry; sheaf- and process-theoretic accounts of causality; causal models, causal inference and interventionist accounts of what a causal relation is; and the metaphysics of causation — exclusion, mental causation, causal emergence and closure, reciprocal causation (ADR-035): 125 · 161 · 163 · 164
Pragmatics (25) — language in use — speech acts and illocutionary force, assertion and common ground, presupposition, dynamic and update semantics, footing and stance in discourse, and probabilistic models of speakers and listeners (rational speech acts); what an utterance does, beyond what it says (ADR-034): 038 · 040 · 043 · 048 · 049 · 052 · 053 · 054 · 055 · 056 · 057 · 058 · 059 · 061 · 063 · 064 · 065 · 066 · 068 · 069 · 070 · 072 · 073 · 152 · 185
Myth and folklore (0) — myths, folktales and their variants as objects of study — morphology of the folktale, structural and transformational analysis of myth, and the computational modelling of either (ADR-034).
Translation (15) — translation and its theory — equivalence and its kinds (formal, dynamic, functional), interpretive resemblance, register and quality assessment, translation as skopos-driven action, intersemiotic translation between media, and what a translation preserves or changes (ADR-033): 038 · 055 · 056 · 059 · 062 · 063 · 065 · 066 · 067 · 070 · 071 · 072 · 122 · 184 · 185
Linguistics (17) — the study of language itself — morphology, lexicalism, word segmentation, syntax and semantics as linguists pose them, not as models encode them: 010 · 011 · 012 · 018 · 019 · 022 · 026 · 027 · 030 · 031 · 032 · 058 · 059 · 066 · 069 · 072 · 073
Metaphysics (1) — what exists and what it is to exist — causation, emergence and levels, laws, time — as a philosophical question (group: philosophy): 060
Mereology (0) — parts and wholes — composition, individuation of systems and collectives (group: philosophy).
Agency (36) — what it is to be an agent — goals, action, control and the capacity to act — in organisms, collectives or machines. An agent is not thereby an individual, a self or a person (ADR-024); how an agent’s behaviour is integrated is behavioral-integration, and governing oneself by one’s own standards is self-governance (group: philosophy): 002 · 003 · 006 · 007 · 013 · 014 · 023 · 024 · 025 · 028 · 034 · 036 · 044 · 046 · 047 · 050 · 051 · 074 · 075 · 081 · 085 · 094 · 100 · 104 · 108 · 113 · 114 · 127 · 129 · 134 · 135 · 145 · 166 · 181 · 187 · 191
Individuation (31) — what makes something one thing, and the same thing over time or across descriptions — individuation, numerical identity and diversity, individuality and persistence of things of any kind, biological individuality and organisational closure. Selves are self and persons are personhood (group: philosophy; ADR-015, ADR-024): 045 · 054 · 057 · 060 · 076 · 098 · 101 · 102 · 105 · 111 · 115 · 116 · 120 · 121 · 126 · 130 · 133 · 134 · 139 · 148 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 171 · 173 · 174 · 176 · 177 · 189
Self (7) — what a self is — the minimal, bodily and pre-reflective self, self-models and the sense of being a subject, the self as process or as context, and whether machines or groups can be selves. Not the person, which is personhood (group: philosophy; ADR-024): 046 · 052 · 114 · 137 · 140 · 141 · 142
Personhood (0) — what a person is and what makes one persist — personal identity over time, psychological continuity and what matters in survival, persons as bearers of reasons, rights and responsibility. Not the self, which is self (group: philosophy; ADR-024).
Behavioral integration (4) — how an organism’s many control systems come to act as one — action selection and competition between systems (habitual and goal-directed, automatic and willed), hierarchical and feedback control, intertemporal conflict and self-control, and evidence accumulation to a decision. One of four unities kept apart (ADR-024): 051 · 074 · 075 · 109
Phenomenal unity (0) — the unity of experience — what makes simultaneous experiences one subject’s, and how a self-model or a perspective binds them. One of four unities kept apart (group: philosophy; ADR-024).
Narrative unity (1) — the unity a life has as a story — narrative identity, the narrative self, autobiographical reasoning, and the claim and counter-claim that a self is the story told of it. One of four unities kept apart (group: philosophy; ADR-024): 137
Self-governance (30) — governing oneself by standards that are one’s own — identification and wholeheartedness, planning agency and policies, self-constitution, autonomy and authenticity, and the empirical psychology of self-endorsed motives. One of four unities kept apart (group: philosophy; ADR-024): 013 · 076 · 077 · 080 · 081 · 092 · 099 · 108 · 109 · 112 · 119 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 128 · 129 · 144 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 182 · 186 · 188
Phenomenology (0) — the first-person description of experience as a method — the philosophical tradition (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty), its use in the sciences of mind, and the theories that take their data from it (group: philosophy; ADR-016).
Social ontology (29) — what social facts, groups, institutions and social kinds are, and what makes them exist — collective intentionality, joint commitment, status functions, convention, social construction, and whether groups can be agents or minds (group: philosophy; ADR-017): 006 · 007 · 014 · 025 · 028 · 050 · 060 · 061 · 064 · 069 · 073 · 077 · 079 · 080 · 098 · 100 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 145 · 148 · 151 · 166 · 169 · 172 · 175 · 176 · 182
Social identity (0) — the psychology of group membership — social identity and self-categorization theory, how people categorize themselves and others and when a group identity becomes salient, identification and its measurement, in-group bias and intergroup relations, rivalry, recategorization and common in-group identity, group-based emotion, crowds and fandom. What a group is, as ontology, is social-ontology; here it is how people come to see themselves and act as members (ADR-062).
Altruism and self-interest (0) — whether and how action can aim at another’s good rather than one’s own — psychological egoism and its rivals, the empathy–altruism debate and self–other merging, inclusion of others in the self and identity fusion, team reasoning and group-directed preferences, identity in the utility function, the evolution of unselfish behaviour (kin, reciprocal and group selection), and the extent of the self as it bears on what counts as self-interest (ADR-062).
Future generations (0) — what the living owe, and why they care about, people who will live after them — longtermism and existential risk, intergenerational justice, the non-identity problem and person-affecting views, population ethics, discounting of future welfare, and the psychology of concern for the future: legacy motivation, generativity, symbolic immortality and continuity with one’s future self (ADR-063).
Moral psychology (3) — morality as a natural phenomenon — moral judgement, emotion and norms, and their evolution, development and variation across cultures; descriptive, where ethics is normative (group: philosophy; ADR-018): 143 · 146 · 147
Psychopathology and treatment (1) — what a mental disorder is and how psychological treatment changes it — medical models of illness (biomedical, biopsychosocial, network), the philosophy of psychiatry, functional and transdiagnostic accounts of psychopathology such as experiential avoidance and psychological flexibility, and psychotherapies and their mechanisms of change (ADR-021): 153
Motivation (2) — why organisms act and persist — intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, needs, goals and values, the internalization of regulation, and the difference between autonomous and controlled motives; the empirical counterpart of the philosophy of autonomy under agency (ADR-023):
109 · 128
Well-being (0) — how well a life goes for the one living it, as psychology measures it — subjective and eudaimonic well-being, flourishing, vitality and meaning in life, and what predicts them (ADR-025).
Learning and conditioning (0) — how organisms learn from contingencies and consequences — Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning, reinforcement and reward learning in brains, habit and goal-directed control, behaviour analysis and relational responding. Not machine learning, which is learning-theory or the anthology (ADR-025).
Psychometrics (7) — measuring minds — scales, reliability and validity, latent-variable and network models of psychological constructs, and model-based estimation of cognitive parameters (ADR-025): 040 · 055 · 058 · 062 · 067 · 184 · 185
Philosophy of biology (0) — what life, organisms and biological functions are — teleology and function, organisation and closure, biological individuality and autonomy, and the demarcation of the living (group: philosophy; ADR-025).
Embodied cognition (5) — cognition as embodied, embedded, enacted or extended — enactivism and sense-making, coordination dynamics, situated robotics, and mind as organism–environment coupling (group: philosophy; ADR-025): 045 · 046 · 130 · 136 · 149
Free will (1) — free will and volition, as philosophy and as science — compatibilism and its rivals, manipulation and responsibility, and the neuroscience of voluntary action such as the readiness potential (group: philosophy; ADR-025): 181
Model comparison (3) — choosing between models by their evidence — the marginal likelihood and Bayes factors, the Savage–Dickey density ratio for nested models, Occam factors and the evidence framework, Bayesian model reduction and structure learning, and information criteria and free energies for singular models (ADR-026): 041 · 070 · 071
Information geometry (2) — the geometry of statistical models — the Fisher information as a metric, natural gradient, curvature and its Kronecker and block structure, and the spectra of Fisher and Hessian matrices in learned models (ADR-026): 152 · 159
Loss landscapes (1) — the geometry of trained solutions in weight space — mode connectivity, linear and along curves, barriers between minima and the permutation symmetries that hide or remove them, re-basin alignment, star domains and connecting simplexes, local versus global landscape structure, and model merging as its use (ADR-027): 115
Control theory (0) — the analysis and design of feedback — stability and Lyapunov certificates, invariance, viability and barrier certificates, input-to-state stability and small-gain conditions, contraction, adaptive, dual and safe control, and controller synthesis under constraints; dynamical systems without a control input stay with complex-systems (ADR-066).
Ethics (3) — moral philosophy — what is owed, permitted or good — including applied ethics of technology and institutions (group: philosophy): 110 · 151 · 175
Consciousness (3) — experience and its theories — phenomenal consciousness, its measures and its attribution to animals or machines (group: philosophy): 033 · 107 · 134
Cognition (11) — the mind as information processing — perception, memory, reasoning and cognitive strategies — as studied by cognitive science and philosophy of mind (group: philosophy): 015 · 033 · 053 · 068 · 085 · 094 · 096 · 106 · 107 · 136 · 187
Emotion and affect (1) — emotions, feelings and affect — what they are, their bodily and neural basis (including the homeostatic and interoceptive states feelings are said to report), their role in decision, memory and behaviour, and whether they ground consciousness (group: philosophy; ADR-014): 047
Philosophy of science (5) — what science is and what its theories say about the world — realism and structural realism, explanation, causation and evidence, the interpretation of physical theories (group: philosophy): 084 · 086 · 090 · 172 · 184
Epistemology (14) — knowledge, belief and evidence — justification and rational credence, the value of knowledge, testimony, trust and expertise, and social and inductive-risk questions about evidence (group: philosophy): 082 · 084 · 086 · 089 · 090 · 091 · 093 · 131 · 138 · 154 · 156 · 183 · 186 · 188
Logic (0) — valid inference and its formal theories — propositional and model-theoretic structures, proof and consequence, and inferentialist accounts of meaning (group: philosophy).
Philosophy of mathematics (0) — what mathematics is about and how we know it — mathematical structuralism and ontology, the nature of proof and construction, and its history from Descartes to Kant and after (group: philosophy).
Philosophy of language (24) — meaning, content and reference as philosophy poses them — theories of meaning, meaning holism, assertion and whether machines assert, and conceptual change (group: philosophy): 004 · 005 · 008 · 009 · 010 · 011 · 012 · 015 · 018 · 019 · 020 · 021 · 022 · 026 · 027 · 029 · 030 · 031 · 032 · 048 · 049 · 063 · 067 · 121
Religion (3) — religion as a subject — its relation to science, religious belief and practice, and how religious practitioners are treated: 056 · 061 · 139
Anthology candidate (0) — a curation flag, not a subject — somebody judged the Anthology of the SOTA may want this work as well; it stays here unless a transfer is decided, and is never a primary topic (ADR-005, ADR-048; group: flags).
By status: Active (177) · Proposed (10) · Deferred (1) · Superseded (3) · Rejected (0)
By standing: Documented (63) · Stipulated (80) · Fictional (48)
By kind: Specimen (62) · Thought experiment (42) · Construction (39) · Reported study (9) · Proposed study (29) · Executed study (10)
By line: Distributed agency (88) · Will-organization (21) · Organizational affect (4) · Authenticity and concordance (2) · Contextual pragmatic information transport (57) · Nucleating an argument (12) · Evidence for experience (2) · How training finds structure (1) · Formal apparatus (6)
What the status column means in this scheme — the words are luria’s, the meanings are this project’s.
| Status | Means | |
|---|---|---|
Active | Active | In force — the current answer, and what a citation should normally point at |
Proposed | Proposed | Not in force yet — an open question, so citing it as settled is the thing the report catches |
Deferred | Deferred | Not in force and not being worked on; the question is real and the answer is waiting on something |
Superseded | Superseded | No longer in force because something replaced it; the successor is named in the field, not the prose |
Rejected | Rejected | No longer in force and nothing replaced it — kept because a rejection is worth being able to point at |
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASE-001 | Two reset matrices: noncommuting and classical | A30: on a two-state classical system, A resets to state 1 and B to state 2; AB = A and BA = B, so AB ≠ BA, and every state is an ordinary probability vector. Order dependence without nonclassical probability. | Active |
| CASE-002 | Northstar classification: who decides an incident is severe | A severe-incident rule with strong precedence, whose force depends on which team controls severity classification, plus a business-critical override held by senior management (Sections 5.3–5.5). | Active |
| CASE-003 | Northstar-A and Northstar-B: same policy, same evidence, different escalation authority | Two versions held constant in attitudes, policy, monitoring and evidence, differing only in whether a specialist’s objection suspends deployment (Section 5.1). The paper’s controlled contrast. | Active |
| 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-006 | Open Horizon | A fictional cooperative founded for openness and public benefit whose sustaining mechanisms come to outweigh its mission as it grows (A31): persistence through turnover with the founding intentions lost. | Active |
| CASE-007 | CoreWeave: a climate-concerned workforce building fossil-powered datacenters | The owner’s case at U13: employees largely concerned about climate, a company whose datacenters, sited where energy is cheap, induce fossil fuel demand. Replaced by the fictional CASE-025 at the owner’s suggestion (U15). | Superseded — by CASE-025 |
| CASE-008 v2 | Solidarity, condemnation and humour judged in pairs: the probabilistic version | A24: three judgements of Henley’s poem, S (solidarity), M (condemnation), H (humour), elicited in pairwise contexts, asking whether the pairwise distributions are marginals of one global distribution. Replaced in the manuscript by a deterministic parity example. | Superseded — by CASE-035 |
| 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-010 | Henley’s rendering of Villon, “Booze and the blowens cop the lot” | W. E. Henley’s rendering of a Villon ballade into nineteenth-century English thieves’ slang, refrain “Booze and the blowens cop the lot” (U3). Already a radical translation, and deliberately opaque. The source of the manuscript’s refrain family (§1, §10). | Active |
| CASE-011 | Hofstadter’s mother’s translation | A rendering of Marot that broke most of the formal constraints and that Hofstadter came to judge perhaps the best. Refutes fidelity as a count of preserved constraints (A4). Absent from the manuscript. | Active |
| CASE-012 | The modernized refrains of Henley’s Villon | Invented modern refrains for Henley’s ballade (A6–A9), each a different speaker: “You blow it all on sex and booze”, “By Monday morning, you’re broke again”, “The party always gets its cut”, “The high life eats your paycheck”. Two survive as the manuscript’s opening example (§1). | Active |
| CASE-013 | The reluctant writer | A writer sincerely committed to finishing an article while avoidance governs the afternoon; who later blocks distracting websites. The individual-scale case (Sections 1, 3.5). | Active |
| CASE-014 v2 | Microsoft, as the philosophical target | The real corporation the first framing asked about. Committed to as a recurring touchstone (A205) and then silently dropped from the drafts; retired here by status rather than left as a promise nobody kept. | Deferred |
| CASE-015 | The telephone game | The owner’s case at U20: a message passed along a chain stays recognizable while drifting. Shows similarity, not equivalence, as the working notion, and opened the serial-reconstruction line (A50, outline v4’s running case B, the manuscript’s §8 and Case II). | Active |
| CASE-016 | The Dual State: normative and prerogative authority in National Socialist Germany | Fraenkel’s analysis: ordinary legal norms kept governing large domains while a prerogative order held authority over whether they bound at all. Used for one structural point only. | Active |
| CASE-017 | E1: synthetic three-state stochastic computations (C2–C3) | Run at U23 (“run it”): hand-chosen row-stochastic matrices on three abstract states, seed 20261008, “not fitted to text, pretrained models, or human measurements”. Executed; results are exact properties of the chosen matrices. None reached a later draft. | Active |
| CASE-018 | ”You blow it all on sex and booze”, said by a friend, a parent, a judge, a comedian | The same sentence attributed to different speakers (A12, A18, A24): one teases, another reproaches, another condemns, another entertains. Words held fixed, act changed. Survives as the joke/reprimand contrast (§2) and the social-alignment manipulation of Case III (§10). | Active |
| CASE-019 | ”Hug from Doug” | A rendering of Marot that puts the translator’s name in the slot where Marot put his own. Wrong as a historical translation, right as a relation. The exchange’s first statement of relational invariance (A4). | Active |
| CASE-020 | E3: the controlled inference harness, dry run only (C5) | Built at U25: four frame conditions (stable complicit, neutral, moralizing; shifting), 12 reset chains each, 5 generations, 240 calls, gpt-4.1-mini at temperature 0.7, seed 1729. Only a dry run was executed: “No model-generated observations were recorded.” The design is the manuscript’s Case II. | 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-022 | A rendering that keeps the solidarity–criticism ambiguity open, and one that settles it | A34 §4 and A48 §7.5: two renderings with similar static profiles, one of which stays sensitive to a later affiliative framing because it sustains the ambiguity, while the other has already fixed the speaker as condemning. The concrete mechanism behind dynamical fidelity; dropped at outline v4. | Active |
| CASE-023 | Northstar | A fictional software company whose stated policy gives reliability priority over release speed, and whose escalation and authority structures may make speed effective anyway. The paper’s worked case, in several variants. | Active |
| CASE-024 | A coral reef | The owner’s second holobiont direction (U30): a reef as a coordinated ecological whole. Its job changed four times in the exchange; filed once so that each change is visible. | Active |
| CASE-025 | Verdant Compute | A fictional compute company whose decarbonization-minded workforce operates an organization whose market position drives fossil-fuel demand (A31). Shows the whole’s operative direction diverging from the average of its members’ intentions. | Active |
| CASE-026 | Modern slang that makes the insider sound like an outsider imitating the subculture | A35 §7: replacing Henley’s argot with contemporary slang may keep the poem intelligible while making the speaker sound like an outsider, so the audience understands the observation and loses the complicity. Interpretive fidelity kept, performative fidelity lost. | Active |
| CASE-027 | Henley translated perfectly in the voice of an academic sociologist | A12’s thought experiment: every term rendered exactly, every proposition kept, but the speaker made to sound like an academic sociologist. Something fundamental has changed, so keeping the proposition is not sufficient. | Active |
| CASE-028 | Stability AI: well-intentioned founders, near-total churn, generic successor | The owner’s case at U12: a company founded by researchers and open-source developers that churned almost its whole staff in a year and became a generic corporate entity. Replaced by the fictional CASE-006. | Superseded — by CASE-006 |
| 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-030 | E2: assistant-authored reconstruction chains with content-word overlap (C4) | Run at U24 (“do it”): three four-generation chains written by the assistant from a modernized Villon seed, scored by content-word Jaccard against the seed. The texts are authored with their intended trajectories; the numbers are exact properties of those texts. | Active |
| CASE-031 | Marot’s “A une Damoyselle malade” and Hofstadter’s translations of it | A sixteenth-century get-well poem whose content is trivial and whose form is everything, translated dozens of ways by Hofstadter and others. The exchange’s founding case, and the manuscript’s opening one (§1). | Active |
| CASE-032 | E4: within-session chains, stable complicit against a shift to moral instruction | Run after the owner’s U26 (“lol you ARE a text generation action. just delegate subtasks”): two three-generation chains written by the assistant in the same context. “The measured lexical similarities are near zero for both final texts”; one keeps complicity, the other becomes advice. | Active |
| CASE-033 | Driving home while daydreaming | The owner’s case at U26: driving home with access to the road and to a daydream, arriving with no memory of the drive. Compartmented access, not unconsciousness. | Active |
| CASE-034 | The thermostat and the adaptive controller | Systems that regulate, and even alter their own regulatory parameters, without warranting attribution of an agent. The stock counterexample to will as regulation. | Active |
| CASE-035 | Solidarity, condemnation and humour: the parity obstruction | The manuscript’s §3 version: S = M, M = H and H ≠ S are each satisfiable in its own context but admit no global assignment. Stated to demonstrate an obstruction, not to describe actual judgements. | Active |
| CASE-036 v2 | Northstar emergency governance that sustains itself | A service failure activates emergency governance whose restrictions defer maintenance, generating anomalies that satisfy the emergency criteria and keep the restrictions in place (Section 6.1). | Active |
| CASE-037 | The parity triangle with uniform weights: a no-signalling, strongly contextual model beside a family of point sections that glues | CASE-035’s constraints given probabilities, at A129 §2, and set beside a deterministic family on the same cover that glues to (0, 1, 0). It shows that the obstruction is in the supports, not in the event sheaf. It appears three times (A129 §2, A161, A178’s negative control), so it gets a code. | Active |
| CASE-038 v2 | TV Tropes: a community-curated catalogue of narrative tropes and their instances, such as the Gilligan Cut | The owner proposed it at U44 as a reference case. A155 read a trope as a relational pattern recognized across changes of characters, medium and wording, and pointed to Gala et al.’s dataset as a large set of instances already annotated. A191 §8 added five manipulations of one trope, the Gilligan Cut. v7 (A178) makes it Study B, and A218 keeps it as Study 5. The first time the thing turns up in the record. The catalogue is documented; the experiments on it are proposals. | Active |
| CASE-039 | Who crosses the meeting point first? Two craft near light speed, and the relativity of simultaneity | The owner’s U47: two craft approach each other near light speed, and each frame is said to answer that it crosses the meeting point first, so the local interpretations cannot be glued. A164 corrected the physics. Read either way, the owner’s own scenario has an invariant answer; only spacelike-separated events change order between frames, and there the frames are reconciled by a Lorentz transformation. Standard special relativity; the scenario is the owner’s. | 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-041 v2 | FID and Projected GANs: one ImageNet-trained probe family used both to train a generator and to evaluate it | The owner pointed to FID at U50 and proposed FID with Projected GANs as a paired case study at U51. A184 framed the pair: FID evaluates a distribution through probes, and Projected GANs learn one under pressure from probes. The anthology’s readings supply the fact the exchange lacked. The Projected GAN discriminator is ImageNet-trained, FID’s features are ImageNet class evidence, and Kynkäänniemi et al. show that such a generator can match FID while doing worse in an independent feature space and with human judges. | Active |
| CASE-042 v2 | Collaborative filtering and topic models: latent relational structure recovered from interaction matrices, up to gauge, or uniquely under anchor conditions | Proposed as a laboratory by the owner at U57 and conceded as prior art after the owner’s U58. Collaborative filtering recovers a user–item matrix’s predicted relations with latent coordinates fixed only up to an invertible change; topic models recover individual topics only under nonnegativity plus separability or anchor-word conditions. It shows that recovery is possible and limited, not that a recovered component is a communicative kind. | Active |
| CASE-043 | Data written for a future reader and never read | The owner’s variant of the tree in the woods (2026-10-11). Someone writes a record (a note, a log, a letter, a backup) for a reader they expect, and it is never read. Unlike the tree, the write was made for someone. Used to separate when a message’s intended meaning is fixed from when its fidelity is measured. | Active |
| CASE-044 | The thermostat: Dennett’s knife edge between agent and device | An ordinary thermostat holding a room at a setpoint. Dennett calls it the simplest artifact that can sustain the intentional stance, and Orseau et al. place it “on the knife edge”: “if temperature is below the command, start heating” and “make sure the temperature is close to the command” are descriptions of comparable simplicity. It is the permissiveness objection’s standard case, here given a code at its second appearance after CLAIM-010. | 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-046 v2 | A partner-dancing couple, lindy hop, tango or salsa, while they dance | The owner’s case (2026-10-11). Two social dancers improvise together. The lead proposes through the frame, the follow interprets and adds styling, and each corrects for the other’s balance and timing. Neither alone decides where the next step lands. Used to ask what the pair is while dancing, and only after that whether it is a self. | Active |
| CASE-047 | Gut microbes and the host’s hunger and mood: a lower-level collective that can drive the person | The owner’s example (2026-10-11). The human gut microbiome is a community of other organisms inside the person. Through metabolites, mimics of host appetite peptides, the immune system and the vagus, it can change hunger and affect: robustly in rodents, modestly and inconsistently in humans so far. Documented, with the evidence graded in LIT-903 and LIT-915. Used as the case of drive from a lower level that is itself a collective. | Active |
| CASE-048 v2 | The same film joke, seen as a child and again as an adult | The owner’s case (2026-10-11): one person watches a scene in a family film or show as a child and again as an adult, and the joke means something different the second time. The artefact is unchanged, and so is the person in the sense of numerical identity. Only the receiver’s state has changed. It is a test for whether meaning is fixed at the write or made at the read. | Active |
| CASE-049 | A tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it | The old puzzle, filed so its variants have something to vary. A physical event happens with no perceiver. Whether it “made a sound” turns on whether sound means the vibration or the hearing. Nothing in it was made for anyone, and that is the respect the storage variant changes. | Active |
| CASE-050 | The all-hands: a corporate event as a synchronization mechanism for the firm | The owner’s case (2026-10-11): a company all-hands or offsite as a mechanism that synchronizes a “corporate entity”, a kind of self. The teams’ priorities have drifted apart, and the event re-couples them. It is the firm-scale counterpart of the session’s individual routes: entrainment by co-presence, a record written for later readers, and incentives realigned. Whether the firm so synchronized is a self is the open question, not something the case settles. | Active |
| CASE-051 | The absorbed writer | The reluctant writer (CASE-013) on a third afternoon. The draft is going well and email stays open and unblocked, but it does not win, and no rule or device is invoked. A notification breaks the spell, and getting back in takes effort. It shows integration with nothing to integrate, beside the lapse and the precommitment. | Active |
| CASE-052 | Stokely Carmichael’s two speaking styles, kept apart by audience and collapsed by broadcast | As boyd (2008) reports it after Meyrowitz (1985: 43): the civil rights leader Stokely Carmichael used very different rhetorical styles with black and with white audiences. While the audiences were separate the two styles did not conflict. Television and radio put both audiences in front of one speech, there was no neutral style, and his choice of one alienated the other audience. The roles did not change. The cover did. | Active |
| CASE-053 | Contextuality tests on human meaning and judgement data: a held null, and positive results that miss pragmatic content or power | The published tests of contextuality proper on elicited human judgements, read together. The null that meets every condition is the record’s own LIT-264: attitudinal and lexical data, none contextual under Contextuality-by-Default. Wang’s thesis adds a Bell-type null on meaning judgements. The positive results miss a condition: Cervantes and Dzhafarov’s “Snow Queen” is contextual with high reliability but its content is instructed attribute matching, and Lo, Sadrzadeh and Mansfield’s Winograd schemas have the right content but a violation of about one standard deviation. No contextual pragmatic data are documented; “none in behavioural data” is too broad. | Active |
| CASE-054 v2 | Joking relationships: one kind among the Crow and in Africa with no route between them, descended between Crow and Hidatsa, and a transported tale beside them | Radcliffe-Brown defined the joking relationship as one comparative kind and placed the Crow joking-relative and Dogon and Thonga joking in it; no historical route joins the Crow to West or South-East Africa. Lowie records the same institution among the Hidatsa, a division of the Crow’s parent tribe, and Tehrani’s phylogeny confirms an Ibo “Little Red Riding Hood” as an oral translation of the European tale. Kind without transport, kind with descent, and a transport, on documented material, for CLAIM-210. Partial: independence is a fact of geography no source states, and the kind is an analyst’s. | 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-056 v2 | J. B. Phillips’s “hearty handshake all round” for Paul’s “holy kiss”, and Nida’s judgement that it keeps the greeting | Phillips renders all five New Testament “holy kiss” directives (Romans 16:16 and four parallels) as handshakes, which changes what the congregation is told to do; Nida (1964, p. 160) holds this up as equivalent effect, and the UBS handbooks call it a brave attempt. The documented case for the necessity half of CLAIM-061, on expert judgement rather than reader evidence. The same handbooks document the sufficiency half: where kissing is amorous, a literal “kiss” changes the act. | Active |
| CASE-057 | Swapping the two persons of a dyad: nonreciprocal T/V address is changed by the swap and reciprocal address is not, with a constructed French–English dyad and a three-person teasing round | Built on a documented distinction. In Brown and Gilman’s account of T/V address, power address is nonreciprocal (the superior says T and receives V) and solidarity address is reciprocal, so swapping the two persons changes the first act and leaves the second fixed. Two constructions extend it. A master-and-servant dyad in French and in modern English is changed by the swap in one realization and fixed by it in the other. A three-person teasing round gives a group whose automorphism can swap characters, so the anchoring of CLAIM-249 has work to do. | Active |
| CASE-058 | FactBank’s source-relative factuality labels and Kiesling et al.’s stance-triangle annotation: one stance construct annotated reliably, the interpersonal ones not | FactBank labels one event’s factuality separately for each source that reports it, so a proposition held fixed gets different commitment labels by source, and trained annotators agree at κ = 0.82. Kiesling et al. annotate Du Bois’s stance triangle in Reddit threads, including an investment dimension defined as the split of animator from principal, and reach only α = 0.40 to 0.57, with investment and alignment below 0.4 outside one community. Together they bracket an answer to QUESTION-076: commitment relative to a source is annotatable when defined by tests, interpersonal stance only moderately. | Active |
| CASE-059 | Tatiana’s letter in Eugene Onegin III: вы to ты and back, lost in Kline and half kept in Spalding | Tatiana’s letter to Onegin opens with the formal вы, breaks into the intimate ты at “я твоя”, and returns to вы in its last lines; only the pronouns mark the moves. Kline (2009) has “you” throughout, so neither move is in the English; Spalding (1881) switches to “thou” and never returns. A documented candidate for the half of a change of cover in which the source decides a relational question that a rendering makes undecidable. The texts are attested and the loss is visible; native attestation is thin and there is no evidence on English readers. | Active |
| CASE-060 | Two identical unnumbered ballots in one tally: two votes that no relation in the structure of the vote tells apart | Constructed: two voters each put a single cross for the same candidate on identical, unnumbered ballot papers in one box, and both are counted. Within the relations that make a paper a vote, each bears the same relations to everything and none to the other, so they are not even weakly discernible, yet the count is two. Anchored on a documented norm that voids any paper marked so that the voter can be identified (UK RPA 1983, Sch. 1, r. 47(1)(c)). It forces the choice between CLAIM-136’s strict and weak versions, and bears on CLAIM-138. | Active |
| CASE-061 v2 | Wonder-working power: one hymn phrase in a national address, heard as faith by those who sing it and as boilerplate by others | In the State of the Union of 28 January 2003 George W. Bush said “there’s power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people”, lifting the refrain of an 1899 gospel hymn verbatim. Churchgoers who knew the hymn heard the power of Christ; others heard boilerplate; an experiment with an ingroup and a religiously diverse outgroup measured the split. The same-wording variant of CASE-064, illustrating CLAIM-224 without translation. | 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-063 | The English localization of Ace Attorney: a Japanese courtroom game moved to an alternate Los Angeles, with “textually accurate” set against “emotionally accurate” by its localizer | Capcom’s Gyakuten Saiban (2001) became Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (2005) by moving the courtroom from Japan to Los Angeles. Its second localizer, Janet Hsu, names two fidelity targets in print, “textually accurate” against “emotionally accurate”, and states the correspondence of situations she works to, an alternate Los Angeles where the California Alien Land Law of 1913 “was never passed”. The first, Alexander O. Smith, states the criterion for re-performance. The reception is contested on record. No reader has been asked a report question and a re-performance question about the same lines. | Active |
| CASE-064 | Lindsey Stone’s Arlington photograph: one post, taken by friends as a tasteless in-joke and by strangers as contempt | In 2012 Lindsey Stone posed at Arlington National Cemetery mock-shouting and giving the finger beside a “Silence And Respect” sign, part of a running joke of photos that disobeyed signs. Friends who knew the joke called it tasteless; four weeks later strangers read the same post as contempt for the war dead, and she lost her job. A change of audience with no translation and the token unchanged, illustrating CLAIM-224. Partial: the token is a photograph, not wording. | Active |
| CASE-065 | Two satisfaction questions in German and in a back-translated Chinese version: an order effect that reverses across a rendering, with the Clinton–Gore poll as the scale of the 2ε bound | Haberstroh, Oyserman, Schwarz, Kühnen and Ji (2002), Experiment 2, asked German and Chinese students the same two satisfaction questions, in a back-translated Chinese version, in both orders. The part–whole correlation depends on order in the German administration and reverses in the Chinese one, and the authors explain it by a pragmatic mechanism. Only correlations are reported, so the case shows the bound’s contrapositive in kind, not in number. Moore’s Clinton–Gore poll, held through LIT-834, supplies the number: an order effect of total variation about 0.095, against a sampling floor of about 0.03 per order at poll sizes, so 2ε is about as large as the effect it would certify. | Active |
| CASE-066 | Dolly’s slip into ты in Anna Karenina I.4, and three English translations that carry it three ways | In Anna Karenina I.4 Dolly says one sentence to Stiva with ты amid вы, and the narrator says so. English has no live T/V pronoun. Dole (1886) keeps the Russian word and glosses it; Garnett (1901) adds “Stiva”; the Maudes (1918) add “our children”. The later two add words not in the Russian to carry the relation. Tolstoy himself says вы and its dictionary equivalent vous differ in coldness. A documented instance of the compensation mechanism; the evidence on what readers recover is translators’ and the author’s, not readers’. | Active |
| CASE-067 | The reception of Deborah Smith’s The Vegetarian: the Booker judges’ task, the Korean critics’ task, and one critic’s two verdicts | Deborah Smith’s English version of Han Kang’s 채식주의자 won the 2016 Man Booker International Prize, while Korean critics published lists of errors and charged it with embellishment. Each side’s task is stated in print: the judges evaluate “the finished English-language work on their own terms”, while assessment in Korea “does usually involve comparison”. Charse Yun perceives what both sides perceive and gives two verdicts by changing task. Part of the split is access, not weight: some errors are invisible to readers without Korean. | Active |
| CASE-068 | Risk messages passed down diffusion chains: the evaluative signal kept and amplified while the content decays (Moussaïd, Brighton and Gaissmaier; Jagiello and Hills) | In two serial-reproduction experiments on risk messages, each link’s message was coded for content and, on a separate scheme, for the evaluative stance of its statements toward the hazard. Content got shorter, less accurate and more divergent; the evaluative signal survived and drifted negative, and re-exposure to the balanced source did not undo the drift. The transmitters’ own risk perception, measured by questionnaire, predicts the direction of the change. Documented chain evidence for evaluative stance; none for footing. | Active |
| CASE-069 v2 | Labov’s recorded sounding sessions: ritual insult turning personal, with the same exchange shape and a different act | Labov’s team taped sounding among Harlem peer groups. Boot answers David’s taunt with a remark “related to A-5 in exactly the way that one sound is related to another”, yet both are taken as personal insults: denied, objected to, wept over. Labov’s rule puts the difference in a further relation, the shared knowledge before an audience that the proposition is untrue. A documented, non-institutional case for CLAIM-151 in which the act follows a relation among the parties, and for CLAIM-138, since the exchange relations alone match and the acts still differ. | Active |
| CASE-070 | Voita, Sennrich and Titov’s BLEU-tied translation systems that differ on keeping ты or вы across sentences | Two English-to-Russian subtitle translation systems score the same BLEU (32.40 and 32.38, not significantly different). On a contrastive test built from held-out films, which asks whether a system keeps the T or V form of “you” consistent across sentences, one is at chance (50.0%) and the other is right in 81.6% of cases. A documented instance, on a pragmatic distinction, of two realizations equal under a standard probe family and different under an independently built one. An ML paper that neither record holds. | Active |
| CASE-071 v2 | Kovacs, Deutsch and Freitag’s metric bias in MBR decoding: translations a metric selects, that the metric and its neighbours rate better and human raters do not | Minimum Bayes risk and quality-estimation decoding pick, from 128 sampled translations, the one a neural metric scores best. That metric and other neural metrics rate the picks significantly better than greedy decoding; human MQM raters find them no better, and for four system and language-pair combinations significantly worse. CASE-041’s result in text, by selection rather than training. The distinction lost is accuracy, not a pragmatic one; a stipulated English-to-Russian ты/вы variant states the design that would make it pragmatic. | Active |
| CASE-072 | Hafez’s “Shirazi Turk” in English: one ungendered beloved rendered as a maid, as God and as a boy | The opening of Hafez’s ghazal 3 names a beloved, “that Shirazi Turk”, whose sex and nature the Persian leaves open. English forces a choice at the first possessive. Jones (1771) and Bell (1897) make the beloved a maid, Clarke (1891) makes it God, and Davis (2012) makes it a boy, and Davis says in print that his choice is arbitrary. A documented instance of the half of a change of cover in which the rendering decides what the source left open. The disagreement on the source is among translators and scholars; no reader agreement has been measured. | Active |
| CASE-073 | The Kia Provo: one concept-car name, a blank coinage to the motor press and taken as honouring the IRA in Northern Ireland | In March 2013 Kia showed a concept car at Geneva named the Provo, “from the word ‘provoke’”. The motor press found no meaning in the name; in Northern Ireland, where “Provo” names a member of the Provisional IRA, six MPs said it “has caused deep offence”. Kia said it meant no offence, and withdrew the name for the UK and Ireland. One name, the speaker’s intention fixed and declared, a new audience, and an unintended reading taken up and acted on: the accidental, verbal variant of CASE-064, illustrating CLAIM-224. | Active |
| CASE-074 v2 | Twitch Plays Pokémon in democracy mode, with the running tally shown while the votes come in | The crowd of CASE-075 in democracy mode. Each move is the button that collects the most votes in a short window, and the running tally is shown while the votes arrive, so the current majority can sway the votes still coming. The owner judges it a better demonstration of a population with drift-diffusion decision dynamics than anarchy mode. Showing the tally adds feedback, and feedback moves the dynamics toward winner-take-all. | Active |
| CASE-075 | Twitch Plays Pokémon in anarchy mode: one avatar steered through the map by the running aggregate of a crowd’s inputs | In February 2014 a stream let everyone in its chat play one copy of Pokémon Red at once, with every typed button press executed in turn. The owner offers its navigation as a working approximation of an agent made of a population whose decisions follow drift-diffusion dynamics. The crowd’s direction reorganizes continuously and is not switched. The record holds no source for the case yet. | Active |
| CASE-076 | Twin pattern-keepers: two systems keep the same pattern, one by its own responses and one through an external controller, and only removing the controller tells them apart | A10 §3.3’s paired design, the case behind QUESTION-086. Matching behaviour and persistence, different organization. Removing the controller destroys one system’s pattern and not the other’s. A10 then made it harder: the internal regulator at one scale is supported by other processes at another, so which side of the boundary the controller sits on depends on where the boundary is drawn. | Active |
| CASE-077 | The reciprocal pair: two processes that endorse only each other under recursive delegation, so that each one’s authority returns to it through the other | A2 §5’s counterexample to the ban on self-endorsement: “Suppose D1 endorses D2, and D2 endorses D1.” Under g = (1 − η)b + ηEᵀg, each operator’s authority comes partly from its own endorsement returned after two hops. It came back in A6 as authority that “may circulate”. Used to show that a ban on self-endorsement does not make authority independent of one’s own endorsements. | 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-079 | r/place: a shared pixel canvas on which each Reddit user could place one pixel at a time under a cooldown, and communities coordinated off the canvas to build, defend and overwrite images | The owner proposed it at U8 of the 2026-10-13 exchange: “every user can modify a single pixel once, and different subreddits coordinated to present certain images or even warred amongst each other over regions of the canvas”. Reddit ran it in 2017, 2022 and 2023, and released the 2022 placement log. A8 read it as the exchange’s two canvases made visible: the pixels as the meaning canvas, the plans, templates and alliances off the canvas as the influence canvas. First time the thing turns up in the record. The event and the data are documented. The readings of them are proposals. | Active |
| CASE-080 | The skeptic who delegates: a critic that cannot overturn an emerging consensus gives its authority to a process that can generate alternatives | A3 §6’s worked example. Four processes: an integrator and a decision- maker push toward a decision, a skeptic disagrees, and a generator can translate neglected evidence into new hypotheses. The skeptic does not try to win. It endorses the generator, whose hypotheses change the decision landscape. Used to show delegation as a route to one’s goals, and dissent made useful by a role. | Active |
| CASE-081 | Self-maintenance learned for a designer’s reward: a system that maintains itself because it was trained to, and later revises the policy and keeps maintaining itself without further instruction | A10 §6.1’s boundary case, “a system that learns to maintain itself only because an external designer rewards that behavior”, with its question whether the maintenance becomes endogenous “once the system can revise the policy and maintain the associated governance without continued external instruction”. It is the case CLAIM-288 is about, and the place where that objection could be answered. | Active |
| CASE-082 | The sufficient posterior without its history: a Bayesian agent that keeps only its current posterior updates as well as one that keeps everything, and cannot say how it got there | A6’s fourth case, which A6 called “probably the most important counterexample in the set”. It grounds the redundancy half of CLAIM-300 and one of CLAIM-299’s separations. A6’s reserve case, revising the model class, is where it stops holding, and CASE-087 is that case. | Active |
| CASE-083 | A pseudorandom generator’s output against uniform strings: almost disjoint in total variation, indistinguishable to every efficient test if the generator is secure | A15 §2’s witness, which A15 recommended filing “with its cryptographic assumption explicitly stated”. It grounds CLAIM-302 and, by the record’s own reduction, CLAIM-304. Checked against Goldreich (note of 2026-10-15): the definitions match, and the separation needs the generator only for samplability. | Active |
| CASE-084 | The perfectly accountable false theory: a community whose record traces every commitment and whose vocabulary leaves out the right explanation | A6’s third case. Accountability without correctness, one of CLAIM-299’s three separations, and A6’s “direct companion to CLAIM-181 and CLAIM-190”. | Active |
| CASE-085 | The medication in the ambulance: a drug the EMT knew was stocked could not be found during a resuscitation, the paramedic changed the request, and afterwards said “If I can’t find it, it isn’t there” | The owner’s own experience as an EMT-B on an ALS unit, told at U16. It illustrates CLAIM-296 and is the source of TERM-055. Stipulated, not documented: the event is real, and the only source is the owner’s retrospective account, which a reader cannot check. | Active |
| CASE-086 | The retracted finding and its descendants: an experiment fails to replicate years after three conclusions were built on it | A7’s sixth case, filed at the owner’s U7 as an illustration and not a test (“one or two of those might be handy to keep on hand too”). Tracing descendants of a defeated premise, which CLAIM-295 says a record of dependencies supports. | Active |
| CASE-087 | The discredited instrument and the second population: two pairs of readings with the same mean that the mean cannot tell apart once one instrument is discredited or a mixture is considered | A10 §2’s paired construction, which A10 recommended filing (“That single paired construction makes the dependence of sufficiency on the task and model very easy to see”). It grounds the relativity half of CLAIM-300. | Active |
| CASE-088 | The repeated objection and the argument nobody reuses: filing pays for itself after a few recurrences in one case, and never in the other | A11’s CASE B and CASE A, the arithmetic of CLAIM-303. | Active |
| CASE-089 | The compensating evidence problem: two records with the same support graph in which discounting one support leaves odds of 20:1 or of 1.1:1 | A6’s second case. It grounds CLAIM-293: the same edges E₁ → H ← E₂, different Bayes factors for E₂, different revisions when E₁ fails. | Active |
| CASE-090 | The rehabilitated hypothesis: an objection that displaced a hypothesis turns out to rest on a faulty measurement, and the hypothesis can be reopened because its defeat was recorded | A7’s seventh case, the companion to CASE-086 and filed with it. Reopening an alternative when its defeater is defeated. A12’s “defeat of a defeater” is the same case and is held here, as A12 itself proposed. | 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-093 | Same marginal, different updates: two joint distributions over a hypothesis and a condition that agree on the hypothesis and disagree on how to revise it | A6’s first case, made exact at A8. It grounds CLAIM-294. | Active |
| CASE-094 | The LEGO bin: a brick owned in one copy and buried among hundreds of similar ones may as well not be owned, a black brick among white ones needs no bin of its own, and every brick can be found by going through the whole collection | The owner’s own parable, told on 2026-07-02 and kept verbatim in Mathematics of Meaning, where the owner paired it with the EMT case this record holds as CASE-085. It is the second time that case’s pattern has turned up, so it gets a code. It adds three things the EMT case lacks: similarity to binmates as the cause of the failure, copy count and frequency of use as what decides whether a bin is worth making, and exhaustive search as the reason presence is never in doubt. Stipulated: the collection is real, and its facts are taken on the owner’s account. | Active |
| CASE-095 | Two builders sorting one collection: the brick that one bins as red and two-wide and the other as a curved connector has a bin that respects both, and what the builders cannot share is an arrangement, not a description | The example the owner’s LEGO monograph (Mathematics of Meaning, “The Lego Parable”) uses for contextuality, rebuilt. As descriptions the two sortings always share a joint refinement, the product bin, as MOM-CLM-137 shows, so they illustrate the non-contextual case of CLAIM-037 and CLAIM-131. As arrangements, with a fixed number of bins, they compete, and which wins depends on the queries made and on what stands out within a bin. Fictional: the builders and the collection are invented. | Active |
| CASE-096 | The smoothie: milk makes it better for a while and then worse, unless there is more of everything else | The owner’s line, the prompt the smoothie note in Part III of the LEGO monograph answers: “if I put milk in my smoothie, it gets More Good for a while until it gets Less Good, unless there’s more of all the other stuff.” The note’s first model reads it right: a preference over the milk fraction, single-peaked, kept by scaling everything together. Its second reading, in signal detection terms, has the direction wrong (CLAIM-309). Stipulated: the preference is the owner’s, taken on the owner’s word. | Active |
| CASE-097 | The monograph’s castle topic, persistent across refinement by construction, persists as no eigenmode: in its rank-2 and rank-3 co-occurrence matrices the eigenvector nearest the castle topic changes rank and turns through about 51°, and every eigenvector mixes signs | Appendix H of Part III of the owner’s LEGO monograph builds two co-occurrence matrices from nonnegative topics. One has topics for spaceship and castle; the other splits spaceship into wings and engines and keeps castle unchanged. The monograph reads castle’s survival as a stable eigenmode and calls that archetype persistence. Computed here: the topics overlap (ship·castle = 0.21), so no eigenvector is the castle topic. The eigenvector closest to it is the second mode at rank 2 (cosine 0.873) and the first at rank 3 (0.926), about 51° apart. Persistence of a generating factor does not show as persistence of an eigenvector, which is what CLAIM-148’s identifiability limits predict. | Active |
| CASE-098 v2 | A long rivalry between two teams outlives every player, owner and supporter who first carried it: new fans inherit the antagonism, its history and its practices before they know why the game matters | From U2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16 on sports fandom (the owner’s list of subcases). A2’s reading: a mature rivalry is “a reproduced intercollective relation”, carried by families, media and fan culture, that can survive the replacement of everyone on both sides. Stipulated: the record has no study of a particular rivalry. It shows a relation with its own continuity; it does not show that the relation is a system, an agent, or constitutive of either fandom. | Active |
| CASE-099 | The two-hypothesis coupled meaning–influence model linearized at its symmetric state: a meaning bias m and an authority bias a, each stable alone, coupled by authority shaping interpretation (β) and interpretation shaping endorsement (γ) | A14 §2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. Near the symmetric state of the two-hypothesis, two-specialist model, (m, a) evolves by a 2×2 matrix J = [[α, β], [γ, δ]] plus noise. With nonnegative entries and α, δ < 1, the symmetric state is unstable exactly when βγ > (1 − α)(1 − δ), and the unstable direction mixes meaning and authority. Checked here. A construction about a linearization, not a fitted or simulated result. | Active |
| CASE-100 v2 | A fan redub of an X-Men cartoon, circulated online in 2006, put “I’m the Juggernaut, bitch!” into X-Men: The Last Stand three months later | The owner’s case at U7 of the exchange of 2026-10-16, offered as a fandom “making something happen”. Two fans made the parody; many people spread it for their own reasons; the film’s makers put its line in at a reshoot. A7: an effect on an outside institution with no collective intention and no procedure behind it. Documented as to the sequence; the route by which the parody reached the decision, and whether the spreaders were X-Men fans or the internet at large, is not. | 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-102 v2 | A college program stays good, or bad, at a sport for decades while its whole roster turns over every four or five years | The owner’s case, U3 of the exchange of 2026-10-16: “the team composition experiences extremely fast churn, and yet in spite of this real world ship-of-theseus situation, teams often maintain standing on similar timescales as professional teams (if not longer)”. A3: it separates the persistence of a collective’s identity from the persistence of its capacities, and the second needs a mechanism that regenerates them in each new population. Stipulated: the record holds no data on program persistence. The proposed test is residual persistence of performance across seasons with no player overlap. | Active |
| CASE-103 v2 | A fanbase keeps a reputation, for hostility or loyalty or knowledge, after the behaviour that earned it has changed, and outsiders and members both act on it | From U2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. A2 separated three things that vary independently: many members have the trait; others believe the fanbase has it; that belief shapes how the fanbase behaves. A reputation belongs to a fanbase through its relations with audiences, and it can enter the process that produces its own evidence. It is a case for regulative attribution (THEORY-137, QUESTION-049) beyond mental states. Stipulated; it shows no particular reputation was self-fulfilling. | Active |
| CASE-104 | A fanbase is said to hate its owner or general manager, though it has no procedure for forming a view, some fans approve of the person, and nobody has counted | From U2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. A2 separated four things the sentence could report: a statistical aggregate of dislike, a shared emotional orientation, a norm of opposition that a loyal fan is expected to meet, and a corporate judgment such as a supporters’ trust demanding resignation. A fanbase can have the second and third without the fourth, and a vocal minority can set a public stance most members privately reject. The case for QUESTION-119. Stipulated. | Active |
| CASE-105 | The Washington Senators: the original club became the Minnesota Twins in 1961, an expansion club took its name in Washington and became the Texas Rangers in 1972, and the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals in 2005, so franchise, city and supporters each have a different successor | The owner’s subcase at U2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16, “the team formerly known as the washington senators”. A2 corrected the framing: the name belonged to two franchises, and the city’s present team descends from a third. A league can designate the successor franchise; it cannot designate the successor fandom. The lineages are documented; how supporters actually distributed their loyalties is not, and the case does not show that a fandom’s identity branched. | Active |
| CASE-106 | The two-hypothesis linearization with endorsement scored on committed predictions: when the shared meaning bends the specialists’ predictions with weight κ and the reading of the evidence with weight κ′, the coupling of interpretation to endorsement is γ = 4ηs(κ′ − κ̄) | Built for QUESTION-121’s formal question: is scoring operators on predictions committed before the evidence equivalent to Regime B? The construction keeps CASE-099’s two-hypothesis linearization and replaces the score with squared error between each specialist’s committed prediction and the evidence as read. The coupling γ then has the sign of κ′ − κ̄: corrective when the interpretation bends the predictions more than the reading of the evidence, null when equally, capturing when less. Checked symbolically, and the stability conditions against 200,000 random draws. Fictional by construction. | Active |
| CASE-107 | Locked-in syndrome: consciousness preserved with anarthria and quadriplegia; in the classic form, vertical eye movement and blinking remain and carry communication, and in the completely locked-in state no motor channel remains | The owner’s case, U2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16: “a lucid human who struggles with locked-in syndrome”. It separates lucid judgement from limb and speech action. In the classic form it does not separate judgement from action as active inference defines it, since the eye movements it spares are that theory’s model action. The completely locked-in state is the real test, and there any evidence of lucidity has to come through a channel that is itself an action. Visceromotor regulation and Damasio’s internal “as if body loop” survive paralysis, so the case never removes every contingency between intention and outcome. | 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-109 | Two people with the same demanding commitment, the same output and the same effort in the work, who differ in how their intrapersonal conflict is settled: one escalates it to deliberate override, the other’s processes accommodate one another | The owner’s case, U45 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, worked by A45 as Person A (“repeated escalation”) and Person B (“local coordination”) on one writing project. Both exert real effort and produce work of equal quality; only the route by which conflict is settled differs. It is the variation CASE-013 and CASE-051 lack: there one writer’s effort varies across afternoons, here effort in the work is held high in both. It is used for CLAIM-358. Stipulated, so it shows what the claim distinguishes, not that people differ this way. | Active |
| CASE-110 | Two members, one total: a coarse-graining by total output preserves an institution’s performance, its survival and every prediction it makes, and still merges a state in which a member works within the agreed cap with one in which that member works far past it | A22’s Construction C of the exchange of 2026-10-17, “Institutional performance versus constituent capability”, which A22 proposed and did not write out, from A21 §5 and §16; written out here in its smallest form. Two members share twelve hours of work. Total output decides the institution’s performance and its survival, so the total is sufficient for every institutional judgment, and the policies (6, 6) and (10, 2) have the same total. A member’s claim not to work past an agreed cap of eight hours tells them apart, so by CLAIM-350 no judgment on the total recovers it. Fictional by construction; it shows a possibility, not how often institutions are like this. | Active |
| CASE-111 | A fold in boundary maintenance: in ḃ = μb + κb² − b³ with cooperative repair (κ > 0), an unmaintained and a maintained state are both stable for −κ²/4 < μ < 0, so maintenance lost past the fold is not restored by returning the parameter, and recovery slows to zero as the fold nears | A7 §4 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, after the owner’s “flesh this out further”: a normal form for the activity b that maintains a boundary, in which repair processes reinforce one another. Its equilibria, the bistable range, the hysteresis loop and the slowing of recovery at the fold are derived and rechecked here. It shows a capacity to maintain, and not only a state, being lost and not coming back when conditions do, which is CLAIM-099’s distinction in a model. A7’s own caveat: “This is a proposed minimal model, not an empirical fit.” THEORY-136 and THEORY-214 say why its early-warning consequence is weak evidence. Fictional by construction. | Active |
| CASE-112 v2 | Bistable authority with a tilt: in ẇ = μw − w³ + h, with w the balance of authority between two regimes and h a higher-order volition favouring one, for μ > 0 the operative regime changes only when |h| passes 2μ^{3/2}/(3√3), so a sincere and efficacious higher-order volition can move the balance without moving the regime, and which regime operates depends on the path of h | A8 §4 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, restated as A12’s Proposition 3 and kept in A15. The saddle-node threshold and the hysteresis are derived and rechecked here. A8: “It’s a countermodel showing why endorsement strength, effective governance, and behavioral transition can come apart.” A8’s “endorsement” is the reflective attitude, not the record’s TERM-053 sense, so h is called a higher-order volition. It models authority between regimes; it does not revive will as an attractor (TERM-003, Superseded). Fictional by construction. | Active |
| CASE-113 v2 | A deep network under conventional training: competing losses, an external optimizer and a scheduler, with three architectures that move governance inward and crossed interventions that locate it | The owner’s application case, U30–U31 of the exchange of 2026-10-17: a deep network during training, taken apart with the record’s individuation and volition frameworks. A network is trained on tasks with conflicting gradients by an optimizer with its own state and a scheduler. A31’s Systems A, B and C move the regulation of conflict from the optimizer into the learner by stages, and its crossed interventions say where a regulatory condition sits. Stipulated: the outcomes of the interventions are not known, except the optimizer arm in THEORY-253’s solvable model. | 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-115 | Two incompatible quadratic demands on one shared parameter, L₁ = (θ − 1)² and L₂ = (θ + 1)², frustrated at θ = 0 for every update budget, and the split of θ into task-routed θ_A and θ_B that makes both satisfiable | A33 §2 and §5, A35 §3.4 and A38 §4 of the exchange of 2026-10-17. Two demands on one scalar parameter: at θ = 0 the equal-weight gradient vanishes while each loss is 1, no update lowers both, and the local residual is Φ_r = ε for every budget r. A38 splits θ into θ_A and θ_B with the task context routed, and both demands are met at (1, −1). Used for the zero aggregate gradient, the residual, relief judged on the original demands, and differentiation. A38’s caveat is kept: the split is “a division of functional jurisdiction”, and it “does not automatically mean that two new autonomous individuals have formed”. Fictional by construction. | Active |
| CASE-116 | Three finite-state systems that dissociate slowness, member regeneration and transmission: a slow flip register no member reads (second eigenvalue 0.98), a register members read and rewrite that forgets fast (second eigenvalue 0.2, nonzero intervention effect), and a rule passed through an archive between two episodes that never run together | A3 and A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, after the owner’s “continue” and “show me”. Arm A is slow and not endogenous; arm B is endogenous and not slow; arm C transmits a rule with no continuous operation. The eigenvalues and intervention effects are rechecked here. Arm A shows what CLAIM-327 and CLAIM-331 already say in words, that slowness is not sufficient; arm B is the new direction, that slowness is not necessary, and it holds only for weak maintenance, in A4’s words. Arm C is CLAIM-287’s dormant coalition and does not settle identity. Fictional by construction. | 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-118 v2 | Two competing components with interaction matrix A = [[1, ρ], [ρ, 1]]: with equal growth rates their invasion growth is 1 − ρ, the smallest eigenvalue of the Gram matrix, and with growth rates 1 ± δ the same matrix supports coexistence only when |δ| < (1 − ρ)/(1 + ρ), so feature geometry alone does not fix coexistence | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18, checked. The two-component Lotka–Volterra system with symmetric overlap ρ: invasion growth 1 − ρ equals λ_min(A), and κ(A) = (1 + ρ)/(1 − ρ), so overlap weakens recovery and ill-conditions the features together. Holding A fixed and setting r = (1 + δ, 1 − δ) gives the coexistence equilibrium n* = (1/(1 + ρ) ± δ/(1 − ρ)), feasible only when |δ| < (1 − ρ)/(1 + ρ). The same representation geometry supports coexistence under one supply and exclusion under another. | Active |
| CASE-119 | Three demands each requiring one coordinate of an outcome to equal 1, with attainable outcomes (1,1,0), (1,0,1) and (0,1,1): every pair is jointly satisfiable and the triple is not, and a new composite policy that can also produce (1,1,1) relieves the frustration by enlarging the attainable set, with the acceptance sets unchanged and no demand suppressed | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. A compatibility complex with all three edges and no filled triangle, the minimal structurally frustrated collection of CLAIM-347 with three members. When the organization acquires a composite operation that can produce (1,1,1), ℛ(𝒪) ⊊ ℛ(𝒪′) and the complex gains the triangle: relief in CLAIM-347’s sense, by changing what is attainable, not by weakening a demand. The construction says such relief is possible; whether specialization produces it is QUESTION-133. | Active |
| CASE-120 | Six units with uniform coupling, A = αI + β(11ᵀ − I): their sum is exactly dynamically independent at every coupling tried, while a single unit and the sum of three are not, and no grouping of the units is a weakly coupled block | The n-unit form of A5’s two-unit example in the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes. The sum closes exactly; no proper group of units is a block. It is the closure-without-block cell of A5’s two-by-two table, and the system QUESTION-218 would test for compensation and entrainment. Fictional by construction. | Active |
| CASE-121 | One melody from a 1951 gospel record to a 2005 Katrina protest song: “I’ve Got a Savior”, “I Got a Woman”, “Gold Digger” and “George Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People”, each link a different relation, the message turned at every step | Boyle’s chain in The Public Domain, ch. 6 (LIT-1301). The Bailey Gospel Singers’ “I’ve Got a Savior” (c. 1951), reworded by Ray Charles as “I Got a Woman” (1955), re-sung by Jamie Foxx as the licensed hook of Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” (2005), looped from that recording by The Legendary K.O. for a Katrina protest song. The melody and phrase pattern carry through; the object of praise turns from a saviour to a generous woman, a mercenary one, then a president’s indifference. Each link is a different relation: rewording, licensed re-performance, sampling. The received origin story was wrong, and the melody found the real source. | Active |
| CASE-122 | Warhol’s Orange Prince, licensed to Condé Nast in 2016 from a 1981 Goldsmith photograph: the Supreme Court judged the use by its purpose and the dissent by its meaning, and the same cover came out a substitute on one test and a new work on the other | Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023), read in NOTE-1019. The experts agreed Warhol’s silkscreen changed the photograph’s meaning, from Prince’s private identity to his public image. The majority held that this did not matter for the use at issue: a magazine cover illustrating a story about Prince serves substantially the photograph’s own purpose, and new meaning counts only as evidence of a different purpose. The dissent measured what the copier added. One rendering, two measures of what it changed, two verdicts. | Active |
| CASE-123 v2 | The regulator and two accounts: a formally independent regulator weighs two parties’ accounts of a risk, one party comes to supply more of the evidence it reads and the experts it trusts, and the credibility that party gains decides whose evidence is read next; with variants for a one-time perturbation, a press as the evaluator, and an objective that gives one property no weight | A20 §2 of the exchange of 2026-10-20, on the owner’s U20 (“reflexive control and regulatory capture”), with A21 §3’s press variant on the owner’s U21 and A26 §4’s evaluative variant. CASE-099’s linearization with institutional roles: m is the lean of the regulator’s reading, a the standing of the party it favours. A20: “This is an application of the formal model, not an established empirical account of any particular regulatory agency.” No regulator, outlet or party is meant. | Active |
| CASE-124 v2 | A maintained legibility lean as a third state of the linearized meaning–authority model: authority moves the lean r of the categories through which evidence is read, and r feeds interpretation or authority, with its own persistence λ | CASE-099’s two-variable linearization, meaning bias m and authority bias a, given a third state r: the lean of a maintained legibility regime, the categories, reporting requirements and evidence channels through which evidence becomes readable. Authority moves r (ε), r moves interpretation (ν) or authority (μ), and r persists at rate λ. Two witnesses, both checked: one in which the two-variable loop is stable and the three-variable one is not, and one in which the system is stable but r holds a lean long after m and a would have decayed without it. | Active |
| CASE-125 v2 | A hidden governance bit: an output that is fresh fair noise whatever a fixed hidden bit K is, until an intervention h makes the output read K, so the output alone is exactly informationally closed under ordinary operation and keeps nothing about the response to h | A16 §3–4 of the exchange of 2026-10-20, from A15 §2’s deterministic form, and A17’s Proposition 1. A fair hidden bit K, fixed in time; under ordinary operation the output Y is fresh fair noise; under the intervention h = 1 it reads K. The output is exactly closed, and with h = 1 drawn with probability ρ its deficiency for the response to h is ρ bits, no better than a constant. It is the first instance with parameters of CLAIM-122’s supervisory test, which the exchange of 2026-10-17 gave only in words. Fictional by construction; K is a mechanism parameter, not an agent’s governance. | Active |
| CASE-126 | Represented, authorized, self-authorized and self-maintained: three one-bit systems that agree while the interpretation is 0 and part under an intervention that sets it to 1, and two two-constraint systems with the same constant trajectory, one closed and one reset from outside, that part under one perturbation | A10’s two constructions in the exchange on experience and interpretation, re-run here by script. Neither depends on parameters. The first separates whether an interpretation is acted on and who decides that it is. The second separates whether the conditions of acting on it are kept up by the organization or by something outside it. Fictional by construction, with production relations stipulated, not shown. | Active |
| CASE-127 v2 | United 173 and Crew Resource Management: a crew whose concern about the fuel did not reach the captain as a demand to act, and the training that followed, which asked for participative captains and assertive crews | The owner’s case at U25 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: “the history underlying the evolution of Crew Resource Management”. A cockpit had the information and lacked the organization to make it govern. The reform changed the organization of authority, not its holder. Not shown: that CRM caused the later fall in accidents, which the case does not test. | Active |
| CASE-128 | The voluntary delegation: a person gives a friend the password to a distracting application during a calm period and is refused it later under temptation, while another person lives under the same restriction imposed without consent | A18’s CASE C in the exchange of 2026-10-22, from the owner’s request for cases on quiet subordinate processes (U18). A restriction on a constituent process can be an exercise of self-governance, not its defeat, so a non-domination test that counts every override as domination is too simple. Not shown: where a legitimate precommitment ends and an unaccountable one begins. | Active |
| CASE-129 | The alarm that learned and the alarm that was disabled: two systems that once warned too often are both quiet in ordinary operation, and only one responds when a new hazard appears | A18’s CASE B in the exchange of 2026-10-22, written at the owner’s request for cases on subordinate processes “quiet because they’ve been conditioned never to object” (U18). A quiet signal may be calibration or suppression, and ordinary operation cannot tell which. Not shown: how often either occurs in persons or institutions. | Active |
| CASE-130 v2 | Gracie jiu-jitsu against luta livre: two Brazilian grappling traditions whose contests were fought over the rules as well as under them, and whose matches placed them in a racial hierarchy as well as ranking them by results | The owner’s case at U35 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: contemporaneous, geographically related schools of martial arts vying for regional, ideological, demographic and physical dominance. A35 and A36 took the Gracie–luta livre rivalry, from Penglase (LIT-1391). It is the record’s first martial-arts material. Not shown: which tradition was technically better, which the case is evidence against asking in general; and the historical particulars, which are the replies’ summary of an unread source. | Active |
| CASE-131 | The graph that asserted an inference nobody made: filing one claim as supporting another made the record’s link fixer write that the other rested on it, and the record answered by adding a relation | The record’s own history, as A18 of the exchange of 2026-10-22 read it at the owner’s prompting (U18): “the pre-existing representation didn’t merely omit information; it positively misrepresented an inference”. It is a move the grammar could not hold, caught and answered by amending the grammar. Not shown: that such moves are always caught. | Active |
| CASE-132 | One complaint, two taxonomies: a report of an unsafe practice is correctly classified both by equipment and by workers’ obligations, the intake procedure needs one primary class, and the class chosen decides whether the report reaches a body that can change working conditions | A18’s CASE O in the exchange of 2026-10-22, from the owner’s request for cases on whether “some apparent conceptual disputes are really disputes about the allocation of limited representational resources” (U18). Two true classifications compete not for truth but for uptake. Not shown: when routing becomes an allocation of authority, which the case asks. | Active |
| CASE-133 v2 | American party realignment: each major party kept its name and organizational continuity across the twentieth century while its coalition and its stance on civil rights changed, and the change began in state parties, unions and constituencies before it reached national leaders | The owner’s case at U29 and U30 of the exchange of 2026-10-22, in the replies’ corrected form. A party is a carrier; its coalition and character can change while the carrier persists, and an orientation can move between carriers. Not shown: that the parties swapped perspectives, or that any present party continues a historical one’s character, which are the owner’s U29 framings the replies declined. | Active |
| CASE-134 v3 | Northstar’s commander handoff: twelve hours into an incident the commander goes off shift and hands command to a colleague, and the response continues without disruption and with no one continuous through it | A22’s variant of Northstar (CASE-023), from the exchange of 2026-10-22, where the owner asked to revisit the engineering organization responding to a critical incident. Of the six variants A22 proposed it is the one the record did not already hold. It separates continuity of an organization from continuity of any person in it. Not shown: anything about whether the response is experienced. | Active |
| CASE-135 v2 | The Brookhollow Apartments fire, Wichita, 2023: a mayday after a stair roof collapses on two companies opens a second emergency inside a search for a trapped resident, and an independent review finds an unorganized rescue effort without finding that it changed the outcome | The owner’s class of case, a fireground mayday inside an escalating response organized under the National Incident Management System (U23 of the exchange of 2026-10-22); A23 and A24’s instance. It is the record’s first real multi-regime emergency, beside the fictional Northstar (CASE-023). It shows two regimes, rescue of a member and the original mission, needing to be held at once, and a review that recommends change. Not shown: that the department’s safety culture changed, or what the review’s recommendations were, since the report was not read. | Active |
| CASE-136 v3 | The doorway effect: memory for an object carried through a doorway into another room is worse than after walking as far within one, returning to the first room does not restore it, and outside the original laboratory’s set-up the effect has not always appeared | The owner’s case at U37 of the branch of the exchange of 2026-10-22, offered as one the record’s account of perspective and grounding may at least partly explain. Reported studies, read here from their abstracts: an effect of event boundaries on accessibility, attributed to updating or to interference among event models, and replications that fail. Not shown: that the effect is robust, or that the record’s account explains it better than event cognition already does. | Active |
| CASE-137 v2 | Clive Wearing: a musician left by encephalitis with almost no memory of his past and none of the last minutes, who still plays, sight-reads and conducts, keeps his attachment to his wife, and writes over and over that he has just become conscious for the first time | The owner’s case, proposed at U26 of the exchange of 2026-10-22 (“if we haven’t already examined the case of Clive Wearing, that might be another good addition”). The record had no amnesia case. It separates skill and short-horizon organization, which persist, from autobiographical continuity and experienced ownership of one’s past, which do not. Not shown by it: that the unity of his present experience is an illusion, or that his denials of past consciousness are evidence of its absence. | Active |
| CASE-138 v2 | Challenger to Columbia: NASA corrected its launch decisions and its safety organization after 1986, and the Columbia board found in 2003 that related organizational failure mechanisms had recurred, while its lessons-learned system was little used in between | The owner’s case at U25 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: NASA’s mechanisms for documenting and learning from mistakes, with Challenger as the classic example. The record already reads the Columbia board’s account (THEORY-140, from LIT-734). This case files the history around it: a warning whose standing changed as it moved, a correction made in the rules, and a capacity not maintained. Not shown: why the correction decayed, which THEORY-140 explains and this case only displays. | Active |
| CASE-139 | Chinese martial traditions through the Cultural Revolution: practices restricted, teachers persecuted and teaching driven underground, then after 1978 a reconstruction of Shaolin martial arts through heritage policy and tourism in which local practitioners and authorized institutions dispute who carries the tradition | The owner’s case at U37 of the branch of the exchange of 2026-10-22: the “(various) perspectival interruption(s) caused by the Chinese Cultural Revolution”, near the record’s martial-arts material (CASE-130). A case family, not one example: skills that survived in bodies while teaching became dangerous; practices that persisted under a different organization of authority; survival in marginal carriers; and a reconstruction that became a source of authenticity. Not shown: what was continuous and what was rebuilt, which is the question it raises. | Active |
| CASE-140 | The attributed self: two people with similar dispositions hear the same negative characterization, one told it comes from a few critics and the other believing it speaks for nearly everyone who matters to them, so that the words are fixed and only their attributed breadth differs | A39’s proposed test of the imagined audience, in the exchange of 2026-10-22, filed at the owner’s request. It holds the content of a judgement fixed and varies only the social authority the hearer attributes to it. A39: “These cases distinguish the content of a judgment from the social authority attributed to it.” As stipulated it predicts nothing; run with real people, it would test CLAIM-415. | Active |
| CASE-141 v2 | The label that confirms itself: a pupil wrongly labelled disruptive is watched more closely, ordinary conduct is read as misconduct, the pupil’s frustration produces real misconduct, and the label looks justified in hindsight | A39’s second reading of “I am whatever you say I am”, in the exchange of 2026-10-22, filed at the owner’s request with its variant CASE-142. An attribution can produce the conduct that later seems to justify it, through the institution’s response to the attribution, not through the pupil’s coming to believe it. Not shown: how often labels work this way; A39: “That’s a possible self-fulfilling process, not a universal consequence of stigmatizing labels.” | Active |
| CASE-142 v2 | The label confirmed by resistance: a critic calls someone hostile, the person answers the characterization angrily, and the critic cites the anger as proof, so the judgement is confirmed by the response of someone who rejects it | A39’s third reading of “I am whatever you say I am”, in the exchange of 2026-10-22, filed at the owner’s request as a variant of CASE-141. What differs is the route: the judgement is rejected, not absorbed, and the rejection is what confirms it. A39: “Here an interpretive regime partially manufactures the evidence it uses to justify itself.” Not shown: that resistance always confirms; the person can also answer the judgement without the answer being read as evidence for it. | Active |
| CASE-143 v2 | Franklin’s borrowed book: Benjamin Franklin, opposed by a new member of the Pennsylvania Assembly when he stood again as its clerk, asked to borrow a rare book from him rather than courting him, returned it with thanks, and found the man civil and later a friend | The owner’s U1 of the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Ben Franklin Effect Explained”, read at U2 as a “perspectival invitation”. Documented in Franklin’s Autobiography (LIT-1402; the passage was read in the Project Gutenberg text on 2026-10-23), and the origin of the “Ben Franklin effect”, that doing someone a favour can increase liking for them, tested by Jecker and Landy (LIT-1419). The standing is the anecdote’s, as Franklin told it; the reading is the exchange’s. | 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-146 | Two friendships across a group line: in one, the friend becomes an exception and the person’s view of the friend’s group is unchanged; in the other, what happens with the friend changes how the person takes other members of the group, though the friendships are alike in warmth and in what each learns | From the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Ben Franklin Effect Explained”, A4 and A5, on the owner’s U4 about intergroup contact. A4: “A prejudiced person can befriend a member of a targeted group while preserving their prejudice toward everyone else. They simply classify the friend as an exception.” A5 drew the two outcomes as “Exception formation” and “Category reorganization”. Held fixed: the friendship and its favourable information. Varied: whether the friend’s conduct is allowed to bear on the category. | Active |
| CASE-147 v2 | Conversation against argument: in Kalla and Broockman’s field experiments, canvassers who exchanged personal narratives nonjudgmentally reduced exclusionary attitudes durably, while arguments alone did not produce comparable effects | Cited at A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Ben Franklin Effect Explained”, as “suggestive evidence” for the prediction that cooperative enactment changes attitudes more durably than information. Kalla and Broockman (2020, LIT-1407), registered unread; the description is the exchange’s and the abstract’s, unchecked against the paper. The standing is the study’s, not the reading’s. | 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-149 | Dancing to the same or different music, seen or unseen: in dyads facing each other, shared music and visual contact were removed independently, and each synchronized different movements of the pair | Bigand et al. (2024), LIT-1424, read in NOTE-1093. Filed from the owner’s exchange “Framework Overview Request” of 2026-10-23 as an external result meeting part of the aim of the proposed study CASE-045. In 35 dyads, shared music and visual contact were varied in a 2 × 2 design; each raised synchrony in different movement components, with no interaction, and the timing of the synchrony could not tell the two apart. Not shown: the direction of coupling, a perturbation response, or anything about trained partner dancing with touch. | Active |
| CASE-150 v2 | Economic alignment and political alignment: Kleinman, Liu and Redding find, using China’s integration into the world economy and falling air-transport costs as sources of variation, that countries whose welfare becomes more dependent on each other’s productivity become more politically aligned | Cited at A6 of the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Ben Franklin Effect Explained”, after the owner’s U6 on trade and peace, as “a paper that makes the connection almost literally”. Kleinman, Liu and Redding (2024, LIT-1416), registered unread; the description is the exchange’s and the abstract’s. The standing is the study’s, not the reading’s. | Active |
| CASE-151 | Wells Fargo’s Community Bank, 2002–2016: unauthorized and unwanted accounts that the board’s own investigation traced to the sales model, the performance management that enforced it and a decentralized structure, while signals of the harm reached people who could not act on them | The Wells Fargo sales-practices episode, as reported by the bank’s independent directors (2017; LIT-1425, read in NOTE-1095). The report finds the root cause in the Community Bank’s sales culture and performance management, sustained by a decentralized structure that deferred to the business line. It finds that leadership blamed individual employees, and that the signals of harm were held by investigators, regional leaders and control functions without authority to act, or filtered before reaching the board. It also names and sanctions individuals. Not shown: intent, the absence of individual culpability, or anything beyond the company’s own account of itself. | Active |
| CASE-152 | Absent attempt or unresponsive receiver: with Y ∼ N(ab, 1), a the strength of an attempted influence and b the receiver’s responsiveness, the settings (a, b) = (0, 1) and (1, 0) give the same response distribution; K(a, b) = a²b²/2, the Fisher matrix has rank at most one and vanishes at the origin, and the real log canonical threshold is ½ with multiplicity 2, not the regular d/2 = 1, while changing b with a held fixed separates the two | The construction from the exchange of 2026-10-24 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U27), checked when filed. A two-parameter response model in which the observation depends on a product, the smallest singular model with a communicative reading. It shows a missing response failing to say whether nothing was attempted or nothing was taken up. | 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-154 | One representation, two tasks, one bounded observer: with X₁, X₂ independent fair bits and an observer that reads one coordinate and cannot compute XOR, the raw pair U = (X₁, X₂) gives error 50% on Q_A = X₁ ⊕ X₂ and 0% on Q_B = X₁, and the compressed V = X₁ ⊕ X₂ gives 0% and 50%; a legibility regime can enable one perspective’s distinction while disabling another’s, with no task-independent sense in which it is better | From the exchange of 2026-10-24 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U22), after the owner said “let’s work on those connections”: a deduction from CLAIM-199’s XOR example, checked when filed. It ties bounded legibility to competing concerns: a representation that serves one task can destroy another’s for the same observer, so a failure of one perspective under a legibility regime may be a resource limit and not an exclusion. | Active |
| CASE-155 v3 | Authority as a replicator population: for a distribution π of control over processes with mean qualities q, the expected Maynard-Cross update is π_a q_a / v, Bayes’ rule when q is each process’s likelihood; the Maynard dynamic is the Taylor dynamic slowed by 1/v, so the two share their orbits; mean quality climbs at the rate Var_π(q); and when a process’s score rises with its own share, ℓ′ = ℓ + h + c(2π − 1) has an unstable threshold π* = (1 − h/c)/2, above which a process the evidence disfavours captures the organization | Filed at the owner’s direction, 2026-10-24, after asking whether the tools of Soma et al. (THEORY-899) or related work could formalize the record’s abstract governance dynamics. Four results, each checked when filed, two by script. It reads authority as the population vector of a replicator dynamic. Evidence-tracking authority is then Bayesian, and authority-dependent scoring gives lock-in with an explicit correction threshold. | Active |
| CASE-156 v2 | A legibility filter as the ν of the meaning–authority–legibility model: in a safe world where 15% of raw cues are alarms, an admission rule P(admit | y, r) = σ(c + χry) with c = 0 and χr = 2 admits 88.1% of alarms and 11.9% of reassurances, so 56.6% of the admitted record is alarms with the world and the sensors unchanged; at symmetry the mean admitted evidence is χσ′(c)r to first order, so ν = η_m χ σ′(c); and r_t = λᵗr₀ + ε Σ λ^(t−1−j) a_j is an exponentially weighted history of authority | From the exchange of 2026-10-24 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U18–U19). The owner: “i think we already have a three variable system somewhere, where the third component is described as legibility”, then “flesh this out further”. A microfoundation for one of CASE-124’s abstract couplings: selective admission of evidence, checked when filed. It gives r an observational semantics and reads r as the memory of past authority. Selection-aware inference is the control that the pathology has to beat. | Active |
| CASE-157 v2 | Boosting the vote: in the owner’s 2014 model, voters of fixed accuracy drawn from Beta(2, 2) vote in a weight-averaged election, and every voter’s weight is multiplied by 1 + f when their own vote was right and 1 − f when not, with a fraction replaced each round at weight 1; with full-information feedback the weighted result rises from 0.50 toward 0.98 as f grows, and churn only costs in a world that never changes; the model escapes the hive mind’s absorbing states because every voter is scored, heeded or not, and it assumes away the capture its author predicted | Filed at the owner’s direction, 2026-10-24, after the owner suggested taking inspiration from the experiments in dmarx/BoostTheVote. A thought-experiment written in R in 2014, read at commit b5bca8f and re-run here through a Python port (scratch/formal/boost_the_vote.py). It is the full-information counterpart of the replicator construction. What it shows, what it assumes, and the three-axis extension it suggests are recorded, and the extension was run on 2026-10-25. | 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-159 | Authority geometry and response geometry: when an organization’s response is the authority-weighted mixture p_π(y | c) = Σ πᵢ pᵢ(y | c), the Fisher metric of its responses is the pullback JᵀD⁻¹J of the categorical (Shahshahani) metric on the shares π and never exceeds it; it vanishes along any redistribution between processes that respond alike under the probes used, so two specialists who both answer yes with probability 0.8 in routine contexts carry no information about their shares there, while a rare context in which they answer 0.9 and 0.1 carries 0.64/(p(1 − p)) per observation, p = 0.1 + 0.8π | From the continuation of the exchange of 2026-10-24 (U28–U31), where it appears in four replies (A28 §3, A29’s second priority, A30 §6A and A31’s probe diagnostic); checked when filed. The categorical metric on authority shares is the one in which the replicator is a gradient flow (CLAIM-444). What an evaluator sees is the response mixture, whose Fisher metric is that metric pulled back through the processes’ response profiles. Redistribution between processes that agree on the probes is invisible to them, and a probe on which they disagree restores it. The mixture counterpart of CASE-152’s product model. | Active |
| CASE-160 v2 | Interacting accumulators on an influence network: if each perspective’s continuous support for one of two interpretations follows dxᵢ = [dᵢ − λxᵢ + κ Σⱼ Wᵢⱼxⱼ]dτ + noise, with W irreducible and row-stochastic and ℓ its left eigenvector, then ℓᵀ(κW − λI) = (κ − λ)ℓᵀ, so the ℓ-weighted support L = ℓ·x is exactly an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with drift ℓ·d, rate κ − λ and variance ℓᵀΣℓ, and a drift-diffusion process at κ = λ; with tanh coupling and member noise the transition is at κ_c = λ/E[sech² ε], not at κ = λ | From the continuation of the exchange of 2026-10-24 (U28–U47). A36 derived it as the answer to the owner’s U34 hypothesis, and A37, A42, A43 and A44 restated it as the population simulator’s unit test. The case formalizes CASE-074’s crowd as a linear network of accumulators: the hidden tally is the balanced case, the visible tally positive feedback. The closure is THEORY-733’s, the variance THEORY-321’s influence concentration and the balance THEORY-068’s, a combination no source makes. Checked when filed, and the reply’s nonlinear transition corrected. | Active |
| CASE-161 v2 | Reciprocally produced, externally reset and feedback-only governing rules in a 32-member population: with ordinary trajectories identical, reciprocal production repairs the loss of one rule and not of both and fails after producer outages of 36 updates for audit and 40 for admission, after an audit-rule pulse the next audit integrity is 1.00, 0.18 and 0.00 in the three arrangements, and a self-dependent production graph does not regenerate a zeroed rule | Versions 1.6 and 1.7 of the Perspective Population Lab, dmarx/PerspectiveLab@7e2edc2. Two governing rules, the integrity of audit and of evidence admission, are kept up in three ways in the same 32-member population. Ordinary operation cannot tell the three apart, and loss, repair and producer interventions do. It carries CASE-126’s second construction to a stochastic population with a different production law: here reciprocal production repairs a single loss, where the case’s closed pair collapses. | Active |
| CASE-162 v2 | Capture and selectively admitted evidence in two lab realizations: in a four-variable model of authority, record and competence the equilibrium fold under self-scoring is at c ≈ 0.4247 while the declared history is trapped from c ≈ 0.4469, and in a 32-member event-level population, admission of cues that depends on the record reverses the sign of the admitted evidence and leaves the worse alternative in charge in 41 of 64 worlds, which exact inverse-propensity weighting brings to 0 of 64 below full selectivity | Versions 1.1 to 1.3 of the Perspective Population Lab, now held as dmarx/PerspectiveLab@7e2edc2. v1.2 is a deterministic four-variable model whose analytic fold and whose trapping of a declared history come apart. v1.3 is a separately coded event-level population in which the filtering of CASE-156 runs on sampled cues, and a known-propensity evaluator undoes it while admission stays positive. v1.1 adds capture and selective audits to CASE-158’s design, and the router still wins. The sign reversal is CASE-156’s; what is new is two running realizations, with their code. | Active |
| CASE-163 | Identifying how governing rules are maintained from diagnostic probes: a predictor fitted under reciprocal production fails under self-dependent production with histories matched, an audit pulse with a short producer interruption identifies which of four known mechanisms applies and predicts withheld interventions, and fitting decay and threshold as well helps after the parameters shift and hurts at nominal ones, within a known catalog and with every probe run on a counterfactual reset | Versions 2.0 to 2.2 of the Perspective Population Lab, dmarx/PerspectiveLab@9f82bfd, on the maintained population of CASE-161. v2.0 shows that a response model does not transport across a change of production law that ordinary histories do not reveal. v2.1 and v2.2 infer the mechanism, and then its parameters, from probes, and predict interventions never probed. Everything is relative to a catalog of four known mechanisms whose equations the forecaster is given, and every probe is a separate branch from the same starting state. | Proposed |
| CASE-164 | A 192-state organization on which one kernel gives several closure verdicts: the description by agents and phase is informationally closed on the intact support and fails global strong lumpability, its deficiency for the next pair of rule integrities under a declared intervention mixture is 0.55·H₂(1/3) ≈ 0.5051 bits and zero once the maintenance mode is kept, and finite-sample predictive gains misread both a positive and a zero information defect | v1.8 of the Perspective Population Lab, dmarx/PerspectiveLab@7e2edc2: a finite organization small enough to enumerate, on which the senses of closure of TERM-068 are computed exactly side by side. The maintenance mode plays CASE-125’s hidden bit: the intact dynamics are the same in every mode, and five of six interventions part them. v1.9, at @9f82bfd, calibrates finite-sample predictive gains against the exact values. It recombines distinctions the record already holds and claims no new theorem. | Proposed |
| CASE-165 v4 | A dynamic beta–Bernoulli latent-feature model of an organization’s members: a finite Indian buffet prior over who holds which interpretive features, a sticky logistic transition for holding them, activations, and team, communication and authorization layers above; at the proposed size of sixteen features it falls well short of the Indian buffet process it quotes, its persistence term does not hold rare features, and the difference between having a capacity and using it is not identified from the outputs | The owner’s T22 (“maybe we could benefit from a restaurant process model, like an indian buffet model”), developed at T23 (“flesh out our proposed generating probability model further”) into a full generative specification for the Northstar firm, and carried to transformer training at T24. It is the candidate method of QUESTION-276 in its most worked-out form. Its facts are its definition, and four of them are not what T23 says: at K = 16 the prior expects 6.83 features, not αH₁₂ = 9.31; a held rare feature is kept with probability 0.16 a day; and having, using and splitting features are confounded in the reconstruction. It shows what such a model would have to get right before its features could count for anything. | Proposed |
| 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-167 v2 | The nitroplast: UCYN-A, a streamlined nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium in a marine alga, whose division is coupled to the host’s and which imports host-encoded proteins, reclassified as an early-stage organelle in 2024 | Candidatus Atelocyanobacterium thalassa (UCYN-A), a metabolically streamlined nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium known as an endosymbiont of a marine alga, is integrated into the alga’s cell architecture and organellar division and imports proteins encoded by the algal genome. Coale et al. call it an early-stage organelle, the nitroplast (LIT-1562). Used as the case where the line between endosymbiont and organelle is drawn by stated criteria. | Proposed |
| CASE-168 v2 | Monocercomonoides: a eukaryote that lost its mitochondrion entirely after the organelle’s essential jobs were removed in steps, its Fe–S cluster assembly taken over by a bacterial-type SUF system that its relatives share and its glycine cleavage system lost, and kept canonical eukaryotic complexity | The oxymonad Monocercomonoides lacks all hallmark mitochondrial proteins; its mitochondrial iron–sulfur cluster pathway was replaced by a cytosolic SUF system taken from bacteria, and the loss was secondary (LIT-1567). Its genome otherwise shows canonical eukaryotic complexity (LIT-1574). Used as the negative control: loss of function dissolving an integrated compartment, not deepening dependence on it. | Proposed |
| CASE-169 v3 | The Chagossians, 1965 to now: a people expelled from the Chagos Archipelago between 1967 and 1973 for the Diego Garcia base, dispersed to Mauritius, the Seychelles and Britain, whose practices, kinship and political organization continued or arose in exile while sovereignty over the islands was settled between states | The owner’s case, U1–U3 of the exchange of 2026-10-26, “About the Chagossians”. Britain separated the archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, expelled its inhabitants by 1973 for a US base on Diego Garcia, and the islanders’ descendants live dispersed across three countries. The ICJ advised in 2019 that decolonization was incomplete; a UK–Mauritius treaty of 2025 would cede sovereignty and keep the base. A case in which territorial community, cultural transmission, political agency and the claims of the displaced, ordinarily bundled, were pulled apart by identifiable decisions. Not shown: that the Chagossians are one persisting agent, or which practices survived; the sources are registered unread. | Active |
| CASE-170 | The East Wing of the White House, 2025–2026: the wing demolished for a ballroom before the legal challenge to the project was decided, so that the remedy still available was to stop new construction, not to keep the old building | The owner’s case, U7 of the exchange of 2026-10-26: “the destruction of the East Wing of the white house and the courts throwing out the legal challenge to it”. The object of review was destroyed before review concluded, so preserving it left the set of remedies, and the project under way became part of the argument for continuing it. A7 corrected the owner’s premise: as it reported, the challenge was not dismissed on the merits but its injunction was stayed. Not shown: that the demolition was unlawful, or that the security concerns were pretextual; the court history is the exchange’s. | Active |
| CASE-171 v3 | Mealybugs, Tremblaya and Moranella: a bacterium inside a bacterium inside an insect, amino-acid pathways patched together from three genomes and genes transferred from other bacteria, and an inner symbiont replaced several times while the transferred genes stayed | In the mealybug Planococcus citri, Moranella lives inside Tremblaya. Essential amino-acid pathways need gene products from both bacteria and the insect (LIT-1565). At least 22 genes the insect acquired from other bacteria, none from Tremblaya, fill symbiont gaps (LIT-1569), and the inner symbiont has been replaced several times across mealybugs while those genes persisted (LIT-1572). Used as the case where function is distributed across nested boundaries and constituent lineages turn over. | Proposed |
| CASE-172 v2 | Federal science and education in the United States, 2025–2026: grants cancelled, frozen and in part reinstated, staff departures, advisory committees ended and research programs suspended, so that funding, organization and scientific capacity could be restored, or not, separately | The owner’s case, U4 of the exchange of 2026-10-26: “the full breadth of the harms incurred by the actions of the DOGE project, and the trump administration’s broader assault on the scientific research and education establishment”. A4 drew ten dimensions of harm and the question it took as central: “Suppose a grant is canceled and later reinstated. What, precisely, has been restored?” A case of a resource restored without the organization it supported, and of capacity lost without output falling. Not shown: the size of any loss. Every figure is the exchange’s, from reports this filing has not read. | Active |
| CASE-173 v3 | Aphids and Buchnera: an obligate nutritional symbiosis in which neither partner reproduces alone, and the symbiont’s genome reduced to a seventh of E. coli’s | Buchnera lives in aphid bacteriocytes and is passed from mother to egg. Its 641-kb genome keeps the pathways for the amino acids its host needs and has lost most else (LIT-1596); its genes evolve fast and A+T-biased under Muller’s ratchet (LIT-1573). The record’s reading of Wilson and Barker reports Godfrey-Smith placing the pair as both an organism and a Darwinian individual (NOTE-114). Used as the case of high mutual dependence and high reproductive cohesion reached through reduction, with no gene transfer to the host reported in the works it rests on. | Proposed |
| CASE-174 v2 | Paulinella chromatophora: a photosynthetic organelle in the making, from an endosymbiosis independent of the plastids’, its genome reduced to about a third of its coding capacity, and hundreds of host proteins imported into it, most encoded by the host’s own genes rather than transferred from the symbiont | The amoeba Paulinella chromatophora’s chromatophores descend from a cyanobacterium taken up about 60 million years ago, independently of the plastids. Their genome kept 26% of a free-living relative’s genes and lacks essential pathways (LIT-1621). Genes transferred to the nucleus make proteins that are imported into the chromatophores (LIT-1557), and import is reviewed across systems in LIT-1560. Used as the case where host control emerges by gene transfer and import. | Proposed |
| CASE-175 v3 | CECOT, 2025: people removed from the United States into Salvadoran custody despite court orders, the US saying it could not bring them back and El Salvador’s president that he could not send them, until coordinated transfers out showed the two governments together could | The owner’s case, U7 of the exchange of 2026-10-26: “the DOJ ignoring court orders not to deport people to CECOT, then claiming they didn’t have the authority to bring them back, while CECOT claimed they didn’t have the authority to send them back”. Physical custody, the control that selected and could release, and the duty to correct were held in different places, and each government’s statement of what it alone could not do was offered as if it settled what could be done. Not shown: whether any official was in contempt, or intent; the later proceedings are the exchange’s. | Active |
| CASE-176 v2 | The United States Institute of Peace, 2025–2026: its board removed and its building entered by DOGE staff with police assistance before any court ruled, nearly all staff dismissed, a district court’s judgment that the takeover was unlawful stayed on appeal, and the institution renamed while its legal identity continued | The owner’s case, U5 and U6 of the exchange of 2026-10-26: “examine the case of the US Institute for Peace through the lens of our framework”, then “the involvement of the DC metropolitan police and FBI, and the judge’s concern regarding the potential for police instigated violence in their ruling on whether or not to grant a TRO”. Name, building and legal entity continued; staff, programs, leadership and partner relations did not. And enforcement settled who held the building before any court settled who held the authority. Not shown: what was lost for good, or the legal outcome, which is pending. | Active |
| CASE-177 v2 | Hodgkinia in cicadas: one endosymbiont splitting into two to dozens of interdependent lineages, with near-complementary gene sets, idiosyncratic fragmentation in Magicicada, and hosts transmitting up to six times as many cells to keep every lineage | In some Tettigades cicadas, the endosymbiont Hodgkinia split into two cell lineages with almost perfectly complementary gene sets, the functionality of one (LIT-1563), and it has done so at least six times in the genus (LIT-1586). In Magicicada it fragmented into twenty or more genomic circles per species (LIT-1612, LIT-1602). Hosts compensate by transmitting more cells to each egg (LIT-1590). Used as the case where dependence and the number of parts grow with no new collective function, and the host pays. | Proposed |
| CASE-178 v3 | How the record’s grammar grows: after its scaffold, this record filed documents on all 32 days, added vocabulary terms on 18, fields or relations to schemes on 8, whole vocabularies on 3, schemes on 1 and a remote project on 1, so the owner’s ordering of levels holds by frequency; but each refinement came in the same pull request as the documents that needed it and, nine times in ten, an ADR, so the levels are rarer events of one loop of work, not slower processes of their own, and the grammar’s rates fell while filing rose | Run on 2026-10-27 at the owner’s direction, after CASE-180: “some of the most important rates are when and how schema refinement happens”, with the ordering documents, vocabularies, scheme fields, schemes, projects. scratch/formal/schema_rates.py reads every change to luria.yaml in this record, in luria’s own and in strata-g’s. The ordering holds by days with an event. How the refinement happens: on demand, by decision, and nested, the rarer level arriving with the commoner ones in one pull request. | Active |
| 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-180 v2 | The record’s own rates: over its first fifty days, measured from git, an entry’s prose is revised about once in 22 days once drafting is over, its status once in 128, an authored relation gained or lost once in 132 and an authored relation retracted once in about 600, while no relation type has been redeclared; the layers’ event rates are ordered as the exchange guessed, but only after the first day, when all of them change together, and the grammar is slow to revise without being slow to grow | Run on 2026-10-27 at the owner’s request (“run your measurements against the record”), for the rate reading A12 and A13 gave luria’s layers and that CLAIM-476 left untested. Every non-merge commit to this record, read by scratch/formal/record_rates.py at commit a357048. The ordering (prose, then standing, then relations, then the grammar’s types) holds in aggregate rates, by one to two orders of magnitude. It does not hold in the first day after filing, or for every scheme, and the machine’s validation runs at the rate of the edits it follows, not on a scale of its own. | Active |
| CASE-181 | Frankfurt’s unwilling addict: a man who has the desire to take the drug and the desire to refrain, wants the desire to refrain to be his will, and is moved by the craving anyway | Frankfurt (1971), LIT-692, read in full in NOTE-545, p. 12. Filed by the status review of 2026-10-27 (ADR-057). CLAIM-047 is grounded in this case and not in Frankfurt’s account of ownership (THEORY-120), which is Proposed. The case shows that a regime can be had, and even preferred at a higher order, without being effective. What it is taken to show about identification and ownership is THEORY-120’s business. | Active |
| CASE-182 | Two operators under one update rule, endorsement moving toward observed outcomes: scored every round, the more accurate one holds the lead durably whatever the start; scored only when it acts, under sharp selection, whichever gained influence early keeps it | Filed by the fourth status review (ADR-057) for CLAIM-277, whose two loops the record had stated and not constructed. Two operators share one rule, with accuracies 0.8 and 0.6. Each round one acts, chosen with probability softmax(β·E), and endorsement moves toward observed outcomes, E ← E + η(outcome − E). Nothing marks either one as an authority. Scored every round, the more accurate one ends more endorsed in 200 of 200 seeds, even after a head start for the other (E0 = 0.3 against 0.9). With η = 0.01 the lead never changes hands in the second half. Scored only when it acts, with that same head start, the worse one is never displaced in 200 of 200 seeds at β = 30 or 100. At β = 8 the better one recovers, after a median of 460 rounds. The scored control at β = 100 entrenches no one. Code: scratch/formal/trust_loop.py. | 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 |
| CASE-189 | Two constructions of a maintained organization: two constraints producing each other with saturating production and turnover hold a three-unit coupling, with a box invariant under damage up to 0.4, a saddle-node at damage 0.5 and extinction above it; and a transient encounter that forms a connector enabling that reciprocal production, after which the connector is maintained by what it enables, every single-pathway knockout ends it, and the regime ends in a saddle-node at damage ≈ 0.691 where the coupling’s gap is still ≈ 0.989 | From A9 §4, A10 §2–5, A11 §2–5 and A12 §2–6 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), after the owner’s “try to progress the theoretical program” and A10’s own “theorem target” pasted back at U11. Every number below was recomputed by the turns’ readers, with an independent integration, and the folds again by the filer. Fictional by construction, with illustrative parameters. A10’s chart had three wrong points, which A10 corrected itself. A12 called its fold “the first mathematical account of organizational birth, commitment, and death within Nucleation’s framework”; CASE-111 is the earlier one, and this is its variant with a coupling attached. | Active |
| CASE-190 | A kinetic construction of self-maintaining reconstruction: a brief encounter captures a fuel, connector and two-catalyst core into a box that stays invariant under bounded degradation, keeping its copying catalyst regenerated and a grounded teacher and an erasable student within bounded error; with a resource allocator holding reserved minima and a revisable copy rule, the certificate holds for every allocation and rule, because neither the information variables nor the rule feed back into maintenance | From A17 and A18 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), after the owner asked for “one system in which those conditions are all physically realized rather than assumed independently”, and then for an endogenous allocation controller with a barrier certificate. The certificates were rechecked by the reader of U16–U19, and two of A’s error bounds were loose. The simulations A17 and A18 report could not be checked: their code was in A’s sandbox. A19 later said “Our last model explicitly demonstrated the separation” between matched successors after a second injury; it did not, and that experiment was never run. | Active |
| CASE-191 | A construction of self-formation: an agent’s own frustration at two demands one shared output cannot meet drives production of a sensor and a differentiating channel that then maintain each other; past a threshold of discrepancy (D ≈ 0.645 at unit drive) the capacity forms, outlasts the conflict, meets later conflicts of the same class up to D ≈ 1.047 with no frustration, and is lost at damage 0.5; a capacity upheld from outside is told apart by knockouts afterwards, but one installed by an outside pulse and then self-maintained is told apart only by a knockout during formation | Built at the owner’s request (“build the CASE-189 extension”) to test CLAIM-532, the positive account of self-formation filed from U33 of the exchange “Assess SDT Coverage”. scratch/formal/self_formation.py. Fictional and stipulated: the sensor and channel are capacity variables present from the start, raised from zero, as CASE-189’s are. It bears out the claim’s first test (transfer within a class) and qualifies its second: a knockout of the producing process separates own formation from outside installation only if it is made during formation. After the fact the two are the same organization. | Active |