Case standings — How much of a CASE is fact. A case serves claims whatever its standing; what its standing changes is what it can show (ADR-032).
Stipulated — a real referent whose relevant facts are assumed rather than verified here — usable as a thought experiment, not as evidence about the referent. For a proposed study, its materials and setting, not results it does not yet have (ADR-042).
80 of 191 CASE documents. Back to the full index.
| # | 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-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-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 | Superseded — by CASE-025 |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 | Superseded — by CASE-035 |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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-144 v2 | The evaluator that stops tracking: two populations of specialists with identical capabilities and task streams, one scored against independent outcomes and one by an evaluator that weights evidence agreeing with its previously favoured specialists, after a shift that makes a marginalized specialist uniquely competent | Proposed in the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, at A5 (section 5) with A4’s “corrigibility trap”, after the owner asked which experiments could “kill multiple birds with one stone” (U4) and which questions simulation could answer (U5). One design bears on CASE-092, CASE-108 and CASE-117 at once, and separates four causes of a failure to adapt. A5’s central question: “Under what conditions does an organization become unable to recognize or act upon evidence that its own organization of interpretation and authority has rendered inconsequential?” Not run. | Active |
| CASE-145 v2 | Perspective without collective agency: populations given the same structured norms, categories or interpretive training, some interacting and some acquiring similar dispositions independently, with and without any mechanism for collective decision or coordinated intervention | Proposed at A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, which called it “the most philosophically important new experiment”. It asks whether a distributed organizational perspective can be identified without attributing a further collective agent, CLAIM-418’s separation tested, and bears on QUESTION-260. A4’s condition: it helps only if it says in advance what distinguishes a shared perspective from correlated responses or learned norms. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-148 | Perspective transplantation: two populations matched in behaviour exchange different combinations of learned interpretive rules, specialist parameters, training histories, institutional rules and shared memory, and are then set where the transferred parts disagree with their new surroundings | Proposed at A4 of the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, as an extension of CASE-101. It asks which components carry a perspective’s characteristic organization when it moves between carriers: CLAIM-417’s realization, character and lineage, tested by transfer. A4: “No transfer experiment can settle numerical identity merely by demonstrating causal continuity.” Not run. | Active |
| CASE-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-179 v2 | A proposed study: one network of locally described units in which physical coupling, the correspondence maps that say which local states agree, and the apparatus that revises those maps are manipulated independently, to find which of compatibility, attraction, effective boundary constraint, persistent individuation and reliable revision come apart, and how much each costs to establish | The experiment the owner’s review of the pull request named as “the cleanest way to investigate the central claim that interacting processes can generate the conditions of their own further organization”, put together from A22 §10 and A23 §XIII of the exchange of 2026-10-27. It has three independent manipulations: the physical coupling, the correspondence maps, and whether and how an apparatus may revise those maps. Its readouts are global compatibility, attraction, effective boundary laws, robustness under intervention, the cost of recovering the structure, and whether revision improves prediction on interventions the apparatus did not choose. Not run. | Active |
| CASE-183 | The anchoring measures: inbound references per code and turns per filed entry, counted in the record’s own grammar | The two measures the nucleating-argument line proposes for its claims, filed as a design so that an argument can start from them. Inbound references per code would tell an anchor from a structure that only persists (QUESTION-038). Turns per filed entry would be set against the drift the workbench records (CLAIM-186). Both are counted in codes, relations and statuses. Neither has been computed. | Active |
| CASE-184 | The central defeat test as stated: human judgements of fidelity or shared kind, predicted by the theory’s judged measures against a text-similarity baseline | The test that the defeat conditions of CLAIM-115, CLAIM-139, CLAIM-005 and CLAIM-078 share, filed as one design so that an argument can start from it. The criterion is human judgements of fidelity or of shared kind. The theory’s predictor is a measure of judged pragmatic observables. The rival is a text-similarity score. It has not been run, and CASE-055 is the design the record filed to repair it. | Active |
| CASE-185 | A proposed study: direct and relay translations of one set of source utterances through three languages, to find whether agreement between the routes, the task-relative loss on each route, and the preservation of response to later framing come apart, and whether correspondences fitted between the communities’ response structures on some items predict receivers’ judgements on held-out items, translators and situations | Put together from A4 §6, A5 §5 and A6’s synthesis of the exchange “Paper assessment” (2026-10-28 to 29), which proposed carrying LIT-1820’s comparison of alternative paths into CASE-055 as independent translation routes. It adds to CASE-055 a relay arm, a path-discrepancy readout set beside the task loss, two negative controls, and an arm that fits correspondences between the communities’ response matrices and scores them on held-out data. Not run; every margin is left to a preregistration. | Active |
| CASE-186 v2 | A proposed study: an organization in a world whose hidden regime reverses and then leaves its hypothesis family, with evidence generation, admission and scoring separately lesionable, its diagnostic machinery maintained by its own reciprocal production, from outside, or not at all, and finite fuel shared among operation, maintenance and diagnosis, to find whether a second correction after injury to the diagnostic and copying machinery separates arrangements that correct the first failure alike | The CASE A22 proposed and A23 wrote out at the owner’s “flesh out the proposed CASE”, in the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), under A23’s title “Maintained Inquiry Under Interpretive Capture, Productive Damage, and Environmental Novelty”. Its admission × scoring arms repeat CASE-162’s, and its double-lesion prediction is CASE-161’s finding. What is new is the primary endpoint, a second correction after the machinery is injured; an environment that leaves the hypothesis family; and external restoration that is paid for. Not run. The analytic error rates hold only where admission is protected. | Active |
| CASE-187 | A proposed study: agents matched on competence over a declared family of goals, one planning with an explicit transition model, one a directly learned goal-conditioned policy, one a distributed predictive-state controller, compared on the original goals, on on-demand predictive and interventional queries, under targeted internal interventions, and after environmental change and damage to their predictive machinery, to find which world-modeling achievements are linked and which come apart under matched resources | Proposed by the owner at the second review of the filing of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), as the experiment that would sharpen the world-model distinction. Not run; its architectures, tasks and margins are left to a preregistration. | Active |
| CASE-188 | A proposed study: two agents keep the same long-term commitment and decide alike under ordinary conditions, one protecting it from irrelevant fluctuation while letting specified defeaters revise it, the other growing ever more efficient at enforcing it while evidence against it loses its way in; varying the environment, the legitimacy of the original commitment and what the evaluative mechanisms can see, to tell corrigible resolve from entrenchment without building the answer into the diagnostic or the score | Proposed by the owner at review of the filing of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), as a successor to CASE-186 and kept separate from it so that study stays interpretable. It gives CLAIM-344’s distinction between resolve and mere persistence a counterfactual test. Not run; every parameter is left to a preregistration. | Active |