Voices — Whose voice a CLAIM is in, within the record’s own deliberation. Not whether the record believes it, which is the status: the two vary independently, and the mismatched pairs are the information (ADR-032).
Disclaimed — something the record explicitly does not claim — “X does not establish Y” — filed so that the boundary has an address and a recurring misreading has somewhere to be pointed.
12 of 547 CLAIM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAIM-022 v2 | Explaining practical efficacy does not settle whose the will is | Section 7.2, “No. The theory explains practical efficacy, not ownership.” What the authenticity line tried to supply, the paper now disclaims; QUESTION-011 holds the question. | Active |
| CLAIM-023 v2 | The contribution is not that translation is pragmatic or that speech acts change contexts, but a specified, testable account of which communicative distinctions a translation preserves | Disclaimed from A35 §9 on and sharpened at A40 against Gutt and Krifka. The manuscript §1 keeps it (“not the claim that each individual ingredient is novel”) and cites Gutt, but drops Krifka, whom four replies named as the closest prior art. | Active |
| CLAIM-071 | Conditional generation shares a mathematical vocabulary with translation, not a mechanism: denoising time is not telephone-game time, and a generative failure is not a proof of sheaf contextuality | A97’s own two limits, which the manuscript §7 keeps. They became the whole of the claim once generation was demoted from realization to analogue. | Active |
| CLAIM-075 | Viability does not establish what ought to persist | Sections 6.10 and 7.3: “An unjust institution may be highly viable.” Viability licenses conditional functional judgment only. | Active |
| CLAIM-093 | Not every invariance of a stochastic or communicative process implies a Noether conservation law: the symmetry principle can be borrowed, a conservation analogue has to be derived | A105, limiting the owner’s U37 appeal to Noether in the same reply that conceded the rest. The manuscript §4 and §11: Noether-type results give “conservation criteria for particular stochastic processes, not a universal conservation law of meaning”. | Active |
| CLAIM-112 | The operational account does not say that meaning is nothing but observable behaviour, nor that no stable content exists because interpretation is context-dependent | A38 §10.1 and A40 §13.1. The manuscript’s conclusion keeps it: the question is “neither whether a translation duplicates an invariant semantic substance nor whether all meanings are endlessly fluid”. | Active |
| CLAIM-116 | Regulation, even higher-order regulation, does not establish a will | The boundary the paper draws against its own most-repeated objection: thermostats, adaptive controllers and organizationally closed systems regulate without warranting an agent. | Active |
| CLAIM-150 v2 | An ontology of intrinsically individuated objects with relational properties can reproduce the categorical and operational identifications, and the predictions, of a relational one, so identification underdetermines constitution | The exchange’s own guard, stated six times (A187, A191 §4, A198 §VI, A203 §35, A214 §13, A218 §13). The record adds the stronger, formal form from THEORY-032: the Yoneda lemma presupposes the relata. That suits the non-eliminative choice and gives elimination no support. The ontological thesis needs its own conceptual argument; the mathematics and the experiments cannot supply it. | Active |
| CLAIM-252 | The account does not say which distinctions a translation ought to keep: it says how to tell which ones a rendering kept for stated tasks and receivers, and what ought to be kept is set by the purpose the translation serves | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to the criterion horn of CLAIM-243. The manuscript calls the choice of observables and decision tasks “normative and contestable (§11)” (CLAIM-115’s summary), and CLAIM-085 separates a normative theory of fidelity from a descriptive one. This disclaims the first for the account, so the thesis is not a schema awaiting Q: Q comes from the translation’s brief. Active, because it is a statement of what the account claims. Purpose-relative translation norms (skopos theory) are the tradition that states the normative part; they are not held in the record. | Active |
| CLAIM-334 | Granger causation from a macro variable to the micro variables it supervenes on, Seth’s downward Granger causation, is not evidence of a macro-to-micro intervention effect, even with every micro variable measured: supervenience leaves no intervention on the macro variable that holds its micro base fixed at the same time | Seth measures downward causation as Granger causation from the flock’s centre of mass to each boid, and calls it “ontologically innocent” (THEORY-703). The record files the boundary so that the stronger reading has an address. If M(t) = f(m(t)), setting M(t) means changing m(t), so the intervention Eichler and Didelez’s Assumption 2.3(i) requires does not exist (THEORY-704). Measuring every boid does not help, by CLAIM-333. | Active |
| CLAIM-511 v2 | A self-maintaining organization ought to preserve its corrigibility | The proposition the owner asked about at U24 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31): “have we established … why/that corrigibility is desirable?” Not claimed. The record’s constructions of maintained correction do not establish it (ARG-042, Rejected), and its value is conditional on objectives, uncertainty and cost (CLAIM-520). A24’s answer: “We have not established that corrigibility is unconditionally desirable.” Filed because the owner asked, so it marks a real boundary. It would be argued from a declared standard, which is where QUESTION-128 and QUESTION-129 ask. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-540 | The persistence a Dirichlet–categorical hierarchy gives a run of selections is an observer’s learning about a fixed mixture, not a change in what selects: under a uniform prior an observed first choice raises the predicted chance of repeating it from 1/2 to 2/3, while the same choice forced leaves it at 1/2, so the hierarchy’s reinforcement is not evidence of self-formation or of a maintained will-organization, which need the mixture itself to change under the choice | A13 of the exchange “Assess SDT Coverage” (2026-11-02), answering the owner’s U13, what the Dirichlet–categorical reading implies for Jennings’s attention as the source of a free will. A13: “Self-formation requires a causal update, not merely a posterior update in the observer.” Correct, short and not held. It limits the record’s own H1/H2 reading (CLAIM-536) and A11’s suggestion that LDA already has “a primitive analogue of a will-organization”. Rechecked here by simulation. | Active |