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).
Granted — a point that cuts against a thesis and that the record accepts; the thesis has to be stated so that it survives it. A granted claim that is not Active is incoherent.
44 of 547 CLAIM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAIM-011 | Intertwining with an uninformative correspondence is vacuous or lossy, so the source–target correspondence must be anchored to independently measured distinctions and evaluated on tasks other than those it was estimated on | The assistant’s own objections at A34 §3 and A40 §6.4, with the remedy of A40 §VIII. Recovered: the manuscript keeps the intertwining identity but states neither limit nor remedy, apparently by inadvertence. | Active |
| CLAIM-019 v2 | Lévi-Straussian transformational analysis, as Descola reads it and as it has been modelled computationally, is direct prior art for structural transport, not only a philosophical precursor | A102 §2, recovered: Lévi-Strauss treated myth variants as related by transformations, and “Recent computational work has explicitly modeled his analysis”. The manuscript §2 mentions Lévi-Strauss’s transformations but cites neither Descola nor the computational work. | Active |
| CLAIM-021 v2 | The mechanisms composing a will-organization are not novel | Conceded to CLAIM-024: the claimed novelty is a common explanatory role across realizers, not a mechanism (Sections 3.7, 7.1). | Active |
| CLAIM-028 | No result from the exchange’s four experiments reached a later draft: the authored chains were excluded by rule, and the synthetic constructions were dropped without a stated reason | What became of E1–E4. C6 Appendix F made the provenance caveats a rule (“Do not use assistant-authored examples as independent LLM samples”), and A89 called C6 “a theoretical manuscript with a specified empirical program”. The synthetic results of E1 were legitimate existence constructions and their loss is not explained. | Active |
| CLAIM-031 | A reconstruction chain reorganizes observational constraints rather than only accumulating metric error: a text can change greatly while keeping a few consequential constraints, and one changed constraint can change the act | A75’s self-critique of the metric drift bound, “something our earlier metric formulation obscured”. The manuscript keeps the bound and a soft form of the limit (§8: invariants, decision risks and compatibility structures “need not coincide”). | Active |
| CLAIM-032 v2 | Northstar’s internal procedures are not morally or historically analogous to the regime Fraenkel described | The caution the paper states before using Fraenkel (Section 5.6). As an objection to the inference it narrows the respect in which the analogy holds, to structure alone. | Active |
| CLAIM-035 v2 | Translation operations are generally not invertible, need not compose by a fixed rule, and preserve no structure given in advance; which communicative properties are invariant must be discovered or negotiated | A18’s own limit on its analogy: “the physics analogy has a hard limit.” Accepted at once. Its content reached the manuscript as the semigroup of §4. | Active |
| CLAIM-041 v2 | Context-sensitive interpretation, order effects and noncommuting framing operations do not by themselves establish nonclassical probability or quantum contextuality | Built over A21–A30, against the assistant’s quantum move and then the owner’s U13. The manuscript §9 states it. Its strongest ground, the record’s THEORY-013, is not cited in the manuscript. | Active |
| CLAIM-043 | Equal entropy does not entail equal relational structure, and a collection of local entropies need not characterize global compatibility | A86 §4. The manuscript §5 keeps its example: perfect correlation and perfect anticorrelation of two fair binary observables have equal entropy and reverse a fundamental relationship. | Active |
| CLAIM-053 v3 | The manuscript argues only that preserving the proposition is insufficient; that it is also unnecessary rests on an argument the exchange gave and the manuscript leaves out | The crystallized argument §1 said “not sufficient”; the manuscript §1 says “neither necessary nor sufficient”. Its own example shows only insufficiency. The case against necessity is A12’s asymmetry and A24’s compensation hypothesis, neither in the manuscript. | Superseded — by ARG-021, ARG-020 |
| CLAIM-066 v2 | Kirby, Cornish and Smith show structure emerging under transmission with an experimenter’s filter, not filtering by measured inductive biases, and Griffiths and Kalish’s convergence to the prior holds only for sampling learners | From the readings of Griffiths and Kalish (NOTE-599) and Kirby, Cornish and Smith (NOTE-596, Skimmed). The manuscript cites them as showing one thing; they show different things. | Superseded — by ARG-035 |
| CLAIM-069 v3 | The 2016 Contextuality-by-Default criterion was being replaced by multimaximal couplings as it appeared, and the change matters for observables in more than two contexts | From the reading of Dzhafarov and Kujala 2016 (NOTE-600). The manuscript cites the 2016 paper; its general observational covers need the later version. | Superseded — by ARG-022 |
| CLAIM-072 v2 | Saussure says purely differential only of signifier and signified taken apart; the sign as a whole is a positive fact, and signs stand in opposition | From the reading of the Cours (NOTE-594). The manuscript’s paraphrase is right about value and loose about difference, and Saussure’s value is distinct from signification, which the manuscript’s “significance” blurs. | Superseded — by ARG-034, ARG-033 |
| CLAIM-085 v2 | A framing effect in a language model is a property of that model under those prompts, and what a translation ought to preserve is a normative question that model response distributions, being descriptive, cannot settle | A45 §8–9 and A48 §8.5, recovered. Both limbs went in the de-hedging after U19, though neither is a hedge: one is a design constraint, the other a distinction between normative and descriptive fidelity. The manuscript keeps part of the remedy and neither argument. | Active |
| CLAIM-088 | Task-sensitive information preservation is established in semantic and goal-oriented communication; what is new is applying it to sheaf-structured pragmatic observations under sequential, context-dependent reconstruction | A86 §9’s priority concession, recovered: “We should build on that rather than present task-sensitive information preservation as an entirely new invention.” Dropped at C6 with the works it named (a survey, Chai et al., Zhao et al. 2025), apparently by inadvertence; none is in the record. | Active |
| CLAIM-094 | A harmonic observable conserves only its mean, and Baez and Fong show that mean conservation for every initial state does not make an observable a symmetry | From the reading of Baez and Fong (NOTE-598). The manuscript’s Kf = f is the mean-only condition, which the cited theorem’s counterexample shows is weaker than commuting with the generator. | Active |
| CLAIM-097 v2 | T2I-CompBench is not purely object-centered: its non-spatial relation category already probes interactions, but scores them with CLIPScore and near human ceiling | From the reading of T2I-CompBench (NOTE-592). The benchmark’s interaction category is the nearest existing measurement of what Case III proposes, and its weaknesses are the manuscript’s argument. | Active |
| CLAIM-131 | A compatible family of sections of the event sheaf always glues, so where a communicative object lacks a global realization the obstruction lies in its supports or distributions, not in the event sheaf | The assistant at A125 §2 and A129 §2, after the owner’s U41 “double click on this”. It is the standard sheaf property of E(U) = ∏ O_x (Abramsky and Brandenburger). Granted, because it is elementary; it is used against TERM-002’s wording, not against CLAIM-038’s thesis, which version 2 restates to agree with it. | Active |
| CLAIM-132 v2 | Characters classify finite-dimensional representations of a finite or compact group up to isomorphism only over a field of characteristic zero; they forget the isomorphisms, fix neither the group nor a permutation action, and classify kinds, not tokens or positions | Standard representation theory, which the exchange states correctly with its main hypotheses (A194 §1, A198 §§2 and 4, A203 §§5–6, A218 §3.2). This entry adds the limits the exchange left out, and the exact link to Yoneda: a character is a counts-only relational profile, complete because the category is semisimple. Granted, because it bounds the owner’s analogy: priority for classifying kinds up to isomorphism, in the most favourable setting, and no further. | Active |
| CLAIM-140 | The October thesis replaces what a receiver can reconstruct with what the analyst’s probe system can identify as the test of what survives, and no turn argues the change | CLAIM-115 makes survival relative to “a receiving system”. The October thesis (A218, U60) makes it relative to “independently identifiable” distinctions, and A218 defines identifiability on the analyst’s probe system. The receiver is left in one sentence of A218 §8 and in Ch13.5. Filed by the record’s reading of A218; no turn of the exchange says it. It objects to CLAIM-139 as stated, not to its truth, and it is granted because it is a comparison of texts. | Active |
| CLAIM-141 v2 | Causal-loop consistency and sheaf contextuality are both local-to-global problems, but passing to distributions affects them oppositely: a loop with no deterministic solution has a distributional fixed point, while a model with no global section in its supports has no global distribution either | A161, after the owner’s U46, sharpened. A161 saw that a causal loop and a contextual model are “not the same”, but not that they run in opposite directions under passage to distributions, or why. Its parity pattern is LIT-278’s identification of Liar cycles with contextual support tables, which the record holds and has read (NOTE-251). A173 and A178 kept the three kinds of global consistency apart; A218 Ch10.9 keeps the feedback case. | Active |
| CLAIM-144 | Inertial observers who disagree about temporal order differ in coordinates, not in a failure to glue: only spacelike-separated events change order between frames, and frames are global charts related by a group action | A164’s correction of the owner’s U47, which is standard special relativity, with two repairs. A164 left out the reading of the owner’s scenario whose answer is invariant (two passings of one marker). And it described frames as patches glued by a cocycle, which they are not: each inertial frame charts all of spacetime, and the frames are related by the Poincaré group. | Active |
| CLAIM-146 | Recovering latent relational structure from an interaction matrix, with no privileged latent coordinates, is decades-old prior art, so the manuscript’s contribution cannot be that recovery | The owner’s prior-art objection at U58 to A207’s closing framing, conceded by A210 in its first sentence and extended by A214 to identifiability and cross-lingual alignment. It is the line’s third in-band prior-art retraction, after CLAIM-019 and CLAIM-100 → CLAIM-125. The concession holds for structure. It does not hold for individual topics, which are recovered only by privileging the nonnegative representation, and uniquely only under separability or anchor-word conditions. | Active |
| CLAIM-148 v4 | A matrix factorization is identified only up to an invertible change of latent coordinates, which weight decay narrows to rotations and nonnegativity to rescalings and permutations plus a data-dependent remainder; such a gauge is not a symmetry of the relational system, and automorphisms of the data act on the factors only when the factorization is identifiable | Drawn by the assistant at A207 §3, made explicit at A214 §6 and kept in A218 (§4.2, Ch5.4–5.9). Granted, because it is elementary, and the record already held its mathematics. The record adds the full list of invariants, the data-dependent freedom of nonnegative factorization, and why identifiability must come before automorphisms and characters. It does not say latent axes are meaningless, or that observed data have non-trivial automorphisms. | Active |
| CLAIM-200 v2 | The procedure-level fidelity thesis’s title says observational fidelity is not defined for a single rendering of a single item, which is more than it shows: one source–target pair does not identify the procedure-level score, and a single rendering can still be judged, as a sample of its procedure or by another measure stated as such, as its own body says | The interlocutor’s second refinement at U62 (A240), checked against CLAIM-228’s text and granted on 2026-10-10. Version 1’s title ended “for a single rendering of a single item it is not defined”; its body says only that this measure does not judge a single rendering, and that one is judged as a sample of its procedure or by another measure. Granted because it can be checked by reading. Repaired in CLAIM-228’s version 2, which changes the title only. It does not touch the derivation or the defeat condition. | Superseded — by ARG-017 |
| CLAIM-207 | The transports of Propositions 1–2 and of D_obs act on judgement outcomes, not texts, and for any one source–target pair a constant kernel transports any overlap-consistent target, so they constrain a translation only once one kernel family is fixed across many utterances and derived from the text channel | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. The manuscript’s kernels K_C map readers’ judgements to readers’ judgements, while a translation is a channel on texts, T(v | u), and TERM-008 records that the two levels are never formally related. For one source and any overlap-consistent target, the constant kernel makes D_obs zero and satisfies naturality. Granted, because it is elementary. It does not say CLAIM-121 or CLAIM-070 is false; it bears on what they are used to support. | Active |
| CLAIM-211 v2 | Read as worded, the manuscript’s thesis and the October thesis give rival answers to what survives, which come apart in both directions on the cases of the receiver objection, yet the record links them by complements and scopes the October thesis to a question its fidelity clause does not stay inside | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-140 shows that the receiver’s test and the analyst’s identifiability come apart in both directions, and stops at “It does not say the October thesis is false”. On those cases CLAIM-115 and CLAIM-139’s fidelity clause give opposite verdicts on what survived, yet the two are joined by complements, which says they answer different parts of one question and do not compete, and CLAIM-139 answers only QUESTION-029. Granted: it is a comparison of texts and of the record’s relations. It does not say which criterion is right. | Active |
| CLAIM-218 | The task-paired risk difference the record uses in place of Blackwell’s order, D_Q = sup_q |R_q(U) − R_τ(q)(V)|, is a different quantity: it reduces each risk set to one number, needs the losses of paired tasks on one scale, and its absolute value counts improvement as distortion | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-050 is stated in Blackwell’s order, and the record’s decision term is A86’s D_Q. A risk per task needs a prior or a minimax summary, where Blackwell’s order compares whole risk sets. Subtracting the risks of two tasks needs their losses on one scale, which nothing supplies. The absolute value makes D_Q symmetric, against CLAIM-106. Granted, because each point is elementary. It objects to CLAIM-106 by undermining the measure meant to realize it, not CLAIM-106’s truth, and it does not say a decision term is unworkable. | Active |
| CLAIM-227 | No validated measure of footing or stance exists in the record, and the one repeated assignment of footing, the analyst’s own, changed between passes | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. Footing and stance are the observables the central theses turn on, yet the only footing judgement made twice of the same texts, the assistant’s labelling of its own four refrains, changed between A38 and A39 without comment (CASE-012), and no design gives judges a definition, a response format, a reliability target or a validation against a known contrast. Granted, because it is a reading of the record. It does not say footing cannot be measured. | Active |
| CLAIM-229 v3 | The footing, compensation and constitution theses ground on invented cases whose readings the assistant assigned, and the case filed for the proposition’s non-necessity holds the words fixed, so it shows only insufficiency | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical and structure lenses); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-061, CLAIM-091, CLAIM-151 and CLAIM-084 list fictional cases in grounds, which ADR-032 makes evidence, while the cases’ own bodies say they show a possibility, and CLAIM-151’s defeat condition asks a rival to predict a variation nobody observed. CASE-018, filed as the necessity half of CLAIM-061, keeps the words fixed, so it shows only that the proposition is not sufficient. Granted: it is a reading of the record. It does not say the theses are false or that invented cases are useless. | Superseded — by ARG-021, ARG-020, ARG-013, ARG-024, ARG-039 |
| CLAIM-233 v4 | The central theses’ defeat conditions pit them only against embedding, propositional or surface similarity, and two rivals the record holds, functional equivalence as Nida states it and a proposition with its illocutionary force, also predict that judged pragmatic observables beat text similarity | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure and empirical lenses); no turn of the exchange raises it. Every thesis-level defeat condition in the line has one form: human judgements of fidelity or of shared kind are predicted as well by a text-similarity score as by the theory’s measures. CLAIM-023 says the pragmatic point is not new, and a functional-equivalence account as Nida states it, or a proposition with its force, passes the same test; Gutt’s relevance-theoretic account, as his thesis states it, does too (CLAIM-501). Granted, because it is read off the texts. It does not say the theses are false, only that their stated tests cannot separate them from the positions they claim to improve on. | Active |
| CLAIM-234 v3 | The record’s iterated-learning readings bear on lexical, structural and functional transmission, and none measures stance, footing or speech-act function along a chain | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-068 extends iterated learning “to speaker footing and communicative conventions”, and no reading the record holds measures a stance or a speech-act function under transmission. Bartlett is unread, and the transmission-chain work on social and affective content is not in the record. Granted: it is a reading of the record. It is minor because CLAIM-068 is off the central chains, and it does not say stances are not stabilized by transmission. | Superseded — by ARG-027 |
| CLAIM-236 v2 | Under the rational-speech-act model the distribution-over-situations thesis grounds on, a form’s interpretation depends on what else the speaker could have said, so matching source and target posteriors needs a correspondence of alternative sets that translation changes and no entry names | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-111 makes a translation faithful when the target’s posterior over communicative situations matches the source’s, and its worked model, THEORY-172, makes that posterior depend on the set of alternative utterances. A translation replaces the source language’s alternatives with the target’s, so a rendering with the same literal content can carry a different posterior. Granted, because it follows from the model as the record states it. It does not say the model is wrong or CLAIM-111 false. | Rejected |
| CLAIM-237 v2 | The first open problem of directed transport is not yet posed: a contextual model is a menu of incompatible experiments, and under the natural order on menus any state-independent classical simulation is dominated automatically, so what is open is only the converse or a deficiency bound | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. Blackwell’s order compares experiments, each a family of distributions over one parameter. An empirical model has no parameter, and if it is contextual it has no joint distribution, only one per context. Posing CLAIM-125’s first part needs models indexed by situations and an order on menus of experiments. Under the natural order, the preservation direction is automatic for a classical simulation that does not depend on the situation. Granted, because the argument is elementary. It narrows what is open; it does not close it. | Active |
| CLAIM-238 v2 | Many of the line’s defeat conditions cannot in practice be met: the comparative ones are null results with no margin over an observable set the thesis may re-choose, and the possibility theses’ are universal negatives that no finite study establishes | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical and structure lenses); no turn of the exchange raises it, though CASE-029 records the decision rules that were dropped. Three shapes of defeat condition cannot be met. “As well as” is a null result, which needs an equivalence margin and power, and no entry states either. The observables are “not fixed in advance” (CLAIM-115). And the “can” theses are defeated only by “never” or “always”, so one construction confirms them and no study refutes them, while what the main thesis needs from them is prevalence and magnitude, which none states. Granted: each point is read off the texts. It does not say the theses are false or untestable in principle. | Active |
| CLAIM-245 | Under Contextuality-by-Default, a deterministic context-wise recoding can make a noncontextual signalling source maximally contextual, or turn a contextual source into pure signalling, so per-content signalling is not monotone under such maps and the quantity to bound is joint overlap discrepancy | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. Two worked rank-2 systems answer NOTE-654’s open question negatively: THEORY-177’s per-content signalling can rise under deterministic recodings, once the source signals, and CbD contextuality can be created or removed by them. By data processing, the joint overlap discrepancy cannot rise, so that is the quantity CLAIM-125’s second part should name. Granted, because the examples are elementary. It does not say THEORY-174 is wrong, which is about no-signalling models. | Active |
| CLAIM-247 v3 | The bearer of communicative identity reversed, from an operational object defined on observed responses to a kind that can outrun observation, and no turn argues the change; both stances stand in the record | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. It is CLAIM-140’s point for the bearer of identity rather than the receiver. The manuscript defined the communicative object on observations, and CLAIM-112 says that was “a choice of what to measure, not a theory of what meaning is”. CLAIM-139 is a theory of what identity is, with a kind that “may be real while remaining indistinguishable” under the probes. TERM-014 records the change and CLAIM-142 names it in one sentence; no claim records it as unargued. Granted: it is a comparison of texts. It does not say the realist reading is wrong. | Superseded — by ARG-029 |
| CLAIM-249 | Comparing characters across realizations needs one group identified on both, which is fixed only up to automorphism, and automorphisms permute the irreducible characters, so “the same character” is relative to a chosen correspondence: the collapse problem again, at the level of the symmetry group | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. To say a visual realization has the same character as a spoken one, the same group element must be named on both sides. Changing that identification by an automorphism α turns χ into χ∘α, and for the cyclic group of order 3 the automorphism g ↦ g² swaps the two nontrivial characters. The transformations the line studies form a semigroup, so the group is a symmetry group the analyst chooses, with its action on each medium fixed independently: CLAIM-011’s anchoring once more. Granted, because the argument is elementary. CLAIM-132 and TERM-041 hold neighbouring limits, not this one. | Active |
| CLAIM-256 | D_obs sums over source contexts only, so a target context outside the image of τ appears in no term: a rendering that adds a relation pays nothing, and a change of cover registers only as loss | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. L_obs and D_obs are sums over source contexts, so a target context that is not the image of one appears in no term. The line says interpreters add relations (CLAIM-076) and that a transport can add a distinction (CLAIM-087), and D_obs is the one component with a formula (CLAIM-128). Granted, because it is read off the definition. It does not say no other component could catch an addition, or that additions are distortions. | Active |
| CLAIM-260 | Approximate transports compose into a category only if the distortion obeys a triangle inequality and later kernels are nonexpansive, so the semigroup claim’s “category or semigroup” holds for exact kernels, and for approximate ones only under those conditions | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. TERM-008’s founding sense is a transport that gets “within some eps”, and CLAIM-106 makes fidelity graded. Kernels always compose, but the composite of an ε₁-transport and an ε₂-transport is an (ε₁ + ε₂)-transport only if the distortion obeys a triangle inequality and the second kernel is nonexpansive. In total variation both hold. QUESTION-017 holds the triangle inequality open and does not tie it to the category claim. Granted, because it is elementary. It does not say the category claim fails for exact transports or in total variation. | Active |
| CLAIM-282 v2 | Forbidding self-endorsement does not stop an operator from amplifying its own authority: under damped recursive delegation, reciprocal and cyclic endorsements recycle authority, so an operator’s authority depends on its own endorsements, while one-hop allocation within an epoch, from budgets and baselines fixed independently of outgoing endorsements, makes it exactly independent of them | A2’s own analysis of the owner’s U2 design, conceded in the exchange and checked here. With damped recursive delegation (a PageRank-like fixed point), two operators that endorse each other pass authority back and forth, so each one’s authority depends on its own outgoing endorsements even though neither endorses itself. With one-hop allocation from budgets fixed independently of outgoing endorsements, that dependence is exactly zero. No accounting rule removes the slower route: an operator can change its authority by changing what others endorse. | Active |
| CLAIM-292 | Retrieval that depends on current belief is not a bias in itself: adaptive search can be rational when inference accounts for how the evidence was selected, and calling a search biased needs a standard outside the search | Granted against CLAIM-301, as A21 insisted (“That counter is essential. Without it, we’d be using ‘anchoring’ as a blanket criticism of adaptive search.”), and said again at A20 §5, A21 §4 and A23 V.E. Sequential experimental design chooses its next observation by its current belief and is not thereby biased. | Active |
| CLAIM-293 | The topology of a support graph does not fix how a conclusion should be revised when one of its supports fails: two records with the same edges can carry evidence of different strength and call for different revisions | A6’s compensating-evidence case (CASE-089), granted against reading CLAIM-295 as saying a graph of justifications is enough. Two pieces of evidence support H in both worlds. Discount the first, and posterior odds are 20:1 in one world and 1.1:1 in the other. rests_on and grounds record that support exists, not how much. | Active |
| CLAIM-350 v2 | A coarse-graining preserves a deterministic judgment exactly when the judgment is constant on its fibres: the judgment then factors through the coarse description, uniquely on its image, and otherwise two states the judgment tells apart have been merged | A21 §3 and §18 (Candidate 1) of the exchange of 2026-10-17, and A22’s Construction A: for a judgment J and a coarse-graining C on the same states, J = j∘C for some j exactly when C(x₁) = C(x₂) implies J(x₁) = J(x₂). Granted, because it is elementary (the universal property of a quotient) and Ak’s; the proof is in the body. It is CLAIM-152’s judgment-valued special case with the converse added: CLAIM-152 says a partition sufficient for one target need not be for another, and this says which partitions serve a deterministic judgment, those whose fibres lie inside its level sets, so the coarsest is the judgment’s own partition. The sharp edge: it says when a description keeps a judgment, never whether the judgment is right. A21’s probabilistic and causal versions are recorded in the body, not claimed. | Active |