Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Philosophy of language — meaning, content and reference as philosophy poses them — theories of meaning, meaning holism, assertion and whether machines assert, and conceptual change (group: philosophy).
118 of 547 CLAIM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAIM-002 v2 | A text’s identity across retellings is a family of relations, namely identity of the artifact, continuity of transmission and similarity of communicative function, which is why a distant retelling can be recognizably descended from an original it no longer resembles | A52 §13.5 with A50 §7, recovered. A50 called the point that “the act of translation changes the conditions for subsequent translation” possibly “the most consequential”. The manuscript keeps a family of transformations but not the three relations. | Active |
| CLAIM-004 v2 | Not every difference between translations is a difference of frame: some change the act being framed | A18’s passive/active distinction, recovered. It outlived the act object it presupposed: A38 §7.2 and A40 §9.2 used it to undercut the relativity analogy. It fell out with the relativity section, which the manuscript omits, not by refutation. The manuscript’s four-way split (§4) names structural reorganization but gives no criterion. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-005 v3 | Pragmatic fidelity is the match between distributions of context-indexed communicative judgements across a correspondence of source and target contexts, not the similarity of one canonical meaning vector; the match constrains a translation only once one outcome correspondence is fixed across many items, and summed over source contexts alone it charges for loss and not for addition | A24’s D(τ), the origin of the transport framework, and the manuscript’s L_obs (§6). One of three terms of the manuscript’s fidelity functional. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-006 | What fundamentally distinguishes variations of a translation is the frame from which it is delivered | The owner’s first thesis (U6). Narrowed, corrected and restated in speech-act terms over A11–A14, losing “the main thing” on the way, and replaced by the manuscript’s weaker claim that proposition preservation is neither necessary nor sufficient. | Superseded — by CLAIM-061 |
| CLAIM-008 | The abstract similarity between renderings is similarity of higher-order latents, which can survive large differences in lower-order ones | The owner’s U27 request and A73’s answer: a hierarchy of latents up to a relational configuration, with D_prag, D_dyn and local versus global distances. Superseded at U28 when the owner made the levels levels of observables. | Superseded — by CLAIM-042 |
| CLAIM-009 | Pragmatic judgements may be formally contextual: their context-relative distributions may admit no global extension once direct context effects are accounted for | A24’s “contextuality hypothesis, which remains open”, and A30’s H2. The manuscript keeps it as a possibility its empirical programme tests (§3, §9, §10) and disclaims any presumption that it holds. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-013 v2 | Existing text-to-image benchmarks evaluate object presence, attributes and whether spatial or interactive relations are depicted, not the stance, social alignment or uptake an image conveys, and need extending to pragmatically consequential relations and social uptake | The manuscript’s §10, Case III, which calls T2I-CompBench and GenEval object-centered baselines. CLAIM-097 qualifies that for T2I-CompBench. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-014 | Krifka’s performative updates fix which changes in conversational standing count, and Blackwell comparison tests whether a rendering preserves the information needed to recover them | A93 §5, recovered: “could become one of the manuscript’s distinctive theoretical integrations.” Krifka was in C6’s references and A93’s priority list (ninth) and is absent from the manuscript and the record. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-015 | Classical structuralism studies relations within a system, whereas this theory makes the transport of relational systems its object and does not require structure to remain invariant | A102’s contrast under U36, objected to by the owner at U37 (“symmetry is a kind of invariance, no?”) and conceded at A105: “My earlier contrast between structural invariance and structural transport was too sharp.” | Superseded — by CLAIM-113 |
| CLAIM-017 | What survives translation is the invariants, and approximately preserved relations, of communicative transformation | The crystallized argument’s final thesis (A110, U38). The manuscript’s answer, written three minutes later in C7, is receiver-relative: what “a receiving system can still reconstruct and act upon”. No turn announces or argues the change. | Superseded — by CLAIM-115 |
| CLAIM-020 | A translation’s quality is the number of formal and semantic constraints it preserves | Hofstadter’s starting criterion, as A4 reports it, and the Pareto- frontier picture of fidelity around it. Refuted in the same reply by the mother’s translation. | Rejected |
| 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-026 | Translation is not the transmission of an invariant semantic object but the selective preservation of decision-relevant information across changing observational and interpretive structures | A86’s “deeper thesis” under U31, with its dynamical complement. Renamed the framework “contextual pragmatic information transport”, the manuscript’s subtitle from C6 on. Superseded at U35 by proposal v6 (A100); the manuscript’s closing sentence is its descendant. | Superseded — by CLAIM-048 |
| 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-029 v3 | A language model’s response to a context is functionally a parameterized pragmatic frame | The owner at U17, offered as a motivating example “maybe even just for notational purposes”. The assistant made it the primary formal example (A43), then one running case of three (A52). Its formal statement, frame as a parameterized family of contexts, did not survive outline v4. | Proposed |
| 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-033 v4 | In published translations, renderings that lose distinctions along one dimension commonly gain specificity along another, so loss is not one-dimensional | A75, recovered: transport maps region to region, and “the translation can broaden conceptual possibilities while narrowing interpersonal interpretation”. Dropped with the region picture’s replacement by sections, without critique. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-034 | Fidelity is one evaluative goal among adaptation, critique and parody, and a deliberately adaptive translation calls for one-way simulation of the source’s relevant possibilities rather than equivalence | A38 §11.5 and A40 §7.3, §14.2–14.3, recovered. Dropped with the bisimulation section and the ethics discussion, apparently by inadvertence; the manuscript keeps only that transport is directed. | Proposed |
| 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-036 | Communicative meaning is constituted through systems of distinctions and relations, and translation transports these systems, selectively preserving or transforming their differential, probabilistic and interactional structure | A102’s thesis under U36 (“feels like there’s a connection to structuralism here”). Structuralism became the philosophical foundation; its contrast with transport was overstated and conceded at U37. | Superseded — by CLAIM-108 |
| CLAIM-037 v4 | Formal contextuality is a failure of global extension, distinct from ordinary context dependence, and needs Contextuality-by-Default when marginals shift with context | The manuscript’s §3 and §9. It separates three things: context dependence, stochastic noncommutativity, and contextuality as an obstruction to a global section. Its note of 2026-10-29 names the version it should cite: CbD 2.0 (LIT-831). | Proposed |
| CLAIM-038 v3 | A communicative object is a context-indexed system of empirical constraints over a cover of contexts, and these need not extend to one globally realizable interpretation | A78, after the owner’s U29 pointer to this record’s sheaf- contextuality readings, which the assistant said it “couldn’t reopen”. The manuscript §3: “an empirical model can remain well-defined even without a global hidden meaning state.” | Active |
| CLAIM-040 | Symmetry is a kind of invariance, and Noether’s theorem is the point: invariance under transformation yields conservation | The owner at U37, quoting A102’s “We do not require the structure to remain invariant”: “symmetry is a kind of invariance, no? isn’t that part of the point of Noether Theory?” Conceded at A105. Its Noether half was limited by the assistant in the same reply. | Active |
| CLAIM-042 v2 | The levels at which communicative observables exist organize observables, not objects: a communicative object is identified jointly by constraints from observables at several levels, which, where those observables share one state space, is the intersection of the regions they pick out | The owner’s correction at U28, accepted by A75 as “a more fundamental formulation”. The manuscript §2: observations “are not ordered into one strict ontological ladder”, and “An identified communicative object may be represented by an intersection of such regions.” | 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-044 v2 | Ambiguity and contextuality are different phenomena: an ambiguous utterance admits several compatible global assignments, a contextual one admits none | A81 §3.4 and A82 §8.7, recovered. The manuscript keeps the contrast between context sensitivity and contextuality but not this one, between too many global readings and none. Dropped at C6 without critique. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-046 v2 | Different hidden-state models can produce identical observations, so pragmatic identity and fidelity should be defined on observable responses before any equivalence of internal states is assumed | The reason for the A39 restructure, made under U16: put “observational equivalence at the center of the formal theory”. The manuscript is built on it: observables are operational, no latent coordinate is primitive, and latents are validated by prediction (§2–3). | Active |
| CLAIM-048 | Communication transports structures of observational constraints rather than invariant semantic objects, and translation, language-model reconstruction and conditional image generation are realizations of one process | Proposal v6 (A100, under U35), Contextual Information Transport Across Language, Images, and Communicative Frames. It made conditional generation “part of the central theory, not merely an application at the end”. Revised at A102 with structuralism. | Superseded — by CLAIM-036 |
| CLAIM-049 v2 | An adaptive interpreter’s state includes its message, context knowledge and learned parameters, and learning can make some relational invariants more stable and others less | A110 §22, recovered, with its case: a translator familiar with an underworld genre conserves its affiliative humour, a naive one turns it into a moral statement. The manuscript keeps one sentence (§11) on adapted receivers. | Active |
| CLAIM-051 | Fidelity is always fidelity with respect to some selected structure: a specified family of communicative observations, interventions and permitted continuations | A35 §8, “Hofstadter’s central insight at a more abstract level”, and A40’s “Revised central proposition”. The manuscript makes fidelity relative to the receiver’s decisions and states the choice of observables to be normative. | Superseded — by CLAIM-050 |
| CLAIM-052 v4 | Interpretive framing operations generally do not commute, and this can be investigated without committing to quantum probability | A30’s H1, “pragmatic noncommutativity”, what the owner’s U13 claim became. Manuscript §9: order-dependent framing “is central to pragmatic reconstruction”. | Proposed |
| 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-054 | A translation can preserve interpretive content while failing as a social act: interpretive and performative fidelity come apart | A35 §7, recovered. Last present at A35; the distinction is not named again in A38–A40, which speak of social constitution and joint states instead, and “performative” does not occur in the manuscript. Apparently dropped by inadvertence, never argued against. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-055 | The pragmatic identity of an utterance is partly constituted by the context-dependent transformations it induces, so pragmatic fidelity is an approximate structure-preserving correspondence between source and target dynamics | The thesis of the U14 replies (A33–A35), which shifted the invariant from attributes to transformations. Revised at A40 into an observation-relative form, and replaced in the manuscript by the observables thesis. | Superseded — by CLAIM-083 |
| CLAIM-058 v2 | Context-conditioned language models give a controlled computational setting in which the theory’s frame, order and transport effects can be tested before human studies | A45 §8: “Put the three LLM experiments before the human-participant studies, positioning the former as controlled computational tests and the latter as external validation.” The conclusion of the U17 analogy, limited by the circularity objection. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-061 v3 | Renderings that keep the proposition can perform a different communicative act, so preserving the proposition is not sufficient for preserving the communicative event | Manuscript §1, and the Abstract’s “retain its topic while reversing the speaker’s stance, and … change almost every word while preserving the interpersonal relation”. The descendant of the owner’s frame thesis (CLAIM-006) without its ranking; the central thesis (CLAIM-115) rests on it. | Active |
| CLAIM-063 v3 | A transport that approximately intertwines each framing operation approximately preserves their commutator, so the degree to which interpretive perspectives interfere can itself be part of what a translation preserves; on observed responses that degree is the order effect, which the intertwining defects bound only with a readout defect added and which the data identify only through observational distortion | A34 §4, made approximate at A40 §6.4 and stated in the manuscript §9 as the commutator-distortion identity. Its argument is an ARG because A40 limited the inference: the conclusion holds of Φ’s image only. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-064 | A translation reconstructs not only what is said but the situation of its saying | A12’s one-line thesis, recovered. Last stated at A12; it fell out when the vocabulary moved to speech acts (A14) and then to observables, apparently inadvertently, never refuted. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-065 | Pragmatic fidelity is approximate preservation of the ways an utterance conditions, transforms and constrains later interpretation and interaction, across transient framing and learned interpretive dispositions | The thesis of the U17 replies and outline v3 (A45 §10, A48), adding learned dispositions and language models to A40’s observation-relative thesis. Superseded at A50–A52 by the transport thesis. | Superseded — by CLAIM-101 |
| CLAIM-067 | If a transport exactly intertwines a generating set of communicative operations, it preserves every trajectory composed from them | A49’s “compositional preservation theorem”, proposed as the paper’s organizing result. True as algebra; superseded at U20 when the owner objected that fidelity is similarity within ε, not equivalence. Its rationale, test generators and infer trajectories, lives on in the drift bound. | Superseded — by CLAIM-106 |
| CLAIM-068 v3 | Repeated reconstruction is attraction toward conventional regions of communicative possibility: pragmatic stances, not only lexicon and grammar, can be stabilized by transmission | A50 §3 and §6, A52 §5.5 and §7.4–7.5, recovered. The manuscript keeps the stable conventional endpoint and one stance-drift example, but not attraction, selection pressures or the extension of iterated learning to footing. Apparently dropped by inadvertence. | Proposed |
| 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-074 v4 | Fidelity is relative to the interpreter’s learning history: what the current context supplies and what earlier experience has left in the interpreter are separate histories, told apart by what they carry and not by whether the change sits in activations or in weights, so fidelity under a fixed interpreter, across interpreters and across states of adaptation are different quantities | A44 §4 and A48 §5.5, recovered. Kept to outline v4 (§9.5); absent from the manuscript, which keeps the context/interpreter split but not its consequence for fidelity. Apparently dropped by inadvertence. | Active |
| CLAIM-076 v2 | Cross-modal chains expose reconstruction because media differ in expressive affordances, and each interpreter, such as a captioner, may add motives and relations that were not present | A110 §21, recovered. The manuscript’s Case III keeps the protocol and drops the reason for it; C7 Appendix D keeps a related control (captioners blind to the source). | Proposed |
| CLAIM-077 v3 | A transport is admissible only if it keeps specified observable distinctions apart, which excludes trivial collapse by construction | A49’s answer to the collapse objection, recovered: d_O(s_1, s_2) > δ implies d_O(Φ(s_1), Φ(s_2)) > δ′. The owner’s U19 strategy at work: define rather than defend. One bullet in outline v4; absent from the manuscript. | Active |
| CLAIM-078 v3 | The theory succeeds if its observational and decision measures predict changes of communicative identity that text similarity misses and follow its compositional predictions across reconstructions; it needs neither quantum contextuality nor exact Noether laws | A110 §X’s success criterion and its closing statement of what remains to be shown, recovered. The manuscript keeps half (Case I: incremental prediction of held-out judgements) and drops the disclaimer and the compositional half. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-081 v3 | Retaining information about the ancestor and drifting in the population’s distribution are different profiles: a chain can forget where it started while staying far from the original, so convergence is not preservation and transmission is not degradation | C1 Appendix D’s two profiles and E1’s two forgettings (A59). The manuscript §11 keeps it in one line (“converge in surface form while diverging in ancestral information”); the named profiles and the synthetic construction are gone. | Active |
| CLAIM-082 v3 | A term’s value, as distinct from its signification, is fixed by its contrasts with the coexisting terms of its system | The manuscript’s structuralist premise (§2), citing Saussure and Lévi- Strauss. CLAIM-072 corrects how it states Saussure. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-083 | Pragmatic translation fidelity is the preservation, under corresponding communicative conditions, of the ways an utterance transforms interpretation, interpersonal alignment and the possibilities for subsequent interaction | The thesis of the revised outline (A40 §XV), with A39’s operational identity: a pragmatically significant difference is a difference in the observable transitions an utterance makes possible. Superseded at A45–A48 by the outline-v3 thesis, which added learned dispositions; the chain runs on through the transport thesis to the manuscript’s. | Superseded — by CLAIM-065 |
| CLAIM-084 v2 | Lexical similarity cannot distinguish preservation of communicative footing from a change of speech-act function, so the primary outcome of a reconstruction study is pragmatic-frame retention judged blind to condition, once a measure of footing and stance has been shown reliable | A63 and A70, drawn from the authored chains. The manuscript §8 keeps it (“The structural measurements are more informative than lexical comparisons alone”) and §10 keeps independent responses and split annotators; the blinding to condition is not stated. | Proposed |
| 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-087 v3 | Cross-modal reconstruction often improves a receiver’s access to an implicit communicative relation beyond the text-only baseline, as when posture or expression conveys solidarity better than the source text’s literal content, though a rendering made without the situation is a garbling and cannot improve what an ideal receiver could do | A97 §6 and A100 §11.10, recovered. The manuscript treats a change of medium only as a risk to relational fidelity (§7), though §11 allows that an adapted receiver may recover an implicit relation. | Proposed |
| 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-091 v2 | A translation can reach pragmatic equivalence by compensating for changed social coordinates with changed linguistic ones, so lexical infidelity can be required for pragmatic fidelity | A24’s compensation hypothesis, recovered. Last present at A24 in owner turns U1–U13; the manuscript keeps its consequence (“change almost every word while preserving the interpersonal relation”) but not the mechanism. Apparently dropped inadvertently, never refuted. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-092 | Translation can be posed as a context-indexed information bottleneck: compress the source while preserving information about the responses in each measurement context separately | A86 §2, kept in C6 Appendix C with a sharper caveat, recovered. The manuscript keeps the caveat (§5) and cites Tishby, Pereira and Bialek in its references, but states no bottleneck anywhere in its text. | Proposed |
| 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-095 | Anticipated objections are better met by precise definitions, constructions and results than by hedges | The owner’s methodological instruction at U19, accepted by A49 as “define rather than defend; demonstrate rather than disclaim”, with the guard that it does not mean concealing limitations. Its sweep removed hedges, and with them some substantive points. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-098 v3 | Translation and cross-modal reconstruction need not be group actions: they form a category or semigroup of directed stochastic transformations, in which invertible symmetries are special cases | Manuscript §4. The one trace the relativity analogy left: symmetry and equivariance for exact preservation, a semigroup of stochastic maps for the rest. | Active |
| CLAIM-101 | Translation is a context-conditioned transport process that preserves selected structures of communicative meaning to varying degrees while introducing distortions that may accumulate, attenuate or amplify under composition | A50 §7 and outline v4 (A52), after the owner’s U20 objection. The manuscript keeps transport, graded fidelity and drift. Superseded at U30 by the observational-structure thesis of proposal v5 (A81–A83). | Superseded — by CLAIM-124 |
| CLAIM-102 | Variations in translation are transformations between pragmatic frames of reference that preserve selected invariants of the communicative act | A18’s “structural claim”, concluded by the relativity analogy. Replaced by the manuscript’s directed, lossy transformations once the analogy’s group structure was undercut and the frame-independent act dropped. | Superseded — by CLAIM-098 |
| CLAIM-103 | Symmetry is not opposed to transport: exact symmetries are the invertible core of a nested family of transports, and their main use is to supply the invariants against which non-symmetric transports are assessed | A110 §25, recovered. The manuscript §4 keeps “invertible symmetry maps are special cases” and drops the nesting and the yardstick role, apparently by inadvertence. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-105 v4 | In documented reconstruction chains, steps that keep most local judgements commonly change their global compatibility: translation preserves local meanings while changing the global structure of meaning | A78’s thesis for the paper, “potentially the most interesting connection we’ve found”, with Δ_CF, the change in contextual fraction along a chain, as its measure. The manuscript keeps the thesis as its Abstract’s last sentence but drops the measure and the worked examples (at C6, per the chunk-5 reader). | Proposed |
| CLAIM-106 v3 | Pragmatic fidelity is a graded, potentially asymmetric property of transport, not an equivalence relation; equivalence is its zero-distortion limit | The owner’s objection at U20, accepted in full by A50 (“an important correction”) and made the thesis of outline v4. The manuscript §12: “stochastic transport generalizes exact equivalence to graded fidelity.” | Active |
| CLAIM-107 v3 | Under Markov reconstruction kernels, an observable’s expectation is invariant when the observable is harmonic (K f = f), and drifts by at most Σ ε_i when ‖K_i f − f‖∞ ≤ ε_i; on a finite irreducible chain only constants are harmonic | The manuscript’s §4, citing Baez and Fong. CLAIM-094 says what the cited theorem needs that the discrete-time criterion leaves out. | Active |
| CLAIM-108 | Communicative identity is characterized by the observational structures and relations invariant or equivariant under specified classes of transformation, and fidelity by their preservation, deformation or loss | A105’s thesis after the owner’s U37 objection, with the title question restated: “What are the invariants of communicative transformation, which classes of transformation preserve them, and what happens when those symmetries are broken?” The manuscript’s §1 thesis is a softened form. | Superseded — by CLAIM-017 |
| CLAIM-109 | In translation the pragmatic frame does not merely select a description of meaning but participates in determining which meaning becomes actual | A21’s “preferred formulation”, reached by the quantum-cognition analogy. Withdrawn over A24–A30 as the inference was undercut, and replaced by a hypothesis held open for test. | Superseded — by CLAIM-009 |
| CLAIM-111 | A text supports a distribution over possible communicative situations, and a translation can be faithful by preserving that distribution and its response to further evidence | A45 §6, recovered: fidelity as P_o(z | c_o, u_o) ≈ P_t(τ_z(z) | c_t, u_t), “an interesting middle position between our original relativistic account and the later dynamical account”. Dropped at outline v3 without critique. | Proposed |
| 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-113 v2 | Transformations and invariants define one another: translation preserves some structures exactly, carries some equivariantly, preserves some approximately and reorganizes others, and identity is studied through what a class of transformations leaves invariant | A105’s reframing after U37, and the manuscript §4 and §11: “Structural transformations help identify structure through what they preserve”, with a four-way split of exact, equivariant, approximate and reorganizing transformations. | Active |
| CLAIM-114 v2 | Drift along a reconstruction chain can be marked by a pragmatic phase change, the first generation at which a different communicative configuration dominates, which per-step error in surface content does not show | A73, recovered: track local reconstruction error D_local(i) = W(q_(i-1), q_i) apart from cumulative departure D_global(i) = W(q_0, q_i), and look for the generation at which the configuration flips. Dropped when the latents were demoted at U28, without critique. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-115 v3 | What survives translation is the set of communicative distinctions and relations a receiving system can still reconstruct and act upon, not the wording or the proposition | The manuscript’s central thesis (Abstract, §1, §12). It does not say every relation must survive, or that there is one privileged set of observables: the choice of observables and decision tasks is stated to be normative and contestable (§11). | Superseded — by CLAIM-220 |
| CLAIM-117 v3 | Pragmatic fidelity requires preserving the dynamics of interpretation, not only final judgements: a good transport approximately intertwines source and target framing operations under a correspondence anchored to independently measured distinctions | A30’s commuting diagram for pragmatic fidelity, developed in the manuscript §9 as intertwining defects and the commutator-distortion identity. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-118 v5 | Context and interpreter are separate sources of interpretive change, told apart by what each carries and not by mechanism: what the current context supplies, whether held in activations or in weights updated on it and discarded after, is the signal; what earlier contexts have left in the interpreter and it carries into new ones is the interpreter; and improving the signal differs from improving the interpreter | A43’s first point about the U17 proposal, developed at A44–A45 into three sources of change (evidence, transient computation, parameters). The manuscript §5 keeps it in two sentences. | Active |
| CLAIM-119 v2 | Communicative categories form a concept lattice rather than a hierarchy: categories such as affectionate teasing and sarcastic condemnation share attributes and differ in a few social-relational constraints | A75 §7, recovered: formal concept analysis as the direct formalization of the owner’s “objects are intersections of regions”. Absent from A81, C6 and the manuscript without critique. The record holds Ganter and Wille unread. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-124 | Communicative objects are characterized through overlapping constraints on observables at partially ordered levels; translation transports these locally constrained structures, and repeated reconstruction changes both local interpretations and their global compatibility | The thesis of proposal v5 (A81–A83, under U30), which put observational structure first: “a global communicative object is no longer stipulated in advance.” Revised at U31 into the selective preservation of decision-relevant information. | Superseded — by CLAIM-026 |
| CLAIM-128 v2 | No single ranking of translations holds across tasks: where distortion profiles trade off, only a task’s priorities rank them, and the theory of fidelity fixes no weighting | A129 §3, after the owner’s U41 “agreed.” to unifying the fidelity lineages, and restated at A151 §5, A178 Ch9.7 and A203 §22. A translation that keeps social footing and loses rhyme is not ranked above or below one that does the opposite until a task says which matters. It does not say how the components are measured, nor that they are independent. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-133 | Communicative identity is relational continuity under admissible transformation: translation transports relationally organized observational structure, correspondence fixes what can be compared, admissibility which transformations count, and fidelity which communicatively consequential distinctions remain recoverable | The thesis of the assistant’s two consolidations after the U40–U42 review: the state of the argument at U43 (A151) and proposal outline v7 at U49 (A178). The owner asked for “the current state of our argument” and for the proposal to be updated “to account for our progress”, and argued no change. A151 also brings back the identity clause of Superseded CLAIM-108. Filed so that the change of thesis is visible, as CLAIM-017 was. It does not replace CLAIM-115, which no draft has given up, and the October thesis replaced it in turn. | Superseded — by CLAIM-139 |
| CLAIM-137 v3 | A communicative kind is identified by an invariant that does not depend on any one realization, as a group character identifies a representation up to isomorphism, once one symmetry group is identified across the realizations by its action on the situation and not by labels of a medium, so that invariant has classificatory priority over any particular realization | The owner’s own position at U54, its first part: “Character’s are “more essential” than the representations that are comprised of them.” It is the first owner-stated answer to QUESTION-021 that takes neither horn. The assistant kept “more essential” in the sense of classificatory priority (A194 §1, A198 §I). A218 weakens it further, without argument, to “may be better guides to its kind”. Since version 2 it says the realizations must share a symmetry group anchored on the situation (CLAIM-249). | Proposed |
| CLAIM-139 v3 | A communicative kind’s identity is grounded in its relational organization rather than in any expression or encoding; statistical methods recover aspects of that organization from restricted observations, translation transports it, and fidelity is which independently identifiable, decision-relevant relational distinctions persist | The thesis of the assistant’s second crystallized argument (A203, at U56), of A214 (U59) and of the October proposal and outline (A218, U60). The owner asked to “layout the full argument”, to “tie it all together” and to “generate a new proposal and outline”, and argued none of it. Unlike CLAIM-017 → CLAIM-115, the change of question was announced (A203 X); the change of criterion was not. A218 replaces the receiver with the analyst’s identifiability (CLAIM-140). Filed scoped to communicative kinds. No draft carries it, so it does not supersede the manuscript’s thesis; on the fidelity clause it is that thesis’s rival (CLAIM-211). | Superseded — by CLAIM-204 |
| 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-151 v5 | Which communicative act an utterance performs is partly constituted by its relations to participant roles, norms and expected uptake, so a transformation that changes those relations can change the act and not only its realization | The assistant at A187 §3, after the owner’s U52 question about ontic structural realism, restated at A191 §1, A203 §3, A214 §13 and A218 §2. It is argued for social acts, and its argument stops there; the record’s scope does not (version 3), and the general frame is CLAIM-477, of which this is a domain case. Its “representational against constitutive transformation” is CLAIM-004’s distinction re-derived, which it cites. Searle’s status functions (LIT-482) are the nearer held prior art, and “moderate OSR” is the wrong name for it. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-160 v3 | Data written for a potential future receiver has its intended meaning fixed by the write: even if it is never read, what it was meant to say was settled when it was stored | The owner’s claim of 2026-10-11, in their words: “data is written with a potential future receiver in mind. even if the data is never read, its intended meaning was fixed by the write.” It separates when identity is fixed (at the write, relative to a projected receiver) from when fidelity is measured (at a read, relative to an actual one), which the line had left unsettled. It does not say what a text means to a given reader is fixed. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-171 | A stored text means only what its readings make of it: the writer’s projected receiver is one more reading, so an unread text has possible meanings and no fixed one | The record’s anticipated reception-side objection to the owner’s storage claim. Its nearest support in the line is CLAIM-111, a text supporting a distribution over possible communicative situations. No reception theory is held or read. Open: the reply (the joke changed for the reader, not in what it was made to do) works only if the writer’s frame is itself recoverable, and that is QUESTION-031’s problem. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-197 | Sections over contexts that do not overlap always glue, so a sense that differs between disjoint contexts is not a gluing failure: a failure needs an overlap carrying sections that disagree, and which families count as covers decides whether anything glues | Dual-filed from MOM-CLM-088 (ADR-037). The sheaf condition says a family of sections that agree on overlaps glues to one global section. Where two contexts do not overlap, agreement is vacuous and they glue. So “tall”, which takes one threshold for people and another for trees, is one global section with the comparison class part of the meaning, not a failure of gluing. A failure needs contexts that overlap and carry sections that disagree there. Which families count as covering is the piece that decides whether anything glues, and a sheaf picture of meaning that does not state it has decided nothing. | Active |
| CLAIM-199 v3 | Blackwell’s order bounds what a rendering makes possible for any receiver, and a given receiver’s access is usable information relative to the rules it can apply, which a garbling can raise for that receiver but never above what the source makes possible | The record’s reconciliation, on 2026-10-10, of CLAIM-225. Both standards are kept, in different roles: Blackwell’s order is the ceiling, and TERM-034’s interpreter-relative fidelity (“relative to an interpreter and its available side information”) is the receiver’s. CLAIM-087’s improvement is a gain in usable information. The nearest held reading is THEORY-176’s “Its loss bounds r’s best attainable risk for that problem from above”, for restricted rules. The example is checkable; whether real receivers show such gains is a proposal. The usable-information literature was not held when it was filed; Xu et al.’s V-information is now read (note of 2026-10-21). It does not say which rule class real readers have. | Active |
| CLAIM-201 | Over a fixed scenario, a change of global compatibility at small local distortion needs contextual judgements, which the behavioural data read so far lack; the form of the headline those data leave open is a change of cover, in which a rendering makes some of the source’s questions undecidable for its readers and decides others the source left open | The record’s narrowing, on 2026-10-10, of CLAIM-105 after CLAIM-219. It concedes that the record’s reading of LIT-264 finds no contextual behavioural data, so the fixed-scenario form of “Translation may preserve local meanings while changing the global structure of meaning” has no case but a constructed one. It shows why the fixed-scenario form is sharp and why it needs contextuality. It keeps the form the record already names: “Only a change of scenario can make it jump” (CLAIM-105), and manuscript §11’s “A transport may preserve overlaps but change the available measurement cover”. A proposal; its test is the discriminating study. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-202 v2 | What the line adds to functional and relevance-theoretic accounts of translation is measured structure beyond a static pragmatic profile: the context-indexed profile, its response to later framings and its decision relevance predict receivers’ recovery beyond the similarity of static stance and footing ratings | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-233. CLAIM-023 places the line’s contribution in “a specified, testable account of which communicative distinctions a translation preserves”, so the test of that contribution must be against the accounts that already hold the pragmatic point. This restores CASE-005’s three-way selection (semantic, static pragmatic and trajectory similarity), which was gone by A52, with human receivers. A proposal, untested. It does not say the functionalist rivals are wrong. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-204 v3 | A communicative kind’s identity is grounded in its relational organization, for which competent participants’ uptake is the standard; statistical methods recover aspects of it from restricted observations; translation transports it; and what persists is what the receivers can still recover, of which the analyst can certify the independently identifiable part | The record’s restatement, on 2026-10-10, of CLAIM-139 after the audit’s objections to it (CLAIM-233, CLAIM-232, CLAIM-244, CLAIM-206, CLAIM-222, CLAIM-246, CLAIM-211). It keeps the four clauses, adds CLAIM-217’s standard to the first and CLAIM-223’s reading to the fourth, and replaces the third defeat disjunct (“no relational structure beyond the observed response profiles is needed”, which CLAIM-206 showed is always met or undecidable) with an observable comparison on transfer. It supersedes CLAIM-139, by the owner’s delegated ruling of 2026-10-29. A proposal, not a finding. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-205 v3 | Functional and relevance-theoretic accounts of translation, as Nida, Nord and Gutt state them, need not fix one context or a static stance profile of the rendering | From the interlocutor’s reading of PR #121 and its reconciliation, relayed by the owner on 2026-10-12. It accepts CLAIM-202 as the line’s principal empirical thesis and objects to its rival set. Narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-30, when Nida, Nord and Gutt were read; the baseline it proposed is CLAIM-504. | Active |
| CLAIM-210 v2 | Sharing a kind and being a rendering are different relations: kind-sharing is symmetric and says what is to be preserved, while fidelity belongs to a transport from a given source, so an utterance of the same kind made independently of the source shares its kind and has no fidelity to it | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-246. The October thesis puts fidelity in what persists “through those transformations”, and TERM-043 makes fidelity the distortion profile of a transport. So the objection’s independent utterance I shares the source’s kind and has no fidelity to it, since no transport relates them; the translation T has both. T’s provenance is a fact the transport clause supplies, not something the kind criterion must recover. CLAIM-002’s continuity of transmission concerns the identity of a work, which TERM-040 keeps apart from the kind. Active, because it is read off the record’s own texts. It does not say judges track descent. | 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-212 v3 | Fidelity as a report and fidelity as a re-performance are different decision targets: Blackwell’s order compares a rendering with its source as evidence about the source’s situation, which both readers decide about, while a rendering that re-performs the act in the target’s situation is compared only through a correspondence of situations | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-258, which it reconciles rather than refutes. In report fidelity the parameter is the source’s situation, common to both readers, so Blackwell’s order is defined; the objection’s worked case then gets a precise verdict, incomparability, as CLAIM-128 expects, and a context-aware translator’s non-garbling is compared by the order and quantified by CLAIM-259. The objection is right about re-performance, where CLAIM-091’s compensation lives: there a correspondence of situations is needed (QUESTION-005). For report tasks the task correspondence is the identity, which removes two of CLAIM-218’s points there. A proposal; it does not say which kind of fidelity literary translation aims at. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-215 v2 | Communicative kinds are repeatable organizations of relations among participants, norms, commitments and possible consequences, which concrete events realize without being one another, and which kind an event realizes is not exhausted by the intrinsic properties of the expression token | The assistant’s first thesis at U62 (A240 T1; A232’s first proposition and §2), which splits the ontological clause of the October thesis (CLAIM-139) out from the rest and narrows it. The owner asked how to update the theses and argued none of it. Its first two sentences are TERM-040’s definition. Its third is weaker than CLAIM-151: an intention-based account meets it too, so it does not tell relational constitution from that rival. The study cannot test it. A proposal. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-216 v2 | A thesis that conjoins relational constitution, statistical recovery, transport and receivers’ recovery is defeated whole by any one of its empirical findings, though its clauses can hold or fail apart, so the line is better put as separate theses, each with its own defeat condition, resting on one another only where one is a premise of another | The interlocutor’s objection at U62 (A240) to the October thesis (CLAIM-139) and to the record’s restatement of it (CLAIM-204), given as the reason for superseding CLAIM-139: “Separates ontology, statistical recovery, and empirical transport instead of making them rise or fall together”. The record’s replies of 2026-10-10 had already separated the receiver thesis and the incremental thesis; the restatement joined the four clauses again under one defeat condition. Active since 2026-10-30; CLAIM-204 concedes it. It says what would answer it, and does not say an integrative statement is useless. | Active |
| CLAIM-219 v4 | A change in the global compatibility of a fixed scenario is either a change in contextuality proper, which the behavioural data read show none of, or a change in overlap consistency, which is ordinary context dependence and moves by at most 2ε when each context moves by ε | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. Dzhafarov, Zhang and Kujala (LIT-264) find no contextuality in five kinds of behavioural data, and CLAIM-125 reports that 34 of 90 language systems signal too much to be contextual. If pragmatic data are noncontextual as a rule, CLAIM-105’s defeat condition is met by default; what is left to change is overlap consistency, which is the “trivial sense of contextuality” and is fixed by the local distributions. The only instance of the headline is the stipulated CASE-037. Among the claims LIT-264 is cited only by CLAIM-041, not by CLAIM-105. The objection is open; it does not say a contextual pragmatic data set cannot exist. | Active |
| CLAIM-220 v2 | For a named population of receivers and a stated family of tasks, what survives a translation, retelling or rendering is the set of task-relevant communicative distinctions those receivers can still recover from it, and measured preservation of the pragmatic observables predicts that recovery better than preservation of the wording or of the proposition, with or without its force | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to the audit’s objections to the tests of the manuscript’s thesis (CLAIM-233, CLAIM-232, CLAIM-243, CLAIM-244, CLAIM-226, CLAIM-222). It restates CLAIM-115 as an empirical claim indexed to receivers and tasks, tested against the rival CLAIM-115 itself names, a proposition with its force, on a behavioural criterion and with an interlingual arm that decides. It supersedes CLAIM-115, by the owner’s delegated ruling of 2026-10-29. It is a proposal, not a finding. It does not claim the line’s distinctive machinery is needed: that is CLAIM-202. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-221 v2 | The relational-constitution thesis’s defeat condition describes a standard rival the record holds no counter for, intention-based accounts of illocution, which plausibly meet it for every act in the four-speakers case except the institutional one | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-151 is defeated by a held account that individuates teasing, reproach and reprimand by the utterance plus speaker-internal states. That is the intention-based line of Grice, Strawson and Bach and Harnish, none of whom the record holds. On it CASE-018’s friend, parent and comedian differ in communicative intention, and only the judge needs norms, which Searle (LIT-482) already supplies. The record’s own model for CLAIM-111 is of this family. The objection is open; it would narrow CLAIM-151 to institutional acts unless an argument from uptake meets it. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-223 v2 | Whether a distinction survived is fixed by what the receivers can recover, and whether it can be shown to have survived is fixed by what the analyst’s probes can identify, so the manuscript’s thesis and the October fidelity clause, read so, answer different parts of one question | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-211, and the argument CLAIM-140 asked for: “the thesis now needs both conditions, or an argument for dropping one”. It keeps both, in different roles. On CLAIM-140’s cases: a distinction identifiable but unusable did not survive for those receivers; one usable but unidentifiable survived without evidence of it. Read so, complements is right on content. A proposal: it is a reading of CLAIM-139, not what A218 says. | Active |
| CLAIM-224 | Under partial relational constitution, a translation always changes the participants, audience and norms that the relational-constitution thesis makes constituents of the act, so whether the act survives turns on a correspondence of relations the structure cannot supply from inside | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. A translation is addressed to a new audience under new norms, so on CLAIM-151 it changes constituents of the act, and the record’s way out is always a correspondence (“the appropriate relationships”, “corresponding relational organizations”). That makes QUESTION-005 a question about what the act is, not only how to measure it, and the record’s model of translation holds the audience fixed. CLAIM-138 spares CLAIM-151; this applies its point to CLAIM-151 through translation. The objection is open. It does not say acts never survive translation. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-225 v4 | Blackwell’s order measures what an ideal decision-maker could do, not what a given receiver can reconstruct, and the line’s claims that a rendering can improve access describe garblings that real receivers do better with, which is the shape of the Blackwell thesis’s own defeat condition | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (formal and structure lenses); no turn of the exchange connects the two claims. A generator that sees only the text makes its image a garbling of the text about the situation, so by Blackwell’s theorem the image is no better for any decision. CLAIM-087 says such an image can improve access. Either that effect is impossible, or judged access is not Blackwell informativeness, and then CLAIM-050’s standard is not the one CLAIM-115’s receiver and its defeat condition use. It meets the shape of CLAIM-050’s defeat condition, not its letter. It is distinct from CLAIM-140, which sets the analyst against the receiver: this sets the ideal receiver against an actual one. | 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-240 v3 | A holistic fidelity judgement is fidelity under the judges’ default task, a weighting of the profile’s components that can be estimated on some renderings and tested on others, so it is well defined and consistent with task-relativity, and a defeat condition that uses it must name the population and fix the weighting before the test, and across populations with unequal access to the source must fit the weighting only on the components each can perceive | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-244. Task-relativity (CLAIM-128) denies a ranking that holds across tasks, not that a population has a default task. A weighting estimated on held-in data and tested on held-out data is a finding, not a fit, and a weighting fixed before the test leaves no room to blame the task after a failure. A proposal: whether holistic judgements are such a weighting is itself empirical. The objection is right that the stated defeat conditions name neither task nor receivers; CLAIM-220, CLAIM-204 and QUESTION-075 address that. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-242 v3 | The use-level counterpart of Saussure’s value is an utterance’s contrast with the alternatives its speaker could have used in context; values do not cross between languages, which is why fidelity is graded transport through an anchored correspondence rather than identity of value | The record’s reply, on 2026-10-10, to CLAIM-254. It grants the objection’s premises: value is internal to one language state, and it is a fact of langue, while the line’s observables are facts of use. It denies the conclusion. What the premise rules out is identity of value across languages, which the line does not claim (CLAIM-106), and transport through a correspondence fixed from outside both systems is what CLAIM-082’s own qualification already requires. At the level of use, contrast with alternatives is the rational-speech-act model’s premise (THEORY-172) and Bergen, Goodman and Levy’s finding (LIT-809). Saussure becomes precedent, not premise. A proposal, not a refutation. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-243 v2 | Read as description, the manuscript’s thesis is close to true by definition; read as a criterion, it is a schema until the decision family Q is fixed, and its descriptive defeat condition can test neither reading | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. A distinction no receiver can recover has not survived for anyone, so the descriptive reading is near-analytic. The normative reading leaves which distinctions count to the task family Q, which CLAIM-115’s summary calls “normative and contestable”. The defeat condition fixes observables the thesis declines to fix, and tests them descriptively: CLAIM-085’s split of normative from descriptive, applied to the thesis rather than to model judges. It does not say the thesis is empty. | Active |
| CLAIM-244 v2 | The defeat tests take one holistic, task-free judgement of fidelity as ground truth, though the line’s own theses say fidelity is task-relative, interpreter-relative and not a single ranking | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (empirical lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. A judge asked “how faithful?” or “the same kind?” supplies an unstated task and weighting, and is one interpreter. The theory’s measure must then be fitted to that weighting, which is circular, or a mismatch blamed on the judges’ task, which leaves nothing that defeats. It does not say the judgements are useless, only that the defeat conditions lack the task and receiver index the line’s own theses say fidelity needs. CLAIM-140 is its neighbour: that one moves the criterion to the analyst, and neither says it is task-free. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-246 v2 | Sharing a kind is symmetric and blind to which work is the source, so the October thesis cannot say a translation is of its original, against the line’s own directed, graded fidelity and identity through descent | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-137 makes realizations one act by a shared invariant, “not resemblance to an original”, and CLAIM-139’s defeat condition tests judgements of shared kind. Sharing a kind is symmetric and says nothing of descent, so an utterance made independently of the source, of the same kind, scores as a translation does. The line’s own theses make fidelity directed and graded (CLAIM-106) and identity partly a matter of transmission (CLAIM-002). The objection is open; it does not say descent must be part of fidelity, only that the kind criterion cannot state it. | Rejected |
| 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-254 v2 | Read as the Saussure correction has it, the structuralist premise argues against transport: value is internal to one language state, so what can cross between languages is signification, the aspect the premise demotes | Found in the record’s audit of the line on 2026-10-10 (structure lens); no turn of the exchange raises it. CLAIM-072 corrects the manuscript’s Saussure to value and says the correction “does not undercut the manuscript’s use”. But value is fixed inside one language state, so a change of language is a change of the system that fixes every value, and Saussure’s own example has a term and its translation share a signification and differ in value. Value is also a fact of the language system, while the line’s observables are facts of utterances in use. The objection is open. It does not say relational identity is false, only that Saussure, read correctly, does not support its transport. | Superseded — by ARG-033 |
| CLAIM-255 v2 | Intending to perform an act, performing it and being recognized as having performed it are distinct, coupled variables: intended meaning is fixed at production, the act partly by roles, standing and norms, and recognition by uptake, so competent uptake is constitutive for some acts, evidential for others and irrelevant to the existence of still others | From the interlocutor’s reading of PR #121 and its reconciliation, relayed by the owner on 2026-10-12, on the first open tension (CLAIM-160 against CLAIM-151 and CLAIM-217). It gives each claim its own object rather than picking one. Proposed and not adopted: the owner has not taken it. | Proposed |
| 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-257 v3 | Observational distortion should be summed over the contexts both covers can host, with the target’s new questions asked of the source too, and the questions only one side can decide reported as a separate change of cover, so that a rendering that adds a relation pays for it | The record’s repair, on 2026-10-10, after CLAIM-256. D_obs sums over source contexts only, so a target context outside the image of τ is free. Asking the target’s new question of the source, where its readers can answer it, puts it in both covers, and an addition then costs. Questions only one side can decide are a change of cover, which CLAIM-201 makes the line’s headline; they are reported, not summed. A proposal: the restatement is a definition, and whether its added term predicts anything is the defeat condition. It does not say additions are distortions. | Active |
| CLAIM-458 v2 | A reception split between populations with unequal access to the source can be partly a difference of access and not of weighting, so a comparison of their default tasks can fit weights only on the components every population compared can perceive | The limit CLAIM-240’s note of 2026-10-10 recorded and did not code, filed as an objection. CLAIM-240 reads a holistic fidelity judgement as a default task’s weighting of the profile’s components. In the split over The Vegetarian, some divergences are invisible to readers without Korean (“Most English readers will simply glide over them unaware”), so their weight is zero by blindness, not by a task. The objection undermines a test of CLAIM-240 across such populations unless it fits weights only where both can perceive. It narrows the claim; it does not deny it. | Active |
| CLAIM-461 | Compensation is not only a re-performance notion: for a reader whose code gives the literal word a meaning the source lacked, the compensating rendering can be the more faithful report, so assigning compensation to re-performance alone needs narrowing | The narrowing CLAIM-212’s note of 2026-10-10 proposed and did not make, filed as an objection so it can carry a status. Translators who rendered “Son of God” with non-biological terms for Muslim readers defend the compensating rendering as the better report: the literal word “add[s] a procreative meaning that was absent from the original”. If that holds, compensation (CLAIM-091) serves report fidelity as well as re-performance. Proposed because the renderings are known only through a critic and the reader evidence is the translators’ own. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-486 v2 | A rendering can keep the communicative act while changing the proposition, so preserving the proposition is not necessary for preserving the communicative event | The necessity half of CLAIM-061’s version 1, split off when the status review of 2026-10-28 narrowed CLAIM-061 to sufficiency (ADR-047’s third ruling). Its one documented case is Phillips’s handshake for Paul’s holy kiss (CASE-056), which competent judges took to keep the greeting. The defender of necessity has a reply the record does not answer: the proposition worth keeping is the coarser one, and the handshake keeps it. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-489 v2 | A sign’s communicative significance is fixed by its contrasts within a system rather than by correspondence to a referent | CLAIM-082’s version 1 title, kept as its own Proposed entry when the sixth status review narrowed CLAIM-082 to what Saussure’s value supports (ADR-047’s third ruling). It carries the two parts the reading does not: that significance in use is fixed this way, and that contrast works instead of reference rather than alongside it. | Rejected |
| CLAIM-501 v2 | Gutt’s interpretive resemblance also predicts that judged pragmatic observables beat text similarity, so the central theses’ defeat conditions cannot tell the thesis from a relevance-theoretic account either | Split from CLAIM-233 by the nineteenth status review (ADR-057; ADR-047’s kind 2, the record’s own extrapolation) and promoted by the twenty-first, once Gutt’s 1989 thesis (LIT-1845) was read. CLAIM-233 holds that functional equivalence and a proposition with its force both predict a pass on the central defeat test. This claim adds Gutt’s relevance-theoretic account. The book (LIT-784) stays unread. | Active |
| CLAIM-504 | The strongest operationalization of the functional and relevance-theoretic rivals to the transport structure is a rich contextual baseline of context-response profiles and supervised prediction | Split from CLAIM-205 by the twenty-first status review (ADR-057; ADR-047’s kind 2, the record’s own extrapolation). The interlocutor’s reading of 2026-10-12 proposed it as the fourth row of CLAIM-202’s comparison. CLAIM-205, narrowed, holds that the functional and relevance-theoretic accounts need not fix one context or a static profile; this claim says what their strongest operationalization is. | Proposed |