Warrants — How a CLAIM as stated is supported, apart from whether the record accepts it (status) and in whose voice (role). Attached to the claim, never inherited along rests_on or corroborates (ADR-043).
Empirical — supported by observation or experiment, and scoped to that evidence.
20 of 547 CLAIM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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-090 v3 | Serial transmission is reconstructive and filtered by the transmitters’ inductive biases, so a stable endpoint can be far from the ancestral utterance while remaining interpretable | The manuscript’s §8, citing Bartlett, Griffiths and Kalish, and Kirby, Cornish and Smith together as showing the same thing. CLAIM-066 separates what each shows. | Proposed |
| 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-166 v2 | A lower-level collective within the composite person, such as the gut microbiome, can at times drive higher-level behaviour and even experience: the routes exist and the effects are causal in rodents, while the human evidence is modest | The owner’s thesis of 2026-10-11: “‘who drives’ isn’t a constant. Considering myself as a multi-level agent, part of my composition is my microbiome … that lower level collective is capable of influencing my higher level behavior and even phenomenological experience.” The time claim is filed as the owner’s. The microbiome claim is grounded in two reviews read the same day. The routes exist, and the effects are causal in rodents. The human evidence is modest: associations, small effects on subjective stress, and nulls. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-177 v2 | In the record’s exchanges with collaborators who keep no memory, the argument repeatedly loses identity: concepts are redefined silently, objections and readings come back as though new, and the thesis changes without anyone arguing for the change | Stated as a finding in ADR-032, from seven readers coding the will exchange, and found again in the What Survives Translation? exchange by the workbench reconstructions of 2026-10-09 and 2026-10-10. Filed on 2026-10-11 as the first premise of the manuscript. Two exchanges with one owner and one assistant family, so Proposed. | Active |
| CLAIM-182 v2 | Storage is not anchoring, addressability is: a structure that is kept but cannot be pointed at part by part does not stop re-derivation, and the same content becomes an anchor once its parts get addresses | An answer to QUESTION-038, proposed by the assistant on 2026-10-11 and filed at the owner’s request. The evidence is in the record already: the two shared transcripts persisted throughout, and ideas were re-derived inside them anyway. Their moves became citable only when the workbench reconstructions gave each turn a label. Two exchanges, and the comparison is not controlled, so Proposed. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-183 v2 | Generated views of the record, fed back into the exchange, become instruments of the argument: they show where its terms evolved faster than its formalism | From U40 of the translation exchange, the first time a generated view went back into the conversation (workbench 2026/10/10/040455). The assistant read the term-revisions chain as evidence about the manuscript, and made five moves in reply. One of them was “Nucleation itself is a case study”. One instance, so Proposed. | Proposed |
| 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-228 v4 | D_obs restated over a rendering procedure, with one kernel family fitted on some source items and scored on held-out ones and the target term the readers’ response averaged over the procedure’s output, separates rendering procedures that receivers’ task-indexed recovery separates, so restated it measures observational fidelity informatively | The record’s repair, on 2026-10-10, of the manuscript’s L_obs and the profile’s D_obs after CLAIM-207, CLAIM-230 and CLAIM-235. For one pair a constant kernel makes D_obs zero (CLAIM-207); fixed across items, it fits only if the target readers’ responses do not vary with the item. The repair ties the outcome-level kernels to the text channel, makes the transport a property of a procedure (CLAIM-230), and makes deficiency a finite computation over judgement outcomes (CLAIM-235). A proposal: the derivation is elementary, but whether the restated measure is informative is the defeat condition’s empirical question. It does not say a fitted kernel is the translator’s process. | Proposed |
| 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-272 v2 | Giving every member an equal budget of actions does not equalize their influence: coordination is one route, letting a member’s plan direct other members’ actions, so a cap on self-allocation constrains action and not authority | A8 §3 on the owner’s r/place case. Every account had the same cooldown, a ban on self-allocation at the level of pixels, yet “a participant who creates a successful design template might have almost no direct pixel- writing capacity beyond any ordinary user, yet exercise enormous influence”. A8: “Reddit’s software imposed a cooldown and common action budget, but did not give participants equal effective influence.” It qualifies CLAIM-285: the budget constrains moves, and endorsement moves authority. It does not say the inequality is illegitimate. | Active |
| CLAIM-315 | In comparative anchoring tasks, considering an anchor shifts the later numerical estimate without adding evidence about the target, and the shift is carried by anchor-consistent knowledge made more accessible; the shift is established, the accessibility step is inferred and has not been measured | The empirical half of CLAIM-298, split off under ADR-043’s pilot, which found that claim compound: an empirical claim about judgement tasks and an interpretive extension to communication in general. This half is scoped to the comparative-question paradigm. Its first part is established (THEORY-337); its second is the selective-accessibility account (THEORY-335), whose direct test failed to replicate with a measure that also missed direct priming. CLAIM-298 now rests on it. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-317 v2 | Self-presentations that differ by audience do no harm while the audiences are kept apart; people keep them apart and script the occasions where they must meet, and broadcast and networked media bring them together unchosen, which is when the presentations collide | Split from CLAIM-196 under ADR-043: the empirical half of that claim, the sociology of audiences on which its sheaf reading rests. Its evidence is boyd (2008, read in part in NOTE-710), after Meyrowitz (1985), and one documented collapse, CASE-064. boyd’s claims about collapse are documented with interviews and examples, not measured, and the Carmichael case reaches the record secondhand, so it stays Proposed. It says nothing about overlaps, covers or gluing; that is CLAIM-196’s. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-321 v4 | In text-to-image diffusion models each condition of a prompt can be met while their conjunction or relational binding fails: benchmarks find single objects rendered almost always and spatial relations and attribute binding failing most, and composing by adding scores does worst on relations | Split from CLAIM-123 under ADR-043: the empirical part of that claim, that each condition can be met while their conjunction or relational binding fails, documented by GenEval, T2I-CompBench and T2I-CompBench++, by Attend-and-Excite’s “catastrophic neglect”, and by Composable Diffusion losing to an energy-based baseline on relations. It corroborates CLAIM-123’s derivation without carrying it, and does not say what causes the failures. | Active |
| CLAIM-324 v2 | In the What Survives Translation? exchange, the manuscript drafted straight from the crystallized argument changed the thesis with no turn arguing the move and dropped 24 of that argument’s items, none on request, and the second crystallized argument announced its change of question but left items out without saying which had dissolved and which were lost | Split from CLAIM-178 under ADR-043: the documented case on which that claim’s normative conclusion rests, scoped to the one exchange it comes from. The evidence is the workbench reconstructions of that exchange (2026/10/09/025539, 2026/10/10/040457). One exchange, reconstructed turn by turn by the record’s own readers; it says nothing about drafts in general. | Active |
| CLAIM-325 | The behavioural data the record has read show no contextuality proper: none of the five kinds of data Dzhafarov, Zhang and Kujala re-analyse is contextual, Wang et al. test none of their 90 language systems for it, and no documented test of pragmatic or meaning judgements finds it at adequate power | Split from CLAIM-219 under ADR-043: the empirical premise of that objection’s dilemma, which CLAIM-201 conceded. Dzhafarov, Zhang and Kujala (LIT-264, read in NOTE-235) find none of five kinds of behavioural data contextual, two of them previously published as contextual; Wang, Sadrzadeh, Abramsky and Cervantes (LIT-851) report signalling in 69 of 90 language systems and test none for contextuality; CASE-053 collects the documented tests on elicited judgements and finds no contextual pragmatic data. It is scoped: CASE-053 records a reliable positive result on instructed matching, so “none in behavioural data” is too broad, and the absence is LIT-264’s working hypothesis, not a proof that such data cannot exist. | Active |
| CLAIM-419 v2 | The record’s grammar is fixed at any moment but amendable by decision, and in practice a move that fit no scheme or relation has repeatedly been treated as a defect of the grammar and answered by amending it, so a move the grammar cannot hold is not only forced or lost; whether every such move is caught is not shown | The owner’s, at U18 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: “when we’ve encountered representational challenges, we’ve generally interpreted those as a symptom of a represntational weakness of the record and used that opportunity to mature the luria configuration, featureset, or both.” It answers CLAIM-181, which had no reply on file, with the record’s own decisions as evidence. It narrows CLAIM-181 rather than defeating it: the record shows moves that were caught and the grammar amended, and one case (ADR-032’s literature roles) where a recurring move was left in prose. | Active |
| CLAIM-438 v4 | An ordering serving as the negotiation’s potential, as the potential account of valence defines it, tracks ‘wanting’, not ‘liking’: sensitized incentive salience wins a system’s conflicts, persists and resumes while hedonic impact measured by taste reactivity stays flat or falls, so the regime the account calls hedonic valence is motivational valence, and hedonic valence, if it is anywhere in the account, is elsewhere | Raised by the reading of Berridge and Kringelbach (NOTE-1110) filed on 2026-10-23 for the potential account. Sensitized ‘wanting’ meets all three of Frijda’s marks of control precedence, which TERM-076 uses to define potential, while ‘liking’ stays flat or falls. That is CLAIM-440’s own defeater, intensity that does not track control precedence. Hesp et al. (NOTE-1111) concede the same of their account, which puts valence in the system’s model of its own potential rather than in the potential. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-483 | An argument developed with collaborators who keep no memory fails mainly at identity and not at structure, so that coding what recurs, not argument mapping, is the remedy, and this holds beyond one owner and one assistant family | The comparative and general half of CLAIM-177 version 1, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 (ADR-057) and kept Proposed. CLAIM-177 now says what the record observed: identity failures recurring across six exchanges with one owner and one assistant family. Whether they outnumber structure defects was counted in one exchange only, and the population is one owner and one family, which CLAIM-177’s own body called “a pattern, not a measurement”. | Proposed |
| CLAIM-494 v2 | Empathic concern for another produces motivation whose ultimate goal is the other’s welfare, and it does so when perceived self–other merging is controlled, so not all helping is concern for an extended self | The empathy–altruism hypothesis as Batson et al. (1997) defend it against Cialdini et al. (1997): in experiments (two, by the SEP’s account), empathy predicted helping with self–other merging controlled, and merging did not mediate it. Sober and Wilson (1998; LIT-1683) argue on independent grounds that psychological egoism is not established. Filed as the empirical objection to the owner’s thesis; both papers are unread, so the record holds the disagreement, not its resolution. | Proposed |