Curation log — October 2026

150 entries. All books.

Contents

• 1 Oct 05:20 — The reading feed’s revisit list, against both records
• 1 Oct 16:48 — Xin Li’s structural-learning programme, read as one
• 1 Oct 21:17 — Antonio Damasio: six works, and a word for emotion
• 1 Oct 22:26 — Minsky’s Society of Mind and Hofstadter’s analogy programme
• 2 Oct 00:21 — Bridging the society of mind to a conscious United States
• 2 Oct 01:48 — David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett and The Mind’s I
• 2 Oct 03:17 — The self, the unidentified texts, and two new topics
• 2 Oct 03:57 — Social ontology
• 2 Oct 05:04 — Moral psychology and morality-as-cooperation
• 2 Oct 18:05 — Dissipative structures
• 3 Oct 04:22 — Psychopathology, emotion and psychotherapy
• 3 Oct 05:29 — Theories from the psychopathology batch, and self-determination theory
• 3 Oct 06:56 — Agency, self, control and self-governance
• 3 Oct 13:15 — Model comparison and Fisher geometry
• 3 Oct 15:15 — Neural dynamics, animal consciousness and Orch OR biophysics
• 3 Oct 16:00 — Ned Block, the global workspace, and homeostatic feeling
• 3 Oct 20:00 — Mode connectivity, loss landscapes and model merging
• 3 Oct 21:35 — Susan Wolf’s Reason View and Fischer & Ravizza’s guidance control
• 4 Oct 00:05 — Frankfurt, filed first-hand
• 4 Oct 04:00 — Posani et al. 2026, a second reading
• 4 Oct 09:00 — Collective emotions and group agency
• 4 Oct 17:00 — Corals as composite systems
• 5 Oct 06:28 — Sources an essay on will cites
• 5 Oct 06:49 — Supplements to the essay sources
• 5 Oct 11:30 — The rest of the essay’s suggested readings
• 5 Oct 17:15 — Auditing the THEORY relations after presupposes
• 5 Oct 19:15 — Reading Cameron, Banko and Pierce (2001)
• 6 Oct 23:37 — Design-rationale literature, as evidence for an argument scheme
• 7 Oct 01:06 — Four works cited by The Organization of Will
• 9 Oct 00:41 — The manuscript’s reference list: twenty-two works the record lacked
• 9 Oct 03:33 — The manuscript bibliography registered: 46 dropped works and the conceded prior art
• 9 Oct 18:18 — Five papers on the theory of trained networks
• 9 Oct 20:36 — Thirteen works on hierarchy and hyperbolic geometry
• 10 Oct 04:04 — Four works registered unread to ground claims from the U40–U60 reconstruction
• 10 Oct 05:46 — Floridi’s line on artificial agency: six works filed, all read
• 11 Oct 00:33 — Flow and mindfulness-and-discounting: five works registered unread for the synchronization claims
• 11 Oct 02:26 — Coordinative structures and the holon: six works filed, Simon read
• 11 Oct 02:58 — Mathematics of Meaning registered as MOM; five entries dual-filed for system boundaries
• 11 Oct 05:31 — Two reviews on gut microbes, appetite and mood, read for the owner’s microbiome example
• 11 Oct 06:03 — Two formal definitions of agency, read for the agent-as-jurisdiction thesis
• 11 Oct 14:39 — Crystal growth and pattern formation for the nucleating-argument line: eight works filed, two read
• 11 Oct 20:21 — Hebb, Kanerva and Hopfield for the nucleating-argument line: four works filed, none read
• 11 Oct 21:43 — Stability theory for the nucleating-argument line: generalized stability theory and May, four works filed, none read
• 12 Oct 02:01 — MOM-CLM-088 dual-filed: disjoint contexts glue, and where that leaves the divided self
• 12 Oct 05:51 — Four works on epistemic justice, personal agency, the sense of agency and relational autonomy, filed unread
• 12 Oct 14:46 — Sixty-nine readings from the owner’s papers-feed, matched to the record’s questions by embedding and filed unread
• 13 Oct 03:13 — Kunin et al., held in both records
• 13 Oct 17:01 — Ten works the Mathematics of Meaning survey pointed to, filed unread
• 13 Oct 17:34 — Six of the ten works read the same day; the readings correct three of the filings
• 13 Oct 18:44 — The intention-based line of illocution filed: Grice (1957, 1975), Strawson (1964), Bach and Harnish (1979)
• 13 Oct 21:29 — Fifteen works registered unread from the exchange on meaning operators and selfhood
• 14 Oct 01:23 — Triage of the 167 Deferred works: what to read next, and where a copy can be had
• 14 Oct 21:06 — Random projections: seven works registered unread, and a question tying the record’s three uses together
• 15 Oct 00:41 — Eight works registered unread from the exchange on prompting, epistemic memory and retrieval
• 15 Oct 01:45 — Reading pass: the eight works from the 2026-10-14 exchange, and two they led to
• 15 Oct 03:31 — The LEGO parable ported from Mathematics of Meaning: what was kept, what was rebuilt, what was left
• 15 Oct 10:11 — Database theory and semantic search: 23 works read for the sorting question, the cost of reuse and revision
• 15 Oct 19:05 — ADR-043 accepted: a required warrant field on CLAIM, every claim classified, nineteen compounds flagged
• 15 Oct 19:46 — Splitting the claims ADR-043 found compound
• 15 Oct 21:06 — After the ADR-043 splits: citations repointed, one suspected dependency cleared
• 16 Oct 01:24 — Twenty-five works registered unread from the exchange on sports fandom and individuality; seven it cited were already held
• 16 Oct 01:54 — Five candidates registered for the two works from the sports-fandom exchange that could not be identified
• 16 Oct 04:22 — Later works on dimension reduction and Lipschitz extension: four filed, three read
• 16 Oct 07:14 — Moral psychology, the first topic in a THEORY backfill: twelve accounts from fourteen readings
• 16 Oct 07:38 — Social ontology, game theory, religion, design rationale: nine THEORYs from eleven readings
• 16 Oct 07:38 — Linguistics, pragmatics, philosophy of language and myth: ten THEORYs from eleven readings
• 16 Oct 07:38 — Thermodynamics: eight THEORYs from ten readings
• 16 Oct 07:49 — Philosophy of science, part 2 of 2: eleven THEORYs from ten of fourteen readings
• 16 Oct 07:50 — Metaphysics and mereology: 13 THEORYs from 12 readings
• 16 Oct 07:50 — Philosophy of science, part 1 of 2: 14 THEORYs from 13 readings
• 16 Oct 07:54 — Self, personhood and individuation, in the THEORY backfill: fourteen THEORYs from sixteen readings
• 16 Oct 08:02 — natural-sciences: 10 THEORYs from 17 readings
• 16 Oct 18:01 — Society and governance: eleven THEORYs from eleven readings
• 16 Oct 18:03 — Mathematics: eighteen THEORYs from twenty-one readings
• 16 Oct 18:05 — Cognition, part 1: thirteen THEORYs from eighteen readings
• 16 Oct 18:05 — Small topics: 20 THEORYs from 16 readings
• 16 Oct 18:05 — Ethics and agency: 17 THEORYs from 20 readings
• 16 Oct 18:06 — Probabilistic modeling, information theory and contextuality: 18 THEORYs from 23 of 25 readings
• 16 Oct 18:09 — Quantum foundations: 20 THEORYs from 22 readings
• 16 Oct 18:16 — Cognition, part 2: twelve THEORYs from seventeen readings
• 16 Oct 18:17 — Consciousness, in the THEORY backfill: thirteen accounts from eighteen readings
• 16 Oct 18:21 — Complex systems: thirteen THEORYs from fourteen of seventeen readings
• 16 Oct 18:23 — Representation learning, learning theory and loss landscapes: 20 THEORYs from 26 readings
• 16 Oct 18:32 — Social science, network science, compositionality, neuroscience and philosophy of biology: 22 THEORYs from 24 readings
• 16 Oct 20:08 — Eight works registered unread for the active-inference thesis and the locked-in case
• 16 Oct 22:06 — Nine works registered unread for the gaps in the active-inference thesis: covert awareness, measurement effects, Pattee, QBism and perceptual control
• 16 Oct 23:02 — Readings for the active-inference thesis: six works read, two Unavailable, one registered from a reprint
• 16 Oct 23:51 — Readings for the active-inference thesis, second round: the four works the owner named and the eight registered at the start
• 16 Oct 23:59 — Granger causality: five works filed, three read, and the record’s own terms
• 17 Oct 00:25 — Transfer entropy: eight works filed, seven read, and whether it measures flow
• 17 Oct 01:53 — Partial information decomposition: the I_min paper and two critiques, read, and the record’s numbers checked under each
• 17 Oct 02:53 — Multivariate redundancy: Griffith’s view and the three-source impossibility, read; the record files why the gap cannot close as stated
• 18 Oct 00:59 — Twenty-five works registered unread from the exchange on synthesis opportunities; the anthology’s share and the unidentified left out
• 18 Oct 19:54 — Seven works registered unread from the relayed synthesis on ecological coexistence and feature learning; Chizat and Bach left to the anthology
• 19 Oct 02:41 — The owner’s promotion audit of 2026-10-19: two corrections, two promotions and a split
• 19 Oct 03:41 — The promotion audit’s second pass: the proved parts of THEORY-001, -005, -008 and -156
• 19 Oct 04:15 — The promotion audit’s follow-up: THEORY-087’s regular half, and the claims that cite THEORY-156
• 19 Oct 22:53 — Nineteen works registered unread from the exchange on coarse-to-fine processes and the physics of model reduction; Simon & Ando and Barnett & Seth already held
• 19 Oct 23:53 — Five works on the rubber hand illusion and bodily self-consciousness, filed to fill a gap next to Metzinger’s self-model
• 20 Oct 00:10 — Four THEORYs from the rubber-hand batch, all Proposed
• 20 Oct 00:59 — Nine experimental works on the rubber hand illusion, and the THEORY they correct
• 20 Oct 01:05 — First readings of the coarse-to-fine program: six works read, copies sought for nine, three Unavailable, and what the readings gave the record
• 20 Oct 01:49 — Six more: philosophers’ experiments on the rubber hand and self-location, and folk-concept x-phi on the self and pain
• 20 Oct 01:56 — Lessig’s Remix filed and read; the two Jenkins books searched and marked Unavailable
• 20 Oct 06:30 — THEORY-458 and THEORY-531 revised from the rubber-hand and x-phi readings
• 20 Oct 06:48 — Ten works in conversation with Remix, on property and expression: seven read, three Unavailable
• 20 Oct 07:23 — Three entries from the property-and-expression readings: two cases and an objection to CLAIM-174
• 21 Oct 02:23 — Berniūnas & Dranseika’s reply to Nichols & Bruno, filed Unavailable
• 21 Oct 02:26 — An audit of the Open QUESTIONs finds none answered as posed and sixteen that split
• 21 Oct 02:35 — Thirty-three works registered unread from the exchange on governance, capture and legibility
• 21 Oct 21:27 — Twenty-two works registered unread from the exchange on experience and interpretation; the unidentified left out
• 22 Oct 02:07 — The exchange’s twenty-two works sought: eighteen read, four Unavailable; nineteen Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected
• 22 Oct 10:38 — Twenty-three works registered unread from the exchange “Graph Learning Applications”; the already held cited, and the unidentified and the tooling left out
• 22 Oct 16:33 — Six works registered unread from the branch of “Graph Learning Applications”, on the doorway effect and Shaolin martial arts
• 22 Oct 21:36 — The twenty-nine works from “Graph Learning Applications” sought: twenty-one read or skimmed, eight Unavailable; seven Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected
• 23 Oct 03:21 — The works cited in the two exchanges of 2026-10-22 and 2026-10-23: twenty-two registered unread, one read in full, three Unavailable, and what checking the abstracts corrected
• 23 Oct 05:18 — Corporate psychopathy: eight works sought, two read in full, six Unavailable, and what the reading changed in the claim
• 23 Oct 14:25 — Prior art for valence as ordering-potential: eight works, three read through lawful stand-ins, one Deferred, and what the reading corrected before filing
• 24 Oct 03:17 — Twenty-seven works registered unread from the exchange on governance, anxiety and legibility; three already held
• 24 Oct 03:47 — The exchange’s twenty-eight works sought: eighteen read, ten Unavailable; twenty-five Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected
• 24 Oct 07:01 — Soma et al., “The hive mind is a single reinforcement learning agent”, filed and read at the owner’s request
• 24 Oct 17:31 — Multi-agent learning and learning in games: twenty-one works registered and sought, eighteen read, three Unavailable; twenty-three Proposed THEORYs
• 25 Oct 04:19 — Seven works registered unread from the exchange on partial monitoring, drift–diffusion and diffusion populations; four named works not registered
• 26 Oct 19:45 — Thirteen works registered from the exchange on organizational latent features and transformer learning dynamics, and read the same day; families and uncited originals not registered
• 27 Oct 00:12 — Fourteen core circuits works registered and read the same day, at the owner’s request after the record was found to hold almost none of them
• 27 Oct 00:41 — Reductive evolution and endosymbiosis: eighteen works registered unread from the exchange on the record’s coverage, and one Open QUESTION
• 27 Oct 01:01 — Twenty works registered unread from the exchange “About the Chagossians”: fifteen readings on law, remedy, responsibility and systems safety, and five sources for its cases; the press and court records it cited by search are named, not registered
• 27 Oct 02:06 — Ten works named by the circuits readings registered and read, at the owner’s request
• 27 Oct 02:19 — Reductive evolution and endosymbiosis, second pass: endosymbiosis joins the topics, six Proposed CASEs, and seventeen works for what the exchange mentioned without citing
• 27 Oct 03:57 — Eight works named by the readings of PR 338 registered and read, at the owner’s request
• 27 Oct 08:06 — Thirteen works registered unread from the exchange “Field Existence Question”: Barad and her two critics, the prior art for relata as realizations of constraints, and three classics of the structural-realism debate; the other ancestors it named are not registered
• 27 Oct 09:02 — The first readings from the “Field Existence Question” exchange: Jaksland 2024 and Faye & Jaksland 2021 read in full, Barad 2003 unavailable; luria’s comparison with Barad’s apparatus turns out to rest on the conception of agential realism Barad rejects
• 27 Oct 09:14 — Thirteen works registered unread from U11–U14 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: experimental practice and classification, constructor theory and relational biology, and the dynamics of scale separation, transitions and localized structure; the canonical works it named are mostly held
• 27 Oct 14:25 — The remaining twenty-three works from the exchange “Field Existence Question” looked for: five read in full (Rovelli, Deutsch and Marletto, Flack, Ashwin et al., Toner and Tu), three Unfetched behind Cloudflare challenges, fifteen Unavailable; Flack’s criteria are not CLAIM-327’s third stage
• 27 Oct 17:19 — Twenty-one works registered unread from U15–U23 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: inquiry and its bounds, relative and redundant facts, sheaves and synchronization, and compositional systems theory; every identifier checked, three recent sources real
• 27 Oct 17:42 — The twenty-one works registered from U15–U23 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: thirteen read in full, three Unfetched behind bot challenges, five Unavailable; the papers fill the record’s correspondence and evidence rows, and the half of CLAIM-471 that says interaction makes a correspondence still rests on argument
• 29 Oct 01:24 — Twenty-eight works registered unread from the self-categorization and fandom readings, and from the owner’s thesis that there is no selfless action; two topics added
• 29 Oct 02:25 — Legacy, obligations to the future and intergenerational trauma: forty-two works registered, the open works read in place of unavailable ones, and the future-generations topic
• 29 Oct 07:32 — The exchange “Paper assessment”: Sarkar, Mukherjee and Sato’s gauge-theoretic attention read in full, its companion skimmed, twenty-three recommended works registered unread with every identifier checked, and two claims, a question and a proposed study for the record’s own argument
• 29 Oct 09:16 — The works registered from the exchange “Paper assessment”, Goguen and Burstall’s Institutions from the owner’s copy, and Nicholson on Paul Weiss: twenty-five read in full, thirty-nine THEORYs, and what the readings changed in the record’s own entries
• 29 Oct 10:42 — The 99 Deferred LITs searched for lawful copies: 51 read in full, 3 skimmed, 14 Unfetched, 31 Unavailable
• 29 Oct 12:02 — The copies the first deferred-LIT pass turned down: nine works read under ADR-064, one Unfetched
• 29 Oct 20:59 — Triage of the 162 works the readings of 2026-10-29 named and did not register: 18 to file, 59 to consider, 85 to skip
• 29 Oct 22:38 — The triage’s File tier registered and read: 8 of 18 reached, 2 THEORYs, THEORY-787’s defeater met for effective information
• 29 Oct 23:18 — The two candidate readings: causal feature learning read, with a THEORY joining it to effective information; Cernat 2011 is not the test it was named for
• 31 Oct 08:48 — Twenty-one works registered unread from the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts”: SGD as approximate Bayesian inference and its SLT neighbours, open reaction-network and stochastic thermodynamics, self-distillation, safe control, and organization as a principle; every identifier checked, one work added by the filer
• 31 Oct 15:27 — The twenty-one works from the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” read: nineteen in full and two skimmed in part, with twenty-one NOTEs and twenty-eight THEORYs, twenty-one Active; what the readings corrected in the exchange and in the registration
• 31 Oct 20:59 — Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy 2024, “Agency Without Agents”, filed and read from the owner’s copy after every open copy was refused to this client; and Chen et al. 2023 found already held
• 31 Oct 21:47 — The works Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy 2024 lean on: twenty-three registered, seven read and fifteen Unavailable, every lawful route recorded; what the sources show about the paper’s use of them
• 31 Oct 22:44 — The pilot ADR-056 asked for: sixteen TERMs classified by the kind of job their definition does; eleven sort cleanly, five force an arbitrary choice at the boundary where the field would matter, and the field is not added

---

The reading feed’s revisit list, against both records

2026-10-01 05:20:45 · curation · record

The anthology’s issue 180 (https://github.com/dmarx/anthology-of-the-sota/issues/180) works through the owner’s reading feed by how often a paper was returned to: papers opened on three or more separate days, ranked from the papers-feed snapshot of 30 September. Twenty-nine of them were absent from the anthology. This entry records what that list meant for this record.

The trap: the ranking checked one record. The worklist was computed against the anthology’s arxiv: ids only, so six papers already held here looked unfiled: the work capacity of channels with memory (LIT-041), collective intelligence (LIT-046), community detection with Ricci flow (LIT-004), spectral networks (LIT-017), sharing disinformation incidents (LIT-083) and ZipNN (LIT-268). Any future pass over the feed should check both records’ ids before calling a paper absent.

Filed here. Chuai & Zhao’s Anger makes fake news viral online (LIT-379) came here at the owner’s direction: how emotion drives the spread of false news is not something an anthology topic holds. It is a Deferred seed, read for triage only.

Döring & Isham’s ‘What is a Thing?’: Topos Theory in the Foundations of Physics (LIT-378, with NOTE-326) was first set aside as out of scope for both records. The owner corrected that: it is the one-volume statement of the topos programme whose four papers (LIT-343, LIT-335, LIT-299, LIT-310) this record already holds, and it is filed Active and read in full. By the authors’ own account it is mostly those four papers reprinted. It does not settle THEORY-037, because it again leaves the Heyting implication unwritten.

Held in both, under ADR-013. Two works now have an entry on each side, and each side reads them for a question of its own:

• On Context-Content Uncertainty Principle (LIT-377, with NOTE-325). This record holds the v1 the owner read, a cognitive and information-theoretic framework, and rejects it on its proofs: a theorem stated backwards, a false KL inequality (q = (.5, .25, .25), p = (.8, .1, .1) gives 0.322 bits against the 0.578 the inequality needs), and simulations the abstract promises and the paper does not contain. The anthology holds the author’s v2, a different paper under a new title that makes claims about generalization, mixture-of-experts routing and alignment, as a seed with no experiments.
• ZipNN (LIT-268). This record reads it for where the redundancy in stored weights sits; the anthology files it as a systems paper on checkpoint storage and transfer.

The entries name each other once the anthology’s codes are permanent: its side is filed with temporary codes and is renamed when it merges, so the ANTH-LIT-… citations ADR-013 asks for are a follow-up.

Also held in the anthology now. The work-capacity, collective intelligence and Ricci-flow papers were first read on the anthology side and not filed there, because no anthology topic held them honestly. The owner approved the topics its reader proposed (agents-and-environments and graphs-and-networks), and they are filed there as well, each read for what it says about agents or graph models, where this record reads them for information theory, complex systems and network science.

Also found: LIT-041’s arXiv id now serves a v2 (30 September 2026) under a new title, which failed the source check on main. The note records both titles, and its reading covers v1 only.

---

Xin Li’s structural-learning programme, read as one

2026-10-01 16:48:51 · curation · record

What changed and why. LIT-373 and LIT-374 were first read one at a time, and each was filed Rejected largely on mathematical slips. Those slips included an “if and only if” that should be “if”, a pseudo-dimension that should be fat-shattering, a bouquet built with open covers where partitions were wanted, and a word used in two senses. The owner objected on two counts. The papers are pieces of one research programme and must be read together, and the slips were minutiae: what matters is whether the major takeaways are argued well.

One reader then read both papers together. It also read the author’s two companion papers, which are filed here:

• LIT-375, arXiv 2602.07974 v2, the fullest formal statement;
• LIT-376, arXiv 2603.15412 v1, “Local Urysohn Width”.

It read charitably: a technical error counts only if a major takeaway depends on it and its sensible repair does not save it.

The programme. Structure is discovered by costly search, condensed into frozen context tokens, and then reused cheaply. Discovering structure and using it are separate problems, with separate complexities (width against VC dimension) and separate mechanisms (scaffold against flow, router against experts). LIT-373 is the cognitive and neural statement of it. LIT-375 and LIT-376 are the formal statements, and LIT-374 is the alignment and architecture statement.

Verdicts on the takeaways.

• Width is incomparable with VC dimension. Established in repaired form. LIT-376’s bouquet is the consistent construction the others lacked. The moral drawn from it, that “scaling cannot repair structure”, is undermined: the comparison is with a per-cell smooth predictor class, not with what a model can represent. Width is in effect a covering number at scale, and LIT-376’s own Remark 8.11 concedes that the obstruction is metric, not topological.
• An error floor below width (the “phase transition”). Established in repaired form, but close to definitional.
• Width is estimable from data. The Ω(w log w) discovery cost is established. The spectral estimator is plausible but under-argued: it converges to a count relative to a given predictor, not to width.
• Decouple router training from task loss, and freeze settled contexts. Plausible but under-argued. It is a testable design hypothesis with continual-learning precedent, but the additive bound it is said to follow from holds for joint training too.
• Amortisation: stored search makes inference cheap. Argued well enough to take seriously, once “Savitch” is read as memoisation. The idea is borrowed. The exponential-reach scaling law (LIT-373 Theorem 2) is not argued.
• Collapse defeats the curse of dimensionality, and equals free-energy minimisation. Plausible but under-argued, because it moves the curse into the cost of learning the collapse. The equivalence with free-energy minimisation is asserted.
• The neural instantiation. Plausible but under-argued: the predictions do not discriminate it from standard consolidation accounts.
• Alignment is a scaffold property. Not argued.

Standings.

• LIT-373 stays Rejected, on new grounds. After repair its core restates amortised inference and complementary learning systems, its predictions do not discriminate, and its one original quantitative claim is unargued.
• LIT-374 goes from Rejected to Proposed. It is the only place the decoupling and safety material appears, so it is not superseded, though its learning theory is better read in LIT-375.
• LIT-375 and LIT-376 are Proposed.
• NOTE-321 and NOTE-322 carry new summaries and a superseding “Joint re-reading” section. Their first readings stay in place below, as the record of what was said.

What would settle the programme is one set of synthetic benchmarks of known width:

• a sweep of the number of contexts, comparing routed learners with capacity-matched monolithic models;
• recovery of width from a cold start;
• decoupled against joint router training, compared on forgetting and on boundary error.

A THEORY is not yet warranted. The proved results are a covering number and a coupon-collector bound, and the explanatory claim (that forgetting is router drift, and that decoupling prevents it) has no evidence in the record. A draft is held for when an empirical source is filed.

Versions. Both companion identifiers now serve different papers from the ones read.

• arXiv 2602.07974 v1 is “Beyond Optimization”, so the entry is dated by v2.
• arXiv 2603.15412 v2 (2026-09-14) is “The Metric Slingshot”, a grid-cell paper. The entry is v1, the paper the owner asked for, with a source-ok directive. Its NOTE judges v2 separately, and v2 would be Rejected: its grid-ratio result depends on a free capacity parameter, and its anaesthesia “confirmation” is post hoc.

Lesson. Read a programme’s papers together, and judge a hypothesis paper by whether its takeaways are argued, not by whether every statement survives a referee’s pen. Both first readings were right about the slips and wrong about what they implied.

---

Antonio Damasio: six works, and a word for emotion

2026-10-01 21:17:52 · curation · record

The owner asked for “some Antonio Damasio” in this record. Six works came in, chosen to cover the line of his thought from memory to consciousness:

work	filed	read
Damasio 1989, time-locked retroactivation (Cognition)	LIT-385	no: Deferred, abstract only
Damasio 1996, the somatic marker hypothesis (Phil. Trans. B)	LIT-384, NOTE-332	in full
Bechara, Damasio, Tranel & Damasio 1997, deciding advantageously (Science)	LIT-383, NOTE-331	in full
Damasio & Carvalho 2013, the nature of feelings (Nat. Rev. Neurosci.)	LIT-388, NOTE-330	in full
Man & Damasio 2019, homeostasis and feeling machines (Nat. Mach. Intell.)	LIT-386	no: Deferred, abstract only
Damasio & Damasio 2023, feelings as the source of consciousness (Neural Comput.)	LIT-387	no: Deferred, abstract only

Three are unread because no full text could be reached. The 1989 paper is behind ScienceDirect with no open copy. Man & Damasio has no arXiv version and no open copy. The 2023 paper has a free PDF at MIT Press, but its bot challenge refused every request. Each is a Deferred seed whose status_note says what it rests on.

A word for emotion (ADR-014). Damasio’s subject had no tag, so the owner asked for one and emotion-and-affect joined the vocabulary.

What the readings found.

• Bechara et al. 1997 claims more in its abstract than its statistics show. All 10 controls and none of the 6 patients developed anticipatory skin conductance responses. But the controls’ preference for the good decks before any hunch is not significant. The early skin-conductance effect is reported only as a group-by-period interaction, with no test of bad decks against good. “Before knowing” holds for the stated strategy, not for awareness in general. The record does not yet hold Maia & McClelland’s 2004 critique of the awareness timing.
• The 1996 paper is a hypothesis paper. Its evidence is summarised from other work without statistics. Two corrections are in its NOTE.
• The 2013 paper’s one shown result is that feeling survives bilateral insula damage, from a single patient. The evolutionary account, animal feeling and the cellular proposal are asserted.

Two things checked along the way.

• NOTE-120 does not cite the 2023 Neural Computation paper. Its “Damasio & Damasio 2023” is a different commentary, Sensing is a far cry from sentience (Animal Sentience 33(16)), cited through LIT-193. NOTE-120 reports it correctly. That commentary is the natural next filing for the plant-sentience thread.
• Man & Damasio carries anthology-candidate. Its abstract proposes a class of machines without building or measuring one. The anthology’s agents-and-environments topic could hold it, so under ADR-001 it may be theirs. Whether to transfer it is for whoever reads the paper.

---

Minsky’s Society of Mind and Hofstadter’s analogy programme

2026-10-01 22:26:33 · curation · record

The owner asked for Marvin Minsky’s Society of Mind programme and for Douglas Hofstadter. Sixteen works came in, eight from each.

Minsky

work	filed	read
”A Framework for Representing Knowledge”, AI Memo 306 (1974)	LIT-410, NOTE-337	in full, OCR of the DSpace scan
”Plain Talk About Neurodevelopmental Epistemology”, AI Memo 430 (1977)	LIT-399, NOTE-344	in full, IJCAI-77 text
”K-Lines: A Theory of Memory”, AI Memo 516 (1979) / Cognitive Science (1980)	LIT-402, NOTE-352	in full, the memo
”Jokes and the Logic of the Cognitive Unconscious”, AI Memo 603 (1980)	LIT-408, NOTE-361	in full, the memo
The Society of Mind (1986)	LIT-429	no: Deferred
”Society of mind: a response to four reviews” (1991)	LIT-418	no: Deferred, closed
The Emotion Machine (2006)	LIT-432, NOTE-348	in full, the author’s posted 2005 draft
Singh, “Examining the Society of Mind” (2003)	LIT-444, NOTE-339	in full

The memos form a line by their own account. “Plain Talk” calls itself in part a sequel to the frames memo, and K-lines complements “Plain Talk”. The filings declare that line as extends:, and The Emotion Machine extends The Society of Mind.

• “Plain Talk” does not claim to be first. It presents the theory, then called “The Society of Minds”, as unpublished work in progress with Papert. K-lines credits one principle to their 1974 lectures, which were not seen. Priority is left open.
• The jokes memo is titled “Jokes and the Logic of the Cognitive Unconscious”. The Freud-like title in circulation is wrong.
• The Emotion Machine disagrees with Damasio (LIT-383 to LIT-388).
  • The draft treats the body as one more resource. It takes “the opposite view” to the bodily account.
  • It reverses the causal direction for Damasio’s patient Elliot, without evidence.
  • It makes feelings depend on self-models, where Damasio has feelings ground consciousness.
  • The two agree only that emotion-free reasoning is a myth.

Hofstadter

work	filed	read
”Is there an ‘I’ in AI?” (Phil. Trans. A, 2026)	LIT-416	no: Deferred; open access, but the publisher refused every request
Mitchell & Hofstadter, Copycat (Physica D, 1990)	LIT-435	no: Deferred, closed
Chalmers, French & Hofstadter, “High-level perception, representation, and analogy” (1992)	LIT-414, NOTE-359	in full, Chalmers’s posted preprint
”Analogy as the core of cognition” (2001)	LIT-417	no: Deferred; only unofficial copies found
Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979)	LIT-437	no: Deferred
Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies (1995)	LIT-428	no: Deferred; a review was read
I Am a Strange Loop (2007)	LIT-423	no: Deferred
Surfaces and Essences (2013)	LIT-420	no: Deferred

Seven of the eight are unread, because the lawful full texts were not reachable. Each Deferred seed records its publisher description, a contents list somebody actually saw, and what was tried.

• NOTE-136’s “argues nearly the opposite” is not yet supported. As NOTE-136 itself reports, Hofstadter’s essay gives a criterion (a Turing test of consistent understanding suffices) and a forecast (conscious AI “perhaps even by 2033”). Neither says present systems are conscious. He plainly dissents from the editors’ framing, but “opposite” needs the essay read. NOTE-136 is left unchanged until it is.
• Fluid Concepts reprints the 1992 critique as its chapter 4, and its chapters 5–6 are on Copycat.

Possible topic words, not added

Two readers proposed words, and neither was needed: cognition holds every work. They are recorded here for when a second line of work wants them:

• knowledge-representation: frames, scripts, semantic networks and default reasoning, read outside machine learning.
• cognitive-architecture: designs for a whole mind, natural or artificial.

---

Bridging the society of mind to a conscious United States

2026-10-02 00:21:43 · curation · record

The owner asked for a bridge between Minsky’s society of mind (LIT-429 and the memos) and Schwitzgebel’s “If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious” (LIT-159, NOTE-131). Schwitzgebel was already held. Eleven works came in to fill the seam between them, and one THEORY, THEORY-043, states the bridge.

work	filed	read	where it sits
Selfridge, “Pandemonium” (1959)	LIT-427, NOTE-360	in full	decomposition, before Minsky
Putnam, “Psychological Predicates” (1967)	LIT-396, NOTE-335	skim (excerpt)	the anti-nesting stipulation
Block, “Troubles with Functionalism” (1978)	LIT-407, NOTE-366	in full	the China brain; first critic of anti-nesting
Lycan, “Form, Function, and Feel” (1981)	LIT-419	no: Deferred	homuncular functionalism
Brooks, “Intelligence without representation” (1991)	LIT-436, NOTE-351	in full	decomposition, built and run
List & Pettit, Group Agency (2011)	LIT-391	no: Deferred	group agency
Huebner, Macrocognition (2013)	LIT-426	no: Deferred	collective minds
Oizumi, Albantakis & Tononi, IIT 3.0 (2014)	LIT-445, NOTE-365	in full	the exclusion postulate
Kammerer, reply to Schwitzgebel (2015)	LIT-409, NOTE-362	in full	a functional anti-nesting principle
List, “What is it like to be a group agent?” (2016)	LIT-401, NOTE-340	in full	group agency yes, group experience no
Levin, “The computational boundary of a ‘self’” (2019)	LIT-439, NOTE-341	in full	nested selves at every scale

The bridge, as the readings support it. Agency is granted in both directions, by Block, List and Levin. The dispute is over experience. Every way to accept Minsky’s downward move while refusing Schwitzgebel’s upward one takes one of two routes:

• an anti-nesting principle, stipulated by Putnam, postulated by IIT, or weakly justified by Kammerer;
• an architectural criterion, which would have to spare a loosely coupled society of mind while excluding a nation.

Nobody here computes that difference. THEORY-043 is Proposed, and its promote_when names the criterion that would settle it.

Corrections to NOTE-131 the readings found, held in the readings and not yet applied to NOTE-131 itself:

• Block’s counterexample to Putnam is elementary-particle people, not tiny people as neurons.
• Schwitzgebel’s Putnam “quotation” is a paraphrase, and the first appearance is 1967, from a 1965 colloquium.
• The “Brooks (1986)” of the group-mind tradition is D. H. M. Brooks, not Rodney Brooks.

Kammerer’s reader also found that NOTE-188’s gloss of his principle omits its second condition.

Next on this seam, not filed: Schwitzgebel’s reply to Kammerer (Philosophia 44, 2016) and D. H. M. Brooks, “Group minds” (1986). Reading Huebner would most likely move the THEORY.

---

David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett and The Mind’s I

2026-10-02 01:48:24 · curation · record

The owner asked for David Chalmers, with his extended-mind programme, and then for Daniel Dennett, with The Mind’s I if a readable copy or copies of its essays could be found. The record already held Clark & Chalmers, “The Extended Mind” (LIT-097), and one Dennett paper, “Real Patterns” (LIT-220). Thirty-one works came in.

Chalmers (13)

work	filed	read
”Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness” (1995)	LIT-406	in full
”Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia” (1995)	LIT-392	in full
The Conscious Mind (1996)	LIT-441	Deferred
”Does a rock implement every finite-state automaton?” (1996)	LIT-404	in full
”The Combination Problem for Panpsychism” (2017)	LIT-395	in full, author’s draft
”The Meta-Problem of Consciousness” (2018)	LIT-425	in full
”Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” (2023)	LIT-411	in full
Foreword to Clark’s Supersizing the Mind (2008)	LIT-421	in full
”Extended Cognition and Extended Consciousness” (2019)	LIT-415	in full, author’s pre-print
Clark, Supersizing the Mind (2008)	LIT-412	Deferred
Adams & Aizawa, “The bounds of cognition” (2001)	LIT-438	in full
Rupert, “Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition” (2004)	LIT-422	in full, author’s pre-publication version
Clark, “Intrinsic content, active memory and the extended mind” (2005)	LIT-403	in full

The foreword and the 2019 chapter both extend and correct LIT-097. Chalmers concedes the 1998 thesis was too weak, and calls its reply on perceptual access “surely too quick”. The programme as read keeps an internal conscious core.

Dennett (12) and The Mind’s I (3)

work	filed	read
”Intentional Systems” (1971)	LIT-440	in full
”Where Am I?” (1978)	LIT-405	in full, course copy
”Artificial Intelligence as Philosophy and as Psychology” (1978)	LIT-393	Deferred; known through Stich
”True Believers” (1981; read in the 1987 revision)	LIT-398	in full
The Intentional Stance (1987)	LIT-430	Deferred
”Quining Qualia” (1988)	LIT-433	in full
Consciousness Explained (1991)	LIT-443	Deferred
Dennett & Kinsbourne, “Time and the Observer” (1992)	LIT-431	target article in full
”The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity” (1992)	LIT-442	in full, a copy-edited transcription
”Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness” (1996)	LIT-397	in full
”Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness” (2016)	LIT-434	Deferred
From Bacteria to Bach and Back (2017)	LIT-424	Deferred
Hofstadter & Dennett (eds.), The Mind’s I (1981)	LIT-413	Deferred, with all 27 selections tabled
Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950)	LIT-394	in full, Turing Digital Archive
Searle, “Minds, brains, and programs” (1980)	LIT-400	in full, the BBS preprint posted by its editor

The Mind’s I. No lawful copy of the book or of any editors’ Reflection was found. Its selections were checked one by one; LIT-413’s table gives each one’s source and status. Filed separately:

• Turing and Searle, as above;
• Nagel, already held as LIT-096;
• “Where Am I?”, filed with the Dennett set.

Hofstadter’s “Ant Fugue” is held through GEB. The next selection worth filing is Zuboff’s “The Story of a Brain”, for which a PhilArchive copy exists but could not be reached.

Searle’s copy is a judgement, and the owner accepted it. It is the journal’s circulated preprint, posted by its founding editor.

What changed in the record’s threads

• THEORY-043 (the bridge from Minsky to Schwitzgebel) gains a section from these readings:
  • Dennett’s discharge of homunculi explains why the downward move is licensed for intelligence and the upward one is not.
  • Chalmers’s organisational invariance narrows the dispute to architecture.
  • The combination-problem paper reaches the account’s two routes independently.
  • Two new candidates for a principled line are named: Dennett & Kinsbourne against a conscious central part, and Chalmers 2019’s “not mediated” condition. Neither yet meets promote_when.
  • Searle and “Quining Qualia” are recorded as refusing the framing.
• THEORY-023 (AI consciousness) gains candidate evidence, not yet added to it:
  • Chalmers’s LLM paper, a fifth prior: under 10% for current models, 25% or more within a decade;
  • footnote 26 of the meta-problem paper;
  • Turing’s other-minds reply;
  • Searle’s concession that behaviour licenses ascription until the program is known.

Corrections the readings found

Each is held in the reading that found it; none is applied to the older note it concerns.

• Adams & Aizawa 2001 does not contain “coupling-constitution fallacy”. The phrase is from their later work; NOTE-180 misattributes it.
• Clark’s 2005 quotation of the parity principle differs from LIT-097’s text.
• Chalmers’s fading-qualia paper misdates Block (1980/1981; it is 1978). It also says Block finds group minds “bizarre”, which Block’s n. 19 disclaims.
• Levin’s “Chalmers 2013” is Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism, not the combination paper.
• “Artificial Intelligence as Philosophy and as Psychology” appeared first in Brainstorms (1978), not in Ringle (1979).

Not filed, and next

• Chalmers, “Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness” (1997), his reply to Dennett.
• Dennett, “Darwin’s ‘strange inversion of reasoning’” (PNAS 2009), the readable source for “competence without comprehension”.
• Dennett’s 2007 joint review of I Am a Strange Loop and The Emotion Machine.
• Zuboff, “The Story of a Brain”.

Possible topic words, recorded and not added: computation (what implementation is) and artificial-intelligence (AI and robotics design), with the earlier knowledge-representation and cognitive-architecture.

---

The self, the unidentified texts, and two new topics

2026-10-02 03:17:02 · curation · record

The owner asked for three things in a row: file the seven texts the converted-texts collection had left “unidentified”; say how the record stood on identity, personhood and selfhood; then file the literature that answer exposed and add a word for it. Twenty-four works came in, and the topic vocabulary gained two words and renamed a third.

The unidentified texts (7 → 6)

work	filed	read
Frankish, “Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness” (2016)	LIT-458	in full, author’s eprint
Taylor, “Consciousness interpreted” (2024)	LIT-461	in full, CC BY version of record
Schwitzgebel, “Is the United States Phenomenally Conscious? Reply to Kammerer” (2016)	LIT-459	in full, author’s manuscript
Dennett, “Reply to Professor Stich” (1980)	LIT-456	in full, final draft, Tufts
Adams & Aizawa, “Defending the Bounds of Cognition” (2010)	LIT-455	in full, pre-publication draft, course copy
Burns, review of Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies (1995)	LIT-457	in full, AAAI open access

The seventh, headed “Defining Individuation From a Cognitive Perspective”, is two consecutive sections of Levin 2019 (LIT-439), verbatim against the PubMed Central text. It is not a separate publication and was not filed again.

Two readings corrected older documents. Schwitzgebel’s reply presses Kammerer’s condition A, not condition B as NOTE-362 had it from the abstract; NOTE-362 v2 and THEORY-043 v2 take the reply in. The Adams & Aizawa draft lists a December 2005 paper as under review and already names the “coupling–constitution fallacy”, so NOTE-180 v4 dates the name to late 2005 rather than to “later work”.

How the record stood on the self

identity carried 39 works about three different things: the identity and individuation of things (structural realism, quasi-sets, the Yoneda lemma), biological individuality, and personal identity and the self. A reader looking for the self met quasi-set theory first. No THEORY touched the self, and the personal-identity literature the record’s cognitive-science and AI readings answer to was almost entirely missing: no Locke, Hume, Parfit, Williams, Lewis, Olson, Schechtman, Strawson, Gallagher, Zahavi or Metzinger.

The self (18)

work	filed	read
Locke, Essay II.xxvii (1694)	LIT-464	in full, Wikisource
Hume, Treatise 1.4.6 and Appendix (1739–40)	LIT-451	in full, critical text
Williams, “The Self and the Future” (1970)	LIT-462	in full, course copy
Parfit, “Personal Identity” (1971)	LIT-447	in full, course copy
Lewis, “Survival and Identity” (1976)	LIT-446	in full, scan, OCR
Parfit, Reasons and Persons (1984)	LIT-469	Deferred
Olson, “Personal Identity”, SEP (2002, rev. 2023)	LIT-454	in full
Olson, The Human Animal (1997)	LIT-448	Deferred
Schechtman, The Constitution of Selves (1996)	LIT-468	Deferred
G. Strawson, “Against Narrativity” (2004)	LIT-452	in full, lab-hosted copy
Gallagher, “Philosophical conceptions of the self” (2000)	LIT-453	in full, author’s preprint
Zahavi, Subjectivity and Selfhood (2005)	LIT-463	Deferred
Metzinger, Being No One (2003)	LIT-467	Deferred
Metzinger, “Self models”, Scholarpedia (2007)	LIT-450	in full
Shanahan, McDonell & Reynolds, “Role play with large language models” (2023)	LIT-460	in full
Shanahan, “Simulacra as Conscious Exotica” (2024)	LIT-465	in full, arXiv v2
Shanahan, “Palatable Conceptions of Disembodied Being” (2025)	LIT-466	in full, arXiv v3
Chalmers, “What we talk to when we talk to language models” (2026)	LIT-449	Deferred

“Role play” is also held by the anthology as ANTH-LIT-740. It is read here for whether anything is a self (ADR-013), and its note records three places the anthology’s entry differs from the Nature text. Metzinger’s Scholarpedia article stands in for Being No One, which has no lawful copy. Reasons and Persons is the highest-value unread work: Birch, Velleman and the Dufner survey already lean on it secondhand.

The vocabulary

• self-and-personhood (ADR-015) holds what a self or a person is and what makes one persist. Fifteen existing works took it, and every self filing above leads with it.
• identity became individuation (ADR-015, at the owner’s suggestion). With the self moved out, what was left was the individuation of things, and “identity” read alone invites the personal sense. The 41 bearers changed in place.
• phenomenology (ADR-016) is for the first-person description of experience as a method. A filing agent proposed it for Zahavi, and the owner accepted. Six works carry it, none first.

For the next person

Three agents filed the self literature into one checkout at once, each running only luria new. A luria link --fix run by the integrator spells targets into their in-progress files too; that is harmless, since it only spells links. Integrating each batch in a separate worktree at HEAD, with repair, link --fix, index and lint run there, kept every commit linted without waiting for the slowest agent.

---

Social ontology

2026-10-02 03:57:03 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record covered social ontology, then for the literature to be filed. The record held the philosophy of mind of groups (Schwitzgebel’s conscious United States, Kammerer, List, with List & Pettit and Huebner unread) and almost nothing on what a group, an institution, a convention or a social kind is. Searle appeared only for the Chinese Room. social-ontology was added first (ADR-017) and six existing works took it; then three agents filed 24 works in parallel. Eight were read in full.

Founding accounts (8, 1 read)

work	filed	read
Gilbert, On Social Facts (1989)	LIT-492	Deferred
Tuomela & Miller, “We-Intentions” (1988)	LIT-476	Deferred
Searle, “Collective Intentions and Actions” (1990)	LIT-490	Deferred
Gilbert, “Walking Together” (1990)	LIT-477	Deferred
Bratman, “Shared Cooperative Activity” (1992)	LIT-471	Deferred
Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (1995)	LIT-485	Deferred
Searle, “Social ontology: Some basic principles” (2006)	LIT-482	in full
Bratman, Shared Agency (2014)	LIT-488	Deferred; the author’s précis read

This is the thinnest part of the batch. Searle’s 2006 paper is his own restatement of the 1995 theory, and Bratman’s précis states his reductive view and sets it against “Margaret Gilbert and John Searle”, so two of the three positions are on record in their authors’ words. Gilbert’s and Tuomela’s are known only second-hand. A copy of “Walking Together” exists behind a bot check and a Wayback snapshot the proxy could not reach; it is the cheapest of these to turn into a reading.

Conventions and institutions (7, 3 read)

work	filed	read
Lewis, Convention (1969)	LIT-473	Deferred
North, “Institutions” (1991)	LIT-489	in full
Bicchieri, The Grammar of Society (2005)	LIT-493	Deferred
Hindriks & Guala, “Institutions, rules, and equilibria” (2014/2015)	LIT-481	in full, with the reply
Epstein, The Ant Trap (2015)	LIT-478	Deferred; introduction and précis read
Guala, Understanding Institutions (2016)	LIT-472	Deferred; chapter 1 read
Epstein, “Social Ontology”, SEP (2018, rev. 2024)	LIT-487	in full

Hindriks & Guala is the hinge of the batch. It reduces Searle’s constitutive rules to Lewis-style regulative rules in correlated equilibrium plus a coined term, which is the cleanest statement the record now has of how the intentionalist and equilibrium traditions relate.

Construction, social kinds and groups (9, 4 read)

work	filed	read
Durkheim, “Qu’est-ce qu’un fait social ?” (1894/1895)	LIT-484	in full, in French
Berger & Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (1966)	LIT-474	Deferred
Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (1999)	LIT-475	Deferred
Haslanger, “Gender and Race” (2000)	LIT-480	in full
Thomasson, “Foundations for a Social Ontology” (2003)	LIT-470	Deferred
Ritchie, “What are groups?” (2012/2013)	LIT-479	in full
Tollefsen, Groups as Agents (2015)	LIT-483	Deferred
Ásta, Categories We Live By (2018)	LIT-491	Deferred
Ritchie, “Social structures and the ontology of social groups” (2018/2020)	LIT-486	in full

Durkheim’s chapter first appeared in the Revue philosophique in 1894, not with the 1895 book, and the text changed between them.

What it did to the record

THEORY-043 v3 takes a scoping note from Ritchie and Epstein: groups with the same members can be distinct, only organised groups are concrete wholes, and a group’s facts may depend on non-members. So any criterion for group minds has to say which group it is applied to. None of these readings discusses group experience, so the account itself does not move.

The filing agent for Haslanger and Ásta noted that nothing in the vocabulary names gender, race or feminist philosophy, and proposed feminist-philosophy. Two works do not make a topic. It is left for a filing that brings more.

For the next person

The three agents cited one another’s temporary codes, so the batches could not be committed independently; the first two turned out to be closed under citation and went in together. The lint caught five inactive-ok-file lines vouching for codes their files only named in places the lint does not count as citing; those lines were removed. Agents writing directives without running the lint will keep doing this, which is what the rule against writing them from memory is for.

---

Moral psychology and morality-as-cooperation

2026-10-02 05:04:31 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record covered morality-as-cooperation (MAC). It held the theory’s 60-society test (LIT-047, Proposed) read with its commentaries, Fitouchi, André & Baumard’s reply to the purity objection (LIT-101) unconnected to it, and Tomasello on obligation (LIT-125). It held none of the programme’s other papers, none of its rivals and none of the evolutionary sources its lineage names. moral-psychology was added first (ADR-018); three agents then filed 21 works, 17 read in full, and game-theory (ADR-019) was added when two of them independently proposed it.

The programme (5, all read)

work	filed	status
Curry, “Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centred Approach” (2016)	LIT-503	Watching
Curry, Jones Chesters & Van Lissa, “Mapping morality with a compass” (2019)	LIT-496	Watching
Curry, Alfano, Brandt & Pelican, “Moral Molecules” (2021/2022)	LIT-509	Watching
Alfano, Cheong & Curry, “Moral universals” (2024)	LIT-512	Watching
Yilmaz, Harma & Doğruyol, MAC-Q in Turkey (2021)	LIT-513	Active

LIT-047 stays Proposed. None of the five runs the test NOTE-034 asks for, and Curry 2016 shows the test is the theory’s own: it predicts that behaviour unrelated to cooperation will be “morally neutral”. The questionnaire has no non-cooperative items; the 256-society study cannot see valence and found admired theft in four more societies. The Turkish validation is independent of the authors and replicates the factor structure, with a single higher-order factor fitting too.

The rivals (7, 6 read)

work	filed	read
Haidt, “The emotional dog and its rational tail” (2001)	LIT-511	in full
Haidt & Joseph, “Intuitive ethics” (2004)	LIT-502	in full
Rai & Fiske, “Moral psychology is relationship regulation” (2011)	LIT-507	in full
Graham et al., “Moral Foundations Theory” (2013)	LIT-499	in full
Baumard, André & Sperber, “A mutualistic approach to morality” (2013)	LIT-508	in full, with 28 commentaries
Schein & Gray, “The Theory of Dyadic Morality” (2018)	LIT-494	Deferred
Atari et al., “Morality beyond the WEIRD” (MFQ-2, 2023)	LIT-500	in full

MAC’s claim to be broader than Moral Foundations Theory (NOTE-034, C7) does not survive the MFT texts: MFT grounds Care in kin selection and Fairness in reciprocity and names ownership; only bravery is missing, and MAC in turn leaves out Sanctity. The narrower charge stands: no MFQ item asks about returning a favour. Purity is where the theories really part, and there are now three cooperative accounts of it on record (LIT-101, Rai & Fiske’s Unity, Baumard et al.’s Response), none worked out inside MAC’s seven domains.

The evolutionary sources (9, 6 read)

work	filed	read
Hamilton, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour” I and II (1964)	LIT-497, LIT-506	in full
Trivers, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism” (1971)	LIT-510	in full
Maynard Smith & Price, “The Logic of Animal Conflict” (1973)	LIT-505	in full
Axelrod & Hamilton, “The Evolution of Cooperation” (1981)	LIT-498	in full
Nowak, “Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation” (2006)	LIT-501	main text
Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems (1987)	LIT-495	Deferred
Boehm, Moral Origins (2012)	LIT-514	Deferred
Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Morality (2016)	LIT-504	Deferred

Read in full, the sources ground kin and reciprocity firmly and little else: Nowak’s rules are all donation games. MAC and NOTE-034 credit hawk–dove contests to Maynard Smith & Price, but the 1973 paper has no Hawk–Dove game; NOTE-034 v3 says so, and the display and deference domains are left without a source.

For the next person

This time the agents were told to write inactive-ok-file lines only for codes cited in visible prose, and the lint found no stale directive in any of the three batches, against five in the social-ontology batch. Tomasello’s own précis of the 2016 book (Philosophical Psychology, 2018) is open and is the cheapest next reading; The Biology of Moral Systems and Schein & Gray remain the batch’s most-cited unread works.

---

Dissipative structures

2026-10-02 18:05:13 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record covered dissipative structures. It held nothing filed on the subject: the term appeared only inside Nahas & Sachs’s paper on naturalizing teleology (LIT-192), as the demarcation dispute, and as one cluster of definitions in “What Lives?” (LIT-211). Prigogine was absent. Three agents filed 23 works, 14 read in full and one skimmed, and all three independently proposed the word the vocabulary lacked, so thermodynamics was added (ADR-020).

Prigogine’s programme and the canonical systems (7)

work	filed	read
Turing, “The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis” (1952)	LIT-535	in full
Glansdorff & Prigogine, Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations (1971)	LIT-537	Deferred
Nicolis & Prigogine, Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems (1977)	LIT-524	Deferred
Prigogine, “Time, Structure and Fluctuations”, Nobel lecture (1977)	LIT-516	in full
Prigogine & Stengers, Order out of Chaos (1984)	LIT-534	Deferred
Cross & Hohenberg, “Pattern formation outside of equilibrium” (1993)	LIT-527	skimmed
Zhabotinsky, “Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction”, Scholarpedia (2007)	LIT-531	in full

The lecture is explicit that the minimum-entropy-production theorem holds only in the strictly linear regime near equilibrium, and that far from it behaviour can be “even opposite”: Bénard convection raises entropy production. Cross & Hohenberg quote Glansdorff & Prigogine conceding that “the search for a universal kinetic potential has proved to be unsuccessful”, and correct the lecture’s history: Bénard’s own hexagons were driven by surface tension, not buoyancy.

Critics, maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorems (8)

work	filed	read
Landauer, “Inadequacy of entropy and entropy derivatives…” (1975)	LIT-532	Deferred
Jarzynski, “Nonequilibrium Equality for Free Energy Differences” (1997)	LIT-517	in full
Crooks, “Entropy production fluctuation theorem…” (1999)	LIT-522	in full
Dewar, “Information theory explanation of the fluctuation theorem, MEP and SOC” (2003)	LIT-521	in full
Martyushev & Seleznev, “Maximum entropy production principle…” (2006)	LIT-520	Deferred
Grinstein & Linsker, comments on Dewar (2007)	LIT-525	in full
Kleidon, “Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system” (2009)	LIT-519	in full
Seifert, “Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines” (2012)	LIT-523	in full, some sections skimmed

Maximum entropy production is contested as these texts show it: Kleidon, its advocate, writes that “no one would argue that MEP is well established”, and Grinstein & Linsker show Dewar’s derivation holds only in the linear regime. THEORY-026 does not rest on Jarzynski or Crooks; Still et al. cite them only as background, and take their setup from Crooks 1998, which the record does not hold. Jarzynski’s dissipated work and Still et al.’s are different quantities, and both notes say so.

Life as dissipation (8)

work	filed	read
Schrödinger, What Is Life? (1944)	LIT-530	Deferred
Schneider & Kay, “Life as a manifestation of the second law” (1994)	LIT-533	in full
Morowitz & Smith, “Energy flow and the organization of life” (2007)	LIT-528	in full
Deacon, Incomplete Nature (2011)	LIT-529	Deferred
England, “Statistical physics of self-replication” (2013)	LIT-515	in full
Friston, “Life as we know it” (2013)	LIT-526	in full
Moreno & Mossio, Biological Autonomy (2015)	LIT-536	Deferred
Perunov, Marsland & England, “Statistical Physics of Adaptation” (2016)	LIT-518	in full

What it did to the record

LIT-192’s demarcation question is still open. The canonical dissipative structures are the counter-examples any definition of life must exclude, and none of the readable texts excludes them on principle. Friston alone names the candle flame, in one sentence. The two accounts that claim a real line, Deacon’s teleodynamics and Moreno & Mossio’s closure, are unread. NOTE-094 v3 says so.

Perunov, Marsland & England and THEORY-026 use “adaptation” in opposite senses (dissipating more against dissipating less), and the record should keep them apart. Friston’s free energy is variational, so he is not a second source for THEORY-026, nor for the equivalence Seth (LIT-135) assumes.

For the next person

Moreno & Mossio’s Biological Autonomy has an authors’ CC BY-NC deposit in HAL (hal-01151449) behind a bot challenge aimed at scrapers; a person can open it lawfully, and it is the cheapest way to answer the demarcation question. Crooks 1998 (J. Stat. Phys. 90:1481) is the paper THEORY-026’s source is actually built on, and is not yet in the record.

---

Psychopathology, emotion and psychotherapy

2026-10-03 04:22:30 · curation · record

The owner asked for fifteen works on mental disorder, psychotherapy and emotion to be filed. The owner was open to replacing long works with shorter ones that serve the same role. The record held none of the fifteen and had no topic for most of them, so psychopathology-and-treatment was added (ADR-021). Three agents filed eighteen notes. Seven of the requested works were read in full, three were replaced by shorter readable works by the same authors, and eight works are Deferred seeds.

Models of disorder and of how treatment works

work	filed	read
Engel, “The Need for a New Medical Model” (1977)	LIT-548	Deferred, abstract only
Kendler, “Toward a Philosophical Structure for Psychiatry” (2005)	LIT-552	Deferred
Kendler, “Explanatory Models for Psychiatric Illness” (2008), standing in for 2005	LIT-539	in full
Borsboom, “A Network Theory of Mental Disorders” (2017)	LIT-547	in full
Hofmann & Hayes, “The Future of Intervention Science: Process-Based Therapy” (2019)	LIT-544	in full
Salkovskis, Sighvatsson & Sigurdsson, “How Effective Psychological Treatments Work” (2024)	LIT-538	in full

Salkovskis et al. is a journal article in Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy’s fiftieth-anniversary issue, not a book. Hofmann, not Hayes, is the first author of the process-based therapy paper.

Emotion

work	filed	read
Gross, “The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation” (1998)	LIT-554	in full
Barrett, “The Theory of Constructed Emotion” (2017)	LIT-542	in full
Frijda, The Emotions (1986)	LIT-546	Deferred
Frijda, Ridderinkhof & Rietveld, “Impulsive action” (2014), standing in for the book	LIT-540	in full
Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation (1991)	LIT-550	Deferred, no substitute

The record had no copy of either book, and none of the shorter candidates could be read either. For Frijda the agent found his own late, open-access statement of action readiness and control precedence. It is narrower than the book: it has nothing on experience or on the laws of emotion. For Lazarus nothing could stand in. His 1991 American Psychologist paper is the right substitute, and someone with library access could read it.

Barrett names Lazarus as her example of the causal appraisal theory she rejects. Frijda’s 2014 paper says regulation is not a process separate from emotion, which takes a side on the open problem Gross set aside. The rivalry is held as rivals, a relation added for it (ADR-022): Barrett against Lazarus, and Barrett against Frijda.

Contextual behavioural science

work	filed	read
Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche (eds.), Relational Frame Theory (2001)	LIT-549	Deferred
Barnes-Holmes et al., “Relational Frame Theory: some implications…” (2004), standing in for the book	LIT-541	in full
Hayes et al., “Experiential Avoidance and Behavioral Disorders” (1996)	LIT-551	Deferred, abstract only
Hayes et al., “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, Processes and Outcomes” (2006)	LIT-555	in full, from an early manuscript
Kashdan & Rottenberg, “Psychological Flexibility as a Fundamental Aspect of Health” (2010)	LIT-553	in full
Macri & Rogge, domains of flexibility as ACT mechanisms (2024)	LIT-543	Deferred, abstract only
Bandura, “Self-Efficacy” (1977)	LIT-545	Deferred, metadata only

The ACT paper was read from Georgia State’s repository copy of an early manuscript. It still has placeholder citations, and its meta-analytic numbers differ from the published version: 21 studies where Kashdan & Rottenberg report 32. Its note records the model and the argument, and flags the numbers.

Unpaywall and OpenAlex list Bandura 1977 as open access, but the location they point to is a 2020 thalassemia article that carries Bandura’s DOI by mistake.

What the batch says together

Two independent lines say that a treatment working is not evidence for its theory of change: Beckian CBT (Salkovskis et al., LIT-538) and contextual behavioural science (Hofmann & Hayes, LIT-544). Only specific, ordered mediation is evidence, and moving the theorised process without moving the outcome disconfirms the theory. Three lines, none citing the others, put self-reinforcing maintenance loops where a latent cause would be: Borsboom’s among symptoms (LIT-547), Salkovskis et al.’s between threat appraisals and safety-seeking, and Kendler’s across levels (LIT-539). Salkovskis et al. call their common mechanism “psychological flexibility”, but cite none of the ACT literature that uses the term. Nothing is filed as a THEORY yet. The proposals are in the pull request.

For the next person

These are the cheapest openings for a human with library access:

• Lazarus 1991, American Psychologist 46(8):819–834. It would make appraisal theory readable in the record.
• Macri & Rogge 2024, Clinical Psychology Review 110:102432. It is the test of whether ACT’s processes change before outcomes do.
• Engel 1977, Science 196:129–136. It is the canonical biopsychosocial citation.

---

Theories from the psychopathology batch, and self-determination theory

2026-10-03 05:29:54 · curation · record

The owner asked for theories to be filed from the psychopathology, emotion and psychotherapy batch (ADR-021). The owner especially wanted ones that support or engage the record’s philosophy-of-mind holdings, and asked explicitly for an account of ACT’s theory of the self. Midway the owner asked how the record covered self-determination theory, and then asked for it to be filed in the same contribution. The record held none, so motivation was added (ADR-023).

Fifteen theories

One is Active. THEORY-053 holds that a treatment’s efficacy is not evidence for its theory of change. It is close to a logical point, and both wings of CBT state it while disagreeing about mechanism. The other fourteen are Proposed, each with what would settle it.

Emotion and affect.

• THEORY-045: felt affect is the body’s regulatory state. Barrett (LIT-542) and Damasio & Carvalho (LIT-388) agree on that much. They disagree on whether what is felt is a prediction or a map, and on where it is generated. The theory records the disagreement instead of choosing. On the question of AI consciousness (THEORY-023), it shows where the open question lies for affect.
• THEORY-057 (emotion categories are perceiver-constructed populations) and THEORY-055 (appraisal elicits action readiness) are declared rivals.
• THEORY-056: regulation is not a process separate from generation. The two rival theories of emotion agree on it, and Deci & Ryan argue against it.

Psychopathology.

• THEORY-048: biology implements psychological function and does not replace it. It is tied to Pernu on mental causation and to the record’s emergence holdings.
• THEORY-058: disorders persist through self-reinforcing loops. Three traditions say this without citing one another.
• THEORY-050: psychological inflexibility is transdiagnostic.

The self.

• THEORY-044 gives RFT’s three selves. Self-as-content is the narrative self. Self-as-context is what Hume could not find and what Metzinger calls the transparent perspective. The open seam is Gallagher’s minimal self: if self-as-context were that, RFT’s claim that it is learned would contradict the neonatal evidence.
• THEORY-051: strengthening self-as-context is how ACT helps. It extends THEORY-050. Nothing in the record tests this directly.

Motivation.

• THEORY-054: autonomy is graded integration, not order. It agrees with THEORY-029’s negative claim but does not escape Velleman.
• THEORY-047: a regulation’s history of acquisition fixes how autonomous it is. This is a historical condition with experimental support, beside THEORY-040.
• THEORY-049: whether a reward undermines intrinsic motivation depends on whether it is experienced as controlling or as information about competence.
• THEORY-046: expected engagement-contingent rewards lower free choice.
• THEORY-052: need frustration is transdiagnostic. It can hold alongside THEORY-050.

Self-determination theory

work	filed	read
Ryan & Deci, American Psychologist (2000)	LIT-559	in full
Deci & Ryan, “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits” (2000)	LIT-558	in full, target article only
Ryan & Deci, “Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy” (2006)	LIT-560	in full
Deci, Koestner & Ryan, rewards meta-analysis (1999)	LIT-557	in full, OCR of the authors’ scan
Vansteenkiste, Ryan & Soenens, basic psychological need theory (2020)	LIT-561	in full
Cameron & Pierce (1994)	LIT-556	Deferred
Cameron, Banko & Pierce (2001)	LIT-562	Deferred, abstract only

The authors post most SDT papers on their own site, which serves as the lawful deposit.

Ryan & Deci 2006 barely engages Frankfurt. It cites him twice, in one paragraph, and takes its detail from Dworkin. The connection to the record’s philosophy of autonomy is therefore made by the record, in NOTE-264, NOTE-266, NOTE-267, THEORY-029 and THEORY-040. The papers do not make it themselves.

The behaviourist side of the reward dispute is unread. Cameron, Banko & Pierce’s 2001 reply was read at first from a third-party host. PubMed Central and Europe PMC both answered with bot challenges, and the record’s precedent (LIT-545) refuses third-party copies. So the reading was set aside, the note deleted before merge, and the LIT made Deferred with only what the abstract says. A human can read the free PMC scan (PMC2731358) in a browser and restore it.

For the next person

These are the cheapest openings:

• The PMC scan of Cameron, Banko & Pierce 2001. It would let THEORY-049 carry its rival as a rivals theory.
• Macri & Rogge 2024. It tests ACT’s processes and bears on three of these theories.

---

Agency, self, control and self-governance

2026-10-03 06:56:43 · curation · record

The owner sent 44 readings on agency, control, the self and self-governance, with two distinctions to build into the vocabulary. Agent, individual, self and person should not be synonyms. Behavioural integration, phenomenal unity, narrative unity and normative self-governance should be represented separately. ADR-024 did both, and retagged the record before any reading was filed. Three readings were already held: Gallagher 2000 (LIT-453), Ryan & Deci 2000 (LIT-559), and Being No One (LIT-467, now read through its précis).

The owner asked for the work to be committed as it came in. Five agents filed in parallel, and each group was linted and committed on its own.

What was filed

The batch is 44 LITs and 28 NOTEs. Twenty-seven of the LITs are read. Seventeen are Deferred seeds: the books, and articles with no lawful copy. Most seeds have a shorter same-author reading beside them.

• Biological autonomy, enaction and the free-energy principle.
  • Barandiaran et al. separate individuality from agency, the owner’s agent and individual distinction argued from inside one theory.
  • Mossio et al. 2009 grant a candle flame closure and draw the line at organisational differentiation. That bears on NOTE-094’s demarcation question.
  • Two critiques of the Markov blanket now correct Friston’s “Life as we know it” (LIT-526): Bruineberg et al. on reification, Raja et al. on autopoiesis.
  • Kelso’s Dynamic Patterns is read through his 2021 retrospective on the HKB model.
  • Sophisticated Inference carries the anthology-candidate flag.
• Control and self-control.
  • Ainslie’s précis, as the owner suggested.
  • Schelling’s 1980 Public Interest essay, standing in for the 1984 lecture.
  • Daw et al., Dayan & Berridge, Shenhav et al., Botvinick et al.
  • Carver & Scheier, and Norman & Shallice, are Deferred.
• Evidence accumulation.
  • Usher & McClelland, Ratcliff & McKoon, Bogacz et al. and HDDM.
  • Schurger et al., whose readiness-potential reinterpretation sits beside Dennett & Kinsbourne’s treatment of Libet (LIT-431).
• Self, person and practical reason.
  • Metzinger’s précis.
  • McAdams 2019, standing in for McAdams & McLean, and declared rivals with Strawson’s “Against Narrativity”.
  • Bratman’s 2017 essay on self-governance over time, which rivals Ainslie’s bargaining account of willpower.
  • Korsgaard’s Tanner Lectures, and her 2014 “Normative Constitution of Agency”.
  • IFS, through Schwartz’s own account of the model.
  • Reasons and Persons was already seeded (LIT-469). Parfit 1971 (LIT-447) stays the record’s reading of it.
• Authenticity and self-governance.
  • Sheldon & Elliot, and Schlegel et al., are read.
  • Frankfurt’s “Identification and Wholeheartedness”, Bratman’s “Three Theories”, Taylor, Kernis & Goldman, and Wood et al. are Deferred, with no lawful copy found.

Copies to confirm

• McAdams 2019 was read from a JSTOR PDF on a Purdue course page, because the publisher site answered with a bot challenge. The article is published open access.
• Metzinger’s précis was read from the Internet Archive’s capture of the journal’s own file.

For the next person

• THEORY-029. Frankfurt’s “Identification and Wholeheartedness” is the essay its regress argument is really about. Its promote_when should name it, and a human with library access can read it.
• Unread copies. Wood et al. 2008 has a submitted manuscript at Manchester behind a JavaScript challenge. Korsgaard’s 1989 “Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency” sits behind a challenge at Harvard DASH. Both can be opened in a browser.
• Vocabulary gaps. The agents named several: well-being and meaning; animal learning and conditioning; philosophy of biology; enactive cognition; volition; and cognitive-modelling methods. None was added.
• Theory candidates. The agents proposed about a dozen. None is filed yet.

---

Model comparison and Fisher geometry

2026-10-03 13:15:58 · curation · record

The owner sent sixteen readings that run from evidence-based model comparison to the Fisher geometry of trained networks. They asked that any already held be checked and the rest filed here, in both records where the anthology held one.

The check against both records

Only one was held anywhere: Watanabe’s 2009 book, here, as a Deferred seed (LIT-354). The anthology holds later Shampoo and K-FAC derivatives and SAE work, but none of these papers. So nothing needed a second, ADR-013 entry.

The owner’s question here, which the anthology does not ask, is how one line of inquiry connects:

• Bayesian model comparison: evidence, Savage–Dickey, model reduction, singular learning theory;
• the spectra of the Fisher information in trained models, the object their thresholding acts on;
• the kernel and feature eigenstructure beside them.

The machine-learning works carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005).

The check also found that CLAUDE.md still said “nothing is filed in both”, eight days after ADR-013 narrowed that rule. The map was corrected in the same contribution. Two topics were added for the line (ADR-026): model-comparison and information-geometry.

What was filed

Eighteen LITs and seventeen NOTEs. All are read except Dickey 1971, which Project Euclid serves only behind a bot challenge.

• Model comparison:
  • Wagenmakers et al. on Savage–Dickey;
  • Friston & Penny on post hoc model selection;
  • Bayesian model reduction. It has three authors, Friston, Parr and Zeidman, not “et al.”;
  • Smith et al. on structure learning, which adds and removes levels of a factor rather than whole factors;
  • MacKay’s evidence framework;
  • Watanabe’s WBIC paper, read in place of the book, which now names it.
• Fisher geometry and spectra:
  • Amari’s natural gradient, from the author’s RIKEN deposit;
  • K-FAC and Shampoo;
  • Papyan’s three spectra papers. Both 1811.07062 and 1901.08244 were filed, because both carry the class structure;
  • neural collapse.
• Kernel spectra and features:
  • Bietti & Bach, which is “Deep Equals Shallow”, not Bietti & Mairal;
  • Cao et al.;
  • Basri et al.;
  • Gemma Scope.

What the readings say together

The filing agents found the links that make this one line, and each marked them as its own reading where the papers do not draw them:

• Savage–Dickey is the point-mass case of Bayesian model reduction.
• The Occam factor is a volume ratio, set by curvature in regular models and by the real log canonical threshold (RLCT) in singular ones.
• Amari’s efficiency result needs an invertible Fisher, the same regularity WBIC’s account drops.
• Papyan finds the Fisher’s top outliers in class-mean directions, and K-FAC’s single Kronecker factor misplaces them.
• The NTK Gram matrix and the Gauss–Newton Fisher share their non-zero spectrum. So the harmonic-degree blocks of the kernel papers should appear as Fisher plateaus, and a spectral threshold is well posed only between blocks.

For the next person

• Dickey 1971. A human with a browser can open it at Project Euclid and promote the entry.
• Supervised structure learning. Friston et al. (arXiv 2311.10300) is the broader paper on adding and removing whole factors. It was named and not filed.

---

Neural dynamics, animal consciousness and Orch OR biophysics

2026-10-03 15:15:00 · curation · record

The owner sent eight readings: four on large-scale neural dynamics and the neural correlates of seeing, and four on theories of consciousness and the biophysics that Orch OR leans on. None was held in either record, so nothing needed an ADR-013 second entry, and none carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

What was filed

Eight LITs and six NOTEs. Six works were read in full from lawful copies: publisher open access, PMC, arXiv, or a co-author’s own deposit.

• Neural dynamics:
  • Verzhbinsky et al. 2026 on co-ripple co-firing (LIT-633);
  • Xu et al. 2023 on interacting cortical spirals (LIT-638). It rivals the discrete-substate account of Vohryzek et al. (LIT-080). Neither tests the other, and the two may yet prove to be two levels of description of the same dynamics;
  • Vishne et al. 2023 on sustained conscious visual perception (LIT-644).
• Consciousness and biophysics:
  • Babcock et al. 2024 on tryptophan superradiance (LIT-645). The paper never mentions consciousness, and the record does not read it as evidence for Orch OR;
  • Maldarelli & Güntürkün 2025, “Conscious birds” (LIT-650);
  • Newen & Montemayor 2025, the ALARM theory (LIT-626). It rivals Veit (LIT-105) on what consciousness was first for.
• Deferred, because no lawful full text exists:
  • Muller et al. 2026, the traveling-waves review (LIT-647). Its accepted manuscript opens in September 2027;
  • Derakhshani et al. 2022 on spontaneous radiation and Orch OR (LIT-627). It is closed access.

Theories

Seven, all Proposed. Each rests on one paper.

• THEORY-088: slow cortical activity organised by interacting spiral defects, as in a pattern-forming medium. The title does not say “excitable”: the paper’s model is an oscillator lattice, and the evidence does not decide between the two kinds of medium.
• THEORY-097: long-range forebrain coordination carried by co-ripples.
• THEORY-102: a stable ventral population code while amplitude decays, with prefrontal content arriving at onset only.
• THEORY-090: basic affective consciousness is subcortical and serves as an alarm. It extends THEORY-045.
• THEORY-101: Veit’s valence-as-currency account, filed so that the ALARM rivalry has a counterpart. The two rivals each other.
• THEORY-100: conscious report does not need laminar cortex (corvid NCL).
• THEORY-099: collective superradiant states in microtubule tryptophan networks. It says explicitly that this is not evidence for Orch OR.

One candidate was declined: “Orch OR in its simplest gravity-collapse form is excluded by spontaneous-radiation bounds”. Its only source is the Deferred Derakhshani paper. The record holds no reading of the underground collapse test (Donadi et al. 2020), and Gao (LIT-121) argues against Penrose’s collapse on theoretical grounds, not with radiation bounds.

Gaps noticed

• Vocabulary. There is no word for biophysics or quantum biology: natural-sciences holds Babcock et al. for now. There is also no word for comparative or animal cognition. Either is worth a decision if more such works arrive.
• Unread primary sources. The crow neurophysiology (Nieder et al. 2020; Wagener & Nieder 2024) is held only second-hand, and THEORY-100 would be promoted by reading it.

---

Ned Block, the global workspace, and homeostatic feeling

2026-10-03 16:00:00 · curation · record

The owner asked to improve the record’s coverage of Ned Block, which held only “Troubles with Functionalism” (LIT-407). Notes already cited “Block 1995”, “Block 1987”, “Block 2009” and “Block 2023” with nothing to point to. The anthology holds no Block, so nothing needed an ADR-013 second entry. One work, “Psychologism and Behaviorism”, carries anthology-candidate: the anthology’s evaluation topic could hold what it says a behavioural test cannot establish.

Block’s own site (nedblock.us) links his author copies of every work filed. Each was read in full from those copies, except The Border Between Seeing and Thinking, which was read through its PPR précis and seeded Deferred.

Two groups

• Consciousness. Seven papers, 1995 to 2019. They make one argument: access and phenomenal consciousness are distinct, phenomenology overflows access, and the neural basis is sensory rather than prefrontal. The 2007 paper rivals Dennett (LIT-431, LIT-433).
• Functionalism, meaning and perception. Block & Fodor 1972, Blockhead, two-factor conceptual role semantics, “Inverted Earth”, “Mental Paint”, the mind as software, and the précis on the border between seeing and thinking.

The global workspace, filed beside Block

The owner then added two readings:

• Mashour et al. 2020. The record had no global-workspace source until now. The review rivals Block’s overflow paper and his no-report paper, and it rivals IIT.
• Damasio & Damasio 2022. It rivals both IIT and the workspace.

The Damasio essay’s publisher page answers automated requests with a challenge. It was reached only through a fetch tool that summarises pages, so its NOTE is Skimmed rather than Read, and its quotes are unchecked. Damasio & Damasio 2023 (LIT-387) is still Deferred for the same reason. Its abstract matches the 2022 essay’s opening nearly sentence for sentence.

Theories

Four theories come from Block’s consciousness papers:

• overflow;
• a sensory, not prefrontal, basis;
• the limits of no-report designs;
• the confounded inference from a deficit to a function.

THEORY-023 takes Block 2002 and Block 2009 as sources.

Candidates not yet filed:

• psychologism;
• the failure of long-arm accounts of experience;
• two-factor content;
• global availability by ignition;
• consciousness supplied by homeostatic feeling.

Gaps noticed

• LIT-419 is Lycan’s paper. “Psychologism and Behaviorism” n. 30 gives Block’s first-hand report of its argument.
• Vocabulary. There is no computation word and no perception word. Both were felt in this batch, but neither was forced.

---

Mode connectivity, loss landscapes and model merging

2026-10-03 20:00:00 · curation · record

The owner sent 33 readings. Most are on mode connectivity and model merging; the rest are on statistical-mechanics and random-matrix accounts of generalization, and on where in a network generalization is carried.

Nucleation held none of them. The anthology holds two, Git Re-Basin (ANTH-LIT-333) and Entezari et al. (ANTH-LIT-251), which are filed here as ADR-013 second readings. This record’s question is how the solutions training finds are arranged in weight space, and what that arrangement says about what a trained network is. Every work carries anthology-candidate.

No topic covered that question, so loss-landscapes was added (ADR-027).

What was filed

33 LITs and 33 NOTEs, every one read from a lawful copy: 31 from arXiv, one from PMLR, and one from the NeurIPS Bayesian Deep Learning workshop site. Three LITs are Proposed rather than Active, because the reading found them too thin to stand on:

• Yao et al. on generative and contrastive models: one pair of modes per model, and inconsistent numbers;
• Li et al. on GNNs: no proofs, and an unfilled placeholder in the text;
• Zhang & Blei on the ELBO: no results.

The groups were:

• Foundations (8): Garipov, Draxler, Frankle, Kuditipudi, Entezari, Git Re-Basin, Ferbach, Benton.
• Extensions (9): mechanistic connectivity, layerwise feature connectivity, geodesic and star-shaped connectivity, the symmetry account, star domains, transformers, mixtures of experts, and adversarial robustness.
• Merging and other settings (9): weight-space regions of fine-tuned models, ZipIt!, TIES-Merging, continual and class-incremental learning, generative models, GNNs, federated learning, and the ELBO.
• Landscape theory and generalization (7): Yang et al.’s taxonomy, Martin & Mahoney, Liao et al. and Dereziński et al. on double descent, and three papers on where in depth generalization is carried.

Findings for the anthology, reported not edited

• ANTH-LIT-251 / NOTE-131 (Entezari) state a “no dead neurons” condition. The paper’s only theorem (3.1) has no such condition. It is for one-hidden-layer networks at random initialization, and it bounds the output difference, not a loss barrier. The paper’s own permutation search did not lower barriers for VGG or ResNet.
• ANTH-LIT-333 / NOTE-116 (Git Re-Basin) describe weight matching as greedy, layer by layer. The paper uses coordinate descent over all layers, and its Appendix A.7 argues against greedy single-pass matching. It also has a merge-many algorithm. The quoted figures (“within 1–2%”, “2–5×”, “H > 10,000”) were not found in the text.
• ANTH-THEORY-010 (most of the barrier is permutation). Its promote_when asks for a transformer demonstration. Theus et al. give one. Permutation alignment alone removes 63–90% of the transformer barrier, which supports the theory, but reaching zero needs an orthogonal map on the residual stream, which is not a permutation. Lubana et al. bound the theory with barriers that reflect real differences in mechanism.
• ANTH-SOTA-217 (align permutations before averaging). ZipIt! narrows it to models trained on the same task.
• ANTH-SOTA-012 (sharpness correlates with test error). Yang et al. give counterexamples.
• The anthology holds no task-arithmetic paper. TIES-Merging’s main baseline is therefore absent from both records.

Gaps noticed

• Vocabulary. There is no word for statistical mechanics of learning, random-matrix theory, ensembling, pruning, or adversarial robustness. TIES-Merging argues about parameter updates, not connectivity. A second work like it would meet ADR-027’s condition for a separate model-merging word.
• Unfilled works the readings lean on:
  • Martin & Mahoney’s heavy-tailed self-regularization (1810.01075), which Papyan (LIT-617) names;
  • Fort & Jastrzębski on “tunnels”;
  • Juneja et al. 2023;
  • Annesi et al. 2023;
  • Seung, Sompolinsky & Tishby 1992;
  • task arithmetic.

---

Susan Wolf’s Reason View and Fischer & Ravizza’s guidance control

2026-10-03 21:35:00 · curation · record

The owner asked for Susan Wolf’s reasons-based account of responsibility, the Reason View. Neither record held any of her free-will work. This record named her only for meaning in life (LIT-183, LIT-186).

Three works are filed, all Deferred:

• “Asymmetrical Freedom” (1980, LIT-688);
• “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” (1987/88, LIT-690);
• Freedom Within Reason (1990, LIT-685).

None has a lawful open copy:

• Unpaywall lists all three as closed.
• JSTOR, PDCnet and Cambridge Core are paywalled, and PhilPapers served a bot challenge.
• Re-posts on unrelated personal sites, Scribd and Course Hero were left unopened.

Each LIT states what the reports say: the SEP’s Compatibilism §4.3 (LIT-291), Holton’s MIT lecture handout, and the book’s Crossref chapter openings. Each claim is labelled as second-hand.

The book is filed as well as the papers for three reasons: NOTE-270’s “Wolf 1990, p. 29” otherwise dangles, the Autonomy, Real Self and Reason View frame is the book’s own, and its chapter 5 defence of ability is in neither paper.

No relation to Frankfurt (LIT-575) is declared yet. “Sanity” is reported to target Frankfurt 1971, Watson and Taylor, none of which the record holds, and both entries are unread. The LIT says to declare rivals against LIT-575 if a reading shows Wolf’s objection reaches wholeheartedness.

Fischer & Ravizza, and the theories (owner’s follow-up)

The owner then asked for Fischer & Ravizza’s reasons-responsiveness, which is what the phrase usually names. The owner also asked for theories for both, built from what could be found.

• Fischer, “Responsiveness and Moral Responsibility” (1987/88, LIT-687), and Responsibility and Control (1998, LIT-684). Both are closed, so both are Deferred.
• The précis was not filed separately.
• Copies not opened: copies of the chapter and the précis in collections kept by other people. Neither collection says it posts them with permission.
• Fischer’s “Stories and the Meaning of Life” (2009, LIT-689). It is open in SUNY’s repository and was read in full. Its §I is Fischer’s own statement of the framework.
• The SEP Moral Responsibility entry (LIT-691) was read in full. It is the record’s only read source for JoJo and for guidance control.

Three Proposed theories rest on these and on LIT-291. Each says in its body that the primary texts are unread, and none quotes them:

• the Reason View (THEORY-122);
• the asymmetry (THEORY-118), which extends the Reason View;
• guidance control and semicompatibilism (THEORY-121).

The asymmetry and guidance control are rivals on blame. A Frankfurt-style wrongdoer is blameworthy on Fischer & Ravizza’s account and excused on Wolf’s. The Reason View and guidance control are not rivals: the SEP lists Wolf among the reasons-responsiveness views.

What would unblock it

A PDF of “Asymmetrical Freedom” (JSTOR, 16 pp.) or of “Sanity” (Schoeman ch. 3, or the reprint in Watson’s Free Will). Either would allow a read NOTE and promote the Wolf theories. For Fischer & Ravizza, the PPR précis or the book would do the same.

---

Frankfurt, filed first-hand

2026-10-04 00:05:00 · curation · record

The owner asked how thoroughly the record covers Harry Frankfurt, and whether a theory states his view of endorsement. Coverage was thin. The record had read only the 2004 Tanner Lectures (LIT-293). “Identification and Wholeheartedness” (LIT-575) was Deferred. The 1969 and 1971 papers were not held. Three theories argued against the endorsement view (THEORY-029, THEORY-040, THEORY-054), but no theory stated the view itself.

What was filed

• Read first-hand:

  • “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” (1969, LIT-694);
  • “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person” (1971, LIT-692).

  Both come from instructors’ course pages on university domains (LSE PH103; CUNY’s “Personhood in Philosophy and Law”). Each is a JSTOR scan, read through OCR. The 1969 OCR was checked against Cambridge’s publisher preview of the 1988 reprint.

• Deferred, with no lawful copy:

  • “The Importance of What We Care About” (1982);
  • “The Faintest Passion” (1992);
  • the 1988 collection.

  LIT-575 is still Deferred.

Theories

Two theories, Proposed:

• THEORY-120, the hierarchical account. A desire is the agent’s own when a second-order volition, or later wholeheartedness, identifies with it. It rivals all of these:
  • THEORY-029 (the regress);
  • THEORY-054 (graded integration);
  • Wolf’s Reason View (THEORY-122), on JoJo;
  • Fischer & Ravizza (THEORY-121), on the designed addict.
• THEORY-119, the PAP is false. Fischer & Ravizza’s guidance control now extends it, and Wolf’s asymmetry rivals it on blame.

What the first-hand reading changed

• Decisive identification is already in 1971 (p. 16). This answers NOTE-270’s open question in favour of the IEP and Velleman, against the SEP supplement.
• Frankfurt accepted the manipulated agent in 1971 (n. 10), not first in 2002. This is first-hand support for THEORY-040.
• The original Frankfurt case is schematic. The voting and shooting cases are later retellings.

What would unblock the rest

“The Faintest Passion” settles whether the resigned addict counts as identifying, and THEORY-029’s promote_when names it. After it, “Identification and Wholeheartedness”: the 1988 collection, pp. 159–176.

---

Posani et al. 2026, a second reading

2026-10-04 04:00:00 · curation · record

The owner asked for Posani, Wang, Muscinelli, Paninski & Fusi (2026), “Rarely categorical, highly separable representations along the cortical hierarchy”, to be read and filed here. The anthology already holds it as ANTH-LIT-696, so this is an ADR-013 second reading (LIT-708, with a read NOTE).

The anthology reads the paper for what cortex implies about concept geometry in machine learning. This record re-reads it for a different question: do neurons within a cortical area form discrete functional types or a mixed-selectivity continuum, and what does that do to the separability of what the area represents? The paper is not read as evidence about abstraction, because it measures separability, not generalisation. No anthology-candidate flag is added, because the work is already held there.

One Proposed theory, THEORY-124: neurons within a single mouse cortical area rarely form discrete functional types, yet the task conditions the area distinguishes are linearly separable in nearly every way. Its scope is the IBL task and the paper’s categoricality test. The contrast with neural collapse (THEORY-083) is explained in prose. The two senses of “categorical” differ: here it means neuron types, and there it means the arrangement of conditions.

Found along the way

• Bare anthology note codes. Four documents filed in nucleation#83 (LIT-652, LIT-661, NOTE-532, NOTE-537) cited the anthology’s NOTE-131 and NOTE-116 as bare codes. Those resolved to this record’s own, unrelated notes, so they now read ANTH-NOTE-131 and ANTH-NOTE-116.
• Disagreements with ANTH-LIT-696, recorded in the NOTE rather than fixed across the boundary:
  • it conflates the two senses of “categorical”;
  • its published: date is the preprint’s month, not the day;
  • its key takeaway still says “every area”, where its own reading corrected this to 15 of 16.
• Not held in either record: the mixed-selectivity papers this one rests on (Rigotti et al. 2013, Fusi, Miller & Rigotti 2016, Bernardi et al. 2020).

---

Collective emotions and group agency

2026-10-04 09:00:00 · curation · record

The owner sent eleven readings on collective emotion, collective guilt and group agency. Nucleation held List & Pettit’s Group Agency (LIT-391, Deferred) and Huebner’s Macrocognition (LIT-426, Deferred), and none of the rest. The anthology held none of them.

Read in full

All five come from lawful author or repository copies:

• Huebner, “Genuinely collective emotions” (LIT-702). It rivals Gilbert, whom it argues against by name.
• List & Pettit 2006 and List 2014 (LIT-705, LIT-700). Both are read as substitutes for Group Agency. LIT-391 stays Deferred at v2, because nothing read covers its Parts II–III.
• von Scheve & Ismer 2013 (LIT-696).
• Barsade (LIT-706). This is the 2001 manuscript in Penn’s repository, not the published 2002 article, so every number is the manuscript’s.

Deferred, with no lawful copy reached

• Gilbert 2002;
• Schmid 2014;
• Wimsatt 1997;
• Isaacs 2011, chapter 3 of Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts, which is the work meant by “Collective Guilt”;
• Sanchez-Burks & Huy 2009;
• Ashforth & Humphrey 1995;
• Frijda 1988, “The laws of emotion”, standing in for the 2007 book, which is not filed.

Theories

Four Proposed theories:

• Convergence (THEORY-126). It extends both contagion and THEORY-055.
• Genuinely collective emotion (THEORY-125). Huebner’s account is a possibility, not a demonstrated case.
• Contagion (THEORY-123).
• Judgment aggregation (THEORY-127).

Convergence and genuinely collective emotion are compatible, not rivals. They answer different questions: whether members converge, and whether the group bears a state of its own. In Huebner’s surviving case the members diverged. The proposed “three kinds of collective emotion” theory was declined, because List says one sentence about emotions.

Found along the way

• Stray tool-call markup. Nineteen files ended with leftover tool-call markup, </content> and </invoke>. Ten of them (LIT-418, 420, 423, 428, 429, 432, 437, 444 and 566, and NOTE-339, 348 and 444) were already on main. In LIT-696 the residue included an unexecuted command block. All nineteen are cleaned.
• Barsade’s unawareness claim was overstated. Members did relate their pleasantness to others’ conduct (manuscript p. 37). What they showed no awareness of was their mood’s bearing on how effective they judged themselves. LIT-706 and NOTE-551 are corrected.

---

Corals as composite systems

2026-10-04 17:00:00 · curation · record

The owner sent four coral readings, each with a note on why it matters. The notes are the questions this record reads the papers for. Neither record held any of the four.

All four were read in full, from PMC copies or, for Hughes, the publisher’s PDF posted on a Bennington College course page. Hughes is in Elsevier’s open archive.

Papers 1 and 2 are reviews and are weighed as reviews. Papers 3 and 4 are experiments.

How each paper meets the owner’s note

• Goulet et al. 2020 (LIT-709). The brief named Stévenne et al.; the paper with this title is Goulet et al. It makes the conceptual case for the holobiont as a composite system. The physiological case is thin: its one “not the sum of its parts” result comes from a sea anemone, not a coral. “Establishes” is too strong.
• Boilard et al. 2020 (LIT-712). It is a proposed account of breakdown and reorganisation, as the owner says. Its use for the regulatory-disruption example is its account of who regulates whom. The authors themselves say microbial causation is untested.
• Kaniewska et al. 2015 (LIT-710).
  • The environmental cue is shown experimentally. The natural night-light pattern is necessary, not moonlight specifically.
  • The endogenous cascade is correlational.
  • No coordination between colonies is tested. The “coordination” is colonies responding to a shared cue.
• Hughes et al. 2007 (LIT-711). It supports the note, and more strongly than stated: even established colonies survived better where herbivores grazed. Its limits:
  • plot scale;
  • all large fishes excluded, not herbivores alone;
  • the phase shift reversed within 30 days.

Theories

Three Proposed theories:

• Bleaching (THEORY-130). Bleaching is the breakdown of a regulated host–symbiont exchange, reached by more than one route. The microbiome clause was declined as untested.
• Spawning (THEORY-129). The night-light regime is necessary for spawning, and a signalling programme tracks it. The cascade is held as a hypothesis.
• Reef recovery (THEORY-128). Recovery after bleaching depends on herbivorous fishes keeping macroalgae down.

No relation is declared, because none of the papers cites or tests anything the record holds. THEORY-072 sets the holobiont boundary aside, and THEORY-111’s “spawning” is the machine-learning term.

Vocabulary

ecology joins the topics (ADR-028). Chronobiology was considered and deferred: one paper is too few to name a topic.

---

Sources an essay on will cites

2026-10-05 06:28:29 · curation · record

The owner’s essay on organizational will (§§5–9) cites four bodies of work the record did not hold: Aubin on viability, Longino on social knowledge, Ostrom on polycentric governance, and “research on epistemic networks”. The owner asked for them to be filed. Neither record held any of them.

What was read and what was not

Each author’s main book is closed, so each was registered Deferred from Crossref, and a shorter lawful work by the same author was read in its place:

• Aubin. Viability Theory (1991) is behind Springer’s bot challenge, and the HAL copy of a later paper is behind one too. Neither was passed. His 1999 UC Davis mini-course notes are on arXiv. Their introduction and chapters 1–2 give the definitions first-hand: viable, invariant, the viability kernel and the capture basin.
• Longino. Her two books are closed. Her own SEP entry, which she wrote, states the argument and the four community norms.
• Ostrom. Governing the Commons is closed. The Nobel lecture, read in full from the Nobel Foundation’s PDF, gives the design principles in their updated form and defines polycentricity.
• Epistemic networks. The essay names no work, so the founding papers were filed: Zollman 2007 and 2010, his 2013 survey, all from his own site, and the robustness critique by Rosenstock, Bruner & O’Connor (2017), from O’Connor’s site. Longino’s entry pointed to the critique.

What the readings say about the essay

• Aubin. The notes define viability but never compare it with stability. Their “stability properties” are about limits of sets. The essay’s §6.1 contrast follows from the definitions, but it is the essay’s step. It also needs the essay to say what the constraint set is for an organization.
• Longino. Her norms concern how a community comes to know, not how it decides. The essay’s list of what makes criticism “consequential” maps onto her norms, and uptake is the one it most needs. Naming them would turn §8.2’s suggestion into a test.
• Ostrom. Her principles describe users governing a resource they share. A firm governing itself is a further step. Her own last lesson is “no panaceas”, so polycentricity is not good in itself.
• Epistemic networks. The essay’s sentence is as strong as the evidence allows, and no stronger. Sparse networks help only where inquiry is hard. Even there, Rosenstock et al. prefer an evidence standard to less communication. The robust result is Zollman’s transient diversity.

One correction to the record’s own summary of a source. Longino’s entry says Zollman “proves” the network result; the 2007 paper is a simulation study. The NOTE on the entry records it.

Theories

• THEORY-134, Active. Viability is relative to a constraint set fixed apart from the dynamics; the viability kernel is its largest viable part. The contrast with stability is marked as not the source’s.
• THEORY-151, Proposed. Longino’s account of objectivity through the four norms. Proposed because the books are unread and the norms’ benefit is argued, not shown.
• THEORY-149, Active. Users can govern commons durably, and lasting institutions share design principles, not rules. It says the principles are correlates, not causes, and are not shown for firms.
• THEORY-143, Proposed. The Zollman effect, stated with Rosenstock et al.’s scope: it holds only where evidence is scarce.
• THEORY-148, Proposed, extending the last. Transient diversity.

No new topic was needed. The networks papers take epistemology, network-science and philosophy-of-science. Ostrom takes society-and-governance, social-science and game-theory, and Aubin takes mathematics and complex-systems.

---

Supplements to the essay sources

2026-10-05 06:49:39 · curation · record

After the essay’s own sources were filed, the owner asked what else the record would need given the draft’s weaknesses. I recommended six works, and the owner said to file them. Each answers one gap:

• §5.3 has no criterion for an agentive explanation: List & Menzies.
• §§7–8 need corporate endorsement and corporate responsibility: Pettit.
• §6.1’s stability-versus-viability claim has an older source: Holling.
• §5.4’s lock-in needs a standard of evidence: Scheffer.
• §6 needs an empirical mechanism of precariousness: Rasmussen.
• §8.3 describes double-loop learning without naming it: Argyris.

Copies

• Read from lawful copies:
  • List & Menzies, from List’s LSE page;
  • Holling, from IIASA’s authorised reprint;
  • Scheffer & Carpenter 2003, from a UC Berkeley course page;
  • Rasmussen, from DTU’s repository.
• Read in place of the original: Pettit’s 2017 chapter “The Conversable, Responsible Corporation”, from a manuscript the European University Institute posted for his master class. Responsibility Incorporated (2007) could not be reached, since SSRN blocks this client, so it is registered.
• Registered, read in a follow-up: Scheffer et al. 2001 (Nature) had no lawful open copy. The 2003 review by two of its authors restates its theory and adds the evidential criteria, which are what the essay needs.
• Argyris.
  • The University of Georgia library copy of his 1991 HBR article carries a notice restricting it to enrolled students, plus a purchaser’s watermark. It was discarded unused.
  • infed.org’s account redirected in a loop.
  • His 2002 AMLE article is posted as a Word file by Action Design, a practice founded by his co-authors. Whether they may post it could not be confirmed, and I first left it unused. The owner then told me to use it, and it was read in full.
  • The 1977 HBR article stays registered only.

What the readings say about the essay

• List & Menzies give §5.3 its missing test. A higher-level property is the cause, and its realizer is not, when the outcome would survive re-realizing it. For Northstar: would the outcome survive different people in the same roles? The answer can go either way, which is the point. Pernu (LIT-147), already held, disputes the paper’s main example. It is declared as a rival.
• Pettit grounds corporate endorsement without a regress. What makes an attitude the corporation’s is authorised avowal plus procedures that correct its aggregate, not a higher-order attitude. He also attributes normative competence to corporations with an argument, which is what the essay’s §8 does with Wolf without one. His fitness to be held responsible is not legitimacy, a distinction the essay already draws.
• Holling is the older source for §6.1. His resilience is not Aubin’s viability. Resilience concerns a domain of attraction of the system’s own dynamics, and viability concerns a constraint set given apart from them. A regime can be resilient while violating what it needs, which is protective lock-in exactly.
• Scheffer & Carpenter set the bar for §5.4. A persistent regime is not thereby a self-maintaining alternative state. It needs hysteresis, or a lasting shift after a temporary push, against the confound of slow return. Hughes’s reef plots fail the test, and Lake Zwemlust’s six clear years before slipping back show the confound.
• Argyris names §8.3 and explains §8.5. The essay’s procedures for reconsidering the standards through which policies acquire authority are double-loop learning. His Model I and organizational defensive routines explain why an organization that espouses revisability fails at it: the inconsistency is made undiscussable, and so is the undiscussability. The evidence is his own workshops.
• Rasmussen supplies §6’s mechanism. Under cost and effort gradients, work migrates toward the edge of acceptable performance, and redundant defences erode unseen. That is a different route from Northstar’s lock-in, and the essay could use both.

Theories

Six, one for each read work:

• THEORY-133 (List & Menzies), Proposed;
• THEORY-139 (Pettit), Proposed, extending THEORY-127;
• THEORY-132 (Holling), Active;
• THEORY-136 (Scheffer & Carpenter), Active;
• THEORY-144 (Rasmussen), Proposed.

No new topic was needed. Pettit’s tags are social-ontology, agency and free-will, the last because the topic’s blurb names responsibility.

---

The rest of the essay’s suggested readings

2026-10-05 11:30:04 · curation · record

The owner asked for the rest of the readings I had suggested for the essay on organizational will, beyond the six filed earlier. Four agents searched for lawful copies and wrote digests with verbatim quotes. Three more agents drafted the records from the digests. I checked 217 quotations against the extracted texts by script and read the drafts before filing.

What was read

• Read in full, as suggested:
  • French, “The Corporation as a Moral Person” (1979, LIT-727);
  • March, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning” (1991, LIT-729);
  • Aktipis et al., “Cancer across the tree of life” (2015, LIT-740);
  • Holman & Bruner, “Experimentation by Industrial Selection” (2017, LIT-744).
• Read in place of a closed book or paper:
  • Woodward’s own SEP entry “Causation and Manipulability” (LIT-713), for Making Things Happen (LIT-723). The entry does not cover invariance, proportionality or levels, so chapter 6 of the book is still the unread part the essay needs.
  • The Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s chapter “History As Cause” (LIT-734), for Vaughan’s The Challenger Launch Decision (LIT-715). The chapter is unsigned; Vaughan was a Board researcher, and it is filed under the Board.
  • Hirschman’s “Further Reflections” (LIT-750), for Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (LIT-748).
  • Beer’s 1984 paper on the Viable System Model (LIT-752), for Brain of the Firm (LIT-746). One page is missing from the copy and the figures are absent.
  • Doctorow’s post “Tiktok’s enshittification” (LIT-731), for his 2025 book (LIT-753); the DEF CON talk is LIT-033.
  • Okasha’s 2022 paper on the major transitions (LIT-749), for his 2005 paper (LIT-721).
  • Wolf’s 2013 lecture “Responsibility, Moral and Otherwise” (LIT-747), for Freedom Within Reason (LIT-685). It does not restate the Reason View.
  • List & Pettit’s 2012 Episteme replies (LIT-730), for Group Agency (LIT-391).
  • Tollefsen’s “Shaping the Institutional Mind” (LIT-736), for Groups as Agents (LIT-483).
• Registered only:
  • Holman & Bruner 2015 (LIT-751): the repository copy is embargoed to 2037.
  • Damuth & Heisler 1988 (LIT-201) and both Wolf papers (LIT-688, LIT-690): no lawful copy was found.

Copies that need the owner’s eye

• Notices. French and March are JSTOR prints on instructor pages (Brooklyn College and NTNU), with JSTOR’s “personal, non-commercial use” cover sheet. The Holman & Bruner 2017 publisher PDF in ANU’s repository carries a last-page notice permitting individual use.
• Beer. The copy is hosted by an institute Beer co-founded to keep his work available, and its rights chain to the journal is undocumented.
• Fischer. An agent read Fischer’s 1987 paper and the Fischer & Ravizza précis from Andrew M. Bailey’s collection of Fischer’s papers. It judged the copies author-sanctioned because “Fischer’s own site” links the collection. That site says it was “created by Andrew Law” in 2019, so it is a second third-party collection. The record had declined to open those collections without the owner’s decision (LIT-687), so the drafts were set aside. The owner then authorised the Bailey copies. The 1987 paper (LIT-687, now Active, NOTE-579) and the précis (LIT-728, NOTE-575) were filed in a follow-up commit. THEORY-121’s promotion condition named exactly this reading, so the theory moved to Active with both as sources.

Theories

Twelve, all Proposed except Woodward’s interventionism, which is Active as an established account:

• French: the CID structure (THEORY-131).
• Woodward (THEORY-138).
• March: exploration and exploitation (THEORY-142).
• The Board: normalization of deviance (THEORY-140).
• Hirschman: exit and voice (THEORY-152).
• Beer: the Viable System Model (THEORY-153).
• Doctorow: enshittification (THEORY-150).
• Aktipis: cheater suppression (THEORY-135).
• Okasha: higher-level selection trumping lower (THEORY-141).
• Holman & Bruner: industrial selection (THEORY-146).
• Tollefsen: attributions shape institutions (THEORY-137).
• Wolf: attributability and accountability (THEORY-147).

The drafts tagged Beer operations-research. The topic’s blurb is routing and scheduling, so the tags were changed to complex-systems, social-science and society-and-governance.

---

Auditing the THEORY relations after presupposes

2026-10-05 17:15:00 · curation · record

The owner asked for the audit ADR-029 left open: whether the theories that name each other without a declared relation are missing one, and whether any declared extends is really a presupposes.

How

A script listed every unordered pair of theories where one names the other outside backticks and neither declares a relation to the other: 250 pairs. For each pair it collected both titles, statuses and tags, and every paragraph in which one names the other. Five agents classified 50 pairs each against the four definitions, defaulting to none. A sixth judged the 60 declared relations, defaulting to keep. I read the text behind every proposal before taking it.

The pair count includes five false matches. A citation of an anthology theory renders as a link whose target path ends in that anthology code’s file name, so the regular expression THEORY-\d+ found this record’s code inside the anthology’s link, and a theory citing the anthology’s THEORY-004 looked as if it named this record’s. A second run of the count has to drop ANTH- citations and their targets first.

What changed

• Declared relations re-filed. The audit of the 60 proposed 11 extends → presupposes. I took seven: THEORY-098 on THEORY-103 (the mesh argument takes overflow as its premise, and says so), THEORY-126 on THEORY-055 (only the baseline clause needs appraisal), THEORY-079 on THEORY-087, THEORY-084 on THEORY-086, THEORY-051 on THEORY-050, THEORY-002 on THEORY-004 and THEORY-019 on THEORY-017. I kept four as extends, because each is a refinement or a widening of the same account rather than a claim about something else: THEORY-121 on THEORY-119 (guidance control is the positive half of the same claim about what responsibility requires), THEORY-084 on THEORY-019 (it works the near-degenerate case that account leaves open), THEORY-085 on THEORY-078 (the class-mean outliers, followed into each layer) and THEORY-090 on THEORY-045 (it widens the same felt-affect account, in its own words).
• Undeclared pairs. The five agents proposed eight relations among the 250. I took four: THEORY-077 presupposes THEORY-054, THEORY-115 presupposes THEORY-114 and THEORY-098 presupposes THEORY-094, where the prose already said so or said the equivalent; and THEORY-080 extends THEORY-087, which both documents’ Connections stated and neither frontmatter declared. That last is the only plain oversight the audit found.
• Proposals held back. THEORY-079 on THEORY-081: the identity is what is being evaluated, not a premise. THEORY-080 on THEORY-086: the spectral fact is cited to LIT-608 directly. THEORY-023 on THEORY-092: the dependency is THEORY-092’s reading of THEORY-023, and THEORY-092 itself calls the bearing indirect. THEORY-095 on THEORY-089: the text draws an analogy, asking the functionalist to do for qualia what the two-factor theory does for content.

What it says about the gap

Of the 245 real pairs, 241 stay undeclared, and in almost every case the document already says why: a contrast, a parallel in another domain, a shared source, a test not yet run. The gap the owner noticed is mostly the record naming its neighbours, not the record failing to declare dependencies.

The part that was a real gap was the missing word. Most of the eleven changes were already in the prose as “presupposes”, “relies on” or “if it fell, the argument would lose its premise”, written before there was a relation to declare them with.

---

Reading Cameron, Banko and Pierce (2001)

2026-10-05 19:15:00 · curation · record

The owner asked for Cameron, Banko and Pierce’s 2001 reply (LIT-562) to be read and filed with notes and theories. The paper was registered on 2026-10-03 from its abstract and filed Deferred. Its free PubMed Central scan answered this environment with bot challenges, and the copy then found on behavior.org, the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, was set aside because it is neither the publisher’s nor an author’s deposit. The owner’s instruction now covers that copy, as it did the Action Design copy of Argyris and Bailey’s collection of Fischer’s papers. The text was already extracted, and is read here end to end.

What was read

• Pp. 1–27 in full, Tables 1 and 2, and Appendix B.
• Appendix A skimmed.
• Appendixes C–G and the references not read item by item.
• The per-contingency effect sizes in Figures 1–5 are images with no text layer. The record has those effects’ directions and significance, and their sizes only where the prose states them.

What it changed

• THEORY-046 promoted. Its promotion condition named this reading, and the reading meets it. The reply’s re-coding finds rewards offered for doing an interesting task lower free choice: −0.35 across 57 studies.
• THEORY-046’s refutation clause kept. The reply’s durability evidence (two of seven delayed measures still significant) counts significant results instead of pooling them. So it does not meet the clause, and it is recorded as leaving durability open.
• THEORY-049 not moved. Its refutation clause describes the reply’s finding for rewards tied to beating others, but against a control given the same feedback. The reply pools the two kinds of control, so the clause is not met.
• THEORY-154 filed. It states the reply’s own account and is declared a rival of THEORY-049. A rival rather than a correction, because the authors allow that cognitive evaluation theory could be modified to fit.
• No corrects between LIT-557 and LIT-562. Having read both, neither shows the other wrong on something it claimed. They contest coding and agree on the core effect, so compared_against stays.

Not done

Cameron and Pierce (1994), LIT-556, stays Deferred. The reply restates its results, but a restatement by its authors is not a reading of it. Eisenberger, Pierce and Cameron (1999), which the reply cites for the comparison against controls given feedback, is the paper that could move THEORY-049. At the owner’s request it was filed afterwards as LIT-754, Deferred. It is closed at APA, no abstract was reachable, the only web copy is on ResearchGate, and the author’s lab page could not be reached. Its entry is written from LIT-562’s account of it.

---

Design-rationale literature, as evidence for an argument scheme

2026-10-06 23:37:28 · curation · record

The owner is considering extending this record with argument-development schemes: questions, claims and objections, in the manner of IBIS. Systems of that kind have a fifty-year history, and most of it is a history of not being used. The owner asked for that literature to be held here, as the cautionary evidence the extension should be weighed against. The failure modes it documents are these:

• the cost of capture falls on the author while the benefit goes to a later reader;
• users will not commit early to a formal structure;
• explicit structure has a cognitive overhead.

Correction (2026-10-14, NOTE-835): the first is not Grudin’s disparity as his 1994 article states it (LIT-757). His is between people in different roles at the same time, typically subordinate and manager, not between an author and a later reader. The author-against-later-reader form is closer to the design-rationale literature than to Grudin.

What entered

Nine works, all registered and none read, so none has a NOTE (ADR-025):

• the notations and tools: Kunz and Rittel’s 1970 working paper that introduced IBIS (LIT-758), gIBIS (LIT-762) and QOC (LIT-763);
• the success case: Conklin and Burgess Yakemovic’s field trial, where an indented-text IBIS captured more than 2,300 decisions (LIT-755);
• the failure modes: Grudin on who does the work and who benefits (LIT-759, LIT-757), Buckingham Shum and Hammond on what argumentation-based rationale is for and what it costs (LIT-761), Lee’s seven practical issues (LIT-760), and Shipman and Marshall on why users will not formalize (LIT-756).

The owner’s list had eight. I added Conklin and Burgess Yakemovic, because a body of failure evidence needs the case that did not fail, and its abstract says what made the difference: capture with little disruption of the normal process. I considered Grudin’s chapter “Evaluating opportunities for design capture” in Moran and Carroll’s Design Rationale (1996), and left it out: the only DOI is the 2020 reissue’s, and the 1996 first appearance could not be dated from a source.

No topic held these works, so design-rationale joins the topics (ADR-030). They are not anthology material. None is about machine learning, and the anthology’s nearest topic, human-ai-interaction, is about working with a model. A grep of the anthology’s record for every author and DOI found nothing.

How deeply

Every bibliographic detail was checked against Crossref, and the dates follow ADR-002. What the entries say about content comes from abstracts. For Kunz and Rittel, the abstract came from the eScholarship scan, whose title page was seen. For Grudin 1988, Buckingham Shum and Hammond, and Shipman and Marshall, publishers refused this client. Their takeaways come from secondary descriptions of the abstract, or, for Shipman and Marshall, from an outline of the authors’ web version, and each entry says so. Two dates need a word:

• Grudin 1988 takes the CSCW ‘88 opening day, because Crossref gives the paper only a year.
• Grudin 1994 takes 2 January 1994, which is the date Crossref gives.

What a reading should check

Whether the record’s own experience bears out the first failure mode. Here the person filing an entry is usually also its later reader, which is the condition Grudin’s argument says is missing. Buckingham Shum and Hammond, and the Conklin and Burgess Yakemovic field trial, are the places to look for whether that changes the cost-and-benefit balance.

---

Four works cited by The Organization of Will

2026-10-07 01:06:16 · curation · record

The owner’s essay “The Organization of Will” cites four works the record did not hold. They entered because the essay cites them, and because the record of the essay’s argument, being built alongside it, needs something to point at when a step of the argument leans on one of them. That is the whole reason. None of them was read, and none was filed for its merit.

• Fraenkel, The Dual State (1941), LIT-805: the normative and the prerogative state, and authority over whether the rules apply.
• Ashby, Design for a Brain (1952; the essay cites the 1960 edition), LIT-787: ultrastability, regulation against alteration of the parameters of regulation.
• Canguilhem, On the Normal and the Pathological (1943; English 1978, reissued by Zone Books in 1989), LIT-817: health as a capacity to change norms. The essay uses it interpretively.
• Craver, Explaining the Brain (2007), LIT-832: constitutive against causal relevance, and mechanistic explanation.

How deeply

Registered only. Each entry is Deferred and says in its body that it was written from secondary description: Crossref’s records and chapter lists, the publisher’s abstract (Fraenkel), library catalogues (Canguilhem) and reviews (Craver). No NOTE or THEORY was filed.

Choices worth knowing

• Dates. published: is the first appearance, as in LIT-738: 1941 for Fraenkel (the English edition is the first publication), 1952 for Ashby, 1943 for Canguilhem’s thesis. None of these has a known day, so each is the first of January. Craver’s is Crossref’s 2007-06-07.
• DOIs are of later editions where the first has none: Oxford’s 2017 reissue of Fraenkel, Springer’s digitization of Ashby’s 1960 edition, and Reidel’s 1978 translation of Canguilhem. Canguilhem’s title follows that DOI (On the Normal and the Pathological), not Zone’s.
• Tags. Ashby has no cybernetics word in the vocabulary; he is filed under complex-systems, as Beer’s Viable System Model works are, with behavioral-integration for the feedback-control reading of adaptation. Canguilhem is filed under philosophy-of-biology, since his question is what biological norms are; psychopathology-and-treatment was not used, because the book is about disease in general, not mental disorder.

Boundary

None is held in the Anthology of the SOTA, and no anthology topic could hold them: they are political and legal theory, cybernetics, philosophy of medicine and philosophy of neuroscience. A grep of the anthology’s record for the authors, titles and DOIs found no entry.

---

The manuscript’s reference list: twenty-two works the record lacked

2026-10-09 00:41:18 · curation · record

The owner gave the reference list of their working manuscript (October 2026), 24 works, and asked which of them the record did not yet hold, and to file those.

What was already here

Two of the 24:

• Abramsky and Brandenburger 2011, the sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, is LIT-016.
• Tishby, Pereira and Bialek’s information bottleneck is LIT-338.

Three near misses were checked and are not the cited works. LIT-264 is Dzhafarov and colleagues’ 2015 paper on contextuality in behavioural systems, not the 2016 statement of Contextuality-by-Default. LIT-317 is Shannon’s 1949 “Communication in the Presence of Noise”, not the 1948 paper. LIT-041 and LIT-464 matched “Remembering” only as a word in their text.

What entered

Twenty-two works. They were first filed without a reading. The owner then corrected the word: in this record, registering a work means reading it and filing a NOTE, with THEORY documents where the reading warrants them. So the same day each work was read where a lawful full text could be reached (see “How deeply” below). The works by group:

• Information and the comparison of experiments: Shannon 1948 (LIT-764), Wyner and Ziv 1976 (LIT-767), Cover and Thomas (LIT-765), Blackwell 1953 (LIT-781), and Torgersen 1991 (LIT-778).
• Probability, category theory and contextuality: Fritz’s Markov categories (LIT-772), Baez and Fong’s Noether theorem for Markov processes (LIT-773), and Dzhafarov and Kujala’s Contextuality-by-Default (LIT-777).
• Language, discourse and translation: Saussure (LIT-774), Austin (LIT-785), Goffman’s Forms of Talk (LIT-780), Du Bois’s stance triangle (LIT-779), Gutt’s Translation and Relevance (LIT-784), and Hofstadter’s Le Ton beau de Marot (LIT-766).
• Transmission and memory: Bartlett’s Remembering (LIT-768), Lévi-Strauss’s Structural Anthropology (LIT-775), Griffiths and Kalish on iterated learning (LIT-769), and Kirby, Cornish and Smith’s laboratory iterated learning (LIT-771).
• Compositional text-to-image generation: GenEval (LIT-782), T2I-CompBench (LIT-783), Composable Diffusion (LIT-770), and Shi and colleagues’ conditional diffusion Schrödinger bridges (LIT-776).

The boundary

None of the 22 is held in the Anthology of the SOTA. I grepped a clone of its record/ taken 2026-10-09 (commit 1cffe8f) for every author, arXiv id and title. GenEval and T2I-CompBench are named there only in prose inside other entries, and the rest are not named at all.

The four text-to-image works are machine-learning papers. The anthology’s generative-modeling and analysis-and-evaluation topics could hold them, so by default they belong there. They are filed here because the owner asked for the manuscript’s references to be filed in this record. Each carries anthology-candidate last (ADR-005), which leaves the move to a later decision.

They were first tagged with the nearest words this vocabulary had, and the readings found those words did not fit. compositionality now holds GenEval, T2I-CompBench and Composable Diffusion (ADR-031). The conditional Schrödinger bridge stays under probabilistic-modeling and mathematics, and its reader judged those tags defensible. No word for generative modelling was added. That is the anthology’s subject.

The other works fit existing words. Blackwell and Torgersen are the exception, and they moved to mathematical-statistics (ADR-031). linguistics is a loose fit for the two translation books, Gutt and Hofstadter. A translation word waits until one of them has been read.

How deeply

Nine readers worked in parallel, one per group, under a common brief. The brief required a lawful full text, a reading on the work’s own merits without the manuscript, honesty about depth, and no NOTE where no copy could be reached. Thirteen works now have a NOTE and are Active:

• Read: Shannon (NOTE-591), Blackwell (NOTE-595), Fritz (NOTE-588), Baez and Fong (NOTE-598), Dzhafarov and Kujala (NOTE-600), GenEval (NOTE-593), T2I-CompBench (NOTE-592), Composable Diffusion (NOTE-597), conditional Schrödinger bridges (NOTE-589), Griffiths and Kalish (NOTE-599), Saussure (NOTE-594), and Du Bois (NOTE-590).
• Skimmed: Kirby, Cornish and Smith (NOTE-596). PNAS, PubMed Central and the Edinburgh repository all refused this client. The reading went through a fetch tool that paraphrases, and its NOTE says so.

Nine works are still Deferred, now worded “filed, not read”. Each LIT lists the sources tried and what they returned. Most of these are books still in copyright, which the Internet Archive lends but does not show and HathiTrust searches but does not show: Austin, Goffman, Hofstadter, Gutt, Lévi-Strauss, Bartlett, Cover and Thomas, and Torgersen. Wyner and Ziv is an IEEE article with no repository copy.

Points the readers raised:

• Sources worth noting.
  • Saussure was read in French from Wikisource. That text follows the 1931 third edition, because no scan of the 1916 edition was reachable.
  • Blackwell was read from page images on Project Euclid.
  • Du Bois was read from his own upload of the chapter, through a Wayback Machine capture, because ResearchGate refused the request.
  • Shannon was read from the Harvard posting of the corrected reprint.
• Corrections to what was first filed from abstracts.
  • Blackwell 1953 does not contain the whole “more informative iff garbling” equivalence. Part is Blackwell 1951 and part is Sherman and Stein. The 1953 paper extends it to arbitrary outcome spaces and adds the two-state result.
  • Saussure says a sign as a whole is “un fait positif”. Only signifier and signified, taken separately, are purely differential.
  • In Kirby, Cornish and Smith, compositional structure appeared only under the experimenter’s homonym filter. Without it, the languages collapsed.
  • Composable Diffusion loses to its baseline at composing relations.
• Claims the papers’ own tables contradict. The NOTEs record these.
  • CDSB: “lowest error consistently” in filtering.
  • T2I-CompBench: GORS’s drop on unseen pairs, which the paper calls “slightly lower”.
• A finding against an older entry. LIT-317 credits Shannon’s 1949 paper with the sampling theorem and the Gaussian capacity formula. Both are already in the 1948 paper. NOTE-591 reports this, and LIT-317 is left for its own reading to correct.
• Options for the owner. Each of these is a separate work that could be filed on its own if wanted:
  • Goffman’s “Footing” (Semiotica 1979), once a copy is supplied;
  • Lévi-Strauss’s “The Structural Study of Myth” (Journal of American Folklore 1955);
  • Gutt’s 1989 thesis.

THEORY: five new, all Proposed:

• THEORY-156, Blackwell’s comparison of experiments;
• THEORY-157, the sufficiency theorems in Markov categories;
• THEORY-158, Noether for Markov processes;
• THEORY-159, linguistic value;
• THEORY-155, iterated learning converges to the prior.

One existing THEORY changed. THEORY-014 gains Contextuality-by-Default as a third instance of its signed-solution pattern, and the claim itself is unchanged.

Two readers reported gaps in the vocabulary independently, and the owner authorised extending it. compositionality and mathematical-statistics join the topics by ADR-031.

What a reading should check

These entries deliberately say nothing about the manuscript. The owner wants each work read first on its own merits, so that the reading is not tilted by the use the owner expects to make of it. So a reading of any of these works answers what the work itself establishes, and leaves the manuscript out. How a work serves the manuscript is a later and separate question.

The four text-to-image works have been read, and the move to the anthology can now be decided on what they are. Each NOTE marks the ML-practice content in it as anthology material. The CDSB filtering experiments are probabilistic modelling outside deep learning, and they belong here whichever way the move goes.

---

The manuscript bibliography registered: 46 dropped works and the conceded prior art

2026-10-09 03:33:14 · curation · record

The owner asked for two sets of works to be registered: the 46 works the bibliography of What Survives Translation? proposed and the final reference list dropped, and the prior art the exchange conceded. Registering means filing a LIT, reading the work and filing a NOTE, with a THEORY where the reading warrants one. Each work was read on its own merits. Nine readers worked in parallel by subject, and each subject was committed as it landed.

What entered

• 44 new LITs. 35 are Active with a reading, and 8 are filed but not read: Nida, House, Hatim and Mason, Nord, Piaget, Le Cam, Searle and Stalnaker. Every lawful copy of those eight is lending-only or search-only, and each LIT lists what was tried. One is Rejected: Gogioso and Pinzani 2021, withdrawn by its authors.

• The 7 held works. None of them had been read.

  • LIT-264 and LIT-265 are now read; their NOTEs, NOTE-235 and NOTE-236, were upgraded to Read.
  • LIT-277 already had a full reading.
  • LIT-316 (Busemeyer and Bruza), LIT-344 (Ganter and Wille), LIT-420 (Surfaces and Essences) and LIT-473 (Lewis) are still unreachable.

• The prior art the exchange conceded:

  • Krifka 2024;
  • the semantic-communication survey;
  • Chai et al.;
  • Zhao et al. 2025.

  All four are read.

• CbD 2.0. It turned out to be two companion papers, and both are registered.

• 12 Proposed THEORYs. Among them:

  • Jakobson’s obligatory categories;
  • attention as an inner learner;
  • the QQ equality;
  • representation-dependent CbD verdicts;
  • the contextual fraction is Lipschitz within a scenario;
  • colour naming near the information-bottleneck bound;
  • rational speech acts;
  • context change is part of meaning;
  • semantic rate–distortion as indirect coding;
  • larger groups build more systematic languages;
  • Propp’s functions;
  • Baez on Noether.

The boundary

The anthology clone at commit d8b5ba5 was checked for every work.

• Held there and filed here under ADR-013: von Oswald et al. (ANTH-LIT-533), Akyürek et al. (ANTH-LIT-379) and classifier-free guidance (ANTH-LIT-693).
• Not held there, but an anthology topic could hold them, so they carry anthology-candidate: Backprop as Functor, Xie et al., Min et al., Lu et al., Sun et al., Attend-and-Excite and T2I-CompBench++.

Vocabulary

• translation joins the topics (ADR-033), because seven works of translation theory are now held.
• pragmatics and myth-and-folklore join them too (ADR-034). Readers reported both gaps, and the works they cover had been under the nearest wrong word.

How the readings bear on the argument

The coordinator added grounds and notes to the claims of the manuscript’s argument (line pragmatic-transport). Several readings change those claims.

• The conceded prior art is stronger than the exchange knew. Zhao et al. already formalise preserving the posterior over interpretations, which is the information bottleneck under KL divergence.
• The quantum-cognition evidence counts against quantum contextuality. Its strongest result, the QQ equality, counts against reading order effects that way, which is what the manuscript claims.
• The Δ_CF claim needs restating. It is undefined under signalling and cannot rise along free operations. Its premise that the contextual fraction is discontinuous is wrong within a scenario.
• The Noether-type claim is weaker than it reads. Baez’s account puts the symmetry–conservation equivalence in an antisymmetric bracket, which a Markov kernel lacks.
• The CbD 2.0 qualification holds, but only for binary observables. The canonical-systems paper shows that the verdict depends on the representation.

Points for the owner

• Brandom was skimmed from the author’s own posted course scans of the whole book. The history note says so. Revert it to Deferred if that source is not acceptable.
• “Frank, Goodman & Tenenbaum 2009” is ambiguous. The paper registered is the word-learning paper. The informative-speaker precursor of rational speech acts is Frank, Goodman, Lai and Tenenbaum 2009 (CogSci), which is not held.
• Gogioso and Pinzani’s successor (arXiv 2206.08911) is not held. If it is filed, the withdrawn paper becomes Superseded by it.
• One reader sent the owner’s email address to Unpaywall in a single API query. It was not repeated, and the other readers were told not to send it.

Follow-up, same day

At the owner’s request, two more works were registered:

• Frank, Goodman, Lai and Tenenbaum 2009 (LIT-824, read): the informative-speaker precursor of rational speech acts. It confirms that the informative speaker is in this paper, not in the word-learning paper of the same year.
• The successors to Gogioso and Pinzani. These are the three papers into which “The Topology and Geometry of Causality” was split: Combinatorics (LIT-800), Topology (LIT-808) and Geometry (LIT-788). All three are read, Geometry skimmed. The withdrawn paper is now Superseded by them, and THEORY-171 gives the sheaf condition for causal functions.

The vocabulary still has no word for causal structure. Those works are tagged by their sheaf and contextuality content.

Later the same day, at the owner’s request, causality joined the topics (ADR-035). It goes first on the causal-order works, and it is added beside the existing tags on the record’s other works about causation.

---

Five papers on the theory of trained networks

2026-10-09 18:18:25 · curation · record

The owner gave five arXiv papers to register, with no stated context. Each was read on its own merits by a separate reader, from the arXiv PDF, and each now has an Active LIT and a Read NOTE. All five fall on one theme: what can be solved or measured about how networks train and what their weights hold.

What entered

• Single-head attention in high dimensions (Boncoraglio et al., LIT-857), with a Proposed THEORY (THEORY-180): weight decay on tied query–key weights is exactly a nuclear-norm penalty on their product. The spectral law that follows is derived, not proved; the paper calls its main results “Claims”.
• Closed-form dynamics of word2vec-like models (Karkada, Simon, Bahri & DeWeese, LIT-855), with a Proposed THEORY (THEORY-182): a rank-limited contrastive embedding learns the top eigenvectors of the co-occurrence deviation one at a time, not the best low-rank PMI. Proved for a proxy of word2vec, not word2vec.
• Exact learning dynamics of in-context learning in linear transformers (Mainali & Teixeira, LIT-859). No THEORY: a Saxe-style solution whose fixed point was already known; its non-linear half rests on timing coincidences.
• Towards understanding grokking (Liu et al., LIT-858), with a Proposed THEORY (THEORY-181) on when a training set fixes the generalising representation in the toy model.
• Small singular values matter (Staats, Thamm & Rosenow, LIT-856). No THEORY. Its claim that information sits in the lower outliers of the spectrum is inferred from decile ablations that do not isolate them.

The boundary

Four are not held in the anthology clone (commit d8b5ba5, possibly stale) and carry anthology-candidate. The fifth, Staats et al., is held there as ANTH-LIT-517 with its reading ANTH-NOTE-263, and is held here too under ADR-013. The second question here is how far a random-matrix null can locate information in a learned matrix. The reading here disagrees with ANTH-NOTE-263 on one point (the Llama key and value exception), recorded in its NOTE and not corrected there.

Found along the way

• Three of the five changed title between arXiv versions; each LIT uses the current title and records the earlier one.
• Boncoraglio et al. cite Staats et al. as their empirical source for transformer weight spectra.
• Liu et al. is the earliest work in the record to find the circle in modular-addition embeddings, which THEORY-022 is about. Adding it to that THEORY’s sources is left to a revision of THEORY-022.
• The vocabulary has no word for training dynamics, random-matrix theory or distributional semantics. learning-theory stands in loosely. No word was added.
• The owner ruled the same day that, when sources disagree on a date, the earlier one is taken (ADR-002, version 2).

---

Thirteen works on hierarchy and hyperbolic geometry

2026-10-09 20:36:09 · curation · record

Right after QUESTION-025 was opened (do correlated or hierarchical attributes in co-occurrence still give linear attribute directions, and a non-Boolean concept lattice?), the owner asked for six works, then a seventh, then six more by link. Each was read on its own merits by a separate reader, and each has an Active LIT and a Read NOTE. Where the owner gave only an author and a year, or only a link, the reader confirmed the work before filing.

What entered

Hierarchy in learning and data.

• Cagnetta et al., the random hierarchy model (LIT-877), with THEORY-195 on the sample complexity of learning hierarchical data.
• Larsson, Maity & Tsiotras 2022 (LIT-868), information-theoretic pruning of a given quadtree. No THEORY; despite its title, no hierarchy emerges.

Hyperbolic geometry of networks.

• Krioukov et al. 2010 (LIT-865), with THEORY-188 stating the model result only.
• Bianconi & Rahmede 2017 (LIT-867), with THEORY-193: the curvature comes from an equal-length convention, not from the growth.
• García-Pérez, Boguñá & Serrano 2018 (LIT-869), with THEORY-190: the network model is approximately closed under geometric coarse-graining.

Hyperbolic embeddings in machine learning.

• Sala, De Sa, Gu & Ré 2018 (LIT-874), with THEORY-196 on the precision cost of tree embeddings.
• Ganea, Bécigneul & Hofmann 2018 (LIT-866), with THEORY-189 on entailment cones; their transitivity is asserted, not proved.
• Lin, Coifman, Mishne & Talmon 2023 (LIT-870). No THEORY; the reader found a gap in one proof step.
• Yang et al. 2023 (LIT-871). No THEORY; trained hyperbolic models do not place tree levels by radius on their own.

Hyperbolic geometry in brains and perception.

• Zhou, Smith & Sharpee 2018 (LIT-872), with THEORY-191 on the olfactory space.
• Zhang, Rich, Lee & Sharpee 2022 (LIT-876), with THEORY-192 on the hippocampus.
• Sharpee 2019 (LIT-875), a perspective. No THEORY; its argument from Zipf’s law is an analogy.

Renormalization and information.

• Koch-Janusz & Ringel 2018 (LIT-873), with THEORY-194: the coarse-graining that stays informative about the environment is the relevant one. It shares a Nature Physics issue with García-Pérez et al. but is not a companion paper.

Bearing on QUESTION-025

None answers it; their bearings are written into the question’s new section. The nearest thing to an answer was already in the record: Saxe et al. 2019 (LIT-862) gives tree-shaped linear directions for hierarchical features in a linear network, one per branching rather than one per attribute. The batch adds that hierarchy may be held by distances or by containment rather than directions, that hyperbolic curvature alone is not evidence of hierarchy, and that none of the geometric encodings gives a lattice’s meets and joins.

The boundary

None is held in the anthology clone (commit d8b5ba5, possibly stale). The machine-learning papers (Cagnetta, Sala, Ganea, Lin, Yang, Koch-Janusz & Ringel) carry anthology-candidate; the network, neuroscience and information-theory papers do not.

Found along the way

• Several readers reported no word for hyperbolic or metric geometry, for statistical physics and the renormalization group, or for perception. mathematics, network-science, natural-sciences and cognition stand in. No word was added.
• The olfaction paper’s date is its online date, 29 August 2018, not the issue’s cover date of 3 August, which predates the article. The earlier-date rule settles real doubt about first appearance; a cover date before the article existed is not one.
• Works these papers build on that neither record holds: three follow-ups to the random hierarchy model (arXiv 2402.16991, 2404.10727, 2406.00048); Koch-Janusz & Ringel’s sequels (arXiv 1809.09632, 2101.11633) and Mehta & Schwab (arXiv 1410.3831), which they argue against; Ganea et al.’s Hyperbolic Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2018).

---

Four works registered unread to ground claims from the U40–U60 reconstruction

2026-10-10 04:04:56 · curation · record

Reconstructing owner turns U40–U60 of the exchange behind “What Survives Translation?” (2026-10-09 and 2026-10-10) filed new claims that stand on four standard works the record did not hold. The exchange names each of them or plainly relies on it. They are registered here as LITs so that the claims can name them in grounds. None was read. Each is Deferred, worded “filed, not read”, and no NOTE is filed.

What entered

• Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd ed., 2009 (LIT-894, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803161). It grounds the do() layer: CLAIM-127 version 2 and the distinction between telling an interpreter about a situation and changing it (CLAIM-130). The owner proposed do() at U41.
• Serre, Linear Representations of Finite Groups, 1977 (LIT-893, doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-9458-7). It grounds the limits of characters as classifiers (CLAIM-132), which bound the owner’s U54 appeal to character theory.
• Deutsch, “Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines”, 1991 (LIT-892, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3197). It grounds the contrast between causal-loop consistency and sheaf contextuality (CLAIM-141), which answers the owner’s U46.
• Esfeld & Lam, “Moderate structural realism about space-time”, 2008 (LIT-895, doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9076-2). A194 places the owner’s non-eliminative structural realism “close to” it. It grounds that position (CLAIM-136) and the objection to it (CLAIM-134).

Each identifier was checked against Crossref on 2026-10-10.

How deeply

Not at all. ADR-001 leaves the depth of each filing to the curation log, and this is the statement for this batch. The owner has said that in this record registering a work means reading it (the curation entry of 2026-10-09, 00:41). These four are an exception made on purpose: each is cited for what it is standardly cited for, and no claim depends on a reading of it beyond that. The inactive-ok annotations on the citing entries say so. Reading any of them would move it to Active with a NOTE.

The boundary

None of the four is held in the Anthology of the SOTA. I grepped a clone of its record/ (commit d8b5ba5, 2026-10-09, possibly stale) for each DOI and for “Serre”, “Esfeld” and “Pearl” in its literature, and found nothing. No anthology topic holds causality, group theory, the physics of closed timelike curves or metaphysics, so the four belong here, and ADR-013 does not apply. None carries anthology-candidate.

Found along the way

• Verified but not registered. Eva 2016 (doi:10.1007/s13194-015-0129-6) was recommended again at A187 §2 and A191 §4. It is still unread, and still one of the two readings that THEORY-038’s promote_when names. Friedman et al. 1990 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1915) was not registered, because the causal-loop claim cites Deutsch alone.
• Already in the anthology, cited by code and not refiled. FID (ANTH-LIT-611), Projected GANs (ANTH-LIT-562), Kynkäänniemi et al. on ImageNet classes in FID (ANTH-LIT-563), LDA (ANTH-LIT-592) and Chang et al.’s “Reading Tea Leaves” (ANTH-LIT-597), with ANTH-NOTE-303, ANTH-NOTE-304, ANTH-SOTA-337 and ANTH-SOTA-338. One reader thought “Reading Tea Leaves” was held in neither record. It is ANTH-LIT-597.
• Anthology candidates, not filed here. An anthology topic could hold each of these, so the citing entries give identifiers inline and the works are left for the anthology:
  • the trope papers: Gala et al. 2020 (doi:10.18653/v1/2020.nlpcss-1.23), Chaudhary & Jhala 2022, Zhang et al. 2026 (arXiv:2606.19499);
  • the FID variants: cFID (arXiv:2103.11521), Benny et al. (arXiv:2004.12361), Chong & Forsyth (arXiv:1911.07023), Clean-FID (arXiv:2104.11222), Jayasumana et al. (arXiv:2401.09603);
  • factorization and identifiability: Lee & Seung 1999 (doi:10.1038/44565), Koren, Bell & Volinsky 2009 (doi:10.1109/MC.2009.263), Donoho & Stodden 2003, Arora, Ge & Moitra 2012 (arXiv:1204.1956), Candès & Recht 2009 (doi:10.1007/s10208-009-9045-5), Allman, Matias & Rhodes 2009 (arXiv:0809.5032), XTRA (arXiv:2510.02788);
  • Bradley, Terilla & Vlassopoulos on category theory of language (arXiv:2106.07890).
• Could be held here, but nothing grounds on it yet. Bongers et al. on cyclic structural causal models (arXiv:1611.06221) is causality, which this record holds. The causal-loop claim names it as prior art in prose.
• Not registered: no verified identifier, or no entry needs them. Mac Lane, Riehl, Einstein 1905, Newman 1928 (the Newman claim grounds on LIT-045 instead), Deligne–Milne, Etingof–Gelaki, Lovász 1967, Kruskal 1977, Saunders, Muller–Saunders, Wigner 1939, French & Ladyman.
• Recommended by the exchange as new, already held. LIT-221 (Yoneda; A158, A173), LIT-016 (Abramsky & Brandenburger; A161), LIT-045 (structural realism; A187) and LIT-363 (A173). A161 also recommended LIT-813, which is withdrawn and Superseded; its successors are LIT-800, LIT-808 and LIT-788.

2026-10-10, later. Pearl’s Causality (LIT-894) has now been read in part, and is Active. Four excerpts the author posts at bayes.cs.ucla.edu were skimmed (NOTE-696): the contents, the second-edition preface, §§5.3.2–5.4.1 and the Epilogue. The rest of the book was not read. They bear out the record’s gloss of do() and its correction that observing is conditioning. CLAIM-127 and CLAIM-130 each carry a dated note on what the excerpts sharpen.

Note of 2026-10-10: Esfeld & Lam read

Esfeld & Lam (LIT-895) have now been read in full (NOTE-695), from the published article in the Lausanne repository. The LIT is Active at version 2. Its code is removed from this entry’s Deferred annotation and from the two claims’ annotations. The reading finds that the paper holds the weak version of the owner’s thesis, primitive numerical diversity where relations do not discern. Dated notes on CLAIM-136 and CLAIM-134 say so.

---

Floridi’s line on artificial agency: six works filed, all read

2026-10-10 05:46:20 · curation · record

The owner asked to file Floridi, “AI as Agency without Intelligence: On Artificial Intelligence as a New Form of Artificial Agency and the Multiple Realisability of Agency Thesis” (Philosophy & Technology 38:30, 2025), and the line of work it builds on. Six works were filed. Three could be read from lawful open copies and were. For the other three, the target among them, no lawful full text could be reached, and they were registered unread and Deferred, each with its access attempts recorded. The owner then supplied the published version of the target, and it was read the same day (see the last section). Four are read, and two remain unread.

What entered

Read, each with a NOTE (the target was read later the same day, from a copy the owner supplied; see the last section):

• Floridi 2023, “AI as Agency Without Intelligence: on ChatGPT, Large Language Models, and Other Generative Models” (LIT-896, doi:10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y), read in full from the publisher’s open-access PDF (NOTE-697). It is the first statement of the slogan, and an editorial rather than an argument: no criteria for agency are given.

• Floridi & Sanders 2004, “On the Morality of Artificial Agents” (LIT-898, doi:10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d), read from the University of Hertfordshire preprint, in full, from page images, because the PDF has no text layer (NOTE-701). It is where the line starts: agenthood as interactivity, autonomy and adaptability at a stated level of abstraction, and moral agency split from responsibility.

• Floridi 2008, “The Method of Levels of Abstraction” (LIT-900, doi:10.1007/s11023-008-9113-7), read from the author’s preprint in the University of Hertfordshire repository, in full (NOTE-700). It is a method set out in definitions, not a result: observables, levels and gradients of abstraction, with an epistemological levelism in place of an ontological one. Its one formal claim, that disjoint and nested gradients convert into each other, fails under its own definition of nesting. It never analyses agency.

• Floridi 2025, the target (LIT-897, doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00858-9). It was first registered unread, because no open copy could be reached. It was then read in full from the published version the owner supplied (NOTE-702), and it is now Active. It names the Multiple Realisability of Agency thesis and sets it against the Artificial Realisability of Intelligence. It is a taxonomy of kinds of agency, not an argument for that thesis. The thesis is assumed (p. 2). The three criteria of 2004 come back, loosened. AI’s lack of intelligence is asserted, and no level of abstraction is stated.

Registered unread, Deferred, seeded from the abstract:

• Floridi 2013, “Distributed Morality in an Information Society” (LIT-901, doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9413-4). Its own abstract was not seen; the entry is seeded from search-result descriptions of it.
• Floridi 2016, “Faultless responsibility” (LIT-899, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0112), seeded from the published abstract, which Crossref carries.

Each identifier and publication date was checked against Crossref on 2026-10-10.

The relations, as filed: F2025 extends F2023; F2013 extends FS2004; F2016 extends F2013. The two on unread works rest on the abstracts and the Crossref reference lists (F2013 cites FS2004 and F2008; F2016 cites F2013, FS2004 and F2008), and a reading should confirm them. The relations among the read works are set by their readings. The reading of F2025 confirms its extends to F2023 and adds one to FS2004, whose three criteria it takes. It writes none to F2008, whose method it names but does not use. F2025 cites all five others.

How deeply

Three read and three not when the batch was filed, and four read and two not by the end of the day. ADR-001 leaves the depth of each filing to the curation log, and this is the statement for this batch. The owner has said that in this record registering a work means reading it (the curation entry of 2026-10-09, 00:41). The three unread works are an exception forced by access, not chosen: each was looked for on 2026-10-10 and none could be reached lawfully.

• F2025. OpenAlex lists it as green open access, but the open copy is the submitted version on PhilArchive (philpapers.org/archive/FLOAAA-5.pdf), which returned a Cloudflare challenge (403) and refused headless Chromium. SSRN 5135645 returned 403, and “Content Blocked” in a browser. The Springer version of record is not open access. ResearchGate was not tried, since it refuses automated access. The owner later supplied the published version, and it has been read.
• F2013. PhilArchive (philpapers.org/archive/FLODMI.pdf) returned a Cloudflare 403. The Hertfordshire record (uhra.herts.ac.uk/id/eprint/20632) has no file. Springer is not open access, and PubMed 23197312 has no free text.
• F2016. PhilArchive (philpapers.org/archive/FLOFRO.pdf) returned a Cloudflare 403. The Royal Society PDF returned a Cloudflare challenge and refused a browser too. PubMed 28336791 has no free text.

F2013 and F2016 each say in their status notes that they stay Deferred until read, not on merit. Reading either would move it to Active with a NOTE. A reader with a browser session past PhilArchive’s challenge could reach both submitted versions.

The boundary

None of the six is held in the Anthology of the SOTA. A grep of a clone of its record/ (commit d8b5ba5, 2026-10-09, possibly stale) for “Floridi” and for each DOI found nothing. They are philosophy of agency and ethics, which no anthology topic holds and none of which carries an instruction for machine-learning practice, so they belong here and ADR-013 does not apply. None carries anthology-candidate. They are tagged agency first.

Found along the way

• Where the line meets the record. The batch bears on the record’s distributed-agency line (CLAIM-030, CLAIM-045) and on QUESTION-009, “When does a pattern of coordination constitute an additional agent?”. Floridi 2013 and 2016 allocate moral standing across a network of human, artificial and hybrid agents. Floridi 2025’s agency without mental states could say what the network’s nodes are, but the paper does not make that connection. It cites distributed morality in one sentence (p. 6). It names three collective kinds of agency (ant colonies, corporations, Agentic AI) without a criterion for when a group is one, so QUESTION-009 stays open. It is compatible with CLAIM-030 and gives no evidence for it. On ADR-024, Floridi 2025 keeps agency apart from intelligence and personhood, as that decision does. But the human kind of agency in its taxonomy absorbs identity, narrative self-understanding and a sense of self (pp. 14–15).
• Permissiveness again. The criteria of Floridi & Sanders 2004 meet the objection the record holds as CLAIM-010, that on such an account every control system is an agent; the reading of that paper finds the objection answered by assertion. Floridi 2025 does not do better. It accepts the objection’s conclusion: interactivity alone makes a river a natural agent (p. 9), and a thermostat is an artefactual agent (pp. 4, 13). It restricts no level of abstraction. It sorts agency into kinds, and the kinds are told apart by origin, mechanism and goal source, not by the three criteria. Floridi & Sanders’ “for most entities there is no LoA at which they can be considered an agent” is not repeated.
• Already held, cited by the target. Frankfurt 1971 (LIT-692, read), cited only for the moral dimension of human agency (p. 15); Prigogine & Stengers 1984 (LIT-534, unread). Floridi’s levels of abstraction were already used here, for structural realism (LIT-152) and personal identity (LIT-136).
• Cited by the target, not held, not registered. List 2021 on group agency and AI (doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00454-7), Dung 2024 on understanding artificial agency (doi:10.1093/pq/pqae010), Popa 2021 (doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00483-2), van Lier 2023 (doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04083-9), Himma 2009 (doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9167-5), Bandura 2006 (the record holds only Bandura 1977, LIT-545), Pearl & Mackenzie 2018 (the record holds Pearl’s Causality, LIT-894), Floridi & Chiriatti 2020 on GPT-3, Floridi & Nobre 2024, and Floridi’s The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2023). List 2021 and Dung 2024 would be the first to file if the agency line wants rivals to Floridi’s account.
• Distributed knowledge, then common knowledge. Floridi 2013’s abstract borrows distributed knowledge from epistemic logic; Floridi 2016’s borrows common knowledge. Both LITs ask a reading to say why.

2026-10-10: the target read

After this entry was written, the owner supplied the published version of record of Floridi 2025 (Springer PDF, 27 pp., an Editor Letter). It was read in full the same day (NOTE-702), with the text extracted by pdftotext -layout. The PDF is not in the repository. The paper’s own outline replaced the reconstructed abstract, and the LIT is now Active. It was retagged agency, cognition, social-ontology, society-and-governance. It extends F2023 and FS2004, and it rivals the organisational account of minimal agency (LIT-566) and the account of large models as social technologies (LIT-848). The headline is that it gives a taxonomy, not an argument. The thesis named in the title is assumed. Of the four supports it announces, only the literature is used, as a survey. Floridi & Sanders’ criteria return, loosened, and they separate only natural agency from the rest. AI’s lack of intelligence is asserted. No level of abstraction is specified. Against what the 2004 and 2023 readings found missing, it supplies criteria, though graded ones that do not sort the kinds. It sets no limit on choosing a level of abstraction beyond keeping one stable and ranking levels by purpose, and it does not keep to that itself. It answers the permissiveness objection by accepting it. Following the record’s practice for comparable accounts of agency (THEORY-071, THEORY-173), the account is filed Proposed as THEORY-208, with those two as rivals.

2026-10-10, later: the two Deferred works read

The owner then supplied the published versions of the other two, and both were read in full.

• Floridi 2013 (LIT-901, NOTE-698), Deferred to Active. It defines distributed morality and introduces infraethics, the framework of moral enablers such as trust, privacy and transparency. Its analogy with distributed knowledge is looser than it claims: every example sums contributions of one kind past a threshold left unspecified, and there is no aggregation rule for actions. Its supra-agents are stipulated, and no Floridi & Sanders criterion is applied to them. Responsibility is left to the 2016 paper. extends LIT-898 is confirmed. No THEORY was filed.
• Floridi 2016 (LIT-899, NOTE-699), Deferred to Active. It allocates responsibility for distributed moral actions by default, overridably and in full, to every causally accountable node. The reading finds that its “responsibility” is Floridi & Sanders 2004’s accountability, used as a corrective signal to agents that learn. It also finds that back-propagation, the model it borrows, assigns credit in proportion to contribution, not equally, and that its own case of the Dutch boats is settled by control, not causation. It extends LIT-901 and LIT-898. Following the record’s practice for French and Pettit (THEORY-131, THEORY-139), the account is filed Proposed as THEORY-207.

All six works in the batch are now read.

---

Flow and mindfulness-and-discounting: five works registered unread for the synchronization claims

2026-10-11 00:33:14 · curation · record

The owner asked to connect the self as a multi-agent system to synchronization through temporal discounting, mindfulness and flow (the workbench entry of the same date). The record held the discounting side, Ainslie and Schelling read, and the mindfulness side through ACT. It held nothing on flow, and no study of mindfulness and discounting. Five works were registered so that the claims made in that session cite something, and each is marked as the weakest footing.

What entered

All registered Deferred and unread, with metadata checked against Crossref:

• Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi (2002), “The Concept of Flow” (LIT-914, doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135336.003.0007). The anchor for flow. Paywalled; no lawful open copy was found.
• Dietrich (2004), “Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow” (LIT-912, doi:10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.002). Transient hypofrontality, the rival reading of flow’s effortlessness.
• Bruya (ed.) (2010), Effortless Attention (LIT-910, doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262013840.001.0001). The phenomenon that effort-cost accounts of control must meet.
• Dixon et al. (2019), brief mindfulness and momentary impulsivity (LIT-906, doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.11.003). n = 23; discounting fell after a 5-minute exercise. Abstract known only as summarised on the repository record page.
• Ge et al. (2024), brief online mindfulness, RCT (LIT-916, doi:10.1007/s12671-024-02479-3). As summarised: some impulsive behaviour reduced, discounting not improved, nothing sustained.

Boundary

None is held in the anthology. A grep of its record for Csikszentmihalyi, “flow state”, “optimal experience”, “effortless attention”, Bruya, “hyperbolic discount” and mindfulness found only a normalizing-flow theory. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

Depth

None read. The first reading that would move a claim is Ge et al.: if its dissociation holds, it supports CLAIM-156 directly. After it, Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, for whether the autotelic condition is stated the way CLAIM-162 needs.

---

Coordinative structures and the holon: six works filed, Simon read

2026-10-11 02:26:16 · curation · record

The owner asked to file “some of the additional readings suggested by our latest exchanges”. Those exchanges were about a name for the combined form, with the dancing couple (CASE-046) as the paradigm case. Two adopted terms were discussed from general knowledge: Kelso’s coordinative structure and Koestler’s holon. These are the works behind them.

What entered

Read, with a NOTE:

• Simon (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity” (LIT-905, NOTE-704). Read in full from the JSTOR PDF on a University of Washington course page. The record has read from a JSTOR PDF on a course page before (McAdams 2019). It is the source of Koestler’s holon (through the watchmaker parable), and it has two findings the session can use: near decomposability as a boundary criterion, and the claim that higher levels of an organization have slower dynamics and rarer interactions, which is the all-hands case’s cadence.

Registered unread, Deferred:

• Kelso, Tuller, Vatikiotis-Bateson & Fowler (1984) (LIT-902, doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.6.812). The jaw-perturbation studies, the source of reciprocal compensation as the signature of a coordinative structure. APA’s copy is closed, and no Haskins status-report copy was found. The DTIC-hosted Haskins reports returned HTML pages.
• Kugler, Kelso & Turvey (1980) (LIT-913, doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61936-6). Coordinative structures as dissipative structures. Closed.
• Turvey (1977) (LIT-904, the 2017 Routledge reprint of the volume, doi:10.4324/9781315467931). The usual source for the term. Closed. Correction (2026-10-14, NOTE-826): Turvey did not introduce the term. He says it is “borrowed from Easton (1972a) but used here with greater latitude” (LIT-904, p. 8). The chapter is where it was widened from reflexes to functional combinations of them and made the unit of action control.
• Bernstein (1967) (LIT-907). The degrees-of-freedom problem. The Internet Archive copy is controlled lending only. Another upload there of unclear provenance was not used.
• Koestler (1967) (LIT-908). The holon. Controlled lending only.

Boundary

None is held in the anthology. A grep of its record for Bernstein, Koestler, holon, Simon’s title and “coordinative structure” found nothing relevant. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

Depth

One of six read. The next reading that would move a claim is Kelso et al. (1984). If the record adopts reciprocal compensation as a membership test, the test should be quoted from the paper, not from memory. Of the takeaways of the five unread works, those not taken from their titles are from general knowledge and say so.

---

Mathematics of Meaning registered as MOM; five entries dual-filed for system boundaries

2026-10-11 02:58:12 · curation · record

The owner asked: “register MoM as a remote and then dual file anything we need from there on nucleation directly”. ADR-037 records the decision. This entry records what was filed, why, and how each was checked.

The question it serves

What makes a combined form one system, and where its boundary lies. The cases are the dancing couple (CASE-046, the owner’s CLAIM-175), the firm at its all-hands (CASE-050) and the person across time. A survey of Mathematics of Meaning, at commit d987e2a, found the five entries below. It also found the record’s own verdict on the wider question: MOM-CLM-170 records that the corpus’s list of five boundary criteria “terminates in a shrug”. The gap criterion is that record’s answer.

What was dual-filed, and how it was checked

All five are CLAIMs in distributed-agency, each naming its MOM code:

• MOM-CLM-160 → CLAIM-154 (Active). The Occam-priced reification threshold. Re-run: exact Bayes factor against the rule in the conjugate case, agreement to 9e-16 in eight settings.
• MOM-CLM-144 → CLAIM-164 (Active). The gap picks the object. Davis–Kahan, plus a re-run of MOM’s stability table at 150 resamples. The pattern was reproduced; the exact angles vary with the draw.
• MOM-CLM-165 → CLAIM-153 (Active, abelian case). Unity as a monodromy over at least three contexts. Re-run: gradient descent against the closed form in all eight settings, and the two-context case always zero.
• MOM-CLM-153 → CLAIM-161 (Proposed, though Active in MOM). Selfhood as γ conserved under the system’s own dynamics. A sound repair, but γ is unspecified and nothing was measured.
• MOM-POS-001 → CLAIM-152 (Active). Sufficiency-based individuation is target-relative. True by definition, and the standing caution on the other four.

The scripts are not kept in the record. They re-implement each check from the claim’s own statement and are described in each entry’s history.

Works already held in both records, cross-referenced under ADR-013:

• Simon (1962) is MOM-LIT-018 and LIT-905.
• Bruineberg et al. (2022) is MOM-LIT-023 and LIT-603.

Not filed

• Everything else in the survey. That includes the admissibility-groupoid drafts (whose central claim MOM itself retired as MOM-CLM-142), the predictive-closure functional in MOM’s LLM-generated Attic, and the notebook criterion in a captured ChatGPT reply. None is graded in MOM’s record, so none has a footing to carry over. If a question here needs one, it should be graded in MOM first.

Fired before trusting

A citation of a MOM code that does not exist, MOM-CLM-999, was planted in a draft of this entry and the pipeline was run. The lint did not catch it. MOM codes resolve by the code-only filename convention, which builds a URL without checking that the file exists, and luria repair linked the bad code like a good one. luria remotes --check reported every MOM document as “unverifiable: repo not public”: the repository is private, so anonymous requests 404. It reports the same for ANTH from this environment. The only check that worked was against a local clone: all eight MOM codes cited in this record exist at MOM commit d987e2a, checked by script. The planted line was removed. Until the remote is pinned, a bad MOM code is caught only by checking against a clone. ADR-037 says so.

---

Two reviews on gut microbes, appetite and mood, read for the owner’s microbiome example

2026-10-11 05:31:56 · curation · record

The owner offered their microbiome as an example of drive from a lower level (“my microbiome can impact things like my affect and level of hunger”). The record held the holobiont line for corals and several interoception theories, but no human gut–brain literature. Two open-access reviews were read, one per half of the example.

What entered

• Han et al. (2021), on appetite (LIT-903, NOTE-706, doi:10.1186/s40168-021-01093-y, PMC8293578, CC BY). The routes from microbial metabolites and protein mimics to host appetite. Mostly rodent, by the authors’ own statement.
• Forssten et al. (2022), on mood (LIT-915, NOTE-703, doi:10.3390/nu14030568, PMC8840472). The mouse-to-human gap. Written by employees of a probiotics manufacturer. It documents its own failed translations.

The canonical review, Cryan et al. (2019), “The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis” (Physiological Reviews 99: 1877–2013, doi:10.1152/physrev.00018.2018), was not open in Europe PMC. At about 130 pages it was set aside, not registered.

How they were read

Each was read in full by a reader working for the assistant, from the Europe PMC full-text XML converted to text. The reader drafted a digest with verbatim quotations. The seventeen quotations used in the entries were checked against the extracted texts by script, and all matched.

Selection

Both were chosen from Europe PMC by query (open-access reviews; appetite or mood; ranked by citations). The appetite review was the most cited. The mood review was chosen over more-cited ones because its subject is the translation from animal to human evidence, which is the weak point of the owner’s example. Its industry authorship is recorded in its NOTE.

Boundary

Neither is held in the anthology. A grep of its record for “microbio” and “gut-brain” found nothing relevant. Neither carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

---

Two formal definitions of agency, read for the agent-as-jurisdiction thesis

2026-10-11 06:03:12 · curation · record

The owner proposed that agents are a factorization of a system relative to a level of description, individuated by their will-organization (CLAIM-170). The assistant suggested two formal definitions of agency as the test’s two halves, and the owner asked for everything to be filed.

What entered

Both were read in full from arXiv:

• Orseau, McGill & Legg (2018), “Agents and Devices: A Relative Definition of Agency” (LIT-911, NOTE-705, arXiv:1805.12387). Read by the assistant. Agency is a Bayesian agent-versus-device comparison, relative to the observer.
• Kenton et al. (2022), “Discovering Agents” (LIT-909, NOTE-707, arXiv:2208.08345). Read by a reader working for the assistant, which drafted a digest. Agency is counterfactual adaptation in mechanised causal models. Its finding that the thermostat with its creation process is an agent is the outside support for the jurisdiction thesis.

Quotations were checked against the extracted texts by script. Ten of ten matched for Orseau et al., and thirteen of fourteen for Kenton et al.; the one that did not match is not used.

Boundary

Both carry the anthology-candidate flag last (ADR-005). The anthology’s agents-and-environments topic (“systems that perceive, act and are changed by the consequences”) could hold them for their RL and AI-safety framing. They are filed here for this record’s own question, which is what makes a factor of a person, a couple or a firm an agent. Neither is held in the anthology: a grep of its record for both titles and arXiv identifiers found nothing. If the anthology files them, ADR-013’s dual holding applies.

---

Crystal growth and pattern formation for the nucleating-argument line: eight works filed, two read

2026-10-11 14:39:39 · curation · record

The owner corrected the assistant’s crystal analogy (“a crystal takes the shape of its seed”), and then asked what to read on nucleation, crystal formation and pattern formation. The assistant suggested a list from memory. The owner chose seven works to file. Each was checked against Crossref and registered unread and Deferred, on what it is standardly cited for. No full text was sought. The anthology holds none of them (a grep of its record/ at commit d8b5ba5 for each DOI and author found nothing), and none of its topics holds crystal growth.

What entered

The polymorph pair, on what a seed fixes:

• Dunitz & Bernstein 1995, “Disappearing Polymorphs” (LIT-917, doi:10.1021/ar00052a005). Grounds CLAIM-181. Once a more stable form has appeared, seeds of it can make the old form unobtainable. This is the strongest version of the narrowed counter.
• Ostwald 1897, the rule of stages (LIT-920, doi:10.1515/zpch-1897-2233). Not attached. A possible reading of the translation exchange’s thesis sequence as successive metastable forms.

Nucleation itself:

• De Yoreo & Vekilov 2003, “Principles of Crystal Nucleation and Growth” (LIT-924, doi:10.2113/0540057). Grounds CLAIM-176: the critical nucleus is where “threshold” comes from.
• Vekilov 2010, “The two-step mechanism of nucleation of crystals in solution” (LIT-926, doi:10.1039/c0nr00628a). Not attached. A possible refinement of CLAIM-176: recurrence forms a loose cluster, and the threshold is when the cluster is recognized. The assistant had first pointed to Vekilov’s Crystal Growth & Design paper of the same year (doi:10.1021/cg1011633, “Nucleation”). This is the paper whose subject is the two-step mechanism. The owner later asked for the other one as well, and it was filed the same day (see the end of this entry).

Shape and instability:

• Langer 1980, “Instabilities and pattern formation in crystal growth” (LIT-927, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.52.1). Grounds CLAIM-186.
• Witten & Sander 1981, diffusion-limited aggregation (LIT-925, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.1400). Grounds CLAIM-186: tips catch what arrives next.

Order parameters:

• Haken 1977, Synergetics (LIT-923, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-96363-6). Not attached. A possible picture of a thesis as the argument’s order parameter.

What was not filed

The assistant also suggested Kashchiev’s Nucleation (2000), Mullins & Sekerka 1964, Ben-Jacob & Garik 1990, Libbrecht 2005, Ball’s The Self-Made Tapestry and Thompson’s On Growth and Form. The owner did not choose them. The record already held Turing 1952, Cross & Hohenberg 1993, Nicolis & Prigogine 1977 and Kelso 1995 before this batch.

What a reading should do first

Four of the seven ground claims while unread. They are held for what the physics standardly says, and each LIT names the check a reading should make. Langer and De Yoreo & Vekilov come first, because the claims lean hardest on them.

Added later the same day

• Vekilov 2010, “Nucleation” (LIT-919, doi:10.1021/cg1011633, Crystal Growth & Design 10(12):5007–5019). This is the perspective the assistant had first pointed to. It was filed at the owner’s request beside LIT-926, unread and Deferred like the rest, and it is not attached to a claim. The anthology holds neither paper. The batch is now eight works.

Readings

The owner then asked for readings. Each of the eight was looked for in a lawful open copy. Unpaywall and Europe PMC found one for Vekilov’s “Nucleation” (PMC2995260, an NIHPA author manuscript). Ostwald’s volume is in the public domain and scanned, unrestricted, at the Internet Archive. The other six have no open copy and stay Deferred, each with the search recorded.

• Ostwald 1897 (NOTE-709), read in full in German from the OCR text. The LIT is now Active. The version-1 takeaways were wrong in three places: the rule names the nearest form in free energy, not the least stable; a metastable intermediate waits for a seed unless it is labile; and the paper records no exceptions but explains them away. The word “Stufenregel” does not appear. The use the LIT was filed for, a stage reading of the thesis sequence, does not hold up. The seed experiments support CLAIM-181 within the metastable zone.
• Vekilov 2010, “Nucleation” (NOTE-708), read in full; the figures were images and not seen. The LIT is now Active. The version-1 takeaways overstated the paper: CNT’s error is placed in the prefactor, for one protein, and the classical barrier is kept inside the cluster. The paper also introduces a solution–crystal spinodal, which version 1 missed.

Both readings complicate CLAIM-176: neither physical threshold is a count. A note on that claim says so, and a note on CLAIM-181 records Ostwald’s limit. Two unread LITs were corrected from the readings (LIT-926’s “short-lived” clusters) or given what the readings say about them (LIT-924, LIT-917). Each draft NOTE was written by a separate agent from the full text, then checked by quoting its key passages against the source before filing.

---

Hebb, Kanerva and Hopfield for the nucleating-argument line: four works filed, none read

2026-10-11 20:21:31 · curation · record

After CLAIM-182 (storage is not anchoring; addressability is), the owner raised Hebbian learning and sparse distributed memory and asked whether the record held either. It held one reading on SDM, Bricken & Pehlevan (LIT-269, NOTE-242), and no work on Hebbian learning. The anthology held Kanerva’s book and review. The owner asked for all of them to be filed here, with a new claim.

What entered

• Hebb 1949, The Organization of Behavior (LIT-922, doi:10.4324/9781410612403, the 2005 reprint; first published by Wiley in 1949). Neither record held it. The postulate is a persistence trigger keyed to recurrence, graded and strengthened by use.

• Kanerva 1988, Sparse Distributed Memory (LIT-928) and Kanerva 1992, “Sparse Distributed Memory and Related Models” (LIT-921). Both are held in the anthology, as ANTH-LIT-666 and ANTH-LIT-669, so they are held in both records under ADR-013.

  • The anthology’s question: what SDM says about attention.
  • This record’s question: what retrieval by content, and its critical distance, says about anchoring an argument.

  Each LIT here names its anthology counterpart.

• Hopfield 1982, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities” (LIT-918, doi:10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554). Neither record held it. An anthology topic could hold it, beside its Kanerva entries, so it carries the anthology-candidate flag (ADR-005).

Each citation was checked against Crossref, the NASA Technical Reports Server, or the anthology’s own entry. All four are Deferred and unread.

The claim

CLAIM-180 reads drift as retrieval failure outside a critical distance. A restatement close enough to an idea retrieves it, and one that has drifted is taken for new. A code bypasses retrieval by content. It rests on CLAIM-177 and CLAIM-182 and is grounded on LIT-269 (read), Kanerva’s book and Hopfield (both unread).

What can be read next

Two of the four have lawful open full texts. Hopfield 1982 is free in PubMed Central (PMC346238), and Kanerva 1992 is public at NASA NTRS (19920021480), with a PDF and a text file. Hebb’s book is in copyright, and the 1949 scans at the Internet Archive were not used. Kanerva’s book has no open copy.

---

Stability theory for the nucleating-argument line: generalized stability theory and May, four works filed, none read

2026-10-11 21:43:07 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record covers stability theory: generalized, variational, dynamic and thermodynamic. A survey of titles, keywords and summaries found:

• Ecological and resilience stability: good and mostly read (Holling, LIT-741; Scheffer; THEORY-132, THEORY-136).
• Viability: held (Aubin’s notes, LIT-714, read; the monograph, LIT-738, unread; THEORY-134).
• Variational principles: held as two debates read critically, the free energy principle and maximum or minimum entropy production.
• Thermodynamic stability: held but largely unread. The Brussels books, Glansdorff & Prigogine (LIT-537) and Nicolis & Prigogine (LIT-524), are Deferred.
• Generalized stability theory, in Farrell and Ioannou’s sense: nothing. The foundations of dynamical stability were thin too.

The owner asked for four works to fill the gaps that matter most to the line, and for a reading of THEORY-134 against the persistence claim.

What entered

• Farrell & Ioannou 1996, “Generalized Stability Theory”, Parts I and II (LIT-931, LIT-929). The founding statement of the non-modal view, for autonomous and then time-dependent operators. Part I is free from the publisher.
• Trefethen, Trefethen, Reddy & Driscoll 1993, “Hydrodynamic Stability Without Eigenvalues” (LIT-932). The short, widely read case: shear flows judged stable by their eigenvalues turn turbulent through transient amplification.
• May 1972, “Will a Large Complex System be Stable?” (LIT-930). A size threshold for the stability of large random systems.

All four were checked against Crossref and are Deferred and unread. The anthology holds none of them.

What they bear on

• Growth rate (CLAIM-186). The GST works are grounds, and a note draws the consequence. An argument that settles in the end can still show a burst of drift after a disturbance, and directed dependencies are a standard source of non-normality.
• Capture (CLAIM-179). May is a ground, and a note adds a possible size limit on settling, beyond unused anchors.
• Persistence (CLAIM-185). THEORY-134 was added as a ground, with a note. Persistence is relative to a constraint set fixed independently of the dynamics, and for an argument the record’s grammar is that set. A matching note on CLAIM-181 records that the counter and the persistence claim meet there.

Gaps noted and not filled

• Lyapunov’s 1892 memoir, structural stability (Andronov–Pontryagin, Smale), Thom’s catastrophe theory, and a standard dynamics text (Strogatz; Guckenheimer & Holmes).
• Classical extremum principles.
• Gibbs’s stability conditions, Callen’s text, and Keizer & Fox’s critique of the Glansdorff–Prigogine criterion. The record holds Landauer’s objection (LIT-532) but not that one.

---

MOM-CLM-088 dual-filed: disjoint contexts glue, and where that leaves the divided self

2026-10-12 02:01:00 · curation · record

The owner pointed to MOM-CLM-088 (“hey take a look at …CLM-088.md”), and after the assistant’s reading asked for it all to be filed. Under ADR-037 the MOM claim gets an entry of this record’s own.

What entered

• MOM-CLM-088 → CLAIM-197 (Active). The entry states what this record needs from the MOM claim, not the MOM claim’s headline. MOM’s claim is the manuscript’s thesis, “a semantic system is a sheaf of predicates over a category of contexts”, with the critique in its body. This record needs the critique: sections over disjoint contexts glue, a failure needs an overlap, and the cover decides.

How it was checked

• The argument is the sheaf condition applied to a cover whose members do not meet. It was re-derived, not taken from MOM.
• The quotations were checked against MoM’s source chapters in a local clone at d987e2a: v1 “Sheaf Semantics of Context” §10.4 and §10.6, and “Epistemic Drift and Semantic Simulation” §11.3.3. All are verbatim.
• Not dual-filed: v1 §11.5 of the same chapter, “Identity as Global Section”. It treats a person’s roles as sections over family, professional and social contexts, and is the same move applied to the self. MOM has no claim on that section. CLAIM-197 cites it by section and does not depend on it.

Boundary

This is mathematics read for a question about meaning and the self, which no anthology topic holds. There is no work here to dual-hold, only a MOM claim, which ADR-037 covers.

Then: §11.5 ported, with boyd (2008)

The owner asked for the §11.5 passage to be ported “if it’s interesting and defensible”. As written it is not defensible: it calls contradictory roles a failure of identity to unify, which is CLAIM-197’s error for the self. Restated on overlaps it is both, and outside evidence was looked for before filing it.

• LIT-1001, boyd (2008), Taken Out of Context, read in part (NOTE-710) from the author’s copy, licensed CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. It supplies collapsed contexts, the Carmichael example after Meyrowitz, and scripted collisions such as weddings. Not held in the anthology.
• Looked for and not filed. Marwick & boyd (2011), “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately” (doi:10.1177/1461444810365313), is closed access with no repository copy (OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar). Goffman (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, had no lawful full text reachable; the Internet Archive copies are lending items or uploads of uncertain standing, and none was read. Meyrowitz (1985), No Sense of Place, was not looked for. All three are cited through boyd only.
• Filed from it: CLAIM-196 (Proposed), and CASE-052 (stipulated, because its facts are secondhand).

---

Four works on epistemic justice, personal agency, the sense of agency and relational autonomy, filed unread

2026-10-12 05:51:51

The owner asked whether the record held questions near psychological autonomy, epistemic justice and personal agency. A search found the following.

• Autonomy: well covered in readings: self-determination theory, the manipulation argument, identification, and planning agency. Its questions sit on the set-aside authenticity line.
• Personal agency: covered only as the metaphysics of what an agent is.
• Epistemic justice: absent. LIT-129 is filed unread, and Fricker reaches the record only through NOTE-098’s reading of Leonelli.

The assistant proposed four works to fill the gaps and one question, and the owner had all of them filed. Each work was checked against Crossref and is registered unread and Deferred. Unpaywall reports no open copy of any of them. The anthology holds none of them: a grep of its record/ at commit d8b5ba5 for each author, title and DOI found nothing, and none of its topics holds the subject.

• Fricker 2007, Epistemic Injustice (LIT-1004): testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. It is the reading QUESTION-072 was filed ahead of.
• Bandura 2001, “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective” (LIT-1005): personal, proxy and collective agency, and self-efficacy. Proxy and collective agency bear on the distributed-agency line.
• Haggard 2017, “Sense of agency in the human brain” (LIT-1009): the experience of control, comparator against inferential accounts, and intentional binding. It is a natural reading for the evidence-for-experience line.
• Mackenzie & Stoljar 2000, Relational Autonomy (LIT-1010): autonomy as formed in social relations, and the problem of oppressive socialisation. It bears on CLAIM-016 and on the manipulation argument (THEORY-040).

QUESTION-072, on the nucleating-argument line, asks whether a project memory distributes credibility by making some contributors’ moves addressable and not others’. It was filed ahead of its readings, at the owner’s request.

Added later the same day: autonomy and manipulation

The owner then asked how the record covers the intersection of autonomy and manipulation. It holds the problem but no question that asks it. THEORY-040 states the manipulation argument against structural conditions, THEORY-047 and Pettigrew (LIT-202) supply the historical side, and CLAIM-016’s defeater is a manipulation case. The record has no analysis of what manipulation is.

Four more works were filed, unread and Deferred, checked the same way. None is in the anthology.

• Noggle, “The Ethics of Manipulation”, SEP 2018, revised 2026 (LIT-1007). An open copy exists.
• Susser, Roessler & Nissenbaum 2019, “Technology, autonomy, and manipulation” (LIT-1002): manipulation as hidden influence that exploits vulnerabilities. An open copy exists.
• Coons & Weber (eds.) 2014, Manipulation: Theory and Practice (LIT-1003).
• Pereboom 2001, Living without Free Will (LIT-1006): the four-case argument at its source. Until now the record met it only secondhand.

Two questions were filed:

• QUESTION-071 (will-organization): can a will-organization be manipulated without anything in its present structure showing it, and what history would tell? It is asked on the will line so that the problem can be worked on without reopening the set-aside authenticity line.
• QUESTION-070 (distributed-agency): when an organized whole manipulates with no member intending it, is it the same wrong, and whose agency does it run through? It draws on the two read cases, LIT-179 and LIT-084.

Added later the same day: a second case from the papers-feed

A pass over the owner’s papers-feed (curation entry of the same day on the synthesis branch) found “On Targeted Manipulation and Deception when Optimizing LLMs for User Feedback” (arXiv 2411.02306). It is filed here, unread and Deferred, with the anthology-candidate flag, beside LIT-179 as a second case for QUESTION-070: a learning system that learns to manipulate users with no one intending it.

---

Sixty-nine readings from the owner’s papers-feed, matched to the record’s questions by embedding and filed unread

2026-10-12 14:46:09

The owner asked for unfiled readings in their papers-feed snapshot (dmarx/papers-feed, data/papers/gh-store-snapshot.json, taken 2026-10-11T21:49Z) that are likely to bear on this record’s questions. After seeing the list, they asked for all of it to be filed.

How the list was made

1. The snapshot. It holds 8,032 entries. 4,467 have a title and abstract. Most of the rest are placeholder titles from blocked pages. 1,904 of those were recovered through the DOI or arXiv id in their URL, using Crossref and arXiv. 755 ScienceDirect links carry no DOI and were left out.
2. Matching against the records. Entries already held here (131) or in the anthology (45) were matched by identifier and title.
3. Ranking. Each remaining entry (title and abstract, first 160 words) was embedded with a local open model, BAAI bge-small-en-v1.5, and so was each Open or Deferred question (title and its “The question” section). The question set covered main and the two open PRs. For each of 71 questions, the 15 nearest entries were kept: 504 in all.
4. Judging. Four agents judged each of the 504 against the question it matched, from the abstract, and were told to be strict. 72 were judged useful to a question as posed (69 distinct works). 177 were judged anthology material only and 243 not useful.
5. Drafting. Four more agents confirmed each work’s citation against arXiv, Crossref or bioRxiv and checked the anthology. The feed’s metadata was wrong or incomplete for about a third of the works: missing co-authors, OpenReview links standing in for arXiv versions, and acceptance dates given as publication dates. The entries use the confirmed metadata.

What entered

• 69 works, all unread and Deferred. 34 are for this record only.
• 35 are also anthology material, read here for a question of this record’s own. Two of them the anthology already holds: Contextures (ANTH-LIT-459) and the data-mixing phase transitions paper (ANTH-LIT-451). The other 33 carry the anthology-candidate flag (ADR-005).
• Each entry’s body names the question it was filed for and what it contributes there.
• 68 entries are filed with the questions of the synthesis rounds they serve. The one filed for the question on manipulation by an organized whole is filed with that question’s contribution.

Line	Works
pragmatic-transport	25
learned-structure	16
distributed-agency	16
organizational-affect	6
will-organization	3
evidence-for-experience	2
authenticity	1

No work was found for the nucleating-argument questions. The feed is mostly machine-learning papers.

What a reading should do first

Every claim in these entries is the abstract’s, judged against a question’s wording. The most direct match is Contextures for QUESTION-052: it claims the singular-function result for a pairing that need not be symmetric, which is the answer the question names. It should be read first.

---

Kunin et al., held in both records

2026-10-13 03:13:11

The owner asked for arXiv 2107.09133 to be read and filed here “if we don’t already have it”. This record did not hold it. The anthology does: ANTH-LIT-454, with ANTH-NOTE-202, ANTH-THEORY-031 and ANTH-SOTA-270.

Held in both, under ADR-013. Each record reads the paper for its own question:

• The anthology reads it for practice, as one of three measured ways the aggregate loss curve hides what training does (ANTH-THEORY-031). It gives the instruction not to read a smooth curve as smooth training (ANTH-SOTA-270).
• This record reads it for the learned-structure line: what a converged run is. On the paper’s account it is a nonequilibrium stationary distribution on a modified loss, with spread and correlations set by the optimizer. That bears on QUESTION-069’s “regime” alternative.

The entries here are LIT-1011, NOTE-711 and THEORY-209. The LIT names ANTH-LIT-454 in its status note and history. It carries the anthology-candidate flag last, as ADR-005 requires of a work an anthology topic can hold, and as this record’s other dual holdings do.

What the reading added beyond the anthology’s. Two limits the account needs for this record’s question, recorded in the NOTE and the THEORY:

• The model is silent on the Hessian’s null space, where flat and symmetric directions live, so it cannot speak to connectivity along them.
• Its deep-network evidence is one ResNet-18, in one two-dimensional projection.

---

Ten works the Mathematics of Meaning survey pointed to, filed unread

2026-10-13 17:01:17

The owner asked for a survey of the Mathematics of Meaning corpus for material this record could use, then said to start with the literature it turned up. Four parallel readers covered the prose corpus and MoM’s own record. Their reports named works that MoM’s survey entries say its corpus needed and never cited. Some of those works bear on questions this record is working, and this record did not hold them.

Filed, all Deferred and unread. Each is filed from its Crossref or arXiv record, with no NOTE, and is known by what it is standardly cited for. Each entry’s standing section says which question it is for and what a reading should check.

• Boundaries (QUESTION-035, CLAIM-194). Smith & Varzi, “Fiat and Bona Fide Boundaries” (LIT-1024); Casati & Varzi, Parts and Places (LIT-1022); Weber & Varela, “Life after Kant” (LIT-1018). The entries note that fiat/bona fide is not CLAIM-194’s produced/imposed distinction. The autopoietic notion of self-production is the nearer match.
• Composition and the problem of the many (QUESTION-009, QUESTION-035). These are van Inwagen, Material Beings (LIT-1016), Unger, “The Problem of the Many” (LIT-1020), and Lewis, “Many, but almost one” (LIT-1015). They are the standard literature on the question the distributed-agency line answers with a target-relative criterion (CLAIM-152, CLAIM-157), which none of them uses.
• Viability and norms (CLAIM-079, CLAIM-099, CLAIM-075). Di Paolo, “Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency” (LIT-1017). It is the enactive route from viability to norms, which CLAIM-075’s disclaimer has to face.
• Transport between systems of distinctions (CLAIM-098, CLAIM-011, QUESTION-005). Barwise & Seligman, Information Flow (LIT-1019).
• Composition as coarse-graining (QUESTION-026). Gallego & Orús, “Language Design as Information Renormalization” (LIT-1023). It is held in both records under ADR-013: the anthology holds it as ANTH-LIT-695. It carries anthology-candidate last. It is the weakest of the ten, filed from a bibliography and linked to the question by resemblance.
• Influence without deception (QUESTION-070, QUESTION-071, CLAIM-050). Kamenica & Gentzkow, “Bayesian Persuasion” (LIT-1021). MoM does not cite it. The survey came to it through MoM’s framing of reflexive control as information design. The entry says that whether persuasion is manipulation at all is open.

Checked. Every citation was checked against Crossref or arXiv on 2026-10-13, except two first-edition dates. Material Beings is dated 1990 from the standard citation, because Crossref’s record for its DOI is a 1995 issue. “Many, but almost one” is dated 1993 from the standard citation, because Crossref holds only the 1999 reprint. Both entries say so. The anthology (clone at d1573d2) was grepped for each author, title and identifier. Only Gallego & Orús is there. None of the ten had a LIT here. Some authors are named in notes, but no entry is for these works.

MoM is not a co-holder. MoM’s LIT entries are survey entries, each naming a literature its corpus missed. They are not readings of single works. So ADR-037’s “works held in both” does not apply, and each entry cites the MOM survey entry only as where the pointer came from.

One citation was caught and replaced. The Barwise & Seligman entry first cited CLAIM-133 for “correspondence fixes what can be compared”. The lint’s inactive-citation report showed CLAIM-133 is Superseded by CLAIM-139, and CLAIM-139 drops that clause. The entry now cites CLAIM-011 (Active), which says the same about anchoring a correspondence.

Named by the survey and not filed here. These can go in a later batch if a question needs them:

• the vagueness argument against restricted composition (Lewis 1986, Sider 2001), which the van Inwagen entry names;
• Olson’s What Are We? (2007), since The Human Animal (LIT-448) is already held;
• List & Pettit’s 2002 impossibility paper, since Group Agency (LIT-391) is already held;
• Foot’s Natural Goodness and Thompson’s Life and Action, the neo-Aristotelian foil for CLAIM-075;
• Simon & Ando (1961) on aggregation of variables;
• Thomas (2004) on Russian reflexive control.

The survey also suggested promoting Hacking (LIT-475) by reading it. That is a reading, not a filing, and no lawful full text was reachable when it was filed.

---

Six of the ten works read the same day; the readings correct three of the filings

2026-10-13 17:34:31

The owner asked for readings of the ten works filed earlier the same day (curation entry of 17:01), “where able to”. Seven readers worked in parallel, one per article, and an eighth looked for the three books. Each searched for a lawful full text, read it, and wrote a NOTE. The coordinator re-checked every quotation against an independent text extraction of the same copy. The mismatches were only quotations of record entries, quoted passages with ellipses or page breaks, and one true line-end hyphen in Lewis. Lint was run once at the end.

Read, all six in full:

work	copy	NOTE
Smith & Varzi 2000 (LIT-1024)	JSTOR PDF on Barry Smith’s site	NOTE-721
Weber & Varela 2002 (LIT-1018)	publisher PDF on the IAS-Research group site (UPV/EHU)	NOTE-720
Di Paolo 2005 (LIT-1017)	publisher PDF on the author’s site	NOTE-719
Lewis 1993 (LIT-1015)	scan of the 1999 reprint on Andrew Bailey’s Lewis page, as for LIT-446	NOTE-722
Kamenica & Gentzkow 2011 (LIT-1021)	AER PDF on Gentzkow’s Stanford page; NBER w15540 for two passages	NOTE-717
Gallego & Orús (LIT-1023)	arXiv v5	NOTE-718

For Kamenica & Gentzkow, the online appendix was not read.

Not read, no lawful copy found. Each status note now records where its reader looked. Unger 1980 (LIT-1020) has only a paywalled Wiley version and one third-party PDF, which was not used. The three books, Casati & Varzi (LIT-1022), Barwise & Seligman (LIT-1019) and van Inwagen (LIT-1016), have no open copy. For Casati & Varzi, Varzi’s own page and PhilArchive were behind bot checks, so an author copy is not ruled out. Material Beings’ 1990 first edition is now confirmed from Open Library.

What the readings corrected in the filings of a few hours earlier.

• Kamenica & Gentzkow do not give QUESTION-071 an invisible influence. The filing said nothing in the persuaded receiver’s present reasoning shows the steering, only its history. The paper says the receiver knows the signal and why it was chosen. The optimum also shows in her present beliefs. What the paper gives QUESTION-071 is influence that is overt and still effective. The paper never cites Blackwell, and the filing’s phrase “preferring a garbling of full information” was empty. Under the commitment assumption every signal is such a garbling.
• Di Paolo is not CLAIM-075’s rival. The filing called his paper the route from viability to norms that CLAIM-075 must face. He argues that viability alone yields no norm the system can use, which is CLAIM-075’s own point made more strongly. His norms are for the system only. So Enoch’s objection to constitutivism (LIT-117) does not apply as the filing implied. His adaptivity is closer to an operative regime than to CLAIM-025’s transformation capacity.
• Gallego & Orús does not bear on QUESTION-026 or CLAIM-098. It computes syntactic probability only, with meaning set aside. Its many-to-one step stays inside one sentence. It keeps the word “renormalization” without rescaling, fixed points or flow. Its reader recommends setting it Rejected here, with the anthology’s holding (ANTH-LIT-695) as the reason. That is for the owner to decide. The LIT stays Active, and its standing says why it barely bears.

What the readings confirmed or sharpened.

• Fiat/bona fide crosses produced/imposed (CLAIM-194). The membrane is bona fide and produced, the beam bona fide and imposed. On Smith & Varzi’s terms every combined form of separate bodies is fiat. So the distinction cannot pick between answers to QUESTION-035. A fiat boundary is still not arbitrary: the material “enables” and “constrains” where it can be drawn.
• Self-production has a definition but no test (CLAIM-194). Weber & Varela define the boundary a system makes for itself. They give no test for it. They restrict autopoiesis to the cell, which makes the counter stronger than it states.
• Lewis’s “almost one” fits CLAIM-164 only in part. It fits perturbed copies of one gap-isolated subspace, where the gap gives the threshold Lewis leaves open. It does not fit vectors inside a degenerate cluster. For those, his supervaluation suggests “indeterminate reference” rather than CLAIM-164’s “names nothing”.

Follow-ups the readers suggested and did not make. Each touches an entry outside this batch, so each is left to a later contribution:

• QUESTION-071: name the overt-but-effective case.
• QUESTION-070: note that a harm criterion needs a baseline.
• CLAIM-075: say which kind of “conditional” judgement it means.
• CLAIM-164: soften “names nothing”, or defend it.
• CLAIM-157: say how the duration clause handles a block that fades.
• CLAIM-194: note that autopoiesis admits no combined form.
• File Lin & Tegmark (arXiv:1606.06737), which Gallego & Orús restates less rigorously.

---

The intention-based line of illocution filed: Grice (1957, 1975), Strawson (1964), Bach and Harnish (1979)

2026-10-13 18:44:12

The owner asked how well the record covers conversational implicature and Grice. The answer was that it covers both only through rational speech acts. LIT-816, LIT-821 and LIT-809 are read, and THEORY-172 rests on them. No work by Grice, by the neo-Griceans or by relevance theorists is held. CLAIM-221 already names the gap: its objection to CLAIM-151 appeals to the intention-based account of illocution of Grice, Strawson and Bach and Harnish. The record holds none of them, so the defeat condition of CLAIM-151 cannot fire. QUESTION-073 asks for the same works. The owner asked for them to be filed.

What is filed

The four works CLAIM-221 and QUESTION-073 name:

• Grice, “Meaning” (1957), The Philosophical Review;
• Grice, “Logic and Conversation” (1975), in Cole and Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3;
• Strawson, “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts” (1964), The Philosophical Review;
• Bach and Harnish, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (1979), MIT Press.

pragmatics is the primary tag for each (ADR-034). A grep of the anthology’s record/ (clone of 2026-10-13, commit d1573d2) for “Grice”, “Strawson”, “Harnish”, “Logic and Conversation” and “implicature” found nothing, so these entries are for this record only.

Each entry says whether a lawful full text was reachable and, if it was, how deeply it was read.

---

Fifteen works registered unread from the exchange on meaning operators and selfhood

2026-10-13 21:29:40

The owner asked for the exchange of 2026-10-13 to be filed (workbench entry of 21:29). Its last turn, U11, asked which works the record should register. The assistant’s queue, with the r/place papers A8 cited, was checked in three ways before anything was filed.

Existence. Every work was looked up by DOI in Crossref, by id in the arXiv API, or on the author’s page. All sixteen exist. The corrections are carried into the entries:

• Segura is the author of the BioSystems paper, and Barandiaran of the malfunction paper. The exchange gave neither.
• Wu and Silva’s paper has been retitled since v1.
• Brémaud and Massoulié’s page range is unconfirmed.
• Bickhard 2000 has no DOI.
• SSRN refused the request for Benthall and Salge. Its title and id are confirmed from the author’s blog, and its content is not.

Already held. Barandiaran, Di Paolo and Rohde 2009, A11’s first foundational pick, is LIT-566, read on 2026-10-03.

Not in the anthology. A grep of the anthology’s record/ (clone of 2026-10-13, commit d1573d2) for authors, titles, DOIs and arXiv ids found none of them. Kahl and Lahiri carry anthology-candidate last, because they are about AI agents and the anthology’s agents-and-environments topic might hold them. Each is filed here for its question about evaluative or governing authority (ADR-005, ADR-013).

Registered, Deferred, none read:

work	code	for
Segura 2026	LIT-1030	QUESTION-086
Benthall & Salge 2026	LIT-1031	CLAIM-284
Kahl 2026	LIT-1033	CLAIM-288
Lahiri 2026	LIT-1039	CLAIM-086
Rubin, Roli, Stano & Damiano 2026	LIT-1027	CLAIM-284
Barandiaran 2025	LIT-1026	CLAIM-277
Falmagne, Stephenson & Levin 2026	LIT-1025	CASE-079
Wu & Silva 2024	LIT-1032	CASE-079
Litherland & Mørch 2021	LIT-1037	CASE-079
Adams, Fernandez & Witkowski 2022	LIT-1034	CASE-079
Hawkes 1971	LIT-1036	method
Hawkes & Oakes 1974	LIT-1028	method
Brémaud & Massoulié 1996	LIT-1035	method
Hoel, Albantakis & Tononi 2013	LIT-1038	CLAIM-154
Bickhard 2000	LIT-1029	CLAIM-288

Not registered.

• Thompson’s Mind in Life: its citation was not checked.
• Works the exchange named only in passing: Ainslie 1975, Bacry et al. 2015, Crutchfield 1994, Varela 1979, Di Paolo & Thompson 2014, Simondon, Wimsatt.

Read the same evening. The owner asked for THEORYs to go with these LITs. A THEORY is a reading, so the works were read first: five readers in parallel, each looking for a lawful full text. Every quotation was checked by script against the extracted text.

work	outcome	NOTE	THEORY
Kahl 2026	read in full (Springer OA)	NOTE-723	THEORY-219
Lahiri 2026	read in full (Frontiers OA)	NOTE-732	THEORY-223
Rubin, Roli, Stano & Damiano 2026	read in full (Frontiers OA)	NOTE-727	THEORY-221
Barandiaran 2025	read in full (PhilSci-Archive accepted manuscript)	NOTE-730	THEORY-217
Falmagne, Stephenson & Levin 2026	read in full (Europe PMC; SI partly, from the arXiv preprint)	NOTE-731	THEORY-214
Wu & Silva 2024	read in full (arXiv v3)	NOTE-724	THEORY-216
Adams, Fernandez & Witkowski 2022	read in full (arXiv v2)	NOTE-725	THEORY-224
Litherland & Mørch 2021	read in full (publisher PDF, CC BY, Oslo deposit)	NOTE-733	THEORY-218
Brémaud & Massoulié 1996	read in full (Project Euclid OA, via an archived capture)	NOTE-728	THEORY-215 (Active, a theorem)
Hoel, Albantakis & Tononi 2013	main text in full (PMC, via an archived capture); SI not read	NOTE-726	THEORY-222
Bickhard 2000	read in full (author’s posting)	NOTE-729	THEORY-220
Benthall & Salge 2026	Unavailable: SSRN blocks scripted access	—	—
Segura 2026	Unavailable: the only open copy (SSRN) is behind a browser check	—	—
Hawkes 1971	Unavailable: paywalled; a third-party scan was not used	—	—
Hawkes & Oakes 1974	Unavailable: paywalled	—	—

What the readings corrected.

• Litherland and Mørch. “Instruction” in their title means Reddit’s own rules, and the planners’ designs fall under “emergence”. The case, the equal-budget claim and the identifiability question had read it the other way. All three are corrected, and the paper now answers QUESTION-084 in part.
• Hawkes processes. The branching ratio is a control parameter, and outside the linear excitatory case only a sufficient bound. It is not the order parameter that the question, both workbench entries and the Hawkes LIT said it supplies to CLAIM-163. Corrected where it was said.
• Equal budgets. Use of r/place’s equal cooldown was itself heavy-tailed (Wu and Silva), so coordination is one source of unequal influence, not the only one. CLAIM-272 now says so.
• Lahiri. The filing called it the closest case of constitutive influence. Its top level of autonomy is mostly not constitutive influence, and none of its vignettes shows an agent changing a control on itself.
• Segura. The filing’s summary, “assay sets conservative for candidate models”, is not in the SSRN abstract, which describes a topos-theoretic formalization. The summary and QUESTION-086 now mark it unconfirmed.
• Bickhard against THEORY-072. Bickhard holds that a candle flame’s self-maintaining processes are functional for it. Mossio, Saborido and Moreno (LIT-570), whom THEORY-072 relies on, deny that. It is a disagreement about function and does not touch THEORY-072’s title.
• Adams et al. and Wu and Silva. Adams et al. model no participants, so they do not estimate reach as the exchange expected. Wu and Silva clustered artworks for 2017 only.
• Hoel et al. The macro advantage depends on imposing a uniform intervention distribution at each level separately. “Causally privileged” overstated it.

A reader sent the owner’s email address to the Unpaywall API, which requires one, while looking for Segura’s copy. It should not have been sent. The owner has been told.

---

Triage of the 167 Deferred works: what to read next, and where a copy can be had

2026-10-14 01:23:03

The owner asked for the Deferred readings to be triaged, and for a list of those that are both likely to be valuable to the research agenda and likely to be readable. Since ADR-041, Deferred means that no failed search for a copy is recorded. The 183 Unavailable works were left out. No status was changed and nothing was read. This entry is a queue, not a reading.

How it was scored

Value came from three signals, read together:

• the entry’s own “Priority for a deeper reading” line, where it has one (46 of 167 do: 16 high, 19 medium, 11 low);
• whether a THEORY, QUESTION, CLAIM or CASE cites the work, or the work’s status note says which question it was registered for;
• how much the record has worked on that question, counted by mentions in claims.d, arguments.d and workbench.d on 2026-10-14. The most worked were QUESTION-005 (83), QUESTION-027 (37), QUESTION-029 (36), QUESTION-002 (33), QUESTION-021 (31), QUESTION-031 (30), QUESTION-073 and QUESTION-009 (27 each), and QUESTION-054 (20). Works registered for a question that is itself Deferred (QUESTION-008, QUESTION-059, QUESTION-061) were ranked down.

Availability was checked as follows. An arxiv: source counts as open (77 works). For the 73 works with a DOI, OpenAlex was asked for an open-access location: 48 had none (closed) and 25 had one. For 25 of the works with an OpenAlex location, this client then fetched it once. Most returned the full text. MDPI, the AMS, the Royal Society, ACM and the American Meteorological Society returned 403, and bioRxiv returned 429. The 17 url: works were judged by their host. SEP, eScholarship, NASA NTRS and PMC are open. A publisher’s catalogue page or an Open Library listing is not open.

Read next

These works have an open copy and the most weight behind them. Within each group, the most load-bearing come first.

Bearing on the record’s most worked questions

work	source	why
LIT-950	arXiv	QUESTION-027: gives sufficient conditions for linear properties shared by every next-token predictor of one distribution, which bears on the unrestricted, in-probe form of the relational-signature question only (corrected after the reading)
LIT-936	arXiv	QUESTION-027: a coordinate-free signature that agrees across architectures
LIT-253	arXiv	high; THEORY-002, THEORY-018; when closeness in distribution forces representational similarity, which also bears on QUESTION-027
LIT-997	arXiv	QUESTION-002: measures LLM revision that keeps the surface and moves meaning and stance
LIT-990	Springer OA	QUESTION-009: a quantifiable agency built on part–whole relations
LIT-266	arXiv	high; THEORY-011, THEORY-015, QUESTION-067: Spekkens’s generalized noncontextuality, which the entry calls the bridge between the record’s two formal threads
LIT-945	arXiv	QUESTION-067: derives generalized noncontextuality from Leibnizianity; read after LIT-266
LIT-1007, LIT-1002	SEP; Internet Policy Review	QUESTION-070, QUESTION-071, which cite both; the open way into the manipulation literature, whose books (LIT-1003, LIT-1006) are closed

Load-bearing for THEORY documents already written

All are on arXiv and carry a “high” priority line. Each is cited by at least one THEORY that rests on what a skim captured.

work	cited by
LIT-249	THEORY-001, THEORY-005, THEORY-007, THEORY-009
LIT-258	THEORY-001, THEORY-005, THEORY-007, THEORY-009
LIT-246	THEORY-001, THEORY-006
LIT-250	THEORY-002, THEORY-004
LIT-254	THEORY-004, THEORY-008
LIT-242	THEORY-007, THEORY-009
LIT-228	THEORY-007
LIT-247	THEORY-006
LIT-226	THEORY-006, THEORY-035
LIT-245	THEORY-035

Worth reading after those

Each of these has an open copy, and each was registered for an open question or cited by a claim. They are grouped by question so that a session can take a whole group.

• QUESTION-035 (boundaries of a combined form): LIT-953 (MDPI, 403 to this client, so fetch by browser), LIT-955 (thesis repository), LIT-989 (bioRxiv).
• QUESTION-030 (constitutive versus accompanying relations): LIT-968, then its reply LIT-961. Both are on arXiv and read best as one dispute. Then LIT-987, also on arXiv. It is not part of that exchange: it is a later paper from the reply’s group, and it cites neither.
• QUESTION-032: LIT-969. QUESTION-016: LIT-971. QUESTION-020: LIT-941. QUESTION-010: LIT-963. QUESTION-018: LIT-938. All are on arXiv.
• QUESTION-024: LIT-942 and LIT-946 (arXiv). Their readings found that they point the same way, not opposite ways: neither finds a mechanism shared by demonstrations and instructions, and neither varies an induced frame’s wording (corrected after the reading).
• QUESTION-025: LIT-937, LIT-972 (arXiv), and LIT-977 (PLOS ONE).
• QUESTION-052: LIT-975 (arXiv) and LIT-981 (PMC).
• QUESTION-051 and QUESTION-080 (neural collapse): LIT-978 is the review, so read it first. Then LIT-974, LIT-994 and LIT-985. All are on arXiv.
• QUESTION-039 (order of acquisition): LIT-952, LIT-951, LIT-940, LIT-984 and LIT-954. All are on arXiv.
• QUESTION-058 and QUESTION-060: LIT-935, LIT-976, LIT-944, LIT-986 and LIT-995. All are on arXiv.
• QUESTION-047 (community-level belief): LIT-939 (PLOS ONE), plus LIT-958, LIT-966 and LIT-988 (arXiv).
• QUESTION-053: LIT-933 (Frontiers). QUESTION-063: LIT-960 and LIT-947 (arXiv). QUESTION-065: LIT-979 (arXiv). QUESTION-042: LIT-998 (PMC). QUESTION-045: LIT-983 (bioRxiv). QUESTION-048: LIT-973 (Nature OA) and LIT-965 (PMC). QUESTION-055: LIT-934 and LIT-956 (arXiv). QUESTION-070: LIT-1008 (arXiv).
• Cited by claims: LIT-918 (CLAIM-180; PMC), LIT-758 (IBIS’s origin; eScholarship), LIT-921 (NASA NTRS), and LIT-244 (SEP, for QUESTION-028).
• Compression and generalization, with a priority line but no THEORY yet: LIT-239 and LIT-238 (high), LIT-224 and LIT-225 (high), LIT-229, LIT-233 and LIT-236 (medium; LIT-233 and LIT-236 are cited by THEORY-028). All are on arXiv.
• For questions that are themselves Deferred: LIT-948 and LIT-962 (QUESTION-008); LIT-1000, LIT-957 and LIT-996 (QUESTION-059); LIT-949 (QUESTION-061).

The rest of the medium-priority SSL and kernel entries (LIT-227, LIT-231, LIT-232, LIT-234, LIT-248, LIT-251, LIT-252, LIT-255, LIT-256, LIT-257, LIT-259, LIT-260) are open on arXiv. Their entries say the skim already captures the load-bearing statement. Read them only when a THEORY that cites them is revised.

Low value

Wikipedia and expository pages (LIT-230, LIT-237, LIT-241, LIT-243), the items the 2026-09-25 triage already rated low (LIT-026, LIT-029, LIT-039, LIT-043, LIT-070, LIT-074, LIT-235), and LIT-379, which no question cites. Their copies do not matter.

Valuable but blocked on a copy

These works are worth reading, but OpenAlex finds no open copy, or the open copy refused this client. They need the owner’s library access or browser.

• Open copy listed, but refused this client. LIT-931 (CLAIM-186), LIT-762, LIT-359 and LIT-365 (THEORY-031). LIT-359 and LIT-365 were among those whose notes record a failed attempt in September. OpenAlex now lists a diamond or bronze copy for each, so a browser fetch is the cheapest step on this list.
• Closed, and cited by the argument. LIT-301 (QUESTION-028, THEORY-034, THEORY-036), LIT-342 (THEORY-034), LIT-992 (QUESTION-054), LIT-1004 (QUESTION-072), LIT-1003 and LIT-1006 (QUESTION-070, QUESTION-071), LIT-240 (THEORY-035), LIT-929 and LIT-932 (CLAIM-186), LIT-930 and LIT-760 (CLAIM-179), LIT-913 (CLAIM-273), LIT-817 (CLAIM-018), LIT-321 (THEORY-042) and LIT-328 (THEORY-030).

Found along the way

22 Deferred LITs, all between LIT-301 and LIT-366, have a status note saying “a close reading was attempted and no legitimate full text could be reached”. That is ADR-041’s definition of Unavailable. Their bodies name the places searched (OpenAlex, Crossref, the publisher, the Internet Archive, JSTOR), so they already met ADR-041’s line. The migration classified by the status note alone and missed them. The owner asked for them to move, and they are now Unavailable, each with a history entry. LIT-301, LIT-342, LIT-321, LIT-328, LIT-359 and LIT-365 in the blocked list above are among them. With this move, 145 LITs are Deferred and 205 are Unavailable.

---

Random projections: seven works registered unread, and a question tying the record’s three uses together

2026-10-14 21:06:29 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record stands on random projections. A search of record/ found three uses and no reading of the theory behind them. The uses were random Fourier features (LIT-679, THEORY-106), the compressed-sensing bound in Toy Models of Superposition (NOTE-278), and the thresholded random projections of sparse distributed memory and the mushroom body (NOTE-242, NOTE-670). The search covered random projection, Johnson–Lindenstrauss, the restricted isometry property, sketching, locality-sensitive hashing, Achlioptas and fly hashing. No LIT, THEORY, QUESTION or CLAIM had any of them as its subject. The owner asked for the anchor works to be filed and for a question to tie the threads together.

What entered

All seven were registered Deferred and unread. Metadata was checked against Crossref, and against arXiv where there is an arXiv id.

• Johnson & Lindenstrauss (1984) (LIT-1153, doi:10.1090/conm/026/737400). The lemma itself.
• Dasgupta & Gupta (2003) (LIT-1157, doi:10.1002/rsa.10073). The elementary proof most later work quotes.
• Achlioptas (2003) (LIT-1159, doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(03)00025-4). Shows that signed, zero-mean matrices with entries ±1, or √3·{+1, 0, −1} with two thirds zeros, are enough. Filed as the ensemble the fly and SDM use; the reading showed it is not (corrected after the reading).
• Larsen & Nelson (2017) (LIT-1154, arXiv:1609.02094). Shows the bound is tight, so ε⁻² log n is a threshold.
• Baraniuk, Davenport, DeVore & Wakin (2008) (LIT-1156, doi:10.1007/s00365-007-9003-x). Derives RIP from JL concentration. Filed as the bridge to the superposition bound; the reading showed it bridges sufficiency only (corrected after the reading).
• Donoho & Tanner (2009) (LIT-1160, arXiv:0906.2530). The phase transition that NOTE-278 asks about.
• Dasgupta, Stevens & Navlakha (2017) (LIT-1158, doi:10.1126/science.aam9868). The fly olfactory circuit read as locality-sensitive hashing.

The question is QUESTION-120, on the formal-apparatus line, because it asks about a general result that other lines borrow.

Boundary

None of the seven is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (clone at d1573d2) for the titles, identifiers, Johnson–Lindenstrauss, random projection, restricted isometry, Achlioptas and mushroom body found the lemma used only inside Linformer (ANTH-LIT-529) and random projections only inside TracIn (ANTH-LIT-400). Six of the works are mathematics, and the seventh is a neural circuit evaluated as a retrieval algorithm. No anthology topic holds any of them, so none carries anthology-candidate.

Rahimi and Recht’s random features paper is held in neither record and was not filed. It is ML practice and belongs to the anthology.

Depth

None of the seven was read, and every key takeaway is the result as it is standardly stated. The reading that would move the question first is Baraniuk et al. If its proof is as short as its title says, the superposition bound in NOTE-278 can be rewritten in the record’s own terms.

Reading, the same day

The owner then asked for the seven to be read. Six were read in full, each from a lawful copy named in its LIT’s history: NOTE-930 (a course-hosted scan of the published article), NOTE-932 and NOTE-931 (author-posted copies), NOTE-926 (a course-hosted 2002 journal draft, not the JCSS text, whose Elsevier copy returned 403), and NOTE-925 and NOTE-933 (arXiv). The fly paper is Unavailable. Its bioRxiv preprint is open but returned 429 to this client throughout, so a browser fetch would clear it.

The readings corrected the filing in several places, and each LIT’s history says where. The ones that matter for the question are these. The fly’s matrix is not an Achlioptas ensemble. Baraniuk et al. explain sufficiency of k log(N/k), not necessity. Donoho–Tanner universality is asymptotic. The JL lower bound does not bound superposition capacity. QUESTION-120 is at version 2 with these corrections.

---

Eight works registered unread from the exchange on prompting, epistemic memory and retrieval

2026-10-15 00:41:30

The owner asked for the exchange of 2026-10-14 to be filed (workbench entry of 2026-10-15). It cited many works. Each was sorted by the question it would be read for before anything was filed.

Existence. Every work registered was looked up in Crossref on 2026-10-15, or on its page for the encyclopedia entry. All exist. One correction: Gibson’s DOI is the 2015 classic edition, and published: gives the 1979 first edition to the year.

Not in the anthology. A grep of the anthology’s record/ (clone of 2026-10-15, commit d1573d2) for authors and titles found none of them. None is about machine learning, so none carries anthology-candidate.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

work	code	for
Strack & Mussweiler 1997	LIT-1064	CLAIM-298, QUESTION-109
Mussweiler & Strack 1999	LIT-1078	CLAIM-298, QUESTION-109
Goldreich 2001	LIT-1061	CLAIM-302, CLAIM-304 (definitions)
Gibson 1979	LIT-1065	TERM-055, CLAIM-296
Hutchins 1995	LIT-1060	QUESTION-101, CLAIM-296
Mitra, Singhal & Buckley 1998	LIT-1079	TERM-056, CLAIM-301
Alchourrón, Gärdenfors & Makinson 1985	LIT-1050	QUESTION-105, CLAIM-294
Hansson, SEP “Logic of Belief Revision”	LIT-1072	QUESTION-105

Already held, and not cited by the exchange. LIT-269 (Attention Approximates Sparse Distributed Memory, read), LIT-921 (read) and LIT-928 (Kanerva, Unavailable), for U19’s QKV/SDM. Blackwell and sufficiency are held throughout the pragmatic-transport line.

Not registered, and why.

• A1’s and A3’s machine-learning papers (Yin & Steinhardt 2025; Mainali & Teixeira 2026; Snell et al. 2025; Stolfo et al. 2025; Heyman & Vandeputte 2026; GEPA; NoLiMa; the chain-of-thought faithfulness papers; the instruction-hierarchy report). They are machine learning, and the anthology holds none of the six A3 listed for triage. Filing them is the anthology’s call.
• A21’s contemporary sources (two Anthropic engineering posts, Lost in the Middle), for the same reason.
• A13’s complexity sources (Nordström; Green, Karvounarakis & Tannen; Berkholz, Keppeler & Schweikardt; Henzinger et al.; King & Sagert; Bilardi & De Stefani). A14 withdrew them after the owner’s correction, as tools for luria’s design rather than this record’s questions.
• Rocchio 1971 (no DOI; LIT-1079 covers query drift), Doyle’s truth maintenance system, de Kleer’s ATMS, the 2026 anchoring meta-analysis A20 cited (not identified), Hutchins’s “How a cockpit remembers its speeds” (closer to the EMT case than Cognition in the Wild, and worth registering when QUESTION-101 is taken up).

---

Reading pass: the eight works from the 2026-10-14 exchange, and two they led to

2026-10-15 01:45:48

The owner asked for reading NOTEs for the works registered from the exchange of 2026-10-14 (curation entry of 00:41), “as available”. Each was looked for under ADR-041’s rules: publisher open access, the author’s or an institution’s copy, a course’s copy, or the Internet Archive’s capture of a lawful URL. Shadow libraries, lending copies and third parties’ uploads were not used. Searches are recorded in each LIT’s status note.

work	code	result
Strack & Mussweiler 1997	LIT-1064	Read (NOTE-877), from a University of Florida course copy of the typeset article
Mussweiler & Strack 1999	LIT-1078	Unavailable: no copy that could be fetched
Goldreich 2001	LIT-1061	Skimmed (NOTE-863): the author’s 1995 draft on ECCC, chapters 1–3; the printed book is closed
Gibson 1979	LIT-1065	Unavailable: none found
Hutchins 1995	LIT-1060	Unavailable: the open-access flag is stale; only the Introduction is online
Mitra, Singhal & Buckley 1998	LIT-1079	Unavailable: the ACM copy exists and could not be fetched
Alchourrón, Gärdenfors & Makinson 1985	LIT-1050	Read (NOTE-874), from Makinson’s own posted scan
Hansson, SEP	LIT-1072	Read (NOTE-866)

Three more, registered on the way.

• Harris et al. 2019 (LIT-1067), failed replications of the selective-accessibility measure, turned up in the search for the 1999 paper. Read (NOTE-876) from the authors’ manuscript on UCL Discovery.
• Goldreich 1990 (LIT-1053), which the book cites for the equivalence between samplable separations and one-way functions without proving it. Filed at the owner’s request. Unavailable: Goldreich posts it, but neither his server nor the Internet Archive could be reached from here.
• Hutchins’s “How a cockpit remembers its speeds” (LIT-1066), which he posts himself and which is closer to the EMT case (CASE-085) than the book. Registered and read (NOTE-867) at the owner’s request. It adds to TERM-055 and CLAIM-296 a factor they lack: retrieval done before the request and left in the environment.

What the readings changed.

• CLAIM-302: the separation is unconditional (the book’s Proposition 3.3); only an efficiently samplable witness needs an assumption. Its defeat condition overstated.
• CLAIM-304 and CASE-083: wording tightened to what the book proves; postprocessing is an exercise there, not a theorem.
• CLAIM-298: the selective-accessibility account is theory with indirect support, its most direct measure does not replicate, and its defeat condition no longer assumes retrieval and evaluation separate.
• CLAIM-294: its full-belief counterpart, Hansson’s Abe and Bob.
• QUESTION-105: narrowed. Bases and orderings are one-step answers, and neither is provenance.
• LIT-1050 and LIT-1072: the first had Hansson’s point, the second phrases that are A10’s paraphrase.

Worth registering next. Mussweiler and Strack 2000a (JPSP 78), the study Harris et al. failed to replicate.

A second batch, for QUESTION-095. At the owner’s request after the cockpit reading, eight works on offloading and amortization were registered and read the same day, all Read: Kirsh and Maglio 1994, Kirsh 1995, Ballard et al. 1997, Risko and Gilbert 2016, Gray and Fu 2004, Dasgupta et al. 2018, Lieder and Griffiths 2020, and Gershman and Goodman 2014 (no DOI; eScholarship). Sources: authors’ own posted copies, except Gray and Fu, from a Drexel course copy of the typeset article. Each reading corrected its LIT summary, which had been written from how the work is standardly cited. A citation search for work joining the two literatures found pieces, listed on the question, and no joint cost model.

A third batch. At the owner’s request: four works for the SDT question (QUESTION-103) and three from the citation search on QUESTION-095, all Read. Geisler 2011 from the NIH manuscript on PubMed Central; Håstad et al. 1999 from the authors’ typescript on Håstad’s KTH page; Dwork et al. 2021 and Hébert-Johnson et al. 2018 from arXiv, both flagged as anthology candidates; Kirsh 1996 from his own posted scan; Gray et al. 2006 from a University of Colorado course copy of the typeset article; Dasgupta and Gershman 2021 from Gershman’s lab site. The readings narrowed the SDT question (ideal-observer analysis bounds the input, not the tests) and settled Goldreich 1990’s statement (generators, not one-way functions).

A fourth batch: scaling laws. At the owner’s request, three works on training against inference compute, all Read from arXiv (Snell et al. also in its ICLR 2025 version, which revises the accounting), flagged as anthology candidates and filed for QUESTION-095: Jones 2021, Sardana et al. 2024, Snell et al. 2024. The anthology holds Kaplan et al., Hoffmann et al. and Noise Hypernetworks, cited by their ANTH codes on the question.

Howes et al. 2016, at the owner’s request after Lieder and Griffiths cited it. Read from the text of the typeset article as CORE serves Deep Blue’s deposit; every PDF route was refused. Its description in Lieder and Griffiths as a memorize-or-look-up trade does not hold, and the entries that repeated it are corrected.

---

The LEGO parable ported from Mathematics of Meaning: what was kept, what was rebuilt, what was left

2026-10-15 03:31:56 · curation · record

The owner asked: “I think there are some (albeit half baked, maybe quackish but at the very least directionally correct) ideas built around LEGO case studies that would be useful for us to port to (or modify for) the nucleation record: see Main Project/Geometric Epistemology/The Lego Parable”. Mathematics of Meaning was read at commit d987e2a. Every MOM code cited below was checked against that clone, since ADR-037 says a bad MOM code is caught no other way.

What was read

• The monograph, in full. About 57,000 words in three parts, LLM-drafted from the owner’s prompts. A first pass read the Preface, the outlines, all of Part II, Part I’s chapters 2, 6 and 10 and “Definitions and Theorems”, and Part III’s LEGO/LDA chapters and worked example. At the owner’s request (“read the rest of that stuff, don’t make assumptions about whether or not MoM touches on it the same way”), the rest followed the same day. That covered Part I’s chapters 0, 1, 3–5, 7, 8c and 9, the Overview and Outline, Part II’s Preface and Appendices, and all of Part III, including the attic and misc folders and the Smoothies note.
• MOM’s own grading of it. MOM-CLM-135, MOM-CLM-136, MOM-CLM-137, MOM-CLM-138, MOM-CLM-139, MOM-ARG-047, MOM-CLM-099 and MOM-CLM-166. MOM’s intake is not a segment-by-segment review. Its intake records mark all 53 monograph files “reviewed”, and every segment of every file “produced” the same four entries (MOM-ARG-047, MOM-CLM-137, MOM-CLM-138, MOM-CLM-139). So topical overlap with MOM is not evidence that MOM graded a passage. The second pass found three things MOM’s record does not touch: the blow-up argument (CLAIM-305), the castle eigenmode (CASE-097) and the smoothie note, which MOM’s record never mentions (CLAIM-309).
• The owner’s own parable. homelab/own-words.md, 2026-07-02, told alongside the EMT case this record already holds (CASE-085).

What was filed

First pass:

• CASE-094, the owner’s LEGO parable, a stipulated thought experiment. It is the second time CASE-085’s pattern has turned up, so it gets a code.
• CLAIM-307 (Active), from MOM-CLM-166. Retrieval and evidence are different criteria for a category, and they move oppositely with copy count. It complements CLAIM-154, the detection criterion dual-filed from MOM-CLM-160 on 2026-10-11. MOM’s table was re-run and reproduced, and a simulation of linear search agreed with m/(c+1) to within about 1%. One correction: that the criteria disagree on every row holds for MOM’s deadline, not in general.
• CASE-095 (fictional construction) and CLAIM-310. This is the directionally correct part of the monograph’s contextuality, modified. As descriptions, sortings of bricks always share a joint refinement (MOM-CLM-137) and their events stay Boolean (MOM-ARG-047), so the monograph’s central example is the non-contextual case of CLAIM-037 and CLAIM-131. As arrangements under a bin budget, they really compete. The monograph’s “Sheafification as Descriptive Compromise” survives as the choice between the meet and the join of two partitions.
• QUESTION-114, refining QUESTION-095: is sorting amortized search, and is database index selection the cost model QUESTION-095 lacks?
• QUESTION-113: evidence, retrieval and persistence across refinement as three criteria for naming a category.

Second pass, after reading the rest:

• CLAIM-305 (Active). Blow-up adds no observation. The monograph’s Part I says resolution of singularities “restores identifiability”, adds “new observables” and makes Fisher information non-degenerate (“Definitions and Theorems”, Theorem 3.2), and maps this onto splitting a LEGO bin. The pulled-back model gives one distribution over the whole exceptional divisor. In x ~ N(ab, 1) the Fisher matrix is zero all along it, checked numerically. Splitting a bin is refining the observation, a Blackwell matter. MOM-CLM-135 graded the definitions correct, and MOM-CLM-099 the three senses of the word. Neither reached this step.
• CASE-097 (construction). Appendix H’s castle topic persists by construction but as no eigenmode: the nearest eigenvector changes rank and turns about 51°, computed. It illustrates CLAIM-148 and narrows QUESTION-113, whose persistence criterion has to be stated for factors.
• CASE-096 and CLAIM-309 (Active). The owner’s smoothie line, and the finding that the note’s signal-detection reading reverses its rising half. Discriminability from milk only falls as milk is added; the line is a preference over the ratio. This is the same kind of reversal MOM-CLM-166 found in the LEGO parable’s formal reading.
• CLAIM-306 (Active). “If I can’t find it, it isn’t there” acts on an unfinished search as negation as failure acts on a finished one. It was first filed as “negation as failure under a deadline”, with Reiter 1978 and Clark 1978 registered unread. The owner asked for both to be read (Reiter from his own 1977 workshop report, NOTE-899; Clark from the author’s posted scan, NOTE-894), and both corrected it. The closed-world assumption (the database is complete) and finite failure (the search finished) are separate assumptions, and a search cut off by a deadline meets neither, so the rule is stronger than both. It is safe when the full search finishes in time, given by P(present | not found) = π(1 − h)/(π(1 − h) + 1 − π). In CASE-085 the drug was known to be stocked, which is where Reiter shows the closed-world assumption inconsistent, so there the rule was a decision to stop, not an inference.
• QUESTION-114 extended with a survey of the database literature for the owner (“work at the intersection of database theory and information retrieval”). It covers physical design and index selection, Yao’s “Should tables be sorted?”, database cracking, move-to-front and rent-or-buy. All citations were Crossref-checked; none is registered yet. The survey found no single cost model covering bugs, filing and bins.
• QUESTION-113 extended with the owner’s objections in the source: a criterion for naming must not be trivial, and must apply to objects as well as descriptors.

The two visual-search works

Read at the owner’s request.

• Treisman and Gelade 1980 (LIT-1082): Read, NOTE-897, from a Princeton course copy. It corrected the first pass. The paper puts serial search down to conjunctions of features, not similarity. It argues against similarity as the cause, and similarity on one dimension made search slow but not item by item. CLAIM-310 part 3 was restated: sorting on one attribute turns a conjunction search into a feature search within each bin. CLAIM-310 moved to Active on that narrower form. CASE-095, CASE-094 and CLAIM-307 were corrected to match.
• Duncan and Humphreys 1989 (LIT-1081): Unavailable. The one course copy now returns 404, the Internet Archive’s capture could not be reached, and OpenAlex reports it closed. Its abstract, checked by script against the MRC CBU bibliography page, states the similarity account. The record holds the disagreement with one side read.

Four works on database physical design, and ADR-044

At the owner’s request (“register and read those, and draft the ADR”): Finkelstein, Schkolnick and Tiberio 1988 (LIT-1084), Yao 1981 (LIT-1097), Idreos, Kersten and Manegold 2007 (LIT-1090) and Sleator and Tarjan 1985 (LIT-1093). All four were Read, from a University of Crete course copy, a University of Maryland course copy (compared with Yao’s own Stanford report), the CIDR proceedings and Sleator’s CMU page. ACM’s open copies refused every request.

Three of the survey’s descriptions were corrected by the readings. Finkelstein’s model is steady-state and has no one-time build cost. Yao shows sorted order optimal only in an extreme regime, and counts lookup only. Sleator and Tarjan compare move-to-front with the best dynamic offline rule, not with an arrangement. Their Theorem 3, that rearranging ahead of need never beats moving the found item, is the finding that most changes QUESTION-114. It supports CASE-094’s practice and puts “sorting is amortized search” in question. QUESTION-114 records all four and stays Open: none gives the joint cost model, and the precomputed-answer case (the cockpit’s bugs) is in none of them.

These works had no topic of their own and were first tagged information-retrieval, the nearest term. The owner: “don’t hesitate to extend the vocabulary as needed”. ADR-045 adds databases (Databases and data structures) and retags them. Harinarayan, Rajaraman and Ullman 1996 (LIT-1094), the survey’s pointer for precomputed answers, was registered and read at the owner’s request for the case the four leave out.

ADR-044 proposes a corroborates relation between claims, after a supports filed in the first pass wrote a false rests_on onto CLAIM-296. The owner accepted it (“accept ADR-044 and apply it”). The relation is declared in luria.yaml and applied first to CLAIM-310, which corroborates CLAIM-296.

Three more on the sorting question

At the owner’s request. Comer 1978 (LIT-1086) is Unavailable: ACM refused every request, and a Purdue report version sits behind a Cloudflare challenge. A secondary account says it proves the hardness of choosing attributes that distinguish every pair of records, not workload-driven index selection, so the record’s first description of it is marked unverified. Piatetsky-Shapiro 1983 (LIT-1089, read from SIGMOD’s open archive) proves the workload-based result by reduction from set cover and is now cited for it. Karlin, Manasse, Rudolph and Sleator 1988 (LIT-1096) was read from the publisher’s scan on an MIT course page. That is a course copy like the Princeton and Drexel ones used earlier, not an author’s posting. It gives rent-or-buy without the name, and the record cites it as the first competitive analysis of that argument, not as the source of the name.

Chaudhuri and Narasayya 1997 (LIT-1083) followed, read from the VLDB Endowment’s proceedings PDF, which refuses requests without a browser User-Agent. It prices fewer terms than Finkelstein et al.: no build cost, no storage.

Bruno and Chaudhuri 2007 (LIT-1095) and Athanassoulis et al. 2016 (LIT-1085) were read last. Bruno and Chaudhuri are the closest to the question’s joint model, with a guarantee narrower than the survey said: one index, no storage limit, and an unstated small-step condition, which a simulation for the reading found. The RUM conjecture is vocabulary, not a model.

The owner asked for “Harinarayan’s follow-up on view maintenance”. Stanford’s warehousing publication list shows Harinarayan wrote none. Gupta 1997 (LIT-1091), by Harinarayan’s co-author, adds maintenance cost to view selection and was read in its place, from Gupta’s own preprint. It adds upkeep only for AND graphs and assumes no updates for the data cube itself. Gupta and Mumick 1999 (LIT-1092), read at the owner’s request from the authors’ camera-ready, budget maintenance time instead. They show upkeep is not additive and bound a greedy only for OR view graphs. Staleness stays unpriced, so the question stays open. Their 2005 TKDE paper (LIT-1080), read from Gupta’s own manuscript, turned out to be the journal version of both ICDT papers, not of the 1999 one alone as filed; it proves two of the three theorems and adds nothing the question needs.

THEORYs for the readings

The owner noticed that this contribution and PR #148 registered dozens of readings and filed no THEORY. That was an oversight in how the readings were filed, not a rule: each reading’s bearing went into its question’s prose, and the paper’s own finding was never stated as an account. Two claims grounded works the record had read as bare LITs, which ADR-032 calls the weakest footing (CLAIM-306 on Clark and Reiter, CLAIM-302 on Goldreich), and CLAIM-298 grounded an unread one.

Thirty-one THEORYs were drafted from the NOTEs, sixteen Active and fifteen Proposed: eleven for this contribution’s readings and twenty for PR #148’s. Each states the finding with its conditions and says what it does not show. Proposed is used where the record holds one unreplicated study, a review’s report of studies not read at source, an argued rather than measured saving, or a conjecture. The anchoring account (THEORY-335) stays Proposed rather than Rejected: its lexical-decision test failed to replicate, but the same task missed direct priming, so the test, not the account, is what failed. The feature-integration THEORY (THEORY-358) states the search slopes, not the paper’s mechanism, which Duncan and Humphreys contest and the record could not read.

Claims now ground the accounts instead of the works: CLAIM-306 (THEORY-341), CLAIM-310 (THEORY-358), CLAIM-298 (THEORY-335), CLAIM-302 and CLAIM-304 (THEORY-357, THEORY-352), CLAIM-294 (THEORY-347, THEORY-353) and CLAIM-296 (THEORY-351, THEORY-346). The rent-or-buy account (THEORY-348) bears against CLAIM-303’s clause that recurrence is evidence of reuse and not the criterion: in the worst case, recurrence weighted by the cost of rebuilding is the criterion, within a factor of 2. At the owner’s request it is filed as an objection, CLAIM-308, a counter left Proposed: it narrows the clause where reuse cannot be forecast, and does not reach staleness.

Drafting found errors in the readings, corrected in the same contribution: two Active LITs (LIT-1066, LIT-1067) whose bodies still said “Not read”; LIT-1064 naming LIT-1078 as the lexical-decision test, which is Mussweiler and Strack 2000a; LIT-1062 calling a trial-voiding error cost a doubling; LIT-1071 still calling Howes et al. a memorize-or-look-up trade; QUESTION-103 crediting Geisler with the efficiency formula; stale “Deferred” acknowledgements for two Unavailable works; and two passages on QUESTION-114’s database readings overtaken by later ones.

Not ported, and why

• The Epistemic Geometry Theorem (Part II chapter 9), its extensions in Part III and Appendix G, and Part I’s Theorem 4.3. MOM-CLM-139 rejects the theorem. Its commutativity condition holds for every pair of sortings (MOM-CLM-137), condition 2 is about the site, not the presheaf, and the Rademacher, VC, rank and “archetype” clauses added later are not conditions of the same kind.
• The topos chapter, the Čech cocycle definition, meta-contexts, stacks and the “compatibilist subsheaf”. These are standard definitions with no instance that is not empty in this framework. The cocycle definition is garbled, and the subsheaf theorem takes as hypothesis the vanishing obstruction that, by MOM-CLM-139, does not even imply gluing. CLAIM-153 holds the record’s worked monodromy case.
• SDT as non-neutral measurement (Part I chapter 2) and Part I chapters 0, 1 and 3. These are surveys. Chapter 3’s “event as an equivalence class of indistinguishable outcomes” confuses distinguishable in distribution with decidable from one observation: with any noise the relation is the identity, yet no single observation decides an event. The record’s THEORY-031 and QUESTION-103 already hold the graded version.
• State–observable duality (Part I chapter 5). A real Galois connection between sets of observables and the partitions they induce, stated loosely. CLAIM-264 and CLAIM-142 hold what the record needs.
• Nominal compatibilism, archetypes and PRH (Part III). MOM-CLM-138 rejects the position. The observation it kept is in QUESTION-113.
• LEGO sets as LDA documents, and hierarchical probability (Part III, attic). Sound analogies for mixture models, with no claim of their own to test.
• Two collectors with different collections (Part I chapter 10). Its contextuality claim is MOM-CLM-137’s defect again. What it gestures at, that a builder’s bins are fitted to their own collection, follows from CLAIM-307: bins depend on copy counts and use.

---

Database theory and semantic search: 23 works read for the sorting question, the cost of reuse and revision

2026-10-15 10:11:36 · curation · record

The owner asked whether “there are any results at the intersection of database theory and semantic search that might be useful to the nucleation record”, and on the answer, to “register and read them all”, then to add HNSW. Twenty-three works were registered; twenty-one were read and two are Unavailable, Cho and Garcia-Molina 2003 (LIT-1101: the author’s copy timed out on every try) and Fagin 1996 (LIT-1108: the open copies returned 403). Neither the anthology nor this record held any of them.

What was asked of them, and what came back.

• Staleness priced (QUESTION-114). Cho and Garcia-Molina 2000 prices it as freshness or age under a refresh budget; Olston, Loo and Widom 2001 trade it against upkeep in one objective. The work named as the nearest joint model, Labrinidis and Roussopoulos 2003, is not one: its staleness is a threshold. The question stays Open.
• The cost of recognizing reuse (CLAIM-303, CLAIM-308). Certifying that stored views answer a new query exactly is NP-complete for conjunctive queries; partial reuse is cheap. This is a concrete source of the drifting per-use cost CLAIM-308 already excludes. At the owner’s request it was filed as an objection to CLAIM-308, CLAIM-314, a counter left Proposed: it undermines CLAIM-308’s fixed per-use price, not its arithmetic.
• Organizing for similarity (QUESTION-114, CLAIM-310). An exact space-time curve for hashing, cell-probe floors, the dimensions past which partitioning stops paying, and graph indexes whose guarantees hold only for a slow build. Fagin, Lotem and Naor reproduce Treisman’s feature-versus-conjunction contrast in access costs.
• Revision (QUESTION-105). Derivation counts, delete-and-rederive, witness bases and provenance polynomials answer it for changes to base facts; none covers defeat or proves minimality.

Readers’ corrections to the registrations. The “Why this is here” written at registration, from memory, overstated several works; every one was rewritten from its reading. The larger ones: Chandra and Merlin state equivalence, not containment; Beyer et al. bear on CLAIM-310, not CLAIM-309, and their condition is sufficient only; the “about 10 dimensions” of Weber et al. is a measured crossover, not their analysis; Indyk and Xu prove nothing about HNSW, and show its bad cases only by experiment; the lower bounds of Andoni et al. hold on random instances in one model; HNSW’s final version drops deletion; provenance semirings never mention deletion; and Labrinidis and Roussopoulos 2003 constrain staleness rather than trade it.

Copies. Several were read from versions other than the one registered, each said in its NOTE: Fagin, Lotem and Naor and Indyk and Motwani from the authors’ fuller versions, Beyer et al. from the authors’ technical report, HNSW from arXiv v4. Course-hosted publisher copies were used for Chandra and Merlin, Halevy, and Gupta, Mumick and Subrahmanian, under the owner’s earlier rule that course copies are acceptable.

Statuses. Each reading drafted its own THEORYs, twenty-nine in all. Where a reader marked a result Active on one synthetic experiment (the HNSW neighbour-selection rule), it was filed Proposed, as the record has treated a single unreplicated study. CLAIM-310 now grounds five of the accounts and CLAIM-303 two.

A guard that caught the same thing twice. The provenance-semiring reading wrote formal power series as N∞ with doubled square brackets, and the lint read them as wikilinks. The same notation caught a reading on 2026-09-26 (Holik et al.). The readers’ brief now says never to write doubled square brackets, and the series are written N⟦X⟧.

What the readings did to the earlier contribution’s argument. Asked whether these readings bear on PR #150’s, the record found five places, and the owner asked for all five to be filed.

• The Threshold Algorithm and sorted tables establish absence from part of a collection, which meets CLAIM-306’s defeat condition. The objection, CLAIM-311, is conceded, and CLAIM-306 is superseded by CLAIM-312. At the owner’s direction the restatement reads “it isn’t there” as hyperbole for operational availability (TERM-055), which a failed search establishes outright, and keeps CLAIM-306’s analysis as the account of the literal reading: absence needs a certificate about the unsearched remainder, from exhaustion, an invariant of the arrangement, or a closed-world default.
• Hashing-based similarity search keeps many partitions at once by copying entries, so CLAIM-310’s “k bins realize one partition” holds only for items stored once. Filed as CLAIM-313, left Proposed.
• Halevy’s report that answering from stored views is harder under the closed-world assumption, the rent-or-buy rule as the endpoint of Olston, Loo and Widom’s interval widths, and HNSW’s isolated clusters as a case of CLAIM-307’s opposition were added as prose to THEORY-341, THEORY-348, THEORY-386, THEORY-374 and CLAIM-307.

---

ADR-043 accepted: a required warrant field on CLAIM, every claim classified, nineteen compounds flagged

2026-10-15 19:05:38 · curation · record

The owner asked for a PR that “approves and operationalizes” the proposed warrant field (ADR-043). It is now Active.

What was done. A closed vocabulary claim-warrants (demonstrated, empirical, interpretive) and an optional warrant field on CLAIM in luria.yaml; the CLAIM template documents it and sets it by default; the map in CLAUDE.md names it beside status and role. The pilot the ADR asked for was run on twenty-six claims: the thirteen of the 2026-10-14 exchange, A9’s three older ones, and the claims filed on 2026-10-15. The table and its findings are in ADR-043.

The split. CLAIM-298 was compound, as the proposal had already noticed. Rather than supersede it, its empirical half was filed as CLAIM-315, scoped to the comparative-question paradigm, and CLAIM-298 now rests on it and is marked interpretive. Its title already stated the general claim, so nothing in the argument that cites it moves.

Two decisions the pilot made. unestablished is dropped, since every claim it would have marked was interpretive and Proposed. And a claim that cites a theorem but concludes something further is interpretive, not demonstrated (CLAIM-199, CLAIM-314); that rule is in the ADR so the next classifier does not have to rediscover it.

Required, and the whole record classified. The first version of the PR left the field optional because about three hundred claims were unclassified. The owner: “There’s no point adding this if we don’t use it”, and “‘failing’ is a forcing function to make you fill in the field. this is a feature, not a bug.” The field is now required on every CLAIM. The other 289 claims were classified by eight readers in parallel, one batch each, and applied: with the pilot, 87 demonstrated, 12 empirical and 216 interpretive. The readers disagreed over untested empirical hypotheses; four were set to interpretive so that empirical means some observation the record holds supports the claim. Nineteen claims were flagged compound and given the warrant of their main conclusion; four are already split in effect by a separate claim, and fifteen are listed in ADR-043 for the owner. Two readers found their scratch files overwritten by others working in the same directory; both re-read their claims from the record, and every batch’s output was checked to cover exactly its claims.

Not built. The lint for a demonstrated claim resting on an undemonstrated one, because that pattern is legitimate when the premise is stated as a condition.

---

Splitting the claims ADR-043 found compound

2026-10-15 19:46:15 · curation · record

The owner asked for the compound claims listed in ADR-043 to be split, in a contribution stacked on the one that made warrant required.

Four readers drafted the splits from a shared brief, following the precedent of CLAIM-298 and CLAIM-315: the original keeps its code and main conclusion, the differently warranted part becomes its own claim unless one already exists, and the original rests on it when its argument needs it. The drafts were applied by script, and titles and defeat conditions changed by hand. ADR-043 records the outcome claim by claim.

Calls made in applying them:

• CLAIM-240 was not split. Its reader pointed out that the part to be split off has no observation under it, so both halves are interpretive.
• New demonstrated claims are Active where the original was Proposed (CLAIM-318, CLAIM-320, CLAIM-319, CLAIM-323). The record doubted the readings, not the constructions, and other Active claims already relied on them.
• CLAIM-316, the time-indexed drive profile split from CLAIM-166, stays Proposed. CLAIM-166 says the record accepts “the conceptual point”, but does not say which one, so the split part was not promoted.
• CLAIM-321, empirical, drops the formal-apparatus line it had copied from CLAIM-123; that line is for general formal results.
• CLAIM-142 now also rests on CLAIM-322, the evidential rule split from CLAIM-264, because CLAIM-142 uses that rule.
• CLAIM-319 complements CLAIM-320: the second is the three-context case of the first’s construction.

---

After the ADR-043 splits: citations repointed, one suspected dependency cleared

2026-10-15 21:06:46 · curation · record

The owner asked whether the warrant splits had downstream effects on the record’s argument. A check of every relation into the changed claims found none that broke an argument. Two findings were acted on here, at the owner’s request.

Citations of moved content. Bodies were not rewritten when claims were split, so quotations stayed accurate, but some passages cited a claim for content it no longer holds as its own. A reader went through every citation of the split claims in live text and found fifteen that cite the moved part; nine more were found in reading notes, a THEORY and LIT entries. Where a passage quotes the original, the original’s code stays and the new home is added; where it only refers to the content, it now names the new claim. Dated text (curation, workbench, history notes, decisions, and notes that list claims by their titles at a date) was left as it was.

A suspected missing premise, cleared. CLAIM-190 says it needed “probe-relative equivalence and the point that training probes cannot certify”. That second point was first read as CLAIM-264’s evidential rule, now split off, but it is CLAIM-266, which CLAIM-190 already rests on. No change was needed.

Left for the owner. Whether CLAIM-123 and CLAIM-264, now pure derivations, should be promoted to Active; and twelve demonstrated claims from the classification pass that rest on claims that are not demonstrated, each of which should either state its premise as a condition or be marked interpretive.

---

Twenty-five works registered unread from the exchange on sports fandom and individuality; seven it cited were already held

2026-10-16 01:24:40

The owner asked for the record to account for the exchange of 2026-10-16 (workbench entry of 2026-10-16). It cited about thirty works. Each was looked up before anything was filed, by a search that checked Crossref, arXiv and OpenAlex for title, authors, identifier and dates.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange. A6’s relocation paper is Wegner, Delia and Baker, “Fan response to the identity threat of potential team relocation”. A6’s unnamed 2016 rivalry survey is Berendt and Uhrich, “Enemies with benefits”. A6’s “Identity Trajectories” is Cloutier and Ravasi (2020). Biel’s title continues “European common in-group identity formation through football fandom”. A7’s oral history is Alan Siegel’s in The Ringer (2024-03-20); its Kinberg quote comes via Polygon. The Juggernaut parody was conceived in November 2005 and released on 2006-02-14, not in 2005; it redubbed an episode of the X-Men animated series, as A7 said. Krakauer et al. has an arXiv preprint from 2014, which dates it.

Dates. ADR-002’s earlier-date rule decided four: Marquis and Tilcsik (OpenAlex online date 2013-03-06, before Crossref’s 2013-06), Wegner et al. (online in January 2019, before the 2020 issue), DeMarzo et al. (the 2001 SSRN working paper) and Jia et al. (Crossref’s month-only 2015-01, before its online 2015-08-06). The two Jenkins books carry the print year, since their DOIs are a 2020 online platform’s.

Not in the anthology. A grep of the anthology’s record/ (clone of 2026-10-16, commit d1573d2) for authors and titles found none of them. None is about machine learning.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

work	code	for
Krakauer et al. 2020	LIT-1137	QUESTION-115, CASE-101
Flack 2012	LIT-1122	CLAIM-327, CLAIM-331
Kolchinsky & Wolpert 2018	LIT-1149	”useful information” (A10)
Shalizi & Crutchfield 2001	LIT-1126	CLAIM-327
Hazen et al. 2007	LIT-1148	CASE-102
Simon & Ando 1961	LIT-1127	CLAIM-331
Feldman & Pentland 2003	LIT-1124	CLAIM-329
Gioia, Schultz & Corley 2000	LIT-1135	CASE-103
Marquis & Tilcsik 2013	LIT-1144	QUESTION-118
Cloutier & Ravasi 2020	LIT-1141	QUESTION-118
Wegner, Delia & Baker 2020	LIT-1140	CASE-105
Giulianotti 2002	LIT-1150	QUESTION-119
Berendt & Uhrich 2016	LIT-1147	CASE-098
Talarico & Moore 2012	LIT-1125	CASE-098
Qi, Giulianotti & Wiltshire 2026	LIT-1131	CASE-098
Čater, Čater & Ivašković 2026	LIT-1138	CASE-104
Biel 2026	LIT-1133	nested fandom (A6)
Jenkins 2006	LIT-1121	CASE-100
Jenkins, Ford & Green 2013	LIT-1143	CASE-100
Siegel 2024 (The Ringer)	LIT-1142	CASE-100
Holme & Newman 2006	LIT-1128	QUESTION-117
Gross & Blasius 2008	LIT-1139	QUESTION-117
DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel 2003	LIT-1134	QUESTION-117
Jia, MirTabatabaei, Friedkin & Bullo 2015	LIT-1146	QUESTION-117
Škorić, de Hoogh & Zannone 2016	LIT-1130	CLAIM-281, CLAIM-282

The record holds no other Deferred LIT; its practice has been to read a registered work or mark it Unavailable. These wait on the owner’s word on which to read first. Most have a lawful open copy (arXiv, PMC, publisher open access or a university repository); none was found for Simon and Ando, Gioia et al., Wegner et al., Talarico and Moore, Cloutier and Ravasi or the Jenkins books.

Already held, and not found by the exchange. Hoel, Albantakis and Tononi 2013 (LIT-1038, read, THEORY-222); Barnett and Seth (LIT-979, read, THEORY-257), which A11 did cite through its THEORY; Simon 1962 (LIT-905, read); Golub and Jackson 2010 (LIT-999, read, THEORY-321); Kirby, Cornish and Smith 2008 (LIT-771, read); Haken’s Synergetics (LIT-923, Unavailable); and, most to the point, Bourrat 2024 (LIT-005, read in NOTE-027), the interventional critique of Krakauer et al.’s measures.

Not registered, and why.

• A8’s “2024” slow–fast paper on Haken’s slaving principle and the Haken–Kelso–Bunz model, and A10’s 2024/2025 Hoel follow-up on searching for coarse-grainings. Neither could be identified uniquely. The likeliest are Medrano, Friston and Zeidman, “Linking fast and slow” (Network Neuroscience 2024, arXiv 2308.10618), a review; and Jansma and Hoel, “Engineering Emergence” (arXiv 2510.02649), or Hoel, “Causal Emergence 2.0” (arXiv 2503.13395). For the owner to confirm.
• A10’s “critical discussion of effective-information interventions” and Simon’s Sciences of the Artificial, which A8 named without a citation.

---

Five candidates registered for the two works from the sports-fandom exchange that could not be identified

2026-10-16 01:54:03

The entry of 01:24 left two works unregistered because no single paper matched what the exchange described. The owner: “file all the candidates you found”. Each was checked against its arXiv abstract page and, where it has a DOI, Crossref on 2026-10-16. None is held here or in the anthology (a grep of both records for titles, authors and identifiers).

A8’s “2024” slow–fast paper, said to connect slow–fast decomposition to Haken’s slaving principle and the Haken–Kelso–Bunz model:

work	code	fit
Medrano, Friston & Zeidman, “Linking fast and slow: The case for generative models” (Network Neuroscience 8(1), 2024; arXiv 2308.10618)	LIT-1145	likeliest; a review, and its treatment of slaving and HKB is not confirmed in the text
Sánchez-Cañizares, “Irruption Theory in Phase Transitions: A Proof of Concept With the Haken-Kelso-Bunz Model” (Adaptive Behavior 32(6), 2024)	LIT-1132	uses HKB, but is not a slow–fast reduction

A10’s Hoel follow-up “(2024/2025)” on searching for coarse-grainings rather than assuming them:

work	code	fit
Jansma & Hoel, “Engineering Emergence” (arXiv 2510.02649, 2025)	LIT-1123	likeliest: selects the coarse-grainings that contribute causally
Hoel, “Causal Emergence 2.0: Quantifying emergent complexity” (arXiv 2503.13395, 2025)	LIT-1136	the framework the first builds on
Zhang, Tao, Leong, Yang & Yuan, “Dynamical Reversibility and A New Theory of Causal Emergence based on SVD” (arXiv 2402.15054, 2024)	LIT-1129	not Hoel’s; the 2024 paper closest to the description, removing EI’s dependence on a chosen coarse-graining

All five are Deferred. Medrano et al. is dated by its arXiv v1 (2023-08-21), earlier than the journal (2024-04-01). If a reading finds one of them is the work A8 or A10 meant, its “Why this is here” should say so; the others stay registered for what they are.

In the same turn the owner settled the two held-back claims: their theses, with defeaters, are now sections of QUESTION-118 and QUESTION-119 (workbench entry of 2026-10-16).

---

Later works on dimension reduction and Lipschitz extension: four filed, three read

2026-10-16 04:22:31 · curation · record

The owner asked for the later works relevant to the random-projection readings to be read and filed. Three were named by the readings themselves. Bourgain (1985) and Linial, London and Rabinovich (1995) are in NOTE-930’s Connections, flagged as unchecked. Alon and Klartag (2017) is in NOTE-925’s report of later work. The assistant added a fourth, Lee and Naor (2005), as the later work on Johnson and Lindenstrauss’s extension problem (THEORY-392). No reading names it, and its LIT’s history says so.

What entered

• Bourgain (1985), LIT-1161, doi:10.1007/BF02776078. Unavailable: OpenAlex lists only the closed Springer copy, and web searches found no author-posted or course-hosted copy. Linial, London and Rabinovich state its theorem and reprove its distortion bound, and the record reads it through them.
• Linial, London and Rabinovich (1995), LIT-1155, read in NOTE-928 from the authors’ February 1995 manuscript on an MSU course page. Filed as THEORY-394: O(log n) dimensions and O(log n) distortion for every n-point metric, with expanders needing Ω(log n).
• Lee and Naor (2005), LIT-1152, read in NOTE-927 from a January 2004 preprint on James Lee’s page. Filed as THEORY-396, C log n/log log n for extension into any Banach space, and THEORY-400, extension from padded random partitions.
• Alon and Klartag (2017), LIT-1151, read in NOTE-929 from arXiv v4. Filed as THEORY-399, the bit counts and the dimension lower bound for every ε ≥ 2/√n, and THEORY-393, the bipartite JL lemma.

What the readings changed

• Problem 4 of Johnson and Lindenstrauss is answered in the negative, by the record’s inference from Linial, London and Rabinovich. The sharpness of their √(log n) extension bound stays open, as Lee and Naor say (THEORY-392, version 2).
• Larsen and Nelson’s report of Alon and Klartag needed qualifying: the bound is additive, for ε ≥ 2/√n, and only its lower half is proved (THEORY-395, version 2).
• NOTE-679 relays a miscitation from Sala et al. The paper credits Linial, London and Rabinovich with a Euclidean lower bound for trees that they do not contain. NOTE-679 is annotated.
• QUESTION-120 goes to version 4: Alon and Klartag’s proof makes its proposed shape literal, a log of a family’s size.

Boundary

None of the four is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ for the authors’ names and identifiers found nothing. All four are mathematics. Linial, London and Rabinovich also carry operations-research for multicommodity flow, and Alon and Klartag carry information-theory for their bit counts. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

---

Moral psychology, the first topic in a THEORY backfill: twelve accounts from fourteen readings

2026-10-16 07:14:04 · curation · record

The owner asked how THEORYs are distributed against LITs and NOTEs, and then asked for the low-coverage topics to be audited, lowest first. The owner’s working hypothesis is that a work read closely enough to carry a NOTE will usually support at least one THEORY. The owner expects that old readings hold accounts that were never filed, and that filing them would strengthen the record’s arguments.

The count that chose the topic

On 2026-10-16 the record held 1,161 LITs, 933 NOTEs and 400 THEORYs. 894 LITs carry a NOTE; 505 of those are a THEORY’s source, and 389 are not. By primary tag, moral-psychology had 18 LITs and no THEORY. Fourteen of the 18 had a Read NOTE. The other four are Unavailable. Counted over all tags, moral-psychology had three THEORYs, all on responsibility, and none drew on these fourteen.

What entered

Twelve THEORYs, four Active and eight Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Two rival accounts. Morality-as-cooperation (THEORY-468) from LIT-503, LIT-047 and LIT-496. Moral Foundations Theory (THEORY-539) from LIT-499, LIT-502 and LIT-500. Each is filed with the half of it the evidence does not reach. For MAC that is the prediction that non-cooperative behaviour is morally neutral (LIT-503, p. 40). For MFT it is Sanctity’s pathogen origin.
• Four findings, Active. The 961-of-962 ethnographic result, with its detectability caveat (THEORY-653). The MAC-Q’s seven Relevance factors in three countries (THEORY-505). The liberal–conservative foundation profile (THEORY-435). Purity moralized in MAC’s own questionnaire data (THEORY-632).
• Six more accounts, Proposed. The MFQ-2’s six factors (THEORY-613, extending MFT). Puritanical morality as cooperation, from LIT-101 (THEORY-494). Fairness by partner choice, from LIT-508 (THEORY-457). Relationship regulation, from LIT-507 (THEORY-626). The social intuitionist model, from LIT-511 (THEORY-558), which MFT presupposes. Obligation from joint commitment, from LIT-125 (THEORY-495).
• rivals edges. MAC against MFT and against partner choice. MFT against the puritanical, relationship-regulation and MAC accounts.

What did not enter, and why

• Moral Molecules (LIT-509, NOTE-399). Its reading says it “should not be cited as evidence that morality is combinatorial”. Its 21 cells were each filled by searching for a confirming instance, with no protocol, and the paper says the theory does not predict which molecules exist. There is no finding to state. It is named in the MAC account’s “does not say”.
• The 256-society dictionary study (LIT-512, NOTE-406). It cannot detect valence. Its agreement with the sixty-society hand codes is κ .08–.25. It is in the Connections of THEORY-653 as a rough replication of presence, not of valence. It is not a source, because that THEORY does not rest on it.
• The Turkish validation (LIT-513). It entered as the second source of the MAC-Q THEORY, not as a THEORY of its own. Its prosociality and scarcity results are nulls or near-nulls and are reported there.

So twelve of fourteen readings became sources. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this topic. Two caveats apply. Several readings were already written with a THEORY in view (NOTE-034’s “Any THEORY document citing it…”). And the two that entered nothing are the programme’s weakest papers, which their readings had already judged.

Choices made

• Status. A finding was made Active when the record believes it as stated: as a description of self-report, or of a coded corpus, with the caveats in its title or “does not say”. An account went Proposed when its readings mark it untested or argued rather than shown. No account here is Active.
• No answers edge. QUESTION-007 asks what grounds normativity between agents at one level. Tomasello’s account describes how the sense of obligation between peers arises. Its author concedes that it cannot say what anyone ought to do. It is named in the THEORY’s Connections and not linked as an answer.
• Error carried forward. The hawk–dove attribution to Maynard Smith and Price, which NOTE-034 and NOTE-408 correct, is repeated in the MAC THEORY as a correction rather than as the paper’s lineage.

---

Social ontology, game theory, religion, design rationale: nine THEORYs from eleven readings

2026-10-16 07:38:04 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill the owner asked for on 2026-10-16: for each LIT with a Read NOTE that no THEORY cites as source, decide whether the reading supports an account, and file the ones it does. This group held eleven such LITs: eight in social-ontology, one each in game-theory, religion and design-rationale. Every NOTE was Read; none was a skim.

What entered

Nine THEORYs, one Active and eight Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Groups. Ritchie 2013 (THEORY-549; sources LIT-479, LIT-486): a structured group is not its members, since coincident groups of one kind are two; plurality, fusion, aggregate and set theories cannot allow it. Ritchie 2018 (THEORY-575; LIT-486, LIT-479): organized groups are structured wholes, feature groups are social kinds. It extends the first.
• Social kinds. Haslanger (THEORY-667; LIT-480): gender and race as hierarchical social positions, filed with its ameliorative status in the title and its descriptive claim as what promote_when can test.
• Institutions, as rivals. Searle’s status functions (THEORY-625; LIT-482) against Hindriks & Guala’s rules in equilibrium (THEORY-414; LIT-481). They disagree about what a constitutive rule adds and whether institutions need one, and neither has settled it, so the edge is rivals, not corrects.
• The social fact. Durkheim (THEORY-648; LIT-484): exteriority and constraint, general because collective.
• Grounding and anchoring. Epstein (THEORY-487; LIT-487), from a survey and the author’s précis, filed as Proposed because the distinction’s sharpness is disputed and the survey gives the dissents a sentence each.
• Non-redundant group attitudes. List & Pettit’s replies (THEORY-536; LIT-730), with answers: [QUESTION-009] as a partial answer of one kind.
• Bayesian persuasion. Kamenica & Gentzkow (THEORY-404; LIT-1021), Active: proved results, stated with their conditions (common prior, commitment, one ideal receiver, sender-preferred tie-breaking).

What did not enter, and why

• De Cruz, Religion and Science (LIT-194, NOTE-107). A survey with no thesis of its own. Its characterisations of scholarly consensus are the author’s, with no systematic evidence (C2, C5); its one argued point, that Barbour’s categories are neither exhaustive nor exclusive, is an informal argument from one counterexample that offers no replacement. Its reading says there is no THEORY here to support or contradict.
• Kunz & Rittel, IBIS (LIT-758, NOTE-811). A seven-page design specification. Its three general claims are asserted (all weak in the NOTE), and its reading already declined to file a THEORY. It names Rittel and Webber’s wicked problems as the place to file C1 from, if read.

So nine of eleven readings became sources, and every social-ontology reading did. That fits the owner’s hypothesis here, with a caveat: only one of the nine is Active. Most of these works are definitions, frameworks or conceptual analyses that their readings mark as argued by example, so the accounts they support are proposals. The two that entered nothing are a survey and a specification.

Choices made

• Status. Only the proved result is Active. Each social-ontology account went Proposed, and each promote_when names an argument or case of a kind the source did not supply, and says why more of the source’s own kind of example cannot settle it.
• Haslanger as a claim. The paper is stipulative by design. The title states the account with its condition (“defined as a feminist and antiracist theory needs them”), and promote_when points at the descriptive claim the paper ties its definitions to, since the ameliorative half cannot be settled by evidence.
• answers edges. One only: THEORY-536 on QUESTION-009. Searle’s account was not linked to QUESTION-007: the desire-independence that would make it a grounding of normativity is asserted and disputed by its rival. Bayesian persuasion was not linked to QUESTION-070 or QUESTION-071: the paper does not call it manipulation, and its case is visible influence on belief, not invisible influence on a will. Both are in Connections.
• No sources added to existing THEORYs. LIT-730 bears on THEORY-127 and THEORY-139, as its reading says, and Ritchie and Epstein are used in THEORY-043’s body; none is load-bearing for those accounts, and this task edits no existing THEORY.
• Codes from parallel work not cited. The moral-psychology batch’s Tomasello account (joint commitment and obligation) is the nearest THEORY to Searle and Durkheim, but it is not on this branch; LIT-125 is cited instead.

Errors found while reading

• LIT-194’s body is stale. It still says “Seeded from the abstract and a skim, not a reading”, that the work “was filed Deferred, unread”, and gives a priority for a deeper reading, though NOTE-107 is a full reading and the status is Active.
• NOTE-107’s Bearing says the vocabulary “cannot yet say ‘religion’”; the religion topic now exists and is the LIT’s primary tag.
• ADR-032’s inactive-ok-file directive names LIT-758 as “Deferred … unread”; it was read on 2026-10-14 and is Active.
• NOTE-394 and NOTE-391 say no THEORY cites or needs their works. True when written; now each is a THEORY’s source.

---

Linguistics, pragmatics, philosophy of language and myth: ten THEORYs from eleven readings

2026-10-16 07:38:34 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill the owner asked for on 2026-10-16. The working hypothesis is that a work read closely enough to carry a NOTE will usually support at least one THEORY. This entry covers four topic groups: linguistics, pragmatics, philosophy-of-language and myth-and-folklore. Each group had LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE that no THEORY cites as source, seventeen in all.

What entered

Ten THEORYs, one Active and nine Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Linguistics, the anti-lexicalist trio.
  • THEORY-477, Active: none of ten wordhood criteria is necessary and sufficient for the orthographic word across languages, and the test batteries choose criteria opportunistically. From Haspelmath 2011 (LIT-063). Its NOTE named C1 and C4 as the defensible content, and the title keeps to them. “Morphosyntax is one domain” is left in the body as the hedged consequence.
  • THEORY-643, Proposed: the restrictions credited to a word component are restrictions on X0 against XP and on affix selection. From Bruening 2018 (LIT-071), with Müller’s reply named as the opposing reading, as its NOTE asked.
  • THEORY-588, Proposed: lemma-based production models fail algorithmically, not only representationally. From Krauska and Lau 2023 (LIT-031). It presupposes THEORY-643.
• Pragmatics and the intention-based line.
  • THEORY-444, Proposed: Grice’s analysis of speaker meaning (LIT-1042).
  • THEORY-511, Proposed: Strawson’s account of illocutionary force (LIT-1043, with LIT-1042). It extends the Grice THEORY and answers QUESTION-073 in part.
  • THEORY-693, Proposed: Du Bois’s stance triangle, with the too/either marking as its one stated prediction (LIT-779).
  • THEORY-472, Proposed: the informative speaker and the size principle, with learners’ and speakers’ results (LIT-824).
• Philosophy of language.
  • THEORY-518, Proposed: differential stability of distributional meaning (LIT-208).
  • THEORY-665, Proposed, resting on a skim: Brandom’s deontic scorekeeping model of assertion (LIT-794).
• Myth and folklore.
  • THEORY-432, Proposed: in Lévi-Straussian myth analysis the transformation group is cut by the analyst. From Descola 2016 (LIT-822), with Santucci, Doja and Capocchi 2020 (LIT-807) as the second source for its concession that the software takes the table of oppositions as input.

What did not enter, and why

• Language Design as Information Renormalization (LIT-1023, NOTE-718). Its reading ends “No THEORY should be produced from this reading”. The power law restates Lin and Tegmark less rigorously with an asserted averaging step, nothing is tested on data, and the architecture claim is ML practice, which is the anthology’s (ANTH-LIT-695).
• Semantic Unification (LIT-841, NOTE-644). Its one structural point is Proposition 1, a fact about the construction, not a finding about language. The NOTE says so and also warns against citing it for contextuality in THEORY-012’s sense.
• Logic and Conversation (LIT-1041, NOTE-734). Unavailable, and only pp. 45–47 read. The pages state the Cooperative Principle and the maxims but not the account of implicature, so there is no account to file.
• Marabini on Brandom (LIT-106, NOTE-179). Unavailable, and a seeded skim that says it is “not enough to state its assumptions or results exactly”.
• Doja, Capocchi and Santucci 2021 (LIT-804, NOTE-609). Software and a map display, with no claim about myth tested. It summarises LIT-807’s engine faithfully, so it is named in THEORY-432’s Connections and is not a source.
• Morphology of the Folktale (LIT-830, NOTE-642). A skim of the English translation of LIT-828. THEORY-167 already holds the content from the Russian reading, and the NOTE judged its translation observation too thin for a THEORY.

So eleven of seventeen readings became sources. Two of the six that did not are Unavailable partial skims. Two are software or programme papers whose readings judged them to carry no finding. One is a translation whose original already sources a THEORY. One (LIT-1023) has its substance in the anthology. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for these topics, with one caveat: four of the eleven (LIT-779, LIT-822, LIT-807, LIT-031) carry NOTEs or LIT notes that said no THEORY should be filed. In each case the THEORY filed here avoids the part the reading rejected:

• Du Bois’s NOTE offered the too/either rule as a candidate. It is filed inside the triangle account as that account’s one prediction.
• Krauska and Lau’s NOTE ruled out the unimplemented model as a source. The THEORY rests on the critique (C1–C5) and lists the model under “does not say”.
• Descola’s and Santucci’s notes said each reports no finding about myth. Together they support a claim about the method, which is what is filed.
• Brandom’s NOTE said “No THEORY is filed from a skim”. The brief for this backfill allows a Proposed THEORY on a skim if it says so, and THEORY-665 says so in its summary, Source and promote_when.

Choices made

• One Active. Haspelmath’s criterion-by-criterion result is a counterexample argument the record believes as stated, with the orthographic target named in “does not say”. Every other account is argued from chosen examples, a skim, or a parameter-free fit that cannot separate it from a simpler rival.
• answers. Only QUESTION-073, from Strawson. The question names the intention-based line as its rival, and Strawson’s scheme makes the prediction the question needs: no non-institutional case with the overt intention fixed and the act changed. Grice individuates no act types, so his THEORY carries no edge. Du Bois offers stance categories but no reliability test, so QUESTION-076 gets no edge.
• No rivals. Brandom’s normative account of content and Grice’s intention-based account run in opposite orders of explanation. As each is stated here they do not exclude each other, so the contrast is in prose in both.
• No edge to THEORY-172. The informative-speaker THEORY is the precursor of the rational-speech-act account. A relation would belong on THEORY-172, which this task does not edit.

Existing documents and errors noted

• THEORY-172 does not cite LIT-824. LIT-824’s own Standing says its Experiment 1 “adds to the evidence for THEORY-172”, so the owner may want LIT-824 added to that THEORY’s source, or an extends edge from THEORY-172 to THEORY-472.
• THEORY-167 could name LIT-830 as the English text, but the account does not rest on it.
• LIT-1043’s NOTE records that Strawson cites Grice’s “Meaning” as volume LXVII; the volume is LXVI. That is Strawson’s slip, and the NOTE already corrects it.
• NOTE-029 carries an inactive-ok-file directive calling LIT-031 “Deferred”; LIT-031 is now Proposed. NOTE-158 carries the same kind of stale directive for LIT-208, with its lapse clause written twice. Both still hold because both LITs are inactive. They are left alone, since this task edits no NOTE.
• LIT-779 names LIT-780 as “Deferred”, while LIT-1043 and the QUESTION-073 directives name it “Unavailable”. LIT-780 is Unavailable.
• luria repair also upgraded an old code spelling in the curation entry of 2026-10-15 (194615), CLAIM-315 to CLAIM-315. That change is not this contribution’s, and it was reverted here to keep the diff to its own files. QUESTION-073’s new answered_by entry is the converse that luria link --fix writes for the Strawson THEORY’s answers.

---

Thermodynamics: eight THEORYs from ten readings

2026-10-16 07:38:35 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill the owner asked for on 2026-10-16 (see the moral-psychology entry of the same day). The thermodynamics topic held ten LITs with a Read NOTE and no THEORY citing any of them. All ten were filed on 2026-10-02 in one batch on dissipative structures, maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorems. Every NOTE was read in full, with its LIT. No paper was fetched; each THEORY rests on the record’s reading.

What entered

Eight THEORYs, three Active and five Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Three findings, Active.
  • The fluctuation theorems (THEORY-431), from Crooks (LIT-522), Jarzynski (LIT-517) and Seifert’s review (LIT-523). Exact given their premises, and filed with what they do not say: no proof of the second law, no selection principle for steady states, no practical reach beyond fluctuations of order k_BT.
  • England’s macrostate bound (THEORY-679), from LIT-515. The general bound is a re-derived coarse-grained second law. The title carries the condition the replication numbers need, since their reverse probability is argued, not proved.
  • The critique of Dewar’s derivation of maximum entropy production (THEORY-676), from Grinstein and Linsker (LIT-525) and Dewar (LIT-521). Its point about Dewar 2005 is held on the Comment’s account and its spin chain, because that letter could not be read.
• Five accounts, Proposed.
  • Maximum entropy production (THEORY-671), from Kleidon (LIT-519) and Dewar (LIT-521).
  • Life and planetary MEP, Kleidon’s thermodynamic Gaia (THEORY-517), from LIT-519. It presupposes the MEP account.
  • Dissipative adaptation (THEORY-412), from Perunov, Marsland and England (LIT-518) with LIT-515. It presupposes the fluctuation theorems and England’s bound.
  • Gradient dissipation (THEORY-532), from Schneider and Kay (LIT-533).
  • Life forced into existence by geochemistry (THEORY-492), from Morowitz and Smith (LIT-528).

So all ten readings became sources. That fits the owner’s hypothesis, with a caveat on how it was met: five of the eight are Proposed, and three of them come from readings whose NOTEs say “No new THEORY is indicated”.

What did not enter, and why

No LIT went without a THEORY. Two candidates were considered and folded into others:

• Kleidon’s contrast with Prigogine (minimum entropy production describes relaxation; MEP selects among steady states). It is in the title of the MEP account, not a THEORY of its own, because the review argues it by example and states neither principle’s conditions.
• Seifert’s other results (the Sagawa–Ueda feedback bound, efficiency at maximum power). The review is a source for the fluctuation-theorem finding only. The feedback bound bears on THEORY-030’s subject and is named there by the review’s NOTE; filing it would need the primary papers, which the record does not hold.

Choices made

• Departing from three NOTEs. NOTE-416, NOTE-415 and NOTE-425 each end with “No new THEORY is indicated”, meaning the claims are too weak to source a THEORY the record believes. Dissipative adaptation, gradient dissipation and the geochemical origin of life are each a definite account that the literature cites and that other THEORYs need to name. So they were filed as Proposed, each saying in its Source section that its NOTE judged it too weak, and each with a promote_when that names what would settle it and what cannot.
• No rivals edges. Schneider and Kay, and Morowitz and Smith, reject maximum entropy production, and Perunov et al. say maximizing mean dissipation is not predicted to be likely. None of the three argues the rejection in a way that makes the accounts unable both to be right: Schneider and Kay’s restated law is compatible with a maximum among steady states. Each THEORY says so in Connections. Nor is any of them declared a rival of THEORY-072: the life-as-dissipation accounts frame the line between organism and dissipative structure as one of degree, but their claims are about tendencies and channels, not about that line.
• presupposes, not extends. Dissipative adaptation takes the Crooks relation and England’s macrostate form as premises for a claim about something else. Planetary Gaia takes MEP as a premise, explicitly (“under the presumption that MEP is justified sufficiently well”).
• No answers edge. QUESTION-085, on whether an r/place artwork is self-maintaining, is the only question near this topic. None of these accounts answers it. The gradient-dissipation THEORY names it.
• Corrections carried forward. Each THEORY follows its NOTE’s corrections: England’s inverted logarithm and rounded RNA figure; Kleidon’s three entropy-budget figures printed in W for mW; Schneider and Kay’s inconsistent Table 2 entry; Seifert’s §7.2 bound read with T.

Existing THEORYs that might cite these readings

None should have had one of them as source. THEORY-026 and THEORY-030 each name several of these readings in their NOTEs as background, and the NOTEs say explicitly that they are not sources. NOTE-420 recommends that THEORY-026 name Seifert (LIT-523) in its Connections for the protocol-level nonnegativity of its dissipation; that edit is left for a separate change.

Errors found in the record

None new. The NOTEs’ own Corrections sections already record the errors in the papers.

---

Philosophy of science, part 2 of 2: eleven THEORYs from ten of fourteen readings

2026-10-16 07:49:25 · curation · record

The second half of the philosophy-of-science group in the THEORY backfill the owner asked for on 2026-10-16. Fourteen LITs, each with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and cited as no THEORY’s source, were audited against their readings. Nothing was fetched; every THEORY rests on the record’s NOTE, and its numbers and page references are the NOTE’s.

What entered

Eleven THEORYs, two Active and nine Proposed, from ten readings. The codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Two findings, Active.
  • THEORY-569, from LIT-165 (Hartmann & Trpin, NOTE-168): the set-valued CohOG+ measure of explanatory power satisfies TLI for single hypotheses, fails OLI, and in one chain and one collider ranks the richer explanans set higher over a stated range of priors. A theorem, a counterexample and two existence examples, all three numerical claims recomputed by the reader.
  • THEORY-469, from LIT-169 (Trappes, NOTE-155): because persistence and selection are logically independent, NCT’s evolutionary niche and the realized population ecological niche differ in extension. The non-identity is the finding; the three kinds of case that populate the gap are weaker and are said to be.
• Nine accounts, Proposed.
  • THEORY-594, French on unitary inequivalence and OSR (LIT-170, NOTE-162).
  • THEORY-491, Worrall on randomisation (LIT-175, NOTE-126).
  • THEORY-418, Griesemer & Shavit’s 3Cs (LIT-188, NOTE-173). The LIT is itself Proposed, and the THEORY says the sketch has no operational criteria.
  • THEORY-637, Leonelli on openness as sharing (LIT-189, NOTE-098).
  • THEORY-690 and THEORY-459, two accounts from De Haro & Butterfield (LIT-199, NOTE-178): dualities yield no genuine underdetermination and do not favour structural realism; and exact duality is incompatible with ontological emergence between the duals.
  • THEORY-673, Luque on the Price equation as a generalization-sketch (LIT-205, NOTE-101).
  • THEORY-451, Cartwright on singular causal claims and rigour (LIT-213, NOTE-161).
  • THEORY-610, Worrall’s 1989 structural realism (LIT-315, NOTE-297).

What did not enter, and why

• Wigner, Symmetry and Conservation Laws (LIT-180, NOTE-147). The LIT is Unavailable, and the NOTE is a skim that says it is “not enough to state its assumptions or results exactly”. A THEORY on it would have nothing to promote it against but the skim.
• O’Malley & Parke, Philosophy of Microbiology (LIT-210, NOTE-159). An SEP survey whose positions are reported and attributed. Its reading calls it “an orientation, not an argument for a thesis”. Its own commitments (the contingency of zoocentrism, the deflation of microbiome-and-self claims) are graded weak or are disambiguations, not accounts. Its report that eukaryogenesis may not have been a transition in individuality is named in the Connections of THEORY-418.
• Piaget, Structuralism (LIT-837, NOTE-618). A skim of 17 pages, one in four, of chs. I–IV. The NOTE files no THEORY and says why: the pages seen are definitional, and a quarter of four chapters cannot ground a claim about what is true.
• Floridi, The Method of Levels of Abstraction (LIT-900, NOTE-700). A method stated in definitions, not a result. Its one formal claim fails under its own definitions, and its guard against relativism ranks levels only within a fixed purpose. The NOTE files no THEORY, and NOTE-099 filed none for the ISR paper that uses the same machinery.

So ten of fourteen readings became sources: ten of the twelve Read NOTEs, and neither of the two skims. Of the two Read readings that entered nothing, one is a survey and one a method. The owner’s hypothesis held for readings that argue a thesis, and not for surveys, methods or skims. Nine of the eleven THEORYs are Proposed, because most of these works argue rather than test.

Choices made

• Two THEORYs from one book. De Haro & Butterfield’s underdetermination and structural-realism verdict, and their emergence result, rest on different parts of the book and could fail separately, so each has its own document.
• No rivals, extends or presupposes. Worrall 2007 and Cartwright both deflate the evidence hierarchy, from different sides, and can both be right. French and De Haro & Butterfield concern different phenomena (inequivalent representations of one theory; dualities between models). Worrall 1989 is the epistemic position the ontic accounts start from, not a premise they take. These are stated in prose.
• No answers. Griesemer & Shavit’s entrenchment-plus-closure criterion is a candidate for QUESTION-035, but that question asks for a criterion that returns a verdict that can be wrong, and the sketch has no measurement; three readings of 2026-10-14 bearing on it were likewise not linked. Its closure is a mark of individuality, not agency, so it does not answer QUESTION-093 either. Both are named in its Connections.
• No existing THEORY duplicated these. None of the record’s 391 THEORYs cites any of the fourteen LITs. THEORY-034 and THEORY-038 cover structural realism from Chakravartty’s dilemma and category theory and do not state Worrall’s, French’s or De Haro & Butterfield’s accounts.

Errors found in the record, left for their owners

• LIT-175’s “Key takeaways” still carries the seed’s error that none of the standard arguments for randomisation, selection bias included, succeeds. NOTE-126 corrects it: Worrall calls the selection-bias argument “cast-iron”. The LIT’s summary is right; its takeaway bullet is not.
• LIT-188’s “Key takeaways” states as a finding that transitions “can be described without circularity”. NOTE-173 shows that this is claimed in the abstract only.
• LIT-165’s “Key takeaways” says the measures “survive” Lange’s and Roche & Sober’s critiques. NOTE-168 narrows this to one theorem for single hypotheses and two examples.
• NOTE-161 (Cartwright) says Worrall (LIT-175) and Reiss (LIT-118) are “Deferred” and unread. Both are Active and read.
• NOTE-173 carries a directive for LIT-188 that calls it Deferred and repeats “the directive lapses when its status changes” twice; the LIT is Proposed. NOTE-147 and NOTE-162 carry directives calling LIT-180 Deferred; it is Unavailable.
• luria repair in this worktree upgraded CLAIM-315 to CLAIM-315 in the curation entry of 2026-10-15 (194615). That edit was reverted here, to keep this contribution to its own files; the repair is still owed.

---

Metaphysics and mereology: 13 THEORYs from 12 readings

2026-10-16 07:50:27 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill the owner asked for, which audits read works that no THEORY cites as source. This group was every such LIT with metaphysics or mereology as its primary tag: eight and four, all Active, each with one Read NOTE. The owner’s hypothesis is that most read works support at least one THEORY.

What entered

Thirteen THEORYs, one Active and twelve Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned. Each has a single source, the reading it comes from.

• Active. THEORY-493, from Varzi’s SEP entry (LIT-124): from core mereology, GEM is reached by exactly three pairings of decomposition and unrestricted-sum principles, and Simons’s Supplementation + Sum3 is not one. It is a published result with a countermodel, reported by the entry with citations; the record has not checked the proofs, and the document says so.
• Proposed, metaphysics. Lewis on the problem of the many (LIT-1015, THEORY-452). Holik et al. on quasi-sets for a non-individual property ontology (LIT-107, THEORY-535). Vetter’s possibility conception of dispositions (LIT-109, THEORY-670). Hazelwood’s dilemma for reciprocal causation (LIT-156, THEORY-612). Poltorak on wave-function realism and causal closure (LIT-164, THEORY-485). Watson’s epistemic and ontological theses for unsupervised learning (LIT-187, THEORY-556). Schwitzgebel’s Universal Bizarreness and Dubiety (LIT-216, THEORY-506). Esfeld and Lam’s moderate structural realism (LIT-895, THEORY-453).
• Proposed, mereology. Smith and Varzi on fiat and bona fide boundaries (LIT-1024, THEORY-622). Varzi’s verdict that no mereological principle is merely meaning-fixing (LIT-124, THEORY-589). Register’s depth of the moral body (LIT-138, THEORY-540). Levin’s nested, goal-defined selves (LIT-439, THEORY-583).
• answers edges. THEORY-583 partly answers QUESTION-009: a pattern of coordination is an additional agent when shared information lets the parts pursue a goal none of them can sense. THEORY-612 constrains QUESTION-033: a level and the parts composing it at the same time are not independently fixable, so cannot be one another’s causes. THEORY-556 constrains QUESTION-028: an algorithm’s finding a category is evidence about it, and not what makes it a kind.

What did not enter, and why

Nothing. All twelve readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis here. Three caveats apply.

• Most of the twelve are philosophical arguments, and their THEORYs are Proposed accounts whose promote_when names a kind of argument or construction, not an experiment. The data behind them are thin: Vetter’s hand-coded corpus count, and Levin’s cited experiments, which show that coupling changes outcomes, not that it changes a self.
• Three readings said “No THEORY” in their Bearing (NOTE-125, NOTE-137, NOTE-112). Each meant that no existing THEORY was supported. Each work states a definite thesis with its conditions, so each was filed.
• Varzi’s entry gave two documents, one formal and one philosophical, because the result about axiom systems holds whatever “part” means and should not be cited as support for the verdict.

Choices made

• No relation edges to existing THEORYs. rivals, presupposes and extends would have had luria link --fix write converses into documents this batch was told to leave alone. The candidates are named in each Connections instead: Levin against THEORY-071 (minimal agency), which denies that a homeostat’s individuality is agency; Hazelwood presupposing Woodward’s interventions (THEORY-138); and Esfeld and Lam against the census in THEORY-034.
• No answers edge to QUESTION-035 from Lewis or from Smith and Varzi. Both classify or count the question’s candidates, and neither supplies a criterion. The same for Schwitzgebel and QUESTION-046.
• Tags. Vetter’s THEORY adds linguistics, which NOTE-125 called defensible because the positive case is built on ‘-able’ semantics and a corpus count. Levin’s leads with mereology, as his LIT does.

Errors and gaps found in the record

• THEORY-034’s title is out of date. It says only Floridi’s view, among the record’s readings, keeps relata while denying them every intrinsic identity-fixing feature. Its own dated note says Esfeld and Lam (LIT-895) are a second, which meets the first refutation condition of its promote_when. LIT-895 is argued from in its body but is not in its source.
• THEORY-043 leans on Levin (LIT-439) as the composition-side statement for agency but does not cite it as source.
• LIT-124’s key takeaway still calls the partial-order core “uncontroversial”. NOTE-163 recommends dropping that word, because the entry says the opposite.
• NOTE-163’s Bearing says no THEORY cites mereology. That is no longer true (THEORY-017, THEORY-043, THEORY-232, and now this batch).
• luria repair upgraded an old code spelling in record/curation.d/2026/10/15/194615.md, a temporary code for what is now CLAIM-315. The change was reverted here because that file is outside this batch; lint still reports it.

---

Philosophy of science, part 1 of 2: 14 THEORYs from 13 readings

2026-10-16 07:50:36 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continues with philosophy of science, split in two by LIT. This half held fifteen LITs, each with a Read NOTE and none a THEORY’s source. Codes below are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

What entered

Fourteen THEORYs, four Active and ten Proposed, from thirteen readings.

• Active, four. The impossibility of strictly irreversible approach to equilibrium from isolated Hamiltonian dynamics, and how each surveyed account pays for it (THEORY-463, LIT-114). Belot’s problem of time in spatially compact general relativity (THEORY-441, LIT-122). Inductive risk at the internal stages of the dioxin studies (THEORY-639, LIT-139). That clustering is not made superior by the absence of labels (THEORY-550, LIT-162).
• Proposed, ten. Health and disease not definable by justice alone (THEORY-600, LIT-098). Niche construction unrolled into an acyclic organism–environment sequence (THEORY-446, LIT-110). The common core does not break duality underdetermination without a metaphysical principle (THEORY-687, LIT-113). Warrant as elimination of alternatives (THEORY-537, LIT-118). The Fractured Understanding Hypothesis (THEORY-438, LIT-131). Values required, and only indirectly, where consequences of error are foreseeable (THEORY-442, LIT-139). Brain–computer interface evidence fits mind–brain identity, not autonomous mental causation (THEORY-410, LIT-147). Genes as reproducees, and material overlap required of reproducers only (THEORY-465, LIT-157). Lloyd’s four roles in “unit of selection” (THEORY-413, LIT-160). Replication cannot say which effect exists where the effect is unformed (THEORY-572, LIT-161).
• Relations. THEORY-442 presupposes THEORY-639. THEORY-410 presupposes THEORY-133 (List and Menzies) and answers QUESTION-033, as a constraint: many-to-one realisation shows some coarse variable drives, not that the named higher level does. luria link --fix wrote the converses into THEORY-133 and QUESTION-033. No rivals were declared. Lloyd and Bourrat disagree about “Darwinian individual”, but Bourrat’s term concerns the reproducer role alone, so the two accounts can both be right.

What did not enter, and why

• Mallory, stochastic measuring devices (LIT-140, NOTE-090). The headline is an analogy, and the author concedes the agentive analogy it opposes “can’t be refuted” (p. 15). Its reading calls it “an alternative image, not a demonstration”. Its sharper points, strong against weak model content and seed-dependence as a failure of instrument regularity, belong to the ML literature it cites, as the reading says. There was no claim that could come out wrong.
• Angius et al., transformer success (LIT-153, NOTE-106). A survey that assimilates published studies to Cummins, mechanistic and simulative explanation, with no new analysis and no counter-cases. Its reading says it should not be a source; its one firm caution (ICL “mechanism” papers often give mathematical equivalences) is better sourced from the primary papers.

So thirteen of fifteen readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis. Two caveats. Two of the thirteen readings said outright that the work “supports no THEORY document directly” (NOTE-152, NOTE-103), and the SEP-style surveys (LIT-114, LIT-160) needed the most narrowing to yield a claim that could be wrong. For LIT-113 the account filed is the survey’s central conditional verdict, which its reading rates moderate. And LIT-139 gave two THEORYs, because its descriptive finding is well supported and its normative claim rests on a premise it leaves unargued.

Choices made

• Status. Active for a proved result (LIT-122’s vanishing Hamiltonian, LIT-114’s constancy of fine-grained Gibbs entropy and recurrence), or a finding described with its scope (LIT-139’s dioxin cases, LIT-162’s counterexamples). Proposed for every account its reading calls argued, illustrated or untested. For the philosophical accounts promote_when names the kind of case analysis or survey that would bear on them, and says that more illustrations cannot.
• Corrections followed. Each THEORY follows its NOTE’s corrections of the seeded skims: Veit makes no concession on p. 17; in Bourrat control comes “for free” in scaffolded collectives and autonomy is what evolves; Freeborn’s Othello verdict breaks his own bridge-principle condition.
• Back-references. luria link --fix added presupposed_by to THEORY-133 and answered_by to QUESTION-033. Those are the only edits to files this batch did not create.

Errors found in the record

• luria repair wanted to upgrade a stale code in record/curation.d/2026/10/15/194615.md: it still cites the temporary code of what is now CLAIM-315. Left for the owner’s branch, since that file is outside this batch.
• No errors were found in the fifteen NOTEs beyond those they already correct. Existing THEORYs that cite these LITs in prose (THEORY-030 for LIT-114; THEORY-048, THEORY-053, THEORY-057, THEORY-058 and THEORY-133 for LIT-147) cite them as caveats, not as evidence, so none should have listed them as source.

---

Self, personhood and individuation, in the THEORY backfill: fourteen THEORYs from sixteen readings

2026-10-16 07:54:49 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continues by topic group (moral psychology was first, 071404). This group took the sixteen LITs tagged self, personhood or individuation that had a Read NOTE and no THEORY citing them as source. ADR-024 keeps agent, individual, self and person apart, and the tags follow it: persistence and what matters went to personhood, what a self is to self, and counting organisms and their parts to individuation.

What entered

Fourteen THEORYs, one Active and thirteen Proposed. The codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Persons over time.
  • Parfit’s division argument (THEORY-447), from LIT-447 with Olson’s survey (LIT-454).
  • Lewis’s stage reply (THEORY-476), from LIT-446.
  • Williams’s first-person series (THEORY-531), from LIT-462.
  • The psychological-continuity criterion (THEORY-546), from Locke (LIT-464), with the repairs as LIT-454 and LIT-447 give them.
  • Floridi’s level-of-abstraction deflation (THEORY-650), from LIT-136.
  • Dufner’s map of identity and ethics (THEORY-464), from LIT-130.
  • Olson’s seven questions of personal identity (THEORY-417), from LIT-454. This is the one Active THEORY: a conceptual map the record holds as stated.
• Selves.
  • Hume’s bundle and the fiction of identity (THEORY-681), from LIT-451.
  • Dennett’s centre of narrative gravity (THEORY-691), from LIT-442.
  • Strawson against narrativity (THEORY-684), from LIT-452.
  • Gallagher’s ownership and agency in the minimal self (THEORY-458), from LIT-453.
  • The context-fixed referent of a chat agent’s “I” (THEORY-490), from Shanahan 2025 (LIT-466) with the role-play paper (LIT-460).
• Individuation.
  • Meincke’s critique of parthood under substance ontology and her count between one and two (THEORY-448), from LIT-142.
  • Wilson and Barker’s separation of Darwinian from physiological individuality (THEORY-443), from LIT-168.
• Relations.
  • rivals: Parfit against Lewis, and Parfit against Williams.
  • presupposes: Dufner on Parfit.
  • answers: QUESTION-043 from the continuity criterion and from Strawson; QUESTION-035 from Meincke and from Wilson and Barker. Each constrains its question rather than answering it, and each Connections section says how.

What did not enter, and why

• Dennett, “Where Am I?” (LIT-405, NOTE-338). Its reading calls it intuition pumps with no thesis defended to the end. The official answer, that a person is where his point of view is, is “tentative, offered with stated doubts”. The duplicate is stipulated, and the ending, two persons once the brains drift apart, is “illustrated”, the punch line and not an argument. There is no finding to state. Its cases (Yorick, Hamlet, Hubert) would serve better as a CASE, if the record’s own argument needs them a second time.

So fifteen of sixteen readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group. The caveats: thirteen of the fourteen are Proposed. Most are philosophical accounts whose promote_when names a kind of argument that would settle them; for Gallagher, Strawson and Shanahan it names a kind of study. One NOTE said no THEORY was indicated: NOTE-370, for the role-play paper, unless joined with a reading that answers its question. That paper entered only as the second source of Shanahan’s 2025 account, which is the pairing NOTE-370 names.

Choices made

• Surveys. The three SEP entries were read as surveys, and the account filed from each is the reading’s own synthesis or the entry’s own argument, not a position it reports. For Olson that is the map of questions, not his animalism. The too-many-thinkers objection is set out in the continuity criterion’s “does not say”, since the animalist book (LIT-448) is unread.
• No relations to existing THEORYs. This filing touches no existing THEORY. Where an existing one is a rival or a neighbour, the body says so in prose: THEORY-060 against Strawson, THEORY-322 beside Gallagher, and THEORY-064 beside Hume.
• Back-references. luria link --fix wrote answered_by into QUESTION-035 and QUESTION-043, and presupposed_by into the Parfit THEORY.
• A dropped rivalry. Dennett and Strawson were not made rivals. Strawson’s grid credits Dennett with falsifying revision, which NOTE-364 and NOTE-383 both doubt, and the two disagree about how widely people narrate, not about the same claim.

Errors found in the record

• NOTE-374 and NOTE-383 call Schechtman’s book (LIT-468) “Deferred”, and NOTE-374 says the same of Olson’s (LIT-448). Both are now Unavailable.
• NOTE-377 names THEORY-044 in its bearing section by the temporary code it had before it was numbered. It resolves through formerly, but it is not linked.
• luria repair upgrades a temporary claim code to CLAIM-315 in record/curation.d/2026/10/15/194615.md, whose hand-written link lint reports as resolving to nothing. That file is not this batch’s, and the repair was reverted here and left to its owner.
• CLAIM-287 says organizational continuity “can branch and merge, so it is not an identity relation”, which is Parfit’s inference, and CLAIM-029 grounds directly on LIT-460. Each could now ground on a THEORY, the first on Parfit’s and the second on Shanahan’s. The edges are left to the owner.

---

natural-sciences: 10 THEORYs from 17 readings

2026-10-16 08:02:46 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill audit. The natural-sciences topic group held seventeen LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and no THEORY citing them as source. Each was re-read from its NOTE and LIT to decide whether the reading supports one or more THEORY documents. The owner’s hypothesis is that a work read closely enough to carry a NOTE usually supports at least one THEORY.

Ten of the seventeen became a THEORY’s source. The seven that did not are the group’s reviews, a dated forecast, an unrefereed single-study preprint, and two crystallization papers whose readings route their content to the record’s own CLAIMs instead. So the hypothesis held for ten of seventeen here, weaker than for the moral-psychology batch, and the misses are explained by what kind of work each is, not by shallow reading.

What entered

Ten THEORYs: six Active, four Proposed.

• The cooperation lineage (six). Filed from the works morality-as-cooperation cites as its biological sources, read as biology, not as morality. Hamilton Part I (THEORY-408, Active, LIT-497): inclusive fitness and the −k > 1/r threshold. Hamilton Part II (THEORY-655, Proposed, LIT-506, extends Part I): the two principles and the haplodiploidy hypothesis, “unrigorous” and anecdotally tested. Maynard Smith & Price (THEORY-466, Active, LIT-505): the ESS and limited war, with the correction that Retaliator only ties Mouse and that there is no Hawk-Dove game here. Trivers (THEORY-663, Proposed, LIT-510): reciprocal altruism and the moral emotions that regulate it. Axelrod & Hamilton (THEORY-672, Active, LIT-498): TIT FOR TAT’s stability condition on w, with the neutral-stability caveat. Nowak (THEORY-567, Active, LIT-501, extends the Hamilton and Axelrod accounts): the five b/c-threshold mechanisms, altruism only.
• Four more. The Eulalia impact shower (THEORY-499, Proposed, LIT-009): a plausibility model, most-favourable solution only, cluster date inherited from Copernicus. The individualized niche (THEORY-473, Active, LIT-127): a framework its own authors call metaphorical, whose central quantity has no individual-level estimate. REST2 convergence (THEORY-562, Proposed, LIT-076): swap acceptance measures ladder mixing, not sampling. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky oscillation (THEORY-508, Active, LIT-531): the relaxation-cycle mechanism, with the closed-versus-open distinction that matters for using BZ as a dissipative structure.

The six Active are Hamilton Part I (a result proved under stated assumptions), Axelrod & Hamilton (a described model whose stability condition the record believes, with the neutral-stability caveat kept in the title), Nowak (the compact map of mechanisms), Maynard Smith & Price (the ESS and limited-war result), the BZ mechanism, and the niche framework as a description of its own structure. The four Proposed are the Eulalia model (a plausibility argument its authors do not call proof), Hamilton Part II (the author’s own “unrigorous”), Trivers (functional reasoning fitted to 1960s findings), and REST2 (argued, with a passing example and no failed-run counterexample).

What did not enter, and why

• Concussion review (LIT-029, NOTE-858). A narrative review whose claims are other studies’, and whose one conclusion is a dated statement of ignorance: as of 2017 the long-term risk of repetitive concussion was unmeasured by any design able to measure it. No account to state.
• Rigorous RG (LIT-039, NOTE-821). A Comment that reports others’ results. The one result fit to file, 4D φ⁴ triviality, belongs to Aizenman and Duminil-Copin’s paper, which the record does not hold.
• The Strongest El Niño (LIT-059, NOTE-031). A dated, unverified forecast in a blog post. Nothing in the record rests on it, and the event it forecasts is now checkable against observation instead.
• Gut microbiota and appetite (LIT-903, NOTE-706). A narrative review, mostly rodent and in vitro by its authors’ own statement. Its content is already held as grounds for the owner’s CLAIM-166, not as a standalone finding about the world.
• A. baumannii oxidative-stress preprint (LIT-852, NOTE-656). A single unrefereed bioRxiv preprint whose central claim is assembled from reporters, correlative detection and simulation rather than observed end to end. The reading explicitly declines a THEORY: the claim is exactly the kind THEORY-136 counsels holding at arm’s length.
• Vekilov, Nucleation (LIT-919, NOTE-708) and Ostwald, rule of stages (LIT-920, NOTE-709). Both readings state in terms that no THEORY should be filed from them, and both route their physical content to the record’s own CLAIMs about argument nucleation (CLAIM-176, CLAIM-181, CLAIM-185, CLAIM-186) as evidence via their supports edges. Vekilov’s two-step mechanism rests on one protein and a fitted model; Ostwald’s rule is “a frequently applicable rule”, not a law, on a handful of cases. The NOTE-709 verdict names LIT-920 as the primary source if the record later states a rule-of-stages THEORY; this audit does not.

Choices made

• Status. Active only where the record believes the account as stated: a proved result, a described model with its scope, or a mechanism supported by a confirming test. Proposed where the reading marks the account argued, untested, one-system or (for the Eulalia model) a plausibility argument. Each Proposed THEORY names a kind of result that would settle it and says what cannot.
• Topic tags. The group’s primary tag natural-sciences leads every THEORY, with the secondary tags the readings carry (mathematics, game-theory, complex-systems, ecology, philosophy-of-biology, probabilistic-modeling, emotion-and-affect, moral-psychology). Following ADR-018, the cooperation sources read as biology are not tagged moral-psychology except Trivers, whose human section is itself an account of moral emotion.
• No answers edges. None of the ten answers a QUESTION of the record’s own closely enough to warrant the link; the overlaps are topical, not answering.
• Relations between the new THEORYs. extends edges where one account builds on another’s mechanism: Hamilton Part II and Nowak extend Hamilton Part I, and Nowak extends Axelrod & Hamilton. No rivals edges: these accounts of cooperation are complementary, not competing.

Errors found in the record

• The Hawk-Dove attribution. Morality-as-cooperation (LIT-503) and NOTE-034 credit hawk-dove contests to Maynard Smith & Price (1973). That paper (LIT-505, NOTE-404) has no Hawk-Dove game; its strategies are Mouse, Hawk, Bully, Retaliator and Prober-Retaliator, and “dove” does not occur. This is already recorded as a correction in NOTE-404 and is carried into THEORY-466; noted here for the benefit of the morality-as-cooperation account (THEORY-468), which repeats the lineage.
• luria repair edited a file outside this batch. It upgraded a stale placeholder code (CLAIM-315 → CLAIM-315) in record/curation.d/2026/10/15/194615.md, another batch’s curation entry. That change was reverted here to avoid touching other agents’ files in parallel worktrees; the repair can be rerun on the main branch.

---

Society and governance: eleven THEORYs from eleven readings

2026-10-16 18:01:55 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill reached society-and-governance. Twenty LITs with that primary tag had a Read NOTE and were no THEORY’s source. Each NOTE was read in full with its LIT, and existing THEORYs (including the first round’s THEORY-tmp… codes), QUESTIONs and CLAIMs were searched for the same accounts.

What entered

Eleven THEORYs, one Active and ten Proposed, from eleven readings. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• One finding, Active. The EEAS’s 2024 FIMI sample: of 2,055 channels recurring across incidents, 76.5% are not attributed to a state (THEORY-659, from LIT-084). The title carries the two limits the reading found: the sample is the EEAS’s own and not representative, and the 76.5% is a share of a filtered graph, which the report’s conclusions restate as a share of all channels.
• Ten accounts, Proposed.
  • The Google remedies opinion’s account of scale as the fruit of exclusive distribution, remedied by sharing raw data rather than by divestiture (THEORY-480, LIT-006).
  • Doctorow’s four constraints on platform decay (THEORY-470, LIT-033), filed as extends THEORY-150, the 2023 enshittification cycle, because the talk adds a cause the essay lacks.
  • Competitive authoritarianism as relayed by Drezner from Levitsky and Way (THEORY-440, LIT-022). It rests on a relay, and says so.
  • Clark’s reading of Russian “hybrid war” as a category defined by objective (THEORY-488, LIT-023), and Fridman’s account of the narrative of a Western information war as politicised by many actors rather than directed (THEORY-551, LIT-088 with LIT-023 second).
  • DISINFOX’s mapping of DISARM incidents into standard STIX (THEORY-651, LIT-083). The demonstration is strong, but the LIT is a Proposed preprint, so the account is Proposed and carries an inactive-ok-file directive.
  • Algorithmic nudging needs mechanism-level oversight (THEORY-627, LIT-179).
  • Gelman’s incentive account of visible falsehood (THEORY-423, LIT-014), Thompson’s dispositional account of who goes Nazi (THEORY-483, LIT-055), and Moynihan’s account of selective shutdowns as a transfer of the power of the purse (THEORY-533, LIT-061). All three are argued from chosen cases or vignettes, and each promote_when names the measurement that could settle it.

What did not enter, and why

• Primary legal and governmental records that decide or find nothing general. The Minnesota show-cause transcript (LIT-012), whose reading says citing it for a holding would be an error; the Broadview grand-jury transcript (LIT-065); the Kerr County commissioners’ transcript (LIT-078). Each is a record of what was said, with no finding to state.
• Doctrine. Joint Publication 3-12 (LIT-015) is definitional, “doctrine by stipulation” in its reading, with the operative authorities classified.
• Commentary on single legal events. Law Dork on the D.V.D. order (LIT-052) and Vance on DOJ’s reversal (LIT-092). Their claims are readings of one order or filing, or predictions.
• A district-court order under appeal. The Rhode Island subpoena order (LIT-024). Its holdings are contested in the First Circuit, one of the decisions it followed has been reversed, and its reading says not to cite it as settled. Its remedy point, that segregating a protected subgroup discloses membership, is a familiar de-identification fact stated as a legal finding, not a result of the order.
• A weak result. The Mothership post (LIT-060). Its headline 1.6% is not reproducible from the published code, and the numerator is likely truncated. The LIT is Proposed with a promote_when that already names the run that would settle it; a THEORY would restate a number the record doubts.
• A vendor’s claim relayed by trade press. The NEWSCASTER report (LIT-072): one source, circumstantial attribution, no measure of effect.

So eleven of twenty readings became sources, and LIT-023 serves two. The owner’s hypothesis held for the argued and analytic works (eleven of twelve, the exception being the irreproducible Mothership post). It did not hold for the eight primary records, doctrine and single-event commentary, which make up this topic’s other half.

Choices made

• Proposed over Active. Only the EEAS finding is Active, as a description of a coded sample with its limits in the title. Every account here is argued from chosen cases, relayed, or (DISINFOX) rests on a Proposed preprint.
• No answers edges. QUESTION-070 names LIT-179’s RL agent and LIT-084’s tiered network as its two cases of manipulation with no intending member. The nudging and EEAS THEORYs describe those cases and name the question in Connections; neither says what manipulation is, so neither answers it. QUESTION-119 is named from the Fridman account as a case, not an answer.
• No rivals edges. Clark and Fridman agree on the narrative and on its not being merely cynical, and differ in corpus. They are neighbours, not rivals; the Fridman account cites Clark as a second source.
• No source added to THEORY-150. It already names LIT-033 in prose as a restatement. The talk’s new causal claim is filed separately so that it can fail without taking the cycle with it.

Errors found in the record

• LIT-088’s seeded section still says the held Russian Hybrid Warfare “appears to be Fridman’s own book”. NOTE-070 corrects this: LIT-023 is Clark’s ISW report, and Fridman’s book is not held. The passage is labelled as what the seeding asked, so it was left.
• The source errors already caught in the NOTEs are carried into the THEORYs as corrections, not repeated: Doctorow’s “DC Circuit” and his account of the DMA as an “Act”; the EEAS conclusions’ restatement of the 76.5%; Fridman’s doctrine-to-law ordering.

---

Mathematics: eighteen THEORYs from twenty-one readings

2026-10-16 18:03:37 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill reached the mathematics group: twenty-one LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and no THEORY citing them as source. Each NOTE was read in full, with its LIT. The papers were not fetched; every THEORY rests on the record’s reading. The caller’s ruling for this group was that a proved result, stated with its conditions, can be Active.

What entered

Eighteen THEORYs, fifteen Active and three Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Operator theory and analysis, Active. Spectral sets: the spectrum controls ‖f(A)‖ only for diagonalisable A, the numerical range always, with K ∈ [2, 11.08] (THEORY-530, LIT-011). The Mizohata–Takeuchi counterexample with log R loss (THEORY-685, LIT-030). Oseledets and Karlsson–Ledrappier (THEORY-407, LIT-093). Riesz representation, with Riesz 1907 as the existence-only priority note (THEORY-629, LIT-243 and LIT-326). Walsh’s system and its Fourier-like convergence (THEORY-620, LIT-300).
• Algebra and duality, Active. Wedderburn’s structure theorem (THEORY-652, LIT-309). Gelfand–Naimark (THEORY-592, LIT-313). Pontryagin duality in its compact/discrete form (THEORY-645, LIT-333). Eckart–Young (THEORY-503, LIT-330). Zaslavsky’s region count (THEORY-430, LIT-355).
• Type theory, Active. The Segal condition and the dependent Yoneda lemma in simplicial type theory, with its sketched semantics in the title (THEORY-544, LIT-032). Conservativity of two-level type theory over HoTT (THEORY-642, LIT-095).
• Games, control and compositionality, Active. Debreu’s existence theorem for generalized games (THEORY-437, LIT-067). LQR’s return-difference margins and their loss under an observer (THEORY-654, LIT-051). Backprop as a functor (THEORY-519, LIT-827).
• Proposed. Spectral networks and Family Floer theory, from an unrefereed preprint whose analytic core the reader could not check (THEORY-486, LIT-017). Generative effects and left adjoints, from a Skimmed NOTE (THEORY-686, LIT-803). Diffusion maps, from a Skimmed NOTE whose equations were not seen (THEORY-565, LIT-981), with answers: QUESTION-052 for the symmetric half only.

What did not enter, and why

• LIT-064 (Chu & Raginsky, NOTE-046). Moved to the anthology as ANTH-LIT-726 at the owner’s request, with the reading. A THEORY here would hold one reading in two places.
• LIT-237 (bra–ket notation, NOTE-855). The NOTE files none: the article adds no claim, and its one substantive point, that the bracket is an inner product only where Riesz holds, is the Riesz theorem. That point is in THEORY-629’s “does not say”, citing NOTE-855.
• LIT-040 (nLab, two-level type theory). Superseded by LIT-095. Its NOTE read the paper, and the THEORY is sourced to LIT-095, not to the page. LIT-095 has no NOTE of its own; its reading is NOTE-047.

So nineteen of twenty-one readings now carry a THEORY, counting LIT-040 through LIT-095. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group, with a caveat: most of these are classical theorems, and five NOTEs had declined a THEORY outright (LIT-237, LIT-243, LIT-803, LIT-827, LIT-981), mostly on the ground that a standard theorem need not be stated separately. The filed THEORYs earn their place mainly in “What this does not say”: Eckart–Young gives no uniqueness of factors, Riesz 1907 states no uniqueness, Walsh 1923 has no characters, Pontryagin 1934 has no general LCA duality, Gelfand–Naimark has no categorical duality, and Stanley has no topes. Those are the points the owner’s prior-art map leans on.

Choices made

• Overriding four NOTEs’ “No THEORY”. NOTE-854 says the Riesz theorem is standard and should be cited to a textbook, and NOTE-289 that a modern proof supersedes the 1907 note as a source. The THEORY states it with the conditions LIT-243 proves, and records that advice. NOTE-625 declined a THEORY on Backprop as Functor because a claim about backpropagation is the anthology’s side. The anthology does not hold the paper, and the THEORY states the compositional theorem, not an instruction; the reason is recorded in its “does not say”. NOTE-601 and NOTE-784 are Skimmed, so their THEORYs are Proposed and say so.
• One THEORY for two Riesz readings. The 1907 note is the priority source and the REU paper the proof; neither alone carries the account.
• LIT-017 stays Proposed, and so does its THEORY. The statements are narrowed to what the proofs cover: exact Betti Lagrangians, finite creative networks. Theorem 5 is left out.
• No new rivals or extends. Riehl–Shulman and two-level type theory are alternative answers to one question, and both can be right; they name each other in Connections.
• Outside facts flagged as outside. The 1 + √2 Crouzeix–Palencia bound, Frobenius’s theorem on real division algebras and Schmidt’s 1907 priority for low-rank approximation are named as not verified in the record.

Edits to existing documents

• THEORY-019: a Connections line naming Wedderburn as the algebra-side half of the real Schur corollary its promote_when asks for, and Pontryagin as the abelian case. Not a promotion: the representation-side step is still missing.
• THEORY-020: its Gelfand–Naimark line now names the new THEORYs for the Gelfand and Pontryagin legs.
• NOTE-022, NOTE-047, NOTE-069: stale inactive-ok-file reasons. Each said the LIT was Deferred; LIT-017 is now Proposed and LIT-040 Superseded.
• QUESTION-052: answered_by gains THEORY-565, written by luria link --fix from the new THEORY’s answers.

Errors found in the record

• The three stale directive reasons above.
• LIT-095’s status note says a full reading “is still owed” and that it has no NOTE; its reading lives in NOTE-047, filed under the page it supersedes. Left as is.
• LIT-300 carries information-theory, which NOTE-281 says is borderline and would drop. Left for the owner.

---

Cognition, part 1: thirteen THEORYs from eighteen readings

2026-10-16 18:05:01 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill reached cognition, the second topic after moral psychology (the entry of 07:14:04). This half of it held eighteen LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and no THEORY citing them as source. Seventeen were Read; Putnam’s Psychological Predicates (LIT-396) is Unavailable with a Skimmed NOTE.

What entered

Thirteen THEORYs, three Active and ten Proposed, from fifteen of the eighteen readings. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Three findings, Active.
  • THEORY-545, from LIT-312 and LIT-340: Aerts and Gabora’s 2005 model of concepts is a classical probability model written in a Hilbert space. Its contexts are diagonal in one basis, its entangled “pet fish” state is statistically a classical mixture, and its guppy weights are imported. These are the readings’ checks of the published model.
  • THEORY-603, from LIT-383: the Iowa gambling task result, scoped to what notes 8 and 9 support (all ten controls and no patient developed anticipatory SCRs; three patients knew the strategy and did not switch), with the abstract’s “before they knew” in “does not say”.
  • THEORY-609, from LIT-404: Chalmers’s clock-and-dial and input-memory theorems, with the CSA escape marked as argued, not proved.
• Ten accounts, Proposed.
  • The extended mind (THEORY-579), from LIT-097 and Clark’s reply LIT-403. It answers QUESTION-035 for the cognitive kind.
  • Turing’s replacement of the question (THEORY-433), from LIT-394.
  • Putnam’s machine functionalism with condition (3) (THEORY-436), from LIT-396, resting on the Skimmed excerpt and saying so.
  • Dennett’s intentional strategy (THEORY-538), from LIT-398.
  • Searle’s Chinese room (THEORY-638), from LIT-400.
  • Perceptual frames (THEORY-593), from LIT-099.
  • Drayson against the motivations for mental fictionalism (THEORY-646), from LIT-112.
  • Martínez’s rate–distortion–complexity criterion for representation (THEORY-529), from LIT-149.
  • The perfect language model as a fiction machine (THEORY-547), from LIT-178, filed as an essay’s position with its idealization kept apart from claims about real models.
  • Roberts’s conditional anti-realism and chatbot fictionalism (THEORY-461), from LIT-207.
• rivals edges. Turing and Dennett each rival Block’s psychologism (THEORY-092), and Dennett rivals Searle. THEORY-092 had said that if the record filed a behavioural criterion as a theory, it would correct it. rivals was chosen instead of corrects because all three are Proposed and the lookup machine is itself the point in dispute (ADR-022).

What did not enter, and why

• The world-models editorial (LIT-195, NOTE-136). It argues nothing of its own. Its three senses of “world model” are posed conditionally, each anchored to one citation, and its verdicts are glosses on seventeen contributions the record has not read. A THEORY would rest on readings the record does not hold.
• K-lines (LIT-402, NOTE-352). The NOTE says “No THEORY in the record should rest on this memo”. The reason is that it has no finding: the memo is half-built by its author’s account, and nothing is simulated or measured. That bars a THEORY rather than only noting that none existed, so it was respected.
• Jokes (LIT-408, NOTE-361). The NOTE says “No THEORY in the record should cite it as support”. It is an essay with no data and no program, and its unifying claim bends by its own Note 16. It was respected for the same reason.

So fifteen of eighteen readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis for this half of the topic. Two caveats apply. Three of the fifteen NOTEs said “No new THEORY is indicated” or “No THEORY bears on it” (NOTE-355, NOTE-349, NOTE-331). Each meant that no existing THEORY was supported, or that nothing belonged in the anthology, not that the work had no finding, so under the owner’s ruling they did not bar a new one. And several accounts are positions argued from thought experiments (Turing, Searle, Dennett, Putnam, the extended mind). They are filed because the record’s other THEORYs already argue with them in prose, and naming them lets those arguments become relations.

Choices made

• One THEORY for the extended mind, two sources. Clark’s 2005 reply restates and defends the 1998 argument and confirms in his own words that parity was not argued, so it went in as a second source rather than a THEORY of its own.
• One THEORY for Aerts and Gabora I and II. Part I’s lattice is the proposal and Part II’s model its realisation; the finding is about the pair.
• What the Active findings claim. Each is stated as what the published model or the reported statistics show, with the paper’s stronger reading in “does not say”.
• Putnam on a skim. It is Proposed under the owner’s ruling for a well-established result discussed elsewhere. The record’s full readings of Block, Chalmers and Schwitzgebel quote the same clause, and the THEORY says what it rests on.

Existing documents edited

• CLAIM-041 v2: THEORY-545 added to grounds, since A24 relied on exactly what it states.
• CLAIM-175 v2: THEORY-579 added to grounds, since the claim argues “on the extended-mind thesis’s own terms”.
• THEORY-092 v2: its Turing section, which said no behavioural criterion was filed, now names the two that are and says why they are rivals.
• THEORY-043 v6: a Connections line naming the four accounts filed from readings it draws on.
• LIT-097 v4: the key takeaway reworded (see below).

Errors found in the record

• No NOTE was found wrong in reading them; each already carries its own corrections. One correction had not been carried to its LIT: LIT-097’s key takeaway still said belief is environmentally constituted “provided the resource is reliably available, easily accessed and automatically endorsed”, the sufficient-conditions wording NOTE-180 corrects. Its summary had been reworded already. The takeaway is now reworded too (LIT-097 v4).

---

Small topics: 20 THEORYs from 16 readings

2026-10-16 18:05:08 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continued over the small topics: epistemology, emotion-and-affect, psychopathology-and-treatment, causality, logic, operations-research, philosophy-of-mathematics, embodied-cognition, behavioral-integration, model-comparison and information-geometry. The group held 18 LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and no THEORY citing them as source. The first round’s temporary-code THEORYs were checked for overlap; none stated the same account as any of these.

What entered

Twenty THEORYs from 16 of the 18 readings: eight Active, twelve Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Epistemology. Status distrust of experts, Proposed (THEORY-615, LIT-158), a how-possibly argument whose premises the paper leaves untested. From Wenmackers’s thesis (LIT-163), three: the numerosity probability for a fair lottery on ℕ, Active (THEORY-401); Stratified Belief, Proposed (THEORY-647); and the one-step averaging result, Active (THEORY-649), filed with NOTE-139’s correction that the group-level risk rises from two sentences to three. Zollman’s survey (LIT-716) as the landscape result that no network is best for every problem, Active (THEORY-422), declared as extending THEORY-143.
• Emotion. The somatic marker hypothesis, Proposed (THEORY-500), from LIT-384 with the 1997 experiment LIT-383 as second source, because NOTE-332 says the 1996 paper should not carry it alone. Gross’s process model of emotion regulation, Proposed (THEORY-680), declared a rival of THEORY-056. Fluency as an inference about precision, Proposed (THEORY-662, LIT-957).
• Psychopathology. The IFS account of parts and Self, Proposed (THEORY-409), from LIT-579 and the skimmed chapter of LIT-591, answering QUESTION-034 with a fourth route to acting as one. The gut–brain translation gap, Proposed (THEORY-560, LIT-915).
• Causality. Causaltopes and relative causal separability, Proposed on a skim (THEORY-580, LIT-788). Intervention as surgery and observation as conditioning, Proposed on a skim (THEORY-419, LIT-894).
• Logic and mathematics. Ultrafilters as propositional theories, Łoś and compactness, Active (THEORY-595, LIT-145). Corfield’s account of duality as adjunction into an opposite, Proposed (THEORY-604, LIT-115). Shampoo’s Kronecker domination of full-matrix AdaGrad and its regret bound, Active (THEORY-427, LIT-621).
• The rest. The waste-collection GA against Gurobi incumbents, Active and scoped to its five 12-point instances (THEORY-501, LIT-008). Participatory sense-making, Proposed (THEORY-520, LIT-571), linked to QUESTION-009 as constraining it. Options in hierarchical RL help only when they fit, Active as a result about the model (THEORY-688, LIT-581), and the proposed neural mapping, Proposed and presupposing it (THEORY-484). Structure learning by spare slots and model reduction, Proposed (THEORY-564, LIT-615), presupposing THEORY-081.

What did not enter, and why

• The withdrawn sheaf paper (LIT-813, NOTE-629). Its authors withdrew it, its central construction fails as stated (NOTE-629 gives a counterexample to Proposition 5), and the results that survive are proved in general by LIT-788, which is now a THEORY’s source.
• Sayed Ahmed’s note (LIT-956, NOTE-817). NOTE-817 files no THEORY because what the paper asserts is either standard and better sourced elsewhere or stated without proof. That holds: Theorems 4.1 and 5.1–5.5 have no proofs, and the one proved theorem (7.6) rests on the author’s unheld preprints.

So 16 of 18 readings became sources. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group, with caveats. Several of the THEORYs are proved or computed results stated with their scope (the lottery, Łoś, Shampoo, the averaging counts), which the readings had already set out. Nine of the sixteen NOTEs said there was no THEORY. For NOTE-113, NOTE-139, NOTE-177, NOTE-141, NOTE-015 and NOTE-332 that meant no existing THEORY was supported; NOTE-332 sketched the one now filed. NOTE-453 declined only a THEORY comparing IFS with ACT, which is still not filed. NOTE-456 meant that the source carries no claim beyond its definition; its THEORY is Proposed and says so. NOTE-696 meant that the excerpts ground no claim about language; its THEORY is about the operator only.

Choices made

• Skims. Three THEORYs rest wholly or partly on a skim (LIT-788, LIT-894, LIT-591). All are Proposed and say what was read.
• Two from one reading, three from another. LIT-581’s computational result and its neural mapping have different standing, so they are separate, the second presupposing the first. Wenmackers’s three chapters make three unrelated claims.
• Relations. Gross rivals THEORY-056, which takes the side of his first open problem that he set aside. THEORY-422 extends THEORY-143. No other rivals were declared: Desmond and Fricker (THEORY-327) are compatible, and Corfield and De Haro and Butterfield use “duality” for different relations without disagreeing on a fact.
• Existing documents edited. CLAIM-166 now grounds on THEORY-560, and CLAIM-127 and CLAIM-130 on THEORY-419, each with a version bump and a history line. The THEORYs state what those claims relied on.

Errors found

• NOTE-485’s summary says model reduction recovers the true structure “rarely” for two or three concepts. Its own transcription of Table 1 shows the true count never winning for either (three presented: a two-concept model won 89 times; two presented: five and four won). Either the summary or the transcription is off; not checked against the paper.
• Errors the NOTEs already correct were followed, not repeated: NOTE-139 on Wenmackers’s chapter 5 headline, NOTE-015 on the GA’s bin-cost percentages, NOTE-113 on Desmond’s “justifiably”, NOTE-332 on Damasio’s decks C and D.

---

Ethics and agency: 17 THEORYs from 20 readings

2026-10-16 18:05:46 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continued with the ethics and agency readings: twenty LITs, each with a Read NOTE and no THEORY citing it as source. Eleven are tagged ethics first and nine agency first. Every THEORY rests on the record’s reading, not on a fresh look at the paper.

What entered

Seventeen THEORYs, three Active and fourteen Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

Moral status and precaution.

• Bruckner’s welfare without sentience, THEORY-699 (LIT-120, Proposed). It is filed with the two limits its reading found: its “autopoiesis” is not Maturana and Varela’s, and the line it draws against thermostats is argued as one of degree.
• Terrill & Veit’s graded plant status, THEORY-449 (LIT-193, Proposed). It is filed as a conditional whose three premises are assumed. It is the rival of Bruckner’s account: it assumes that without sentience there are no interests, which Bruckner denies.
• Precaution without direction, THEORY-677 (LIT-166, Active).
• The conditional threat to human priority, THEORY-554 (LIT-166 and LIT-146, Proposed). The SEP survey is its second source, for the failure of capacity-based human exceptionalism.

Justice and Sen.

• Valentini’s rebuttal of Sen on Rawls, THEORY-434 (LIT-290 and LIT-286, Proposed). Zwolinski’s review is the second source because it corroborates the reconstruction of Sen’s Part One.
• Sen’s partial ordering by public reasoning, THEORY-411 (LIT-284 and LIT-289, Proposed). It is the positive half beside THEORY-025.

Other ethics.

• Parasocial recognition respect, THEORY-525 (LIT-172, Proposed).
• Rule-consequentialism’s reply to collapse, THEORY-467 (LIT-198, Proposed).
• Ritual incivility, THEORY-428 (LIT-209, Proposed).
• Distributed morality by thresholds, THEORY-561 (LIT-901, Proposed).

Agency and its neighbours.

• The folk causal account of intentional action under luck, THEORY-636 (LIT-132, Active, as a description of these vignette data).
• Brooks’s subsumption robots, THEORY-689 (LIT-436, Active, as an existence proof at insect scale).
• What naturalising teleology is for, THEORY-658 (LIT-192, Proposed).
• Interpretationist instance agents, THEORY-616 (LIT-206, Proposed).
• Velleman’s separation of identification from identity, THEORY-590 (LIT-292, Proposed).
• Agents found by interventions on mechanisms, THEORY-527 (LIT-909, Proposed).
• Agents and devices as model comparison, THEORY-624 (LIT-911, Proposed).

Relations.

• rivals: Bruckner against Terrill & Veit; Kenton et al. against Orseau et al., on accidentally optimal systems; Goldstein & Lederman against THEORY-173, which denies that large models are agents.
• presupposes: THEORY-207, Floridi’s 2016 allocation of responsibility, now presupposes THEORY-561.
• answers QUESTION-032: Goldstein & Lederman, Kenton et al. and Orseau et al. each give a level- or observer-relative answer to what makes a factor of a system an agent.

What did not enter, and why

• Browning & Veit, “The Desperate Search for Meaning in Life” (LIT-116, NOTE-119). No THEORY. Its one thesis, that “without [otherness], the self cannot exist” (p. 9), is “stated, not argued”, in a chapter with no references beyond two quotations. Its reading also finds a misdescription of Heidegger. A THEORY would state a claim that has no warrant in the work.
• Floridi, “AI as Agency Without Intelligence” (LIT-896, NOTE-697). No THEORY. The NOTE says an editorial “whose central claim is asserted cannot ground one”, and that a THEORY should come from the 2025 paper. That THEORY now exists (THEORY-208, from LIT-897). It names this editorial in its Connections as the slogan’s first statement. It does not argue from the editorial, so the LIT was not added to its source.

So eighteen of twenty readings became sources, sixteen as primary sources and two as second sources (LIT-146, LIT-286). That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group, with two caveats. Four of the accounts are reports of conceptual proposals whose evidence is their own coherence: Hooker, Walsh, Floridi 2013 and Orseau et al. And Floridi 2013’s NOTE had said “no THEORY”. Its reasons were the record’s practice for that line, and that the paper offers “a model and a coinage”. The NOTE also named C1 and C7 as the support any later theory of moral thresholds would have. The THEORY files C1, Proposed, and puts the analogy’s failure in its title.

Choices made

• Status. Active went to three accounts the record believes as stated. The first is a conceptual point the reading rates strong (precaution has no direction). The second is a description of experimental data with its limits in the title (Quillien). The third is an existence proof by construction (Brooks). Everything argued, assumed or conditional went Proposed. That includes Kenton et al., whose theorem is proved but whose definition of agency is a proposal.
• Tags, minding ADR-024. Velleman went to self-governance, personhood and self, not agency, because his subject is identification and autonomy set against personal identity. Brooks went to behavioral-integration first. Floridi 2013 went to ethics and society-and-governance, not agency, because its “supra-agents” are agents by fiat and its claim is about the moral value of outcomes. The parasocial account took narrative-unity, for Lindemann’s narrative, social-practice identity.
• Edits to existing documents.
  • THEORY-207 gained presupposes (version 2).
  • CLAIM-045’s grounds now point at THEORY-689 in place of LIT-436 (version 2).
  • THEORY-025 gained a Connections line to THEORY-411.
  • luria link --fix wrote the converses on THEORY-173 and QUESTION-032. It dropped CLAIM-045 from LIT-436’s supports.
• No answers for QUESTION-011 or QUESTION-009. Velleman’s account constrains QUESTION-011 only negatively: what makes a will-organization one’s own need not be what makes one persist. It is named in Connections. Floridi 2013 shows only how freely the word “agent” is used, which does not answer QUESTION-009.

Errors found in the record

• LIT-172 is tagged individuation. NOTE-186 justifies an identity tag in the practical, narrative sense: who someone is over time as others track it. Under ADR-024 that is personhood or narrative-unity, not being one thing. The tag looks like a mechanical carry-over from the retired identity word. It is left for a tagging decision.
• LIT-198’s summary keeps the claim its reading corrected. The summary says the view “escapes the collapse/incoherence dilemma and the rule-worship charge (§8)”. NOTE-160 says the incoherence reply holds only on the reflective-equilibrium route, and that each reply answers a different objection.
• Stale cross-references. NOTE-093 lists LIT-193 as Deferred. NOTE-181 lists LIT-166 and LIT-193 as Deferred. NOTE-120 calls LIT-166 “seeded only”. All three works have since been read. These are statements of what was true at reading time, so they were not rewritten.
• LIT-126 (Vieira) is Rejected. Several readings cite it as the position that denies AI moral patienthood on phenomenal-consciousness grounds. The THEORYs here cite it for that position only.

---

Probabilistic modeling, information theory and contextuality: 18 THEORYs from 23 of 25 readings

2026-10-16 18:06:16 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continued with three topic groups taken together: probabilistic-modeling, information-theory and contextuality. The list held 25 LITs, each with a Read NOTE and no THEORY citing it as source. Each NOTE was read in full; no paper was fetched.

What entered

Eighteen THEORYs, sixteen Active and two Proposed, sourcing 23 of the 25 LITs. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

Probabilistic modeling.

• THEORY-534 (Active), from Stigler’s history (LIT-044): ML’s optimality was a series of conditional proofs, and the practical failure is a growing parameter count, not Hodges’s null set.
• THEORY-587 (Active), NUTS (LIT-085): invariance proved, the efficiency comparison scoped to identity-mass HMC on four targets, ergodicity not shown.
• THEORY-475 (Active), HDDM (LIT-563): hierarchical Bayes recovers DDM parameters best, in simulations from the DDM itself.
• THEORY-426 (Proposed), sophisticated inference (LIT-577).
• THEORY-515 (Active), the conditional Schrödinger bridge (LIT-776), Propositions 1–3.
• THEORY-614 (Proposed), in-context learning as implicit Bayesian inference (LIT-797), with exact fit to the HMM mixture in the title.
• THEORY-611 (Active), classifier-free guidance (LIT-839): with learned scores the guided field is in general the score of no density.

Information theory.

• THEORY-568 (Active), Shannon invariants (LIT-042).
• THEORY-641 (Active), transfer entropy as a log-likelihood ratio (LIT-048).
• THEORY-479 (Active), entropy as the unique measurable 1-cocycle, and its vanishing in the quantum case (LIT-053).
• THEORY-617 (Active), I–MMSE (LIT-058).
• THEORY-513 (Active), prior-weighted observational entropy (LIT-082): the bounds are proved, the second laws only under sufficient conditions.
• THEORY-599 (Active), ZipNN (LIT-268): the removable redundancy of trained weights is in the float exponent, a fact about the format.
• THEORY-602 (Active), Shannon’s coding theorems (LIT-764), with his own disclaimer of the axioms.
• THEORY-668 (Active), exact IB-type optimisation over prunings of a fixed tree (LIT-868).

Contextuality.

• THEORY-526 (Active), from LIT-277, LIT-278 and LIT-279: the Čech obstruction is sound, complete on All-vs-Nothing models, and incomplete in general, even on a symmetric cover. extends THEORY-012.
• THEORY-524 (Active), from LIT-280 and LIT-281: exact on cyclic covers by iterated joint models; nothing general beyond. extends THEORY-526.
• THEORY-559 (Active), Dzhafarov & Kujala’s transitivity argument (LIT-836). answers QUESTION-067 in part, for the random-variable reading.
• THEORY-623 (Active), from LIT-844 and LIT-842: the contextuality found in the two language studies is stipulated or unsecured.

What did not enter, and why

• The nested HDP (LIT-002, NOTE-023). A model construction and an inference algorithm. The only comparative finding, multiple paths beating a single path, rests on three corpora of at most 5,000 abstracts, with Gibbs nCRP winning on one, one run per fold and the error bars undefined. At scale no nCRP baseline was run, and the flat baselines differ in capacity and initialisation. The printed global updates also contradict the derivation. Nothing could be stated as true that the reading supports.
• Hierarchical Pitman–Yor topic models (LIT-013, NOTE-008). A tutorial on an existing sampler. Its central result, the modular collapsed posterior, is cited from Chen et al. (2011), not proved here, and the TNTM results rest on one hashtag-queried corpus with undefined error bars. Its one clean data point (power-law discounts barely change perplexity) is a single ablation row.

So 23 of 25 readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis for these topics. The caveat is the same as in the first round: these are mostly mathematical papers, whose theorems are findings by construction. Of the eighteen, twelve rest on proofs, and the empirical ones are scoped in their titles to the setting tested.

Choices made

• Declined THEORYs filed anyway. Four NOTEs declined a THEORY, and two (NOTE-589, NOTE-591) named a candidate without filing it. Both are now filed, NOTE-589’s interpretive half as a “does not say” line. For LIT-577 (“a construction plus illustrations”) and LIT-797 (“the record would be stating the model’s consequence”) the THEORY is Proposed, with the condition in the title, and the summary says what the NOTE said. For LIT-839 (the anthology holds the metrics account) and LIT-868 (exact but narrow) the declined reason was not “no finding”, so the proved result is filed Active and the summary says why. LIT-836’s “No new THEORY” meant no existing one was changed.
• Grouping. The five cohomology readings became two THEORYs, split at the one result that changes the object (the iterated joint model). THEORY-012’s “does not say” already carried this lineage in prose; it is now an account of its own, and THEORY-012’s line stays. The two language studies share one THEORY, since each alone is a single unsecured or stipulated result.
• No rivals. The ICL account and the implicit-gradient account (THEORY-169) are at different levels and can both be true. The transitivity argument targets the random-variable reading, not the sheaf criterion of THEORY-012. The language THEORY bears on THEORY-013 as evidence, not as an extension of its mechanism, so no extends was declared.
• Not filed from LIT-281. Chapters V–VII of the thesis (valuation algebras, AvN stabiliser groups, strong non-locality of three-qubit states) were not checked by the reading, and Chapter V is close to a restatement of the definitions.
• Shannon’s title. It reports that Shannon rests entropy’s justification on the coding theorems, rather than asserting it as the record’s own view.

Edits to existing documents

• THEORY-013 (v3): a Connections section naming the two language studies and THEORY-623.
• CLAIM-050 (v3): grounds adds THEORY-602, which states the fidelity theorem the claim takes rate–distortion from.

Errors found in the record

• NOTE-591 calls LIT-317 (Shannon 1949) Deferred; it is now Unavailable. Left as written, since the NOTE records its date’s state.
• No error was found in the NOTEs’ readings that the THEORYs had to correct. Where a NOTE corrects its paper (NUTS’s δ, the I–MMSE feedback proviso, Shannon invariants’ Corollary 5, Carù’s Prop 6.1 and 8.2, ZipNN’s account of the exponent skew), the THEORY follows the correction.

---

Quantum foundations: 20 THEORYs from 22 readings

2026-10-16 18:09:32 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill, continued for the quantum-foundations group: 22 LITs with a Read NOTE that no THEORY cited as source. The first round’s 101 temporary-coded THEORYs were checked for overlap. None stated these accounts; the nearest were THEORY-431 (classical fluctuation theorems), THEORY-485 (wave-function realism and causal closure) and, from earlier rounds, THEORY-020, THEORY-024 and THEORY-037 on the topos programme.

What entered

Twenty THEORYs, twelve Active and eight Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

ψ-ontology and readings of the wave function.

• THEORY-605, Active: PBR’s theorem, stated with preparation independence in its strong product form (LIT-062).
• THEORY-586, Proposed, presupposes it: the theorems exclude overlap, not every reading of ψ as knowledge (LIT-090).
• THEORY-630, Proposed: protective measurement shows ψ ontic only if the protection carries no information about ψ (LIT-121). It rivals THEORY-621, Proposed: Rovelli’s relative facts, with no state of the universe (LIT-177).
• THEORY-635, Active: Belot’s particle in a box against identifying ψ with velocity dispositions (LIT-100).
• THEORY-669, Proposed: the nomological readings pay in the theory of laws (LIT-204, LIT-100, LIT-200).
• THEORY-656, Proposed: Dorato’s effective-wave-function argument against holistic dispositionalism (LIT-176).
• THEORY-631, Proposed: closed and open quantum frameworks are ranked only by interpretive premises (LIT-037).
• THEORY-455, Active: the stochastic-quantum dictionary as a representation, with interference relative to the configuration basis (LIT-086).

Classical models and probabilistic theories.

• THEORY-403, Active: the balanced, ϕ ∈ {0, π} Mach–Zehnder phenomenology has a local epistricted classical model (LIT-019).
• THEORY-474, Active: the toy bit calculus is complete and differs from stabilizer ZX in its phase group (LIT-054).
• THEORY-664, Active: universal self-steering gives homogeneity and weak self-duality, not strong (LIT-081).
• THEORY-584, Active, and THEORY-695, Active: fidelity as the POVM-minimized overlap, and no-broadcasting for invertible states (LIT-018).

Quantum thermodynamics.

• THEORY-416, Proposed: four inequivalent notions of work (LIT-010).
• THEORY-482, Active, extends THEORY-431: the two-point quantum Jarzynski equality (LIT-010).

The topos programme.

• THEORY-553, Active: quantity values are monotone spreads in a monoid, not reals (LIT-299, LIT-378).
• THEORY-585, Proposed, presupposes it: tensor-product composites fail the translation condition, asserted not proved (LIT-310, LIT-378).
• THEORY-516, Active: sieve semantics is fixed by the base category, not by global sections (LIT-381, LIT-389). It corrects the Rejected THEORY-024 and answers QUESTION-055 in part.
• THEORY-619, Active: coarse-graining is the direct image of clopen regions, and a state’s supports fix its truth values (LIT-382).

What did not enter, and why

• LIT-380 (Hamilton, Isham & Butterfield, KS III). It is Superseded by LIT-382, which proves the isomorphism this paper only asserts. It is named in THEORY-619’s Connections, not as a source.
• LIT-378, LIT-389 and LIT-200 entered as second or third sources, not as THEORYs of their own. LIT-378 is by its authors’ account an amalgam of papers I–IV, and NOTE-326 says no new THEORY is indicated. LIT-389 is a programmatic essay that proves nothing; it supports the base-category point. LIT-200 is a variant of the weak nomological reading.

So 21 of 22 readings became sources, and 18 of them primary sources. That fits the owner’s hypothesis strongly here. One caveat: several NOTEs said “supports no THEORY document” (NOTE-110, NOTE-154, NOTE-175) or “the record has no THEORY documents yet” (NOTE-018, NOTE-021, NOTE-030, NOTE-066, NOTE-080). Those meant no existing THEORY. Most of the same NOTEs proposed a THEORY in so many words, and five of the twenty follow those proposals closely (from NOTE-018, NOTE-021, NOTE-030, NOTE-066 and NOTE-080).

Choices made

• Status. A proved result, or a construction checked by the reading, went Active with its conditions in the title: PBR, steering, the fidelity and no-broadcasting theorems, the toy bit calculus, the interference model, the stochastic dictionary, the topos results. An interpretive account, or a result the paper asserts without proof, went Proposed: RQM, protective measurement, the nomological readings, Dorato, the open-systems ranking, Hance et al., the work notions and the composite failure.
• Active from a review. THEORY-482 rests on a review that reproduces the derivation in full; the result is standard, as the owner’s first-round ruling allows. LIT-010 itself advises citing the primary papers, which the record does not hold.
• Relations. rivals between Gao and Rovelli, who cannot both be right about ψ. presupposes from Hance et al. to PBR, from the composite result to the quantity-value result, and from THEORY-037 to THEORY-619. extends from the quantum Jarzynski equality to the classical fluctuation theorem. corrects from the sieve-semantics account to THEORY-024, which was already Rejected and had no winner named.
• answers. Only QUESTION-055, by THEORY-516: a presheaf over contexts gets the Heyting pseudo-complement its base fixes. The interference model bears on CLAIM-041’s point that context effects do not establish nonclassicality, but CLAIM-041 does not rely on it, so its grounds were left alone.

Errors found in the record

• NOTE-334’s correction already records that LIT-389’s remark on the (ℝ, ≤) presheaf is wrong; THEORY-516 repeats it so the essay is not cited for it.
• The key takeaway in LIT-081’s body still reads that Koecher–Vinberg plus Hanche-Olsen “force” C*-algebraic quantum theory. The summary is already corrected; the takeaway states it conditionally on strong self-duality, so it was left.
• No other errors were found beyond those the NOTEs already record.

---

Cognition, part 2: twelve THEORYs from seventeen readings

2026-10-16 18:16:53 · curation · record

The second half of the cognition group in the THEORY backfill. Seventeen LITs, each with a Read NOTE and no THEORY citing it as source. Codes below are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

What entered

Twelve THEORYs, three Active and nine Proposed. Fifteen of the seventeen readings are now a THEORY’s source.

• The extended-mind dispute, as three rival accounts and one shared point.
  • Chalmers’s sensorimotor statement of the thesis, with consciousness held out by directness (THEORY-512, Proposed; LIT-415, LIT-421).
  • Adams and Aizawa’s marks of the cognitive and contingent intracranialism (THEORY-591, Proposed; LIT-438, LIT-455).
  • Rupert’s embedded cognition, argued from memory research (THEORY-528, Proposed; LIT-422).
  • The point all three accept, that coupling does not by itself make parthood (THEORY-582, Active; LIT-438, LIT-455). The first is a rival of the other two; the marks account presupposes the coupling point.
• Philosophy of mind. Belief ascription presupposes rationality, and the believer is an idealisation (THEORY-596, Proposed; LIT-440, LIT-456). Psychological states are not machine-table states (THEORY-471, Active; LIT-641).
• AI and cognitive modelling. Hand-built representations hide high-level perception, and no representation module can serve every task (THEORY-541, Proposed; LIT-414, with Burns’s review LIT-457 turning the charge on Copycat). Minsky’s emotions as ways to think, a rival of THEORY-045 on what feelings are (THEORY-570, Proposed; LIT-432). Monotonic logic and displaceable defaults (THEORY-462, Proposed; LIT-410).
• Perception. Block’s border between seeing and thinking, from the précis only (THEORY-454, Proposed; LIT-649).
• Language learning. Joint inference of referential intentions and lexicon (THEORY-542, Proposed; LIT-815). Human function-learning chains converge on the favoured function, not shown to be the prior (THEORY-489, Active; LIT-820).

What did not enter, and why

• Pandemonium (LIT-427, NOTE-360). A proposal written before the runs it promises. Its results are three sentences in the discussion, one of which reports that subdemon selection “did not do what we hoped”. Its design argument for modularity is an assertion. It stays named in THEORY-043 as the decomposition’s starting point.
• Singh’s exposition (LIT-444, NOTE-339). Uncritical by design, with no implementation and no argument for the theory. Its one firm claim, that the Society of Mind has not been implemented, is historical and is better carried by the reading than by a THEORY.

So fifteen of seventeen readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis. Two caveats. Three of the twelve rest on works the readings call proposals (LIT-410, LIT-432) or a précis (LIT-649), and each says so and stays Proposed. And the two that entered nothing are the group’s two works with no claim of their own to test.

Choices made

• The coupling point is filed apart from the marks. Adams and Aizawa’s readings rate the logical point strong and the two marks assumed. One document would have had to be Proposed for the marks while the record believes the point. CLAIM-172 and CLAIM-173 now ground on the coupling THEORY instead of the bare LIT-455.
• Two notes said no THEORY. NOTE-337 (frames) says the memo is “a source of hypotheses, not of support”. THEORY-462 takes only the half its reading calls correct, monotonicity, and marks the no-repair claim as the memo’s assertion. NOTE-611 (word learning) said no THEORY because the findings are specific to a small corpus and the record held nothing they correct. The second reason concerns existing THEORYs, so the account is filed Proposed with its scale in the title.
• Active. The coupling point, the case against machine-table states, and the human iterated-learning finding, each with its scope in the title. The machine-table account is a philosophical argument the reading rates strong against its stated target, and it leaves functionalism standing.
• No answers edges. QUESTION-035 (when a combined form is one system) is where the coupling point bears, but CLAIM-172 deliberately sidesteps parthood, so the THEORY constrains a route the record does not take. QUESTION-046 (a criterion for group experience) is where Chalmers’s directness criterion bears, and THEORY-043 already carries that application as the record’s own.
• Overlap with part 1. Part 1 holds LIT-097 (the extended mind), LIT-398 (True Believers) and LIT-402 (K-lines). The accounts here were written not to state those works’ theses. If part 1 files the 1998 parity thesis, it is the account THEORY-512 revises, and the three rivals edges here should be extended to it.

Existing documents edited

• CLAIM-234 and CLAIM-090: grounds point at THEORY-489 (in place of, or beside, LIT-820).
• CLAIM-172 and CLAIM-173: grounds point at THEORY-582 in place of LIT-455.
• THEORY-045: names THEORY-570 as its rival.
• THEORY-043: a Connections line for the three THEORYs filed from readings it cites.
• NOTE-339: its stale line that no THEORY bears on it corrected.

Errors found in the record

• CLAIM-172’s summary says the coupling-constitution objection holds that “coupling never makes parthood”. The readings (NOTE-380) say it shows only that coupling does not entail parthood. The claim’s history now says so; its summary is left for the line’s owner.
• NOTE-180’s attribution of the name “coupling–constitution fallacy” to the authors’ 2008 work. The substance is in the 2001 paper (§3.2), and the name is in a draft predating December 2005 (NOTE-368 and NOTE-380, Corrections). NOTE-180 belongs to part 1 and is not edited here.
• NOTE-339 said no THEORY bears on it while THEORY-043 cited it; corrected.

---

Consciousness, in the THEORY backfill: thirteen accounts from eighteen readings

2026-10-16 18:17:40 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill reached the consciousness readings: eighteen LITs with a Read NOTE that no THEORY cited as source. Each NOTE was read in full with its LIT, and existing THEORYs were checked for the same account before anything was filed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

What entered

Thirteen THEORYs, two Active and eleven Proposed.

• Two findings, Active.
  • THEORY-597, from Lindahl et al. (LIT-066): challenging meditation-related experiences span 59 categories in seven domains and occur in daily practice, at low dose and in the first days, not only on retreat. Filed as a description of a sample chosen for difficulty, with self-attributed causation.
  • THEORY-498, from Kleiner & Ludwig (LIT-143): satisfying a structure’s axioms on experiential aspects does not make it a structure of experience. The negative half is proved by construction, which is why it is Active; the two positive cases are carried with their assumed premises.
• The hard problem and its rival. THEORY-694 (Chalmers 1995, LIT-406, with Nagel, LIT-096) and illusionism, THEORY-633 (Frankish 2016, LIT-458, with Dennett’s “Facing Backwards”, LIT-397, and Frankish 2025, LIT-103), filed as rivals.
• Chalmers’s other papers. Organisational invariance (THEORY-507, LIT-392 with LIT-406), the combination problem (THEORY-644, LIT-395), the meta-problem challenge (THEORY-577, LIT-425) and the temporary-objections argument about language models (THEORY-460, LIT-411).
• Dennett and his readers. “Quining Qualia” (THEORY-415, LIT-433) and Taylor’s real-pattern reading (THEORY-563, LIT-461).
• The rest. IIT’s ill-definedness and the proxy point (THEORY-523, LIT-185); Shanahan’s candidature by encounter (THEORY-606, LIT-465); pooled processing feelings as a contributor to cross-modal unity (THEORY-573, LIT-190, itself a Proposed LIT).
• answers. Invariance answers QUESTION-046 in part: it is a constraint on any criterion (a population isomorph is a subject), not a criterion. The meta-problem challenge answers QUESTION-048 in part: a basis that does not explain the reports cannot be confirmed by them, and puzzled reports can be mimicked.

What did not enter, and why

• Schwitzgebel’s reply to Kammerer (LIT-459, NOTE-381). No new THEORY. THEORY-043 already states and argues from its three points (the condition-A gap, the Leo case, the simplicity dilemma) in its Kammerer and invariance bullets and in promote_when. The reply was added to that account’s source instead.
• Mashour & Alkire (LIT-965, NOTE-797). No THEORY, as the NOTE decided. It is a perspective with no data; its one finding is second-hand from a study the record does not hold; its marker of returning consciousness is an access marker, which the authors concede. What it bears on is held by THEORY-091, THEORY-090, THEORY-023 and THEORY-100.

So seventeen of eighteen readings became sources, sixteen of them of new accounts. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this topic, with three caveats. Most of these readings are philosophical arguments, so most accounts are Proposed and say what kind of result would move them; several of those results do not yet exist anywhere. Two NOTEs said “No new THEORY” (NOTE-346, NOTE-357) because the record lacks the replies, not because the works lack a claim; under the owner’s ruling those were filed Proposed, and THEORY-415 says what its NOTE said. NOTE-089 said Nagel supports no theory “in the anthology’s sense”; Nagel entered as the second source of the hard-problem account rather than as an account of his own, since a separate Nagel THEORY would have restated the same gap.

Choices made

• Rivals. Only the hard problem and illusionism are declared rivals: they disagree about whether the further question has an answer to find. Shanahan’s account denies THEORY-023’s presupposition rather than giving another answer to it, so it is named in Connections, not as a rival. Invariance and IIT cannot both be true for isomorphs, but the record has no THEORY stating IIT’s exclusion as an account, so that conflict is stated in prose.
• Frankish’s commentary (LIT-103) entered as a source of the illusionism account, for the bureau-de-change application, rather than as a THEORY of its own. Its charge against Veit is conditional, and THEORY-101 already records Veit’s concession.
• Edits to existing documents. LIT-185 v3, above. THEORY-043 v6 gains LIT-459 in its source and a Connections line naming the new accounts. THEORY-023 v4 gains LIT-411 in its source, as NOTE-345 recommended, with a short section on what it adds and Connections lines for Shanahan and the meta-problem. Both claims are unchanged.

Errors and loose ends found while reading

• THEORY-103 says the record “holds no theory stating” Dennett’s position, only works. That is now partly out of date: “Quining Qualia” and Taylor’s real-pattern reading, which states the Orwell–Stalin indeterminacy, are filed as THEORY-415 and THEORY-563. Its decision to declare no rival still holds, since neither states the timing argument of LIT-431. Left for whoever next revises it.
• LIT-185’s first key takeaway still said the authors hold that “high Φ = more consciousness” is a misreading, which NOTE-122 corrects: the paper concedes IIT 4.0 says exactly that and proposes changing it. The takeaway is corrected (LIT-185 v3), and the THEORY follows the NOTE.
• Nothing found contradicts a NOTE.

---

Complex systems: thirteen THEORYs from fourteen of seventeen readings

2026-10-16 18:21:38 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill’s complex-systems group: seventeen LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE that no THEORY cited as source. Each NOTE was read in full against its LIT, and the theory directory was searched for an existing account first. Fourteen of the seventeen readings became sources of a THEORY, and three did not. That fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group, with the caveat that two of the fourteen (LIT-046, LIT-141) enter as Proposed accounts their NOTEs had declined to file, under the ruling that a NOTE’s “no THEORY” for a survey or framework yields to a claim its own reading supports.

What entered

Thirteen THEORYs, seven Active and six Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

• Emergence and individuality.
  • THEORY-424 (Active; LIT-005). Observational mutual-information individuality measures track association, not propagation; NOTE-027’s XOR system has Krakauer’s conditional A at 1 bit where Bourrat’s interventional  is 0. It answers QUESTION-115 in the constraining sense: temporal retention is not causal persistence.
  • THEORY-607 (Proposed; LIT-049). Bourrat’s coarse-graining account: individuals in a transition are a summary description, quasi-ontological only by indispensability under finite resources. Filed with its degenerate criterion in “does not say”, and rivals THEORY-141 (Okasha: the level of selection changes in fact).
  • THEORY-497 (Proposed; LIT-025). The ΦID account: a supervenient feature can carry irreducible predictive information, and a system hosts one iff its dynamics carry synergy about their own future. The record holds the theorem only second-hand.
  • THEORY-581 (Active; LIT-027). Synergy bias can differ between two exactly consistent descriptions with equal mutual information; small, one redundancy function, and reversed for deterministic systems.
  • THEORY-657 (Proposed; LIT-141). With novelty as the definition, the other marks of emergence are separate questions: Kondo, liquid–gas, BKT and Butterfield’s reductions as counterexamples.
• Collectives.
  • THEORY-696 (Active; LIT-035). Pooling under multiplicative noise raises each member’s time-average growth from μ − σ²/2 to μ − σ²/(2N); a sufficient mechanism, not a solution of the cooperation puzzle.
  • THEORY-608 (Active; LIT-075). Ant groups improve with size on a piano-movers puzzle; human groups barred from speech do 32% worse than individuals. No inferential statistics; mechanisms untested.
  • THEORY-402 (Proposed; LIT-046, LIT-075). Collective intelligence as resources against coordination costs. NOTE-055 judged the paper a vocabulary; it is filed with that verdict and a promote_when that asks for the resources to be measured.
• Dynamics and pattern.
  • THEORY-634 (Active; LIT-036). Cyclic non-reciprocal coupling gives a circulant spectrum and a parity dichotomy; the origin-of-life reading is in “does not say”.
  • THEORY-548 (Proposed; LIT-057). Delay destabilises a random Lotka–Volterra community by a Hopf bifurcation; the diversity–stability sign depends on the measure, and the averaging null is untested.
  • THEORY-692 (Active; LIT-516, LIT-527). Minimum entropy production only in the strictly linear regime; far from equilibrium a sufficient stability condition and no selection principle. LIT-527 is a skim and is acknowledged as one.
  • THEORY-543 (Active; LIT-535, LIT-527). Turing’s diffusive instability, with the unequal-diffusion corollary marked as NOTE-427’s derivation.
  • THEORY-661 (Active; LIT-905). Simon’s near-decomposability: fast and independent inside blocks, slow and aggregate between them. The theorem is Simon & Ando’s, cited and not held.

What did not enter, and why

• LIT-021 (Artime et al., NOTE-007). An editorial with no result. Its one formal item sorts emergence by whether a pattern is “expected”, which is never defined, and its status note says not to cite it for a definition.
• LIT-150 (Rizi, NOTE-153). A position statement. Its coarse-graining criterion has no distortion or predictive measure, so it cannot decide a case, and its LLM sentence is unsupported. NOTE-153 says no THEORY follows; this audit agrees, and names it in THEORY-657.
• LIT-933 (Nowak et al., NOTE-768). A programmatic heuristic with no model or prediction that could fail. Its one sharp contribution, a broad definition of synchronisation, is a definition. NOTE-768 files no THEORY, and its bearing is already registered on QUESTION-053 and QUESTION-063.

Choices made

• Status. A derivation within a stated model, a theorem the field holds, or a finding described with its scope went Active. An account the reading calls argued, a framework, a survey’s conclusion, or a preprint result at one parameter setting went Proposed.
• One rivalry. Bourrat’s descriptive account against Okasha’s factual change of the level of selection (THEORY-141). The ΦID and effective-information accounts were not made rivals: their disagreement on NOTE-010’s two-bit permutation depends on the redundancy function. The dissipative-structure account was not made a rival of maximum entropy production (THEORY-671), since it says no selection principle is established, not that none holds.
• Edits to existing documents. THEORY-222 (v2): its Connections said the record held no ΦID THEORY; it now names THEORY-497. CLAIM-157 (v4) and CLAIM-331 (v2): grounds gains THEORY-661, the near-decomposability result both cite Simon for. luria link --fix wrote the converses on THEORY-141 and QUESTION-115.

Errors found in the record

• THEORY-222’s “the record holds no THEORY stating the ΦID account” was true when filed and is now corrected.
• QUESTION-115 and CLAIM-331 cite Proposed documents (CLAIM-157, CLAIM-327, LIT-005, THEORY-222, THEORY-257) without an inactive-ok acknowledgement. These warnings predate this batch and were left.

---

Representation learning, learning theory and loss landscapes: 20 THEORYs from 26 readings

2026-10-16 18:23:53 · curation · record

Part of the THEORY backfill of 2026-10-16. This group held 26 LITs with a Read or Skimmed NOTE that no THEORY cited as source: eleven under representation-learning, eight under learning-theory and seven under loss-landscapes. Each NOTE and LIT was read in full; no paper was fetched. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

What entered

Twenty THEORYs, eleven Active and nine Proposed, drawing on 23 of the 26 readings.

Active (findings with their scope, or proved results).

• THEORY-698, from LIT-267: thresholded linear probes give a complete concept lattice for any incidence, so the Lattice Representation Hypothesis measured per-attribute agreement with GPT-4o annotations and no lattice law.
• THEORY-640, from LIT-302: the Platonic hypothesis’s measured convergence is local mutual-nearest-neighbour agreement, 0.16 of 1 cross-modally, maximised over layer pairs, adopted after CKA showed a very weak trend.
• THEORY-445, from LIT-314: group-equivariant networks are equivariant by construction through the regular representation, the group fixed in advance.
• THEORY-504, from LIT-611: Gemma Scope’s two fidelity measures disagree by site and in base-to-chat transfer.
• THEORY-496, from LIT-814: label correctness contributes little to in-context gains; input distribution, label space and format carry them.
• THEORY-683, from LIT-833: order of fixed few-shot examples moves accuracy from near chance to near the state of the art, idiosyncratically by model.
• THEORY-420, from LIT-856: the smallest singular-value decile is never the cheapest to lose in rectangular transformer matrices, though it is in square ones.
• THEORY-574, from LIT-376, LIT-375 and LIT-374: Li’s structural width is a covering number under a locality constraint, metric not topological, and entails neither routing nor decoupled training.
• THEORY-439, from LIT-796: the same demonstrations used as context and as a discarded weight update are not interchangeable.
• THEORY-425, from LIT-668: a clean-trained connecting path keeps only what the clean data ask for, and can carry an adversarial-loss barrier.
• THEORY-509, from LIT-670: generically, expert permutation and a common gate translation are all of an MoE gate’s symmetry.

Proposed (argued, thin, second-hand, or resting on an inference).

• THEORY-478, from LIT-870: hyperbolic diffusion distance is a thresholded snowflake of a latent tree metric, under cited and partly gapped heat-kernel bounds.
• THEORY-421, from LIT-871: distance from the origin is only a partial reading of level in task-trained hyperbolic embeddings.
• THEORY-566, from LIT-879: in Ganea et al.’s networks the curvature acts only through biases and the output layer.
• THEORY-510, from LIT-234: class-dependent label preservation and per-class losses under a rising mean, with the count of losing classes not established.
• THEORY-521, from LIT-672: discontinuous learning curves when the entropy of near-optimal hypotheses vanishes, held second-hand.
• THEORY-481, from LIT-859: staged, spectrum-ordered learning of a linear-attention layer; extends THEORY-186.
• THEORY-557, from LIT-676 and LIT-660: low-loss paths outside image classifiers; extends THEORY-109.
• THEORY-675, from LIT-676 and LIT-666: without a shared stable start the linear barrier depends on the data’s structure.
• THEORY-578, from LIT-662: a distribution-space geodesic can be a low-loss path where the weight-space line is not.

answers edges: QUESTION-025 (tmpzhrlj, tmpa223w), QUESTION-039 (tmpf9wko, tmpaeic7), QUESTION-058 (tmp5lcx6), QUESTION-069 (tmpjgtxb, tmpxxllh, tmpltw3b, tmpe5k4b). Each constrains or partly answers its question, as its Connections section says.

What did not enter, and why

• LIT-978 (Kothapalli’s review of neural collapse, NOTE-772, Skimmed). A survey: every result in it is another paper’s, unchecked here, and the LIT says no THEORY rests on it. THEORY-083 already carries the point the review would add, that collapse is derived only in models that remove the data.
• LIT-954 (Gokhale’s semantic landscape, NOTE-807). A vocabulary, with no experiment and no proof. Its one derivation shows only that chosen assumptions can yield the observed exponents.
• LIT-677 (Zhang & Blei on the ELBO landscape, NOTE-522). The workshop paper reports none of the results it describes. It is named in THEORY-557’s “does not say” as a claim without evidence.

So 23 of 26 readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group. Two caveats. Fifteen of the 23 NOTEs had declined or held back a THEORY, for reasons that were judgements rather than “no finding”: a measurement “better cited from the LIT” (LIT-833), an aggregate with exceptions (LIT-814), evidence in one figure (LIT-662), a result “about training transformers” (LIT-859), material the anthology already reads (LIT-856). Following the owner’s ruling, those were filed, with the NOTE’s reason stated in the THEORY where it bears on status. And the three that entered nothing are a survey, a vocabulary and a paper without results.

Choices made

• Status. Active for a finding the record believes as scoped in its title, or a proved result: the G-CNN and MoE symmetry results, the lattice theorem’s triviality, the Li programme’s width, which the NOTEs derive from the papers’ own remarks. Proposed where the NOTE rates the evidence weak, where the result is reported second-hand (LIT-672’s perceptron), or where the interesting part is this record’s inference (LIT-879).
• Boundary. Several of these works carry practice (Gemma Scope’s engineering, test-time training, order selection, path repair, per-class tuning). Each THEORY states the finding only and names the practice as the anthology’s. THEORYs on ML-system behaviour carry anthology-candidate last, as their LITs do.
• One account from three papers. Li’s three papers were read jointly as one programme, so they source one THEORY, LIT-376 first as the paper whose proofs are cleanest.
• LIT-676 sources two accounts, the curved-path connectivity and the data-dependence of the linear barrier, which are different claims.

Edits to existing documents

• THEORY-002 v5: LIT-302, now held here, joins its sources; the Source section cites it beside ANTH-LIT-458.
• CLAIM-118 v2: grounds add THEORY-439 and THEORY-481.
• CLAIM-248 v3: grounds add THEORY-683.
• LIT-234 v3 and LIT-879 v2: the standing sections no longer say no THEORY is filed.
• CASE-042 v2: corrected (below).
• luria link --fix wrote the converse edges on THEORY-109, THEORY-186 and the four QUESTIONs.

Errors found in the record

• CASE-042 said Zhang and Blei (LIT-677) “find LDA’s optima joined by flat paths”. NOTE-522 shows the paper reports no path or ELBO value. Corrected to “claim, without reported results”.
• LIT-234’s standing section and LIT-879’s said no THEORY was filed; stale after this backfill, and updated.
• Not fixed, reported: THEORY-004’s parenthetical that the Platonic claim “disputes” orthogonal equivalence, which NOTE-286 flags as wrong (the paper defines a representation by its kernel). Left for whoever next revises THEORY-004.

---

Social science, network science, compositionality, neuroscience and philosophy of biology: 22 THEORYs from 24 readings

2026-10-16 18:32:47 · curation · record

The THEORY backfill continued with one topic group: twenty-five LITs whose primary tag is social-science, network-science, compositionality, neuroscience or philosophy-of-biology, each with a Read or Skimmed NOTE and no THEORY citing it as source. Each NOTE was read in full; no paper was fetched.

What entered

Twenty-two THEORYs from twenty-four of the twenty-five readings: eleven Active, eleven Proposed. Codes are the temporary ones luria new assigned.

Social science.

• THEORY-674 (Proposed, LIT-079): the share of design-identified claims in NBER and CEPR working papers rose from 7.7% (1990) to 31.7% (2020), as an LLM extraction never checked at the edge level measures it.
• THEORY-450 (Active, LIT-087): across 1,176 archaeological sites, hierarchy and population raise the ceiling of house-size inequality without setting its level. The governance half is left out as weakly supported.
• THEORY-552 (Active, LIT-089): Indeed’s US software-development postings swung from 233.8 to 65.2, the deepest fall of any sector. It rests on NOTE-039’s check against Hiring Lab’s own series, not on the blog post.
• THEORY-555 (Active, LIT-094): possible Airbnb misuse was about 0.16% of London’s stock in 2018, concentrated in central areas. The rent result is excluded.
• THEORY-406 (Proposed, LIT-1001): boyd’s collapsed contexts. It rests on a skim and says so.
• THEORY-601 (Active, LIT-155): philosophy majors’ baseline-adjusted verbal and logical advantage, stated as an association.
• THEORY-429 (Proposed, LIT-489): North’s account of institutions, transaction costs and path dependence.

Network science.

• THEORY-456 (Active, LIT-004): Ollivier–Ricci flow separates communities, with the theorem’s narrow scope and the SBM failure.
• THEORY-502 (Active, LIT-020): Forman curvature on a graph is a local degree-and-weight statistic, 4 − deg v₁ − deg v₂ unweighted.
• THEORY-576 (Active, LIT-028): in bundled networks the gap exponent and the spectral dimension come apart. NOTE-005 had already named this candidate.
• THEORY-660 (Proposed, LIT-069): surface minimisation sets the branching of physical networks.
• THEORY-598 (Active, LIT-091): linear group interactions reduce to pairwise ones on a reweighted graph, and the reported higher-order effects come from nonlinear group terms. NOTE-057 had named this candidate.

Compositionality.

• THEORY-405 (Active, LIT-770): Composable Diffusion composes positions but not relations, and its product-of-experts reading holds only under stated conditions.
• THEORY-522 (Active, LIT-782, LIT-783, LIT-798): 2022–23 text-to-image models fail most on position, then on binding, on two independent benchmarks.
• THEORY-678 (Proposed, LIT-806, LIT-798): Attend-and-Excite’s account of why subjects go missing.

Neuroscience.

• THEORY-682 (Proposed, LIT-034): a single threshold stage cannot read frequency, two can, and a delayed motor loop read this way can hold an axon’s length.
• THEORY-571 (Proposed, LIT-080): brain states as dwell among metastable substates; depression and psychedelics at opposite ends. answers: QUESTION-079.
• THEORY-697 (Active, LIT-269): SDM’s read approximates softmax attention over a local window, with a regression-fitted temperature.
• THEORY-618 (Proposed, LIT-875, LIT-872, LIT-876): the general hyperbolic-geometry hypothesis. It extends THEORY-191 and THEORY-192.

Philosophy of biology.

• THEORY-628 (Proposed, LIT-1017): Di Paolo’s adaptivity. answers: QUESTION-087.
• THEORY-666 (Proposed, LIT-1018): Weber and Varela’s intrinsic teleology. The two are declared rivals.
• THEORY-514 (Proposed, LIT-167): Baedke’s argument that persistence does not single out organisms, with the overcomer proposal.

What did not enter, and why

• What Lives? (LIT-211, NOTE-109). Its reading calls it a dataset: 68 hand-picked definitions of life. Its computed “landscape” is one run of an unvalidated LLM pipeline, with silhouette 0.079 at the chosen k. The one sound count, that 17 of 68 definitions invoke autonomy or agency, describes a curated, unrepresentative sample and comes from a single coder. No account of life or of expert opinion can rest on it. It is named in the Baedke THEORY’s Connections, and it was already named in THEORY-072’s.

So 24 of 25 readings became sources, which fits the owner’s hypothesis for this group. Three caveats:

• Several of the eleven Active THEORYs are findings of narrow scope: a dataset, a benchmark, a proved special case.
• Two readings, LIT-091 and LIT-028, had already named their THEORY.
• Two notes said “no THEORY” for reasons this batch did not follow, given below.

Choices made

• Notes that said no THEORY. NOTE-670 (LIT-875) said its claims are conjectures. The conjecture was filed as Proposed because the record holds two tests of it (THEORY-191, THEORY-192) and no general statement, and the THEORY says the Zipf argument fails. NOTE-639 (LIT-806) declined because the method is machine-learning practice. The account of why subjects go missing is a finding about the model, so it was filed as Proposed, and the THEORY says what the NOTE said.

• Respected, not filed. NOTE-593, NOTE-592 and NOTE-610 each name a candidate: holistic image–text embedding similarity does not track human judgement of composition, where decomposed checks do. They left it unfiled because it is a claim about how to evaluate generators, which an anthology topic holds. It is named in THEORY-522’s “does not say” and not filed. NOTE-597’s noise-level bias candidate was left unfiled for its own reason: no source states and tests it.

• Relations.

  • rivals: Di Paolo against Weber and Varela.
  • Not declared, with reasons in the bodies: the discrete-substate view against THEORY-088, because THEORY-088 leaves continuity open; North against rules in equilibrium (THEORY-414), because the two answer different questions; Baedke against THEORY-072, which says itself that it answers a different question.
  • extends: the hyperbolic hypothesis on its two instances.

• answers. Two were added: QUESTION-079, for the discrete side of the question, and QUESTION-087, for organisms only. Three were considered and not added. QUESTION-025: NOTE-670 finds nothing toward it. QUESTION-035: Baedke answers which system is the organism, a different question. QUESTION-096: the SDM account names the mechanism but does not say how to tell an addressing effect apart.

• Grounds. Five claims had grounds pointed at the THEORY that states the reading they rely on:

  • CLAIM-317 to the boyd THEORY;
  • CLAIM-321 to the three compositionality THEORYs;
  • CLAIM-123 to Composable Diffusion;
  • CLAIM-298 to the SDM account;
  • CLAIM-288 to Di Paolo.

  CLAIM-180 was left alone, because it relies on the critical distance, which comes from Kanerva’s book, not from LIT-269.

• THEORY-088 gained a paragraph saying the discrete-substate view it set aside is now filed.

Errors found in the record

• NOTE-719 and NOTE-720 each called the other paper unread. Both were read on 2026-10-13. Both lines are corrected, with version bumps.
• NOTE-083’s directive on LIT-079 gave the status as Deferred; LIT-079 is Proposed. The reason is corrected, a mechanical fix.
• Stale lines left for their owners. NOTE-075 and NOTE-005 still say the record has no THEORY documents. NOTE-026’s Connections still calls NOTE-006 a skim.

---

Eight works registered unread for the active-inference thesis and the locked-in case

2026-10-16 20:08:08 · curation

The owner’s thesis that judgement and observation, not action and perception, make up the loop active inference describes, and the owner’s case of locked-in syndrome (workbench entry of 20:08), needed works the record did not hold. Each was checked on 2026-10-16 against Crossref and, for abstracts, OpenAlex. Bauby’s memoir was checked against Open Library, since it has no DOI. None is held in the Anthology of the SOTA: a grep of its record/ (clone of 2026-10-16, commit d1573d2) for “locked-in”, the authors and the titles found nothing. None is about machine learning.

Registered, Deferred, none read:

work	code	for
Friston, Daunizeau, Kilner & Kiebel 2010, “Action and behavior”	LIT-1181	CLAIM-341, CLAIM-339: the action–perception cycle
Sandved-Smith et al. 2021, mental action	LIT-1191	CLAIM-337
Parr & Friston 2019, “Attention or salience?”	LIT-1195	CLAIM-337
Kübler & Birbaumer 2008, extinction of goal-directed thinking	LIT-1199	CLAIM-339, CASE-107
Bruno et al. 2011, well-being in chronic LIS	LIT-1183	CASE-107
Laureys et al. 2005, the locked-in syndrome	LIT-1198	CASE-107
Chaudhary et al. 2022, intracortical spelling in CLIS	LIT-1200	CASE-107
Bauby 1997, Le scaphandre et le papillon	LIT-1193	CASE-107

Depth. For five of the works the abstract was read. For Kübler and Birbaumer, the abstract and the discussion’s statement of the hypothesis were read from PMC2644824. Parr and Friston and Laureys et al. have no abstract in either index, so their summaries are what the works are standardly cited for, and they say so.

Dates. Sandved-Smith et al. and Chaudhary et al. are dated by their preprints (PsyArXiv 2020-06-10, medRxiv 2020-06-12), under ADR-002’s earlier-date rule. Bruno et al. and Laureys et al. carry year-only dates.

Cautions carried into the entries. Chaudhary et al.’s senior authors had earlier CLIS papers retracted after a DFG misconduct finding (STAT, 2022-03-22). Crossref gives Laureys et al.’s pages as 495–611, which looks wrong for one chapter, and the entry says so. Limanowski and Friston (2018), named from memory at A1, was not found under the DOI tried and is not registered.

---

Nine works registered unread for the gaps in the active-inference thesis: covert awareness, measurement effects, Pattee, QBism and perceptual control

2026-10-16 22:06:12 · curation

The search of the record for the judgement–observation thesis (workbench entries of 2026-10-16, 21:39 and later) found five gaps. The owner asked for the open items to be addressed. Each work was checked on 2026-10-16 against Crossref and, for abstracts, OpenAlex. Powers’s book has no DOI and was checked against Open Library and two reviews Crossref indexes. None is held in the Anthology of the SOTA: a grep of its record/ (clone of 2026-10-16, commit d1573d2) for the authors, the titles and “locked-in” found nothing. None is about machine learning.

Registered, Deferred:

work	code	for
Owen et al. 2006, covert awareness	LIT-1178	CASE-107
Monti et al. 2010, willful modulation	LIT-1192	CASE-107
Feldman & Lynch 1988, self-generated validity	LIT-1196	CLAIM-341
Morwitz, Johnson & Schmittlein 1993, mere measurement	LIT-1189	CLAIM-341, QUESTION-121
Slovic 1995, the construction of preference	LIT-1187	CLAIM-341
Pattee 2001, the epistemic cut	LIT-1190	CLAIM-341
Fuchs, Mermin & Schack 2014, QBism	LIT-1182	CLAIM-341, QUESTION-121
Powers 1973, Science	LIT-1180	CLAIM-341
Powers 1973, Behavior: The Control of Perception	LIT-1179	CLAIM-341

Depth.

• Seven were read in abstract only.
• Pattee has no abstract in any index tried (OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar), so its summary is what the work is standardly cited for, and it says so.
• Powers’s book was not sought.
• QBism’s opening sections, on measurement and experience, were read in the arXiv v1 text. The quotation in CLAIM-341 is from there.

Dates. QBism is dated by arXiv v1 (2013-11-20). Powers’s book carries the year only.

Not registered. Lichtenstein and Slovic’s edited volume The Construction of Preference (2006), which Crossref returned beside Slovic (1995). The 1995 paper states the thesis the claim uses.

---

Readings for the active-inference thesis: six works read, two Unavailable, one registered from a reprint

2026-10-16 23:02:02 · curation

The owner asked for the still-open items to be addressed (U7). Among them were the nine works registered unread in the curation entry of 22:06. Four reading agents read them in parallel from lawful copies. The assistant checked the quotations each relied on against the extracted text.

work	code	outcome	NOTE
Owen et al. 2006	LIT-1178	Active; the one-page Brevia read from the ORBi deposit; supplement not reached (403)	NOTE-962
Monti et al. 2010	LIT-1192	Active; all 11 pages from the publisher’s PDF on the Monti lab site; supplementary appendix not reached	NOTE-964
Feldman & Lynch 1988	LIT-1196	Active; read in full from a scan on a University of Florida course page; references scanned	NOTE-957
Slovic 1995	LIT-1187	Active; read in full from the same course page, checked against the author’s manuscript in UO ScholarsBank	NOTE-949
Morwitz et al. 1993	LIT-1189	Unavailable (ADR-041); SSRN and ResearchGate returned 403, no other copy found	—
Fuchs, Mermin & Schack 2014	LIT-1182	Active; arXiv v1, all 11 pages	NOTE-955
Pattee 2001	LIT-1190	Active; the author-posted text on the Binghamton site, cited by section	NOTE-952
Powers 1973, Science	LIT-1180	Active; the authorized reprint in Living Control Systems (1989), pp. 61–78	NOTE-963
Powers 1973, book	LIT-1179	Unavailable; only the jacket, preface and reviews are posted; the Internet Archive copy is lending only	—

Registered from the reading. Powers, Clark & McFarland (1960), Part I, LIT-1188, doi:10.2466/pms.1960.11.1.71. It is in the same reprint volume and gives perceptual control theory’s “imagination connection”. Only that passage was read. Not held in the anthology (grep of the clone of 2026-10-16, commit d1573d2).

What the readings corrected:

• Monti et al. CASE-107 had run two patients together. The patient who answered yes/no questions kept inconsistent motor responses. The two who stayed unresponsive at the bedside were not asked questions.
• Pattee does not put measurement first; for him control of construction came first. Corrected in CLAIM-341.
• QBism separates judgement (state assignment) from measurement (action), and so belongs among the action–perception rivals. Corrected in CLAIM-341 and QUESTION-121.
• Slovic. The wording CLAIM-341 quoted was the manuscript abstract’s. The published text is quoted now. His evidence bears on the synchronic reading, not the diachronic one, and he and Morwitz were removed from the claim’s grounds.
• Powers’s 1973 paper has no imagination mode. The 1960 paper has one. Corrected in CLAIM-341.

---

Readings for the active-inference thesis, second round: the four works the owner named and the eight registered at the start

2026-10-16 23:51:09 · curation

At U9 the owner asked for four works to be read and filed, along with everything still unread. The four were registered first (commit of this session), after a grep of both records found none of them, and none is about machine learning. Five reading agents read from lawful copies. The assistant checked each quotation the record’s entries now rely on against the extracted text.

work	code	outcome	NOTE
Weiler et al. 2026, attempted OBEs	LIT-1186	Unavailable: closed at Elsevier, no preprint found; OSF was down (503) during the search, so a preregistration is unchecked	—
Sung, Rigotti & Lee 2025	LIT-1184	Active; nature.com PDF, Methods, supplement captions and Tables 3–4	NOTE-953
Ma & Kragel 2026	LIT-1185	Active; nature.com PDF with Methods	NOTE-950
Giarrocco & Averbeck 2026	LIT-1194	Active; nature.com PDF with Methods	NOTE-947
Friston et al. 2010	LIT-1181	Active; Springer open-access PDF, prose, captions and appendices	NOTE-960
Sandved-Smith et al. 2021	LIT-1191	Active; PMC XML via Europe PMC	NOTE-958
Parr & Friston 2019	LIT-1195	Active; accepted manuscript on UCL Discovery	NOTE-956
Kübler & Birbaumer 2008	LIT-1199	Active; PMC author manuscript	NOTE-948
Bruno et al. 2011	LIT-1183	Active; PMC3191401; published corrected to 2011-02-23	NOTE-961
Laureys et al. 2005	LIT-1198	Unavailable: ORBi holds it behind a request form; pages are 495–511, not Crossref’s 495–611	—
Chaudhary et al. 2022	LIT-1200	Active; nature.com PDF; no editor’s note or correction as of 2026-10-16	NOTE-951
Powers, Clark & McFarland 1960, Part I	LIT-1188	Active; authorized reprint (1989)	NOTE-954
Powers, Clark & McFarland 1960, Part II	LIT-1197 (new)	Active; same reprint; doi:10.2466/pms.1960.11.3.309, not in the anthology	NOTE-959
Bauby 1997	LIT-1193	Unavailable: no lawful full text; date and dictation method confirmed from the NYT (1997-06-15), the LA Times (1997-03-15) and the publisher	—

Corrections the readings made elsewhere. See the workbench entry of this session. In brief:

• Giarrocco & Averbeck and Sung et al. keep action in their loops.
• Ma & Kragel’s only learner learns by acting.
• Bruno et al.’s sample mostly kept some speech or movement.
• Chaudhary et al.’s patient fits Kübler and Birbaumer’s predicted exception.
• Friston et al.’s action is self-confirming by design.

---

Granger causality: five works filed, three read, and the record’s own terms

2026-10-16 23:59:52 · curation · record

The owner asked how the record stood on Granger causality, and then for the gaps found to be filled. The term turned up in nine documents, all through other authors: NOTE-053 and THEORY-641 on transfer entropy, the causal-emergence readings (NOTE-010, NOTE-726, NOTE-791, THEORY-497) and NOTE-122 on IIT. Four gaps were named. The defining works were not held, the record had no argument of its own on the subject, NOTE-010’s C5 was unchecked, and LIT-048 did not carry causality.

What entered

• Granger (1969), LIT-1173, doi:10.2307/1912791. Unavailable. JSTOR needs a login. A course-hosted copy on a Freiburg seminar page reset the connection three times and answered WebFetch with 503. A Bilkent course copy found by search returned 404. The record reads it through the three works below.
• Geweke (1982), LIT-1169, doi:10.1080/01621459.1982.10477803. Unavailable: OpenAlex marks it closed, and searches found no posted copy. Read through Barnett, Barrett and Seth and the abstract.
• Barnett, Barrett and Seth (2009), LIT-1171, read in NOTE-934 from arXiv v2. Filed as THEORY-700: F = 2T for jointly Gaussian processes, checked.
• Seth (2010), LIT-1170, read in NOTE-935 from the published version in Sussex Research Online. Filed as THEORY-703, Proposed: G-emergence behaves as designed in two hand-built models and has not been tested against an independent criterion.
• Eichler and Didelez (2007), LIT-1164, read in NOTE-941 from arXiv. No reading named it. The assistant chose it because C5 needed a source that states conditions, and this one states them as theorems. Filed as THEORY-704.

The record’s own argument

• TERM-058 fixes the word: predictive, relative to an information set, its lags and, for the measure, a model class.
• CLAIM-333 answers C5. Measuring every relevant variable is necessary and not sufficient. Two series with nothing hidden, where a acts on b within one sampling step, give Granger noncausality and an intervention effect of ργ. It was checked by hand and by simulation.
• CLAIM-334 is the disclaimer the Seth reading called for. Granger causation from a macro variable to the micro variables it supervenes on is not an interventional effect, because no intervention on the macro variable holds its micro base fixed.
• No QUESTION was filed. C5 was the open question, and the claim answers it.

What the readings changed

• NOTE-010’s C5 and its limitations line are annotated. NOTE-053’s C7 is checked against its source.
• LIT-048 carries causality and extends Barnett, Barrett and Seth. The topic’s blurb names causal inference, and the predictive status of its subject is said in its THEORY, so the tag does not mislead. THEORY-641 extends THEORY-700.

Boundary

None of the five is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (clone of 2026-10-12, d1573d2) for “Granger”, “transfer entropy”, “Geweke”, “Eichler”, “Didelez” and the identifiers found nothing, and its topic vocabulary has no word for causal inference or time series. Eichler and Didelez appeared at UAI, but it is time-series causal inference with no instruction for machine-learning practice. None of the five carries one.

---

Transfer entropy: eight works filed, seven read, and whether it measures flow

2026-10-17 00:25:21 · curation · record

After the Granger-causality filing (the entry of 2026-10-16 23:59), the owner asked how the record stood on transfer entropy, and then for the gaps named to be filled. The record used the measure in a dozen documents and held one source for it, Barnett and Bossomaier (LIT-048). Five gaps were named: Schreiber’s paper, which defines it, was not held. There was no TERM, and the documents’ definitions differed. Whether it measures flow at all had no source. Its estimators were cited but not held. The neighbouring measures, directed information, interventional flow and local transfer entropy, were absent.

What entered

The assistant registered the eight works and read seven in parallel, four readers taking two each. Each reader wrote only its own LITs, NOTEs and THEORYs, and the assistant wrote the TERM, the claim and every edit to an existing document.

• Schreiber (2000), LIT-1177, arXiv, read in NOTE-940, filed as THEORY-701. The Letter’s tent-map coefficient is twice what its Eq. 4 gives at lowest order. The reader found it and the assistant rederived it; α is fitted, so only the fit is rescaled.
• Kaiser and Schreiber (2002), LIT-1167, Unavailable: ScienceDirect only. Read through Barnett, Barrett and Seth.
• Kraskov, Stögbauer and Grassberger (2004), LIT-1163, arXiv, read in NOTE-938, §§III–IV from prose and captions; filed as THEORY-709. The estimator was checked against −½log(1 − r²) on correlated Gaussians. The anthology uses it as a tool in its information-bottleneck readings but does not hold it, and it has no topic for an estimator of mutual information.
• Lizier, Prokopenko and Zomaya (2008), LIT-1175, arXiv, read in NOTE-943, filed as THEORY-702. published: is the journal’s 15 February 2008, earlier than the arXiv posting.
• Williams and Beer (2011), LIT-1176, an arXiv preprint, read in NOTE-942, filed as THEORY-712. One corner of its three-process example is labelled with c and d transposed.
• James, Barnett and Crutchfield (2016), LIT-1165, arXiv, read in NOTE-945, filed as THEORY-707. Both its examples were recomputed exactly.
• Massey (1990), LIT-1166, from his ETH institute’s archive, read in NOTE-939, filed as THEORY-711. The reader showed directed information is full-history transfer entropy plus instantaneous terms, and checked it numerically.
• Ay and Polani (2008), LIT-1174, the 2006 MPI preprint in the Hertfordshire repository, read in NOTE-946, filed as THEORY-710. published: is the preprint’s date: Crossref gives only a month for print and a later online date. Examples 3–5 reproduce. Example 6 holds only at k = 1 or for an intervention on the last step alone.

The record’s own argument

• TERM-057 fixes the word with k, l and the conditioning set explicit. NOTE-053 and NOTE-788 turned out not to disagree. Both choose within Schreiber’s free k and l. Only NOTE-788’s lag-τ form for τ > 1 falls outside his definition.
• CLAIM-335 answers the flow question. Transfer entropy is unique plus synergistic information, so it is directed predictive improvement, not flow. This is a second failure, beside CLAIM-333’s prediction against intervention: in the first worked example an intervention does move the target, and what fails is localizing the bit.

What remains

• Williams and Beer’s partial information decomposition (arXiv 1004.2515), the source of I_min, is not held, and neither are the critiques of I_min. The claim needs only the two-term split, but every number past it rests on that measure.
• NOTE-320 says “the Kraskov k-NN estimator … estimates H(T)”. An entropy estimate from that paper is the Kozachenko–Leonenko estimator it restates, not its mutual-information estimators. Which one Saxe et al.’s code uses was not checked, so the note is left alone.

Boundary

None of the eight is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (d1573d2) for the authors and identifiers found only Kraskov’s estimator used as a tool. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

---

Partial information decomposition: the I_min paper and two critiques, read, and the record’s numbers checked under each

2026-10-17 01:53:22 · curation · record

The owner asked for the gaps the transfer-entropy filing left open (the entry of 2026-10-17 00:25) to be filled. Two were named. The PID paper behind I_min was not held, and neither were its critiques. Every transfer-entropy number past the two-term split rested on that measure, and so did the ΦID and emergence readings (NOTE-010, NOTE-020, THEORY-497, THEORY-581). The second gap was NOTE-320’s unchecked “Kraskov estimator”. The three works were read by two parallel readers. The assistant made every edit to an existing document.

What entered

• Williams and Beer (2010), LIT-1172, arXiv only, read in NOTE-936 (supplementary figures from captions), filed as THEORY-706. The lattice sizes (4 and 18) and Fig. 4A were checked. Fig. 4B could not be reconstructed from the text and is left unchecked.
• Harder, Salge and Polani (2013), LIT-1168, arXiv, read in NOTE-944, filed as THEORY-708. Table I was recomputed under I_red and I_min. I_red’s projections were solved numerically, to about 10⁻³.
• Bertschinger, Rauh, Olbrich, Jost and Ay (2014), LIT-1162, open access, read in NOTE-937, filed as THEORY-705. Example 30 reproduces. Two Table 1 entries in the arXiv text conflict with the paper’s own Proposition 18. A first solver got AND wrong, and the working one is parametrised by the kernel of the marginal map.

What the readings changed

• The record’s transfer-entropy examples have the same values under all three measures. Bertschinger et al.’s Remark 14 proves the two-term split for any bivariate decomposition. The reader’s explanation is that in each example the target’s own past says nothing about its next value. CLAIM-335 now says so, and is grounded in THEORY-705. Away from those examples the split depends on the measure: in Harder, Salge and Polani’s bystander example it reverses (THEORY-712).
• NOTE-010’s permutation example is checked under I_red: no synergy. THEORY-581 and NOTE-020, which rest on I_min, point to the critiques. Their systems were not recomputed.
• NOTE-320: Saxe et al.’s JSTAT 2019 Appendix B.3 uses the Kozachenko–Leonenko entropy estimator in Kraskov et al.’s Eq. 20 form. The public code (ibsgd, iclr2018) holds only KDE and binning, so the k-NN result cannot be checked against it.
• NOTE-828 names the held Kraskov et al. Whether MINE’s d = 20 is within Kraskov et al.’s tested range is open. Granger (1969) was searched again and stays Unavailable.

What remains

• Griffith’s work on mechanistic redundancy, the opposing view Harder, Salge and Polani cite, is not held.
• Every measure here is bivariate. No held work gives ΦID a redundancy function with the identity property for more than two sources.

Boundary

None of the three is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (d1573d2) for the authors, identifiers, “partial information decomposition” and I_min found nothing. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

---

Multivariate redundancy: Griffith’s view and the three-source impossibility, read; the record files why the gap cannot close as stated

2026-10-17 02:53:41 · curation · record

After #158 merged, the owner asked for the gaps it left to be filled where copies could be had. The three unavailable works are Granger (1969), Geweke (1982) and Kaiser and Schreiber (2002), and they stay unavailable. The other two gaps were open. Griffith’s view, which Harder, Salge and Polani argue against, was not held. And no held measure gave ΦID a redundancy function with the identity property for more than two sources. The assistant chose four works with open arXiv copies, and two parallel readers read two each.

What entered

• Griffith and Koch (2014), LIT-1204, arXiv v6 read in full, with v1 and v2 read for the passage v6 withdraws; NOTE-966, THEORY-716. Table 1 reproduces. Harder, Salge and Polani quote v1 and v2 accurately, and v6 concedes their point.
• Griffith, Chong, James, Ellison and Crutchfield (2014), LIT-1203, NOTE-967, THEORY-715. I_∧ is defined for any n and is nonnegative, but it fails identity and gives negative atoms already for two sources.
• Rauh, Bertschinger, Olbrich and Jost (2014), LIT-1202, NOTE-965, THEORY-713. XORCOPY’s arithmetic was checked. The reader noted that the proof uses two premises not listed as axioms.
• Ince (2017), LIT-1201, §§1–6 in full and §§7–8 at lower resolution; NOTE-968, THEORY-714, Proposed. The named examples reproduce.

The gap’s verdict

It cannot close as stated. On the Williams–Beer lattice, which ΦID inherits, no redundancy function has both identity and nonnegative atoms from three sources up. The record files this as CLAIM-343: a ΦID verdict on three or more parts must name the axiom it gives up. Two-part analyses are unaffected. CLAIM-335’s examples now have the same values under four measures.

What remains

• A multivariate decomposition off the Williams–Beer lattice, which Rauh et al. leave open. No held work proposes one.
• Granger (1969), Geweke (1982) and Kaiser and Schreiber (2002), until copies are supplied.

Boundary

None of the four is held in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (d1573d2) for the authors and identifiers found nothing. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

---

Twenty-five works registered unread from the exchange on synthesis opportunities; the anthology’s share and the unidentified left out

2026-10-18 00:59:57

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the exchange of 2026-10-17, “Synthesis opportunities analysis” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad41263-84e0-83ea-8197-0bf661baf745; workbench entries of 2026-10-18). The exchange cited or named about fifty works. Each one filed here was looked up first, against Crossref, OpenAlex or arXiv, or against the publisher’s page for the three without a DOI.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• A36’s two-generals source, Akkoyunlu, Ekanadham and Huber (1975), was cited without a title. Its title is “Some constraints and tradeoffs in the design of network communications”.
• Crossref lists Elizabeth Vitanza as Pradeu’s co-author. She is the translator.
• A27’s “Revonsuo’s 1999 treatment” could be either of two papers in that issue of Consciousness and Cognition. The record takes “Binding and the Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness” (doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0384), not the issue introduction with Newman (doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0393).
• The PBFT paper Ak cited is the OSDI ‘99 paper. The DOI usually attached to it (10.1145/571637.571640) belongs to the longer 2002 TOCS paper with proactive recovery.
• A39 labelled Slovic (LIT-1187) as “Tversky–Kahneman”. The author is Slovic.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s.

• A18 named Giere, Massimi and Wong but no works. The record took Scientific Perspectivism, Perspectival Realism and Natural Moralities as the standard statements of their views. Wong’s Moral Relativity (1984) is the other candidate.
• Pradeu’s book stands behind A24’s two hidden citations.
• Ak named Linehan and Lynch but no works. The record chose Linehan 1987 and Lynch, Hempel and Dunkley 2015 as DOI’d primary sources. The DBT and RO-DBT manuals have no DOI.
• For the CERT guide and the NIST control catalogue, Ak named a body of work. The record took the current edition of each.

Dates decided by ADR-002.

• Mele: Crossref dates the DOI to the 2001 paperback, but the book appeared in 1995 (Open Library, hardback ISBN 9780195094541), so 1995 to the year.
• Wong: Crossref’s print month, 2006-08, comes before its online date.
• Percy and Agarwal: OpenAlex’s online date, 2026-02-03, comes before Crossref’s issue month, 2026-03.
• Halpern and Moses: the PODC ‘84 version, filed under the 1990 JACM DOI. The date is 1984-08-27, the conference’s opening day, because Crossref gives that version the year only.
• Désidéri: INRIA report RR-6953, June 2009, under the same title, before the 2012 Comptes Rendus note.
• Lynch et al. (RefraMED): online 2019-07-18, before the 2020 issue.
• Conference opening days, as LIT-824 and LIT-1090 do: SOSP ‘75 for Akkoyunlu et al. (1975-11-19) and OSDI ‘99 for Castro and Liskov (1999-02-22).
• Cooper and West: OpenAlex’s 2018-05-25 is not used, because the publisher and Crossref both give 2018-05-28.
• Kahneman: the usual US release date, 2011-10-25. No source reached here gives the day, and the publisher’s page refused this client.

The anthology check. The anthology’s record/ was grepped for every author and title, in a clone made on 2026-10-18 at commit d1573d2. It holds none of the works filed here. The only hit is ANTH-NOTE-369, which mentions “Désidéri’s MGDA” but has no LIT for it.

Two works carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005):

• Percy and Agarwal, on whether artificial networks can bind phenomenally, the question LIT-056 is flagged for.
• Désidéri, the optimizer that the anthology’s multi-task papers build on.

Neither carries an instruction for ML practice.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

#	work	code	bears on
1	Mele 1995	LIT-1229	CLAIM-354 (U13–U14)
2	Giere 2006	LIT-1207	TERM-059, CLAIM-363, QUESTION-129 (A18)
3	Massimi 2022	LIT-1228	TERM-059, CLAIM-363, QUESTION-129 (A18)
4	Wong 2006	LIT-1210	TERM-059, QUESTION-129 (A18)
5	Sengupta et al. 2016	LIT-1215	QUESTION-130 (U19)
6	Percy & Agarwal 2026	LIT-1211	CLAIM-355, CASE-114 (A27)
7	Revonsuo 1999	LIT-1208	CLAIM-355, CASE-114 (A27)
8	Pradeu 2012	LIT-1227	individuation; CASE-111 (A24)
9	Arrow 1950	LIT-1222	CLAIM-346, CLAIM-353 (U36)
10	Akkoyunlu, Ekanadham & Huber 1975	LIT-1214	CLAIM-346 (U36)
11	Halpern & Moses 1990 (PODC 1984)	LIT-1213	CLAIM-346 (A36)
12	Désidéri 2012 (RR 2009)	LIT-1212	CLAIM-366, CLAIM-365 (A33)
13	Edmondson 1999	LIT-1220	CLAIM-359, CASE-108 (U41)
14	Castro & Liskov 1999	LIT-1217	CLAIM-359, CASE-108 (U41)
15	SEI 2022, CERT guide 7th ed.	LIT-1216	CLAIM-359, CASE-108 (U41)
16	NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (2020)	LIT-1206	CLAIM-359, CASE-108 (U41)
17	NIST SP 800-207 (Rose et al. 2020)	LIT-1226	CLAIM-359, CASE-108 (U41)
18	Guida, Minutola & Presti 2026	LIT-1218	CLAIM-349 (U42)
19	Hatoum & Burton 2024	LIT-1224	CLAIM-349 (U42)
20	Lynch et al. 2020, RefraMED	LIT-1223	CLAIM-349 (U42)
21	Linehan 1987	LIT-1221	CLAIM-349 (A42)
22	Lynch, Hempel & Dunkley 2015	LIT-1205	CLAIM-349 (A42)
23	Chesson 2000	LIT-1219	CLAIM-279, QUESTION-083 (U46)
24	Cooper & West 2018	LIT-1225	CLAIM-279, QUESTION-083 (U46)
25	Kahneman 2011	LIT-1209	the owner’s question at U37

Guida et al. should come first. A42 said that novelty for the organizational reading of ACT cannot be claimed without it, and CLAIM-349 is that claim.

Kahneman is registered in answer to the owner’s U37 question (“whose ideas I suspect are reflected on the record but I’m not sure of that”). The answer is no. The record has no reading of Kahneman. The nearest holdings are NOTE-171 (biases as “cognitive illusions”, following Kahneman 2011) and Slovic on the construction of preference (LIT-1187, NOTE-949). NOTE-259, NOTE-448 and NOTE-138 mention him only in passing.

Several of the works have an open copy:

• Massimi, Sengupta et al. and Guida et al., by open access;
• the NIST and SEI reports;
• the PBFT paper, as USENIX HTML;
• the PODC ‘84 paper.

Cited by the exchange and left to the anthology; not filed here.

• Already held there:

  • modular duality, ANTH-LIT-438, with ANTH-THEORY-024;
  • First Contact, ANTH-LIT-503, with ANTH-NOTE-250 and ANTH-THEORY-091;
  • TTUR, ANTH-LIT-611 (the owner’s “two-timescale update rule paper”, U37);
  • Byzantine-robust learning, ANTH-LIT-257 and ANTH-LIT-344.

• Held by neither record, and ML practice. All seven arXiv ids were checked on 2026-10-18:

  • PCGrad, “Gradient Surgery for Multi-Task Learning”, arXiv:2001.06782;
  • CAGrad, “Conflict-Averse Gradient Descent for Multi-task Learning”, arXiv:2110.14048;
  • Nash-MTL, “Multi-Task Learning as a Bargaining Game”, arXiv:2202.01017;
  • CIRL, “Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning”, arXiv:1606.03137;
  • “The Off-Switch Game”, arXiv:1611.08219;
  • “Goal Misgeneralization in Deep Reinforcement Learning”, arXiv:2105.14111;
  • “Alignment Tampering: How Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback Is Exploited to Optimize Misaligned Biases”, arXiv:2605.27355.

• Empowerment: three works the anthology’s agents-and-environments topic could hold. That topic covers percept–action loops. The three works are:

  • Klyubin, Polani and Nehaniv, “Empowerment: A Universal Agent-Centric Measure of Control” (2005 IEEE CEC, doi:10.1109/CEC.2005.1554676);
  • Salge, Glackin and Polani, “Empowerment – an Introduction” (2013, arXiv:1310.1863), which A13 linked without authors;
  • Salge, Glackin and Polani, “Changing the Environment Based on Empowerment as Intrinsic Motivation” (2014, arXiv:1406.1767).

  A13 ranked Klyubin et al. “Essential” for graded freedom (CLAIM-354). Whether they go to the anthology, or are filed here for the freedom question under ADR-013 with the flag, is left to the owner.

Cited but not identifiable uniquely, or identified only as likely referents; not registered.

• Darwall 2006 and Pettit 1997. A25 named only the people. The likely works are The Second-Person Standpoint and Republicanism.
• Sterling 2012 and Edwards 1992, behind A28’s hidden citations.
• Bond’s 2018 “Organizational Flexibility Model” (A42). Crossref and OpenAlex find Bond, Flaxman and Bunce 2008 (doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.645) and the 2013 Acceptance and Mindfulness at Work, but no 2018 item. It should be taken from Guida et al.’s reference list.
• The 2024 insider-threat review (A41). The best candidate is Inayat et al., “Insider threat mitigation: Systematic literature review”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15(12), doi:10.1016/j.asej.2024.103068.
• The 2025 robust federated-learning survey (A41). It would be the anthology’s in any case.
• The width paper of A38.
• A19’s two Markov-blanket works on information geometry, and the criticism it cites. The criticism is probably LIT-598 or LIT-603, which the record already holds.
• Borkar 1997, on two-timescale stochastic approximation. The exchange used the result without citing it.
• Helly 1923, for A39’s certificate. A39 calls this “an application of an established theorem”.

Absences the exchange claimed that were wrong.

• A13 said four works were absent, and all four were held:
  • Fischer and Ravizza, Responsibility and Control (LIT-684, Unavailable; its Précis LIT-728 and THEORY-121 are Active);
  • Bratman 2007, Structures of Agency (LIT-590, Unavailable);
  • Mackenzie and Stoljar, Relational Autonomy (LIT-1010, Unavailable);
  • Bandura 1977 (LIT-545, Unavailable).
• A14’s corrected audit still missed LIT-1010, LIT-545 and LIT-590.

Of the works A13 named, Mele and the empowerment papers were the only ones truly absent. Two more were already held and read: Frankfurt 1971 is LIT-692 (read), and Kashdan and Rottenberg is LIT-553 (read).

---

Seven works registered unread from the relayed synthesis on ecological coexistence and feature learning; Chizat and Bach left to the anthology

2026-10-18 19:54:37

On 2026-10-18 the owner relayed a synthesis, written by an assistant in the owner’s own conversation. It proposed connections between the record’s distributed-agency line (QUESTION-083, CLAIM-279, CLAIM-277, CLAIM-362), statistical feature learning and ecological coexistence theory, and recommended eight works for reading. Seven are registered here, Deferred and unread, with no NOTE and no copy yet sought. Each was looked up first, against Crossref, OpenAlex and the arXiv API.

Corrections the lookup made to the synthesis.

• Marsland, Cui and Mehta: the synthesis gave the subtitle as “A Unifying Framework for Ecological Community Assembly”. Crossref, the bioRxiv preprint and arXiv all give “A New Perspective on Niche Theory”. The LIT carries the corrected title.
• Mehta, Cui, Wang and Marsland, and Blumenthal, Rocks and Mehta: the synthesis dated them by the journal (2019, 2024). Both appeared on arXiv the year before; the dates below follow ADR-002.
• Power et al.: the article has a published erratum (doi:10.1186/s13062-016-0132-7), which the LIT names.
• Nothing else in the synthesis’s citations was wrong: authors, journals and years match.

Dates decided by ADR-002.

• Marsland et al.: 2019-01-27, the bioRxiv posting (10.1101/531640), which Crossref links as the preprint of the American Naturalist paper. It is a day before arXiv v1 (2019-01-28) and well before the journal (online 2020-05-28 per OpenAlex, issue 2020-09).
• Mehta et al.: arXiv v1, 2018-09-12 (PRE 2019-05-13).
• Hofbauer and Schreiber: arXiv v1, 2022-04-07 (JMB online 2022-10-18).
• Letten, Ke and Fukami: Crossref’s online date, 2017-02-16, before the issue month (2017-05). No arXiv copy.
• Blumenthal et al.: arXiv v1, 2023-08-30 (PRL 2024-03-21).
• Power et al.: arXiv v1, 2015-06-21 (Biology Direct online 2015-12-08).
• Bunin: 2017-04-28, PRE’s publication date. No arXiv copy under this title was found; Bunin’s arXiv:1607.04734, “Interaction patterns and diversity in assembled ecological communities”, is a different paper.

The anthology check. The anthology’s record/ was grepped for every author, title and identifier, in a clone pulled on 2026-10-18 at commit d1573d2. It holds none of the seven works filed here.

It holds Chizat and Bach, “On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over-parameterized Models using Optimal Transport” (arXiv:1805.09545, v1 2018-05-24), as ANTH-LIT-298 (Active, tagged analysis-and-evaluation), and its notes ANTH-NOTE-093, ANTH-NOTE-098, ANTH-NOTE-108, ANTH-NOTE-138, ANTH-NOTE-139, ANTH-NOTE-140 and ANTH-NOTE-292 cite it. It is not filed here. The anthology reads it for the convergence of overparameterized training. The synthesis reads it for another question: the mean-field picture of neurons as a population of particles under one update rule, which differentiate by parameters and history. That is QUESTION-083’s question, and the record would hold the work under learning-theory (ADR-036). A second entry under ADR-013 is therefore apt, but it is the owner’s call, and it should be filed only once a reading is planned that asks that question.

Registered, Deferred, none read:

#	work	code	bears on
1	Marsland, Cui & Mehta 2020 (bioRxiv 2019)	LIT-1230	QUESTION-083; the questions filed with this entry (assembly as optimization over the environment)
2	Mehta, Cui, Wang & Marsland 2019 (arXiv 2018)	LIT-1231	QUESTION-083; the questions filed with this entry (optimizer–ecosystem duality)
3	Hofbauer & Schreiber 2022	LIT-1233	QUESTION-083, CLAIM-277; the questions filed with this entry (invasion order and coexistence)
4	Letten, Ke & Fukami 2017	LIT-1237	QUESTION-083, CLAIM-279; the questions filed with this entry (stabilizing and equalizing in resource terms)
5	Blumenthal, Rocks & Mehta 2024 (arXiv 2023)	LIT-1236	QUESTION-083; the questions filed with this entry (where the optimization reading fails)
6	Power et al. 2015	LIT-1235	QUESTION-083, CLAIM-362; the questions filed with this entry (communities that learn without a selected whole)
7	Bunin 2017	LIT-1234	QUESTION-083, CLAIM-277; the questions filed with this entry (history-dependent assembly)

Two works the synthesis leans on were already registered, unread, on 2026-10-18 from the exchange on synthesis opportunities: Chesson 2000, “Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity” (LIT-1219), and Cooper and West 2018, “Division of labour and the evolution of extreme specialization” (LIT-1225). The synthesis recommends reading Chesson first, since its stabilizing and equalizing terms are the vocabulary Letten et al. and Hofbauer and Schreiber translate into. Letten et al. is the natural second.

Open copies: all but Letten et al. and Bunin have an arXiv or bioRxiv copy, and Power et al. is open access at Biology Direct.

Chizat and Bach (2018), held in both records. The lookup found it already in the anthology as ANTH-LIT-298 and did not file it. The owner then asked for it to be cross-filed. It is LIT-1232, under ADR-013. The second question is this record’s: whether a population of learned features, as particles under a mean-field gradient flow, can be read as an ecological community whose members differentiate and persist or are excluded, and whether stationarity there has the invasion form that CLAIM-369 proves for the symmetric Lotka–Volterra case. The anthology reads it for the training of over-parameterized models. Not read here.

---

The owner’s promotion audit of 2026-10-19: two corrections, two promotions and a split

2026-10-19 02:41:07

The owner brought an audit of Proposed entries that might be promoted. It covered the pending-decisions report, the most-cited CLAIMs and THEORYs, the formal-apparatus line, and the promotion conditions those entries record. The owner chose its first pass. The second pass, which would split the proved parts of THEORY-008, THEORY-005, THEORY-001 and THEORY-156, is not done here.

Checked before acting. Each entry in the first pass was checked against the record before its status changed.

• CLAIM-264. The audit asked for a final check of the density and strong-generator statements. One statement failed. A strong generator, in a category with finite limits, makes the restricted functor conservative, but objects with isomorphic profiles need not be isomorphic. (ℤ/p)³ and the Heisenberg group mod p, for p odd, have the same profile through ℤ: a set of p³ elements with the same power maps. The body’s “any other family identifies objects only up to a coarser equivalence” was wrong in the other direction as well, because a non-dense family can still identify objects: in finite-dimensional vector spaces over a finite field, the field alone fixes the dimension. The claim was corrected and then promoted. CLAIM-142 has the same sentence and gets a dated note pointing to the correction; its application is unchanged.
• CLAIM-123. The audit pointed out that conditional independence is sufficient, not necessary, for s₁₂ = s₁ + s₂ − s₀. The record checked this and built an explicit example: three-valued conditions coupled by a factor 1 + ε v(y₁)v(y₂), where v is orthogonal to every conditional p(·|x). This met the claim’s own defeat condition. The derivation survives, so the claim was corrected in place rather than rejected. It stays Proposed, because the audit did not propose promoting it.
• THEORY-155. The title was already the conditional theorem. Only the promotion condition, a human-chain experiment, held it back, and the body already said that the THEORY does not claim human chains converge. The record checked the stationarity of the prior again. The condition moved unchanged to QUESTION-137. The title gained the ergodicity condition the body already stated.
• CLAIM-128. The claim was filed as demonstrated, but its defeat condition is about which tasks show trade-offs, and its thesis is argued. The part that is proved is now CLAIM-371, with a proof, filed Active. CLAIM-128 rests on it and is interpretive.

Left alone, as the audit advised. The audit named CLAIM-025, CLAIM-284 and THEORY-232 as highly cited and still interpretive or untested. They stay Proposed. CLAIM-269 is not narrowed here either: it depends on THEORY-008, THEORY-002 and THEORY-019, which are Proposed.

The pattern the audit named. Some promotion conditions combine two jobs: checking a proof and showing that the result explains something beyond itself. Separating them, as QUESTION-137 does for THEORY-155, is the move the second pass would make for the other THEORYs.

---

The promotion audit’s second pass: the proved parts of THEORY-001, -005, -008 and -156

2026-10-19 03:41:34

The owner asked for the second pass of the promotion audit of 2026-10-19 (the first pass is the entry of 02:41 today). It covered four Proposed THEORYs whose proved parts were held back by promotion conditions that also asked for something else. Each was checked against the NOTE that read its source before anything changed. None of the four parents was promoted whole. In three, the proved part is filed apart, and the fourth is narrowed to it.

• THEORY-008 → narrowed and promoted. NOTE-834 met the promote_when’s first clause and found the population clause unmeetable from LIT-257. It named the alternative, “a rewording that confines the claim to finite M”. The body was already about M stimuli, so only the title changed. The population clause is now QUESTION-136.
• THEORY-005 → CLAIM-370. The operator identity with the finite-χ² condition was, in the THEORY’s own words, “the record’s own”. The THEORY’s promotion condition asks for a published statement, which a reading must meet but a proof does not. A result the record proves is a CLAIM (ADR-032), so it is filed as one with a written proof, demonstrated and Active. Writing the proof added the converse, which the THEORY had stated without argument: if T is Hilbert–Schmidt, its kernel is the density of P⁺ on rectangles, so P⁺ ≪ p⊗p and χ² is finite. THEORY-005 stays Proposed for what the sources show and for trained features.
• THEORY-001 → THEORY-719. The promote_when recorded the spectral and NT-Logistic derivations as done. The new THEORY holds them, sourced to LIT-258 App. B.2–B.3. THEORY-001 extends it and waits, as before, on the InfoNCE/NT-Xent minimizer.
• THEORY-156 → THEORY-717. The promote_when concerns the arbitrary-outcome case, which rests on Theorems 1–2 quoted from 1951. In the finite case Blackwell (1953) proves the converse himself (Theorems 4–6), and NOTE-595 followed that proof step by step. The direct implication is written in matrix form, Q = PM ⇒ PMD = QD, so the finite THEORY does not lean on the quoted theorems. THEORY-156 extends it.

Not done. THEORY-087 was in the audit’s table but not in its second pass, so its regular-model half is not split here. The thirteen claims that cite THEORY-156 are not re-pointed at the finite THEORY. Whether each one needs only finite outcomes is a reading of each claim, and THEORY-156’s note says they can be re-pointed.

---

The promotion audit’s follow-up: THEORY-087’s regular half, and the claims that cite THEORY-156

2026-10-19 04:15:25

The owner asked for the two items the second pass left (entry of 03:41 today).

THEORY-087. The audit said the regular-model Laplace/Occam half “is established in the sources”, and THEORY-087’s own promote_when said “the regular half is derived in the sources”. The check found that this holds for one model class only. MacKay’s Occam-factor formula is exact for linear-in-parameters models with Gaussian noise and prior, and a Gaussian approximation otherwise (NOTE-471). Grünwald & Roos’s eq. 16 is cited to Rissanen and to Suzuki & Yamanishi (NOTE-760). Watanabe’s Theorem 5 is about WBIC. The free-energy expansion that would give the regular penalty is his Theorem 2, also cited (NOTE-473). So only the exact case is promoted: THEORY-718, with the (k/2) log n step written out as the record’s algebra. THEORY-087 extends it. Its promote_when now asks for a held proof of the general regular expansion (Schwarz, or a Laplace or Bernstein–von Mises argument) as well as the singular one. The promotion was smaller than the audit proposed, because the premise was overstated.

The thirteen claims citing THEORY-156. Each was read for what it takes from Blackwell’s theorem, and whether its experiments have finitely many outcomes.

• Re-grounded: CLAIM-323. Three situations and two-valued reports. It uses the definition and the direct implication.
• Both grounds: CLAIM-237 and CLAIM-326. CLAIM-237’s measurement scenarios are finite, but its situations need not be. CLAIM-326’s Z is finite, but its renderings’ outcome spaces are not restricted. Each gets a note saying when the finite THEORY suffices.
• Unchanged: CLAIM-050, 125, 126, 199, 212, 218, 225, 228, 258 and 259. They cite THEORY-156 for its definitions (the n-tuple of measures on a common space, the risk-set order), or apply the order to texts and images with unrestricted outcome spaces. Most are interpretive. CLAIM-225 uses only the direct implication, with sums over texts; that implication holds on any outcome space, but the record’s Active statement of it is for finite ones, so it is not re-grounded.

---

Nineteen works registered unread from the exchange on coarse-to-fine processes and the physics of model reduction; Simon & Ando and Barnett & Seth already held

2026-10-19 22:53:40

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the exchange of 2026-10-19, “Assessing Coarse To Fine Theory” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad69b23-7a98-83e9-aefa-2c80ffa10982; workbench entry of 2026-10-19). Its replies recommended about twenty works. Each one filed here was looked up first, against Crossref, OpenAlex and the arXiv API.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• Shalizi and Crutchfield’s information-bottleneck paper was dated 2002, the journal year. It was on arXiv in June 2000.
• Eyink and Aluie’s title is “Localness of energy cascade in hydrodynamic turbulence. I. Smooth coarse graining”, not ”…, I”.
• Parish and Duraisamy was cited by DOI only. Its title is “Non-Markovian closure models for large eddy simulations using the Mori-Zwanzig formalism”.
• “Aggregation of Variables and System Decomposition” was cited without authors. They are Shpak, Stadler, Wagner and Hermisson. Crossref lists only the first, and the full list comes from the Leipzig repository and the erratum.
• Crutchfield and Shalizi’s thermodynamic-depth paper was posted to arXiv under a different title.
• Nothing else was wrong: titles, journals and years match.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s.

• A2 named “successive refinement in rate–distortion theory” and no paper. The record took Equitz and Cover (1991) as its classical source.
• A3 named “the classic Constantin–E–Titi work”. The record took their 1994 note on Onsager’s conjecture.

Dates decided by ADR-002.

• arXiv v1 for Raju et al. (2017-10-16), Shalizi and Crutchfield (2000-06-16), Rosas et al. (2020-04-17), Rahaman et al. (2018-06-22), Crutchfield and Shalizi (1998-08-13), Eyink and Aluie (2009-09-13), Parish and Duraisamy (2016-11-10) and Granero-Belinchón et al. (2016-07-19).
• OpenAlex’s day, unconfirmed, for three Elsevier papers whose Crossref record gives the issue month only: Coifman and Maggioni (2006-06-11), Coifman and Lafon (2006-06-20) and Eyink 2005 (2005-06-20). ScienceDirect refused the lookup. Each LIT says so.
• Germano: May 1992, the print month. Crossref’s online date, 2006-04-26, is when the journal’s archive was digitized, and is not used.
• The rest are Crossref’s full date or the first of its month.

The anthology check. The anthology’s record/ was grepped for every author, title and identifier, in a clone made on 2026-10-19 at commit d1573d2. It holds none of the nineteen. Its NOTE-296 mentions Rahaman et al. in passing.

Two carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005): Rahaman et al. on spectral bias, and Wiskott and Sejnowski on slow feature analysis. Both are held here for this record’s question about orders of acquisition (QUESTION-217, ADR-036). Neither carries an instruction for ML practice.

Already held, not refiled. Simon & Ando (1961) is LIT-1127, Deferred since 2026-10-16. THEORY-661 said the record did not hold it, and that is corrected. Barnett and Seth is LIT-979, read in NOTE-791. Shalizi and Crutchfield’s “Computational Mechanics” is held unread as LIT-1126.

Not filed.

• Yakhot and Orszag (1986), which A3 discussed only through Smith and Woodruff’s review.
• Part II of Eyink and Aluie.
• Mori’s and Zwanzig’s original papers, which no reply cited directly.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

#	work	code	bears on
1	Equitz & Cover 1991	LIT-1238	QUESTION-220 (A2)
2	Raju, Machta & Sethna 2018	LIT-1254	QUESTION-217, THEORY-194, THEORY-202 (A2)
3	Coifman & Maggioni 2006	LIT-1256	QUESTION-217 (A2)
4	Shalizi & Crutchfield 2002 (arXiv 2000)	LIT-1240	QUESTION-220 (A2)
5	Wiskott & Sejnowski 2002	LIT-1249	QUESTION-217 (A2)
6	Rosas et al. 2020	LIT-1244	QUESTION-115, THEORY-497 (A2)
7	Rahaman et al. 2019 (arXiv 2018)	LIT-1261	QUESTION-217, THEORY-086 (A2)
8	Coifman & Lafon 2006	LIT-1246	QUESTION-217 (A2)
9	Crutchfield & Shalizi 1999 (arXiv 1998)	LIT-1260	QUESTION-220 (A2)
10	Eyink & Aluie 2009	LIT-1239	QUESTION-219, CLAIM-157 (A3, A5)
11	Eyink 2005	LIT-1252	QUESTION-219, CLAIM-331 (A3)
12	Chorin, Hald & Kupferman 2000	LIT-1245	QUESTION-222, THEORY-257 (A3)
13	Chorin, Hald & Kupferman 2002	LIT-1253	QUESTION-222, THEORY-257, CLAIM-327 (A3, A5)
14	Parish & Duraisamy 2017 (arXiv 2016)	LIT-1259	QUESTION-222 (A3)
15	Germano 1992	LIT-1251	QUESTION-222 (A3)
16	Smith & Woodruff 1998	LIT-1257	THEORY-202 (A3)
17	Granero-Belinchón, Roux & Garnier 2016	LIT-1243	QUESTION-219 (A3)
18	Constantin, E & Titi 1994	LIT-1248	QUESTION-219 (A3)
19	Shpak, Stadler, Wagner & Hermisson 2004	LIT-1242	QUESTION-218, CLAIM-157, THEORY-661 (A5)

What to read first. A5’s order was Simon & Ando, then Chorin, Hald and Kupferman (2002), because they are “most likely to produce mathematically definite conclusions”. On that advice:

1. LIT-1127, Simon & Ando, already registered.
2. LIT-1242, Shpak et al.
3. LIT-1253, Chorin, Hald and Kupferman (2002).

They bear on QUESTION-221 and QUESTION-218. Equitz and Cover is the first reading for the learning side.

Open copies: every work with an arXiv identifier has one. Chorin, Hald and Kupferman 2000 is in PubMed Central (PMC16175), Rosas et al. is gold open access, Shpak et al. is in the Leipzig repository, and the two ACHA papers are in Elsevier’s open archive.

---

Five works on the rubber hand illusion and bodily self-consciousness, filed to fill a gap next to Metzinger’s self-model

2026-10-19 23:53:52

The owner asked how the record stood on the rubber hand illusion. The answer was that it held nothing directly. Body ownership appeared only as claim C6 of the reading of Metzinger’s “Self models” (NOTE-372): “body ownership can be manipulated by multisensory conflict and is the simplest form of self-awareness”. That claim rested on Lenggenhager et al. 2007 and Blanke & Metzinger 2009, neither of which the record held. The interoception and active-inference holdings (LIT-542, LIT-135, LIT-1181) did not touch ownership at all.

The owner asked for the gap to be filled, told the filer to assume the anthology did not hold these works, and dropped the boundary rule in the same exchange (ADR-048). No anthology check was made. Each LIT’s first history note says so.

Five works were filed and each was read in full:

• Botvinick & Cohen 1998 (LIT-1277, NOTE-1006). This is the original rubber hand illusion. Its one page was read from Nature’s typeset page on a UC Davis faculty site. That host is a third party, not the authors or the publisher, and Unpaywall and OpenAlex both report the work closed. The history notes say so. If the owner does not accept that copy, the LIT goes to Unavailable and the NOTE is retired.
• Lenggenhager, Tadi, Metzinger & Blanke 2007 (LIT-1279, NOTE-999), the full-body illusion. The paper, its supplementary material and the 2008 e-letters were read from EPFL Infoscience. The University of Zurich copy OpenAlex points to sits behind a bot check. The e-letters carry Ehrsson & Petkova’s objection that participants may have simply recognised themselves on video.
• Blanke & Metzinger 2009 (LIT-1274, NOTE-1002), minimal phenomenal selfhood. Read from the publisher PDF on EPFL Infoscience. It narrows NOTE-372’s “simplest form” to ownership of the whole body, not of parts.
• Apps & Tsakiris 2014 (LIT-1262, NOTE-991), the free-energy self. Read from the PMC author manuscript (PMC3848896). It names interoception but does not model it, so its tie to the interoceptive holdings is thinner than the request assumed.
• Seth 2013 (LIT-1263, NOTE-1000), interoceptive inference. Read from the publisher PDF in the Sussex repository on figshare. This, not Apps & Tsakiris, is the bridge from the interoception cluster to body ownership.

The readings were done in parallel. One reader’s luria link --fix, given only its own paths, linked across the whole tree: “linked 53 reference(s) in 4040 file(s)”. It touched ADR-048, which another contribution was drafting at the same time, and the reader’s revert broke a link the lint wanted. The link was restored before commit. Path arguments to luria link --fix do not confine it in luria 1.1.0. Concurrent fillers should not run it at all; the integrator should run it once.

No THEORY was filed. The readers proposed three, which overlap:

1. Synchrony between seen and felt touch suffices for ownership and drift.
2. Ownership is a posterior over the common cause of multisensory input.
3. Ownership is inferred from interoceptive as well as exteroceptive signals.

A fourth, on whole-body ownership as the core of minimal selfhood, came from Blanke & Metzinger. These are left for a later pass, with the anthology-free filing rule now in place.

---

Four THEORYs from the rubber-hand batch, all Proposed

2026-10-20 00:10:24

The owner asked for the THEORYs proposed in the rubber-hand batch (entry of 23:53 yesterday) to be filed. Four are filed, all Proposed. Each one was written from the five NOTEs, not from the readers’ one-line proposals, and each claims no more than its sources show.

• THEORY-765, the synchrony effect, from Botvinick & Cohen alone. Its promote_when asks for a replication with effect sizes and a control for suggestion. The 1998 page does not discuss demand characteristics, and its predicted items were guessable.
• THEORY-769, ownership as a graded belief about the common cause of multisensory input, from Apps & Tsakiris. The source has no data and grants the account is hard to falsify. Its promote_when asks for a model-based test with held-out conditions, and for the real hand’s loss of ownership to be shown on a measure other than temperature or histamine.
• THEORY-767, interoceptive signals in ownership, from Seth. All its evidence is second-hand, and one of the two cardio-visual studies is Seth’s own. Its promote_when asks for the control the NOTE named: a non-bodily periodic signal at heart rate.
• THEORY-768, minimal selfhood as identification with the whole body, from Blanke & Metzinger with Lenggenhager et al. The part–whole split rests on what the rubber-hand studies did not measure. The agency thesis rests on adults whose agency was intact. The promote_when asks for both to be tested.

The fourth sits in tension with the second and third, which treat part and whole ownership as one inference. No THEORY settles that tension, and it is named in their Connections.

The Lenggenhager proposal, on self-location shifting partway toward a seen body, was not filed separately. It is a part of THEORY-768’s evidence, and its own-body result is too inconsistent between the two studies to stand alone.

No relation is declared on any of them: no open question in the record asks how body ownership arises or what the minimal self is made of. If such a question is opened, these four answer it.

---

Nine experimental works on the rubber hand illusion, and the THEORY they correct

2026-10-20 00:59:22

The owner accepted the UC Davis copy of Botvinick & Cohen (LIT-1277’s history now says so). The owner then asked for experimental work, in the spirit of experimental philosophy, that builds on the rubber hand illusion. A search found almost no x-phi in the strict sense of folk- intuition surveys about body ownership. What does build on the illusion is experimental work aimed at the questions the THEORYs of the entry of 00:10 left open. Nine works were filed in three groups, and each was read in full from a lawful copy.

• Suggestion.
  • Lush 2020 (LIT-1276), from the PsyArXiv final manuscript.
  • Lush et al. 2020 (LIT-1271), with its supplement and peer-review file.
  • Ehrsson et al. 2022 (LIT-1264) and Lush & Seth 2022 (LIT-1267), filed as rivals.
  • Roseboom & Lush 2022 (LIT-1280), from the accepted manuscript and the authors’ OSF notebooks.
• Drift. Rohde, Di Luca & Ernst 2011 (LIT-1281) and Abdulkarim & Ehrsson 2016 (LIT-1268).
• Structure. Longo et al. 2008 (LIT-1275), from the published PDF on the first author’s lab site, and Kalckert & Ehrsson 2012 (LIT-1273).

What changed. THEORY-765 had named its own refutation: drift toward the rubber hand “as strongly under asynchrony”. Rohde et al. found exactly that, with asynchronous brushing interrupted every 10 s, and found as much drift with the hand only seen. The THEORY is Rejected, and THEORY-766 corrects it. The new THEORY claims a difference in reports. It ranks the ownership report as weaker than referred touch, and it says drift is not a measure of either report. It leaves open whether the stimulation or expectation produces the difference.

The old promotion test also had a flaw that the 2022 exchange exposed. The test accepted “trait suggestibility measured and the synchrony effect survives it”. Ehrsson et al. met that clause on 353 participants. Lush & Seth then showed that uniform but unequal expectations predict the same result. The new test requires expectations to be matched in the participants who were actually stimulated.

THEORY-769, THEORY-767 and THEORY-768 keep their claims. They take version 2 with tighter promotion tests: expectations measured or matched, drift not standing in for ownership, and, for the interoceptive one, the sensitivity relation surviving trait suggestibility. None moves status.

Who is on which side. The record’s two predictive accounts of ownership have source authors on opposite sides of the 2022 exchange. Tsakiris, of Apps & Tsakiris, signs Ehrsson et al. Seth, of Seth 2013, signs the reply. Longo signs Ehrsson et al. and is first author of Longo et al. 2008.

Not done.

• The readers proposed revising THEORY-458’s refutation clause after Kalckert & Ehrsson, who show agency without ownership with a rotated hand. THEORY-458 predates this batch and rests on other readings, so the proposal is left for its own pass.
• The strict-sense x-phi found in the search (Starmans & Bloom 2012; Nichols & Bruno 2010; the folk-pain-location studies) and the experiments by philosophers (Hohwy & Paton 2010; Alsmith & Longo 2014) are not filed. The owner was offered them separately.

Process. The readers were told not to run luria link, after the tree-wide link bug found yesterday. One luria link --fix at the end linked 211 references in the new files and touched nothing else.

---

First readings of the coarse-to-fine program: six works read, copies sought for nine, three Unavailable, and what the readings gave the record

2026-10-20 01:05:15

On 2026-10-19 the owner asked for the reading program of the exchange on coarse-to-fine processes to begin with Simon & Ando. On 2026-10-20 the owner said readings may go ahead without asking. This entry covers the first batch. Each work was read in full by a separate reader working from a common brief, and each reading’s checks were re-run or spot-checked before filing. The readings follow A5’s order: aggregation and near-decomposability first, then Mori–Zwanzig.

Read in full, Deferred → Active:

work	LIT	NOTE	THEORY filed
Shpak, Stadler, Wagner & Hermisson 2004	LIT-1242	NOTE-979	THEORY-755 (Active)
Shpak, Stadler, Wagner & Altenberg 2004	LIT-1241	NOTE-977	none
Eyink & Aluie 2009	LIT-1239	NOTE-969	THEORY-754 (Active, conditional)
Parish & Duraisamy 2017	LIT-1259	NOTE-973	THEORY-760 (Active), THEORY-747 (Proposed)
Chorin, Hald & Kupferman 2000	LIT-1245	NOTE-989	none
Chorin, Hald & Kupferman 2002	LIT-1253	NOTE-975	THEORY-752 (Active)

LIT-1241 is new: the Simon–Ando companion to LIT-1242, found while hunting for Simon & Ando and registered at the owner’s word. It was published as Theory in Biosciences 123(2):139–180 (doi:10.1016/j.thbio.2004.04.001), and its date stays arXiv v1’s.

Copies sought for nine works with no arXiv copy. Found:

• Chorin, Hald & Kupferman 2002, on Chorin’s page.
• Equitz & Cover, on Cover’s page.
• Wiskott & Sejnowski, in PostScript on Wiskott’s page.
• Constantin, E & Titi, the authors’ manuscript on E’s page.
• The two ACHA papers, in Elsevier’s open archive.

Unavailable under ADR-041, with each status note listing the places tried:

• Germano 1992.
• Smith & Woodruff 1998.
• Eyink 2005. Its author’s pages returned a Cloudflare block, so whether he posts it is unknown.
• Simon & Ando (1961), LIT-1127, already set Unavailable on 2026-10-19.

Eyink 2005 matters most among these, since THEORY-754’s bounds are proved there.

Dates corrected. The ACHA papers’ published: had been OpenAlex days, which are Crossref deposit dates. The publisher’s PDFs give 2006-06-08 for diffusion wavelets and 2006-06-19 for diffusion maps. Eyink 2005’s date may be a deposit date too, and could not be confirmed.

Corrections to what the record said before reading:

• THEORY-661 said Simon–Ando gives a separation of time scales “to order ε”. The open statement of the theorem gives no rate, so the phrase is withdrawn.
• Eyink and Aluie’s LIT said the paper “proves” its bounds. It sketches them; the proofs are Eyink 2005’s.
• Parish and Duraisamy’s summary is corrected: the memory length is fitted, not derived.

What the readings gave the record’s own argument:

• Aggregation is not decomposition, exactly. THEORY-755: a partition’s block sums close for every state iff the partition is column-equitable, which is a symmetry condition, not weak coupling. CLAIM-388’s uniform-coupling system turns out to be aggregable along every partition. QUESTION-218 gains a third kind of unit.
• Near-decomposability against dynamical dependence. CLAIM-390: for a block’s full state, dependence is of second order in the coupling into the block. CLAIM-386: the Simon–Ando aggregate’s closure defect is exactly QA(I − VQ), and its intra-block part vanishes iff column sums are equal. Together they answer the forward half of QUESTION-221 in part.
• Memory against dynamical independence. CLAIM-389: in VAR(1), independence implies zero memory, not conversely.
• Augmentation, in practice. THEORY-760: the finite-memory LES closure is a finite Markovian augmentation whose extra coordinate is the subgrid force. Its error is not controlled.
• Scale locality is banded, not gapped. THEORY-754, conditional on an unproved scaling hypothesis.

Four demonstrated claims (CLAIM-390, CLAIM-386, CLAIM-389 and the earlier CLAIM-388’s note) were re-checked numerically from scratch before filing. The readers’ scripts are not kept in the record.

Second batch, read the same day:

work	LIT	NOTE	THEORY filed
Equitz & Cover 1991	LIT-1238	NOTE-988	THEORY-751 (Proposed)
Raju, Machta & Sethna 2018	LIT-1254	NOTE-972	THEORY-742 (Active)
Shalizi & Crutchfield 2002	LIT-1240	NOTE-976	THEORY-743 (Active)
Crutchfield & Shalizi 1999	LIT-1260	NOTE-978	THEORY-756 (Active)
Rosas et al. 2020	LIT-1244	NOTE-987	THEORY-764 (Active)
Coifman & Lafon 2006	LIT-1246	NOTE-985	THEORY-745 (Active), THEORY-744 (Proposed)

What it gave the argument:

• Nesting of optimal abstractions.
  • Optimal deterministic IB partitions at two budgets can be incomparable (CLAIM-387, re-run here).
  • Every IB optimum nests under the causal partition, its β → ∞ limit (THEORY-743).
  • Rate–distortion refinability is a Markov condition on some optimal pair (THEORY-751).
  • QUESTION-220’s deterministic half is answered; the stochastic half is open.
• The three orders. Diffusion maps are the case where they agree exactly, because they share an eigenbasis (THEORY-745). Refinement and relevance to parameters share a chain under coarse-graining (THEORY-742).
• Emergence criteria. Rosas et al.’s Ψ and dynamical independence diverge both ways (THEORY-764). The paper’s Proposition 1 claims more than its proof shows (NOTE-987).

Errors found in the papers are listed in each NOTE. Among those that bear on the record:

• Coifman and Lafon’s truncation bound is absolute, not relative.
• Crutchfield and Shalizi’s logistic-map dive figure is the single-symbol entropy, not the entropy rate.
• Raju et al.’s relevant directions lose information when 0 < λ < d/2.

Left to the owner.

• Whether the primary paper (LIT-1244) should join THEORY-497’s source, and how its Proposition 1 gap bears on promoting THEORY-497.
• Whether Coifman and Lafon keep the anthology-candidate flag their reader added, matching LIT-981.

Third batch, read the same day:

work	LIT	NOTE	THEORY filed
Constantin, E & Titi 1994	LIT-1248	NOTE-982	THEORY-749 (Active)
Wiskott & Sejnowski 2002	LIT-1249	NOTE-971	THEORY-746 (Active)
Granero-Belinchón, Roux & Garnier 2016	LIT-1243	NOTE-970	THEORY-750, THEORY-748 (Active)
Rahaman et al. 2019	LIT-1261	NOTE-983	THEORY-761 (Active), THEORY-759 (Proposed)
Coifman & Maggioni 2006	LIT-1256	NOTE-984	THEORY-758 (Active)

What it gave the argument:

• Two more commuting cases for QUESTION-217 (diffusion wavelets, slow feature analysis).
• The first case where the learner, not the target’s strength, sets the order of acquisition (spectral bias; Proposed).
• For QUESTION-219, two negatives. The information-in-turbulence paper defines no flux, and its entropy rates cannot see the cascade’s direction. Constantin–E–Titi proves only that flux vanishes above regularity 1/3, not that it survives below.

Errors found that bear on the record:

• Diffusion wavelets’ compressed algorithm thresholds a different power than it states; the paper’s own Fig. 9 follows the corrected count.
• Rahaman et al.’s Theorem 1 holds for bounded polytopes, not “general ReLU networks”.
• Constantin–E–Titi’s final estimate is misprinted, without effect on the result.

The Wiskott copy was PostScript; Ghostscript was installed to read it.

Still to read: every work registered on 2026-10-19 with a lawful copy is now read. Remaining are the three Unavailable works (Germano, Smith & Woodruff, Eyink 2005) and Simon & Ando. Readers named follow-ups worth registering:

• Isett 2018, the negative half of Onsager;
• No, Ingber & Weissman 2016, recalled as showing refinability under log-loss. That attribution was wrong: see below;
• Nadler et al., diffusion maps and reaction coordinates;
• the analytic and probabilistic follow-ups to slow feature analysis.

Fourth batch: follow-ups registered and read the same day. Each was looked up against Crossref, arXiv and OpenAlex, and neither record held any of them.

work	LIT	NOTE	THEORY filed
No, Ingber & Weissman 2016 (arXiv 2015)	LIT-1247	NOTE-980	none
Isett 2018 (arXiv 2016)	LIT-1255	NOTE-974 (Skimmed)	THEORY-763 (Proposed)
Nadler, Lafon, Coifman & Kevrekidis 2006 (arXiv 2005)	LIT-1250	NOTE-986	THEORY-762 (Active)

• No, Ingber & Weissman is about second-order refinability, not log-loss. The log-loss result is No & Weissman 2015, and it concerns direct log-loss, where refinability is trivial. The information bottleneck is remote log-loss. So QUESTION-220’s stochastic half stays open. The reader names Charvin, Catenacci Volpi & Polani 2023 (Entropy 25:1355, open in PMC) as the direct lead: a test by linear programming for exact IB refinability.
• Isett. Skimmed, about 40 pages of estimates unread, so its THEORY is Proposed. It gives the negative half of Onsager. Read through the record’s THEORY-749, the flux survives the limit, but in both directions: the solutions are not admissible, so this is not a dissipative cascade.
• Nadler et al. The record’s THEORY-762: a generator eigenfunction of a reversible diffusion has zero Mori–Zwanzig memory and noise in mean. It is Markov in law only if |∇ψ|² is a function of ψ. The paper’s printed generators are off by a factor of two (checked numerically).
• The ADR-002 date for No, Ingber & Weissman is arXiv v1. Partial precursors appeared at Allerton 2013 and ISIT 2014 under other titles, following LIT-1238’s precedent. The owner may overrule.

Fifth: Charvin, Catenacci Volpi & Polani 2023, registered and read the same day (LIT-1258, NOTE-981; THEORY-753 and THEORY-757, Active).

• It has no arXiv version. The copy read is in the Hertfordshire repository, since the MDPI and PMC PDFs refused this client.
• published: is the publisher’s online date, 2023-09-19. Crossref’s deposit date is not used.
• Its test, run on certified unique optima, gives CLAIM-392: stochastic bottleneck optima need not nest.
• The reader’s half-written files were swept into one commit by mistake, withdrawn in the next, and return here complete.

Sixth batch, registered and read the same day.

• Buckmaster, De Lellis, Székelyhidi & Vicol 2019 (LIT-1300, NOTE-1013, read in full; THEORY-776, Proposed). Admissible Onsager: below 1/3 the energy can follow any strictly decreasing profile, so the flux into vanishing scales is one-way on every interval for the whole box. “Admissible” is never defined in the paper and is global only. THEORY-749, THEORY-763, NOTE-974 and QUESTION-219 now cite it in place of “not held”.
  • Its published: is arXiv v1, 2017-01-30.
• Ando & Fisher 1963 (LIT-1294) is Unavailable from the start (ADR-041): JSTOR only, and the 1963 MIT Press book that reprints it, with Simon & Ando 1961, is lending-only on the Internet Archive. One copy of that book would unblock both. Its status note lists every place tried.
• Turner & Sahani 2007 (LIT-1287), the probabilistic reading of slow feature analysis, is Unavailable from the start: MIT Press closed, the authors’ old Gatsby page gone, UCL Discovery and CiteSeerX refused this client. It may be reachable from an ordinary browser.
• Machta, Chachra, Transtrum & Sethna 2013 (LIT-1299, NOTE-1018, read in full). THEORY-774 (Active, re-derived): in the hopping model the k-th Fisher eigenvalue is Θ(t^{3/2−k}). The paper’s own step for this was wrong as stated, and the reader proved it by an exact identity, without the zero-drift restriction. THEORY-777 (Proposed): the Ising decimation rates, a scaling argument with thin numerics. The paper’s Fig. 3 caption prints the wrong rate. The λ = d/2 line THEORY-742 called the reader’s algebra is in this paper’s supplement, and THEORY-742 and NOTE-972 now say so.
• Bousquet & Slotine 2015, arXiv only (LIT-1292, NOTE-1025, read in full). THEORY-771 (Proposed): a first-order bound in ε on trajectory error under contraction, the rate THEORY-661 lacked, in a different frame. It does not bound dependence. Its printed ε_c is inverted, and one lemma drops a term. Cited on THEORY-661, QUESTION-221 and CLAIM-386.
• An open substitute for Turner & Sahani, Schüler & Wiskott (2025, arXiv:2506.00580), was noted here and is registered and read below.

Seventh batch, registered and read the same day.

• Giri, Kwon & Novack 2023, Annals of Mathematics 2026 (LIT-1289, NOTE-1022, skimmed: a 103-page proof resting on a companion paper the record does not hold). THEORY-772 (Proposed): below 1/3, in L³-based Besov spaces, solutions whose Duchon–Robert dissipation is a prescribed smooth density, so the flux is one-way locally in the limit. The density’s placement, a pipe array chosen by the construction, is read from the proof, not the theorem. QUESTION-219, THEORY-776 and NOTE-1013 now cite it.

• Schüler & Wiskott 2025 (LIT-1296, NOTE-1015, read in full). THEORY-775 (Active): the variational objective’s linear optimum, which the paper does not derive, is SFA’s span of directions with lag-one autocorrelation above ½. The paper’s Eq. 35 drops a constant, its “equivalent” stationarity condition is only necessary, and VAEs are credited to the Adam paper. CLAIM-394 (demonstrated, re-checked): in a reversible linear Gaussian VAR(1) slow features are exactly closed. It reports Turner & Sahani secondhand; LIT-1287 stays Unavailable.

• Del Vecchio & Slotine 2013 (LIT-1295, NOTE-1020, read in full from the authors’ revised manuscript). THEORY-773 (Active, re-derived): contraction bounds for the quasi-steady-state reduction, O(ε) uniformly in time. The paper’s Theorem 3 is false as stated: it omits that the reduced system must be contracting, and a bistable counterexample violates its bound (re-run here).

  • published: is the CDC-ECC 2011 conference date, the earlier appearance of the same lemmas and theorem. The IEEE online date could not be read.
  • The reading re-derives the two steps Bousquet & Slotine only sketch. THEORY-771’s promote_when appears met. It stays Proposed for the owner’s promotion audit.

• THEORY-771 (Bousquet & Slotine) is promoted to Active at the owner’s direction. The re-derivations it needed (R2 and R5 of NOTE-1020) are recorded step by step in its promotion-audit decision file, as ADR-047 v2 requires, and the small-gain step was re-checked by hand.

Eighth batch, registered and read the same day.

• Isett 2017, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2022 (LIT-1305, NOTE-1027, skimmed: about 30 pages of estimates paged through). THEORY-821 (Proposed): Hölder C^α, α < 1/15, solutions with the local energy inequality. Their dissipation is uniform in space and switched on only during a final drain to zero. “Globally dissipative” in Isett means the local inequality holds everywhere, the opposite of the record’s use of “global” in THEORY-776, which now says so. The paper’s Burgers example has a wrong rate (1/3, not 2/3) and a non-sharp threshold, re-checked here; its point stands.
• Chorin & Lu 2015 (LIT-1304, NOTE-1028, read in full, published and arXiv texts compared). THEORY-818 (Proposed): the Lorenz 96 NARMAX finding, limited to what was measured. The paper’s tie to Mori–Zwanzig is motivation only, its model orders were tuned against the statistics it reports, and Fig. 2’s caption overstates one comparison. CLAIM-398 (demonstrated, re-checked): in the linear Gaussian VAR(1) the NARMAX idea is exact, a scalar coarse variable being ARMA(≤n, ≤n−1).
  • The published title differs from the arXiv one; the LIT records both.
  • Leads named in the reading, not registered: Lin & Lu (arXiv:1908.07725), which derives NARMAX from discrete Mori–Zwanzig; Lu, Lin & Chorin (arXiv:1605.02273, arXiv:1509.09279).
• Rosas, Geiger, Luppi, Seth, Polani, Gastpar & Mediano 2024, arXiv only (LIT-1306, NOTE-1030, read in full). THEORY-820 (Active, re-derived): informational closure, causal closure and Barnett–Seth dynamical independence coincide; the reduction to one-step transfer entropy is the record’s. THEORY-822 (Active, re-derived): closure of a partition of a Markov chain is strong lumpability, THEORY-755’s condition on Pᵀ. The paper’s sublattice claim is false (re-checked here), one counterexample is mis-computed, and its Ising claim fails under a uniform field. QUESTION-218, QUESTION-221, CLAIM-388, THEORY-755, CLAIM-394 and NOTE-124 cite it.
• Lin & Lu 2019, J. Comput. Phys. 2021 (LIT-1307, NOTE-1029, read in full). THEORY-819 (Active, re-derived): the discrete Mori–Zwanzig identity, and the Wiener projection that removes the memory term, with the record’s addition that in the linear Gaussian VAR(1) the filter is exactly rational. CLAIM-397 (demonstrated, proof checked by hand, numerics re-run): Mori memory of a scalar process is fixed by its autocovariance and has Hankel rank d − 1. The paper contradicts itself on whether its noise term matters, and its NARMAX step is heuristic. The reader’s LIT file was deleted mid-reading by the coordinator’s cleanup of a worktree and recreated unchanged.

---

Six more: philosophers’ experiments on the rubber hand and self-location, and folk-concept x-phi on the self and pain

2026-10-20 01:49:17

The owner asked for the two groups left out of the entry of 00:59 to be filed. Six works were filed, each read in full.

Philosophers running rubber hand and self-location experiments.

• Hohwy & Paton 2010 (LIT-1272), from PMC. After the illusion starts, touch is reported as caused by a finger hovering over a rubber arm, or on a cardboard box. Before it starts, a box takes no touch. It is also the study Apps & Tsakiris cite for cooling of the real hand. That result is 0.13 °C in one comparison of four, one-tailed, under a real foreign arm. THEORY-769 now says so; its claim and status are unchanged. No item asks about ownership, and expectations were not measured.
• Alsmith & Longo 2014 (LIT-1266), from the published PDF on Longo’s lab site. People pointing “directly at you” divide between the upper face and the upper torso, and which one wins depends on where the pointer starts. It gives THEORY-768’s self-location a measure other than drift, one a task factor moves. Its reanalysis prints “p = .53” for an F that gives about .053.

Folk-concept experimental philosophy. These sit near the topic rather than building on the rubber hand. Each NOTE says what a folk judgement can and cannot establish (QUESTION-048).

• Starmans & Bloom 2012 (LIT-1265), from the Yale lab site. The record’s citation is Cognition 123(2); the brief had given 124(3). Children and adults judge a drawn character to be “closer” to things near its eyes. Read beside Alsmith & Longo’s first-person result, which puts the torso alongside the face.
• Nichols & Bruno 2010 (LIT-1269), from a copy linked on Nichols’s own site. First- and third-person tellings of Williams’s case give the same verdict, so Williams’s explanation of his two arguments by grammatical person does not hold for this sample.
  • The reader proposed that THEORY-531 note this in “What this does not say”. THEORY-531 predates this batch, so the proposal is left for its own pass.
  • A reply, Berniūnas & Dranseika 2016, is named in the NOTE and not filed.
• Reuter, Sienhold & Sytsma 2019 (LIT-1278) and Borg, Harrison, Stazicker & Salomons 2020 (LIT-1270), from repository manuscripts.
  • The Borg copy is labelled accepted but headed “Revise and resubmit”.
  • They take opposite sides on whether the folk concept of pain is bodily, and both use implicature as their tool.
  • Neither bears on the rubber hand THEORYs.

A vocabulary gap. The topics list has no word for experimental philosophy or for the method of intuitions. The folk-concept works are tagged with what they are about (personhood, consciousness, philosophy of language, epistemology), not with how they work. If the record collects more x-phi, a word for it is a decision to make, not a tag to improvise.

Process. One reader’s bare codes turned into links while it worked, so a luria link ran somewhere mid-batch. git status afterwards showed no tracked file changed, so it touched only the untracked drafts. The final luria link --fix linked 152 references.

---

Lessig’s Remix filed and read; the two Jenkins books searched and marked Unavailable

2026-10-20 01:56:18

The owner asked how the record stood on remix culture. The answer was that it held nothing on the subject: no Lessig, nothing on sampling, appropriation art, fair use or Creative Commons. The nearest works were Jenkins’s Convergence Culture (LIT-1121) and Jenkins, Ford and Green’s Spreadable Media (LIT-1143), both registered unread from the sports fandom exchange (workbench entry of 2026-10-16). The nearest case was the Juggernaut redub (CASE-100). The owner then asked for Lessig’s Remix and the two Jenkins books to be filed.

Remix: filed and read, LIT-1298 and NOTE-1023. Lessig released the book under CC BY-NC, and Bloomsbury Academic published that edition. The copy read is the publisher’s PDF as redistributed under the licence on the Internet Archive. It has the Penguin Press pagination. The book was read in full in three parts by three sub-agents, each told to read every line of its part, and the NOTE was composed from their reports. Every quotation in the LIT and NOTE was then checked against the extracted text by script. Four that did not match were corrected. A note number was also checked and corrected: Patterson is ch. 9 n. 10, not n. 9.

• Tags. society-and-governance first, since the book is about law and policy, then social-science. No new topic was needed. The closest words, social-ontology and myth-and-folklore, would be wrong.
• Not in the anthology. A grep of its record/ (clone of 2026-10-20, commit d1573d2) for “Lessig”, “Convergence Culture” and “Spreadable Media” found nothing. The book carries no instruction for machine-learning practice, so it has no anthology-candidate flag.
• What it bears on. Its argument that remix needs the original, because the meaning is carried by the reference, is the sharpest contact with the record’s argument. It says that for remix, CLAIM-002’s “identity of the artifact” is the relation that does the work, the reverse of translation. The NOTE raises, without filing, a question: can recognizability of the source artifact be a preservation target in its own right? For CASE-100 and CLAIM-332 the book supplies vocabulary (sharing economy, hybrid, RW remix) and no answer, because it never asks whether a population acts as a population.

Jenkins: searched, not reached, both now Unavailable (ADR-041). Neither book has a lawful open copy that this client could find.

• Crossref gives no licence or full-text link for either NYU Press Scholarship Online DOI.
• The host, De Gruyter Brill, answered with an empty bot-check page.
• The Internet Archive holds the books only as controlled lending.
• An Internet Archive upload of the Spanish translation of Convergence Culture carries a CC BY-ND label. It is not the publisher’s, and it was not used.
• OpenAlex refused the query because the shared daily budget was spent, and the DOAB API refused this client. So the search is not complete, and the status notes say so.

Both stay Unavailable until a copy is supplied. Convergence Culture is the one to get first: Remix takes its Potter Wars account and its split between “prohibitionist” and “collaborationist” companies from it.

Not done. No QUESTION or CLAIM was filed from the reading. The question about recognizability is in the NOTE’s open questions, for the owner to take up or leave.

---

THEORY-458 and THEORY-531 revised from the rubber-hand and x-phi readings

2026-10-20 06:30:45

The owner asked for the two proposals left open in the entry of 01:49 to be applied. Neither claim changes, and neither status moves. Both THEORYs take version 2.

• THEORY-458 (Gallagher’s ownership and agency). Kalckert & Ehrsson 2012 (LIT-1273) is added as a source. Its rotated, actively moved model hand gave agency reports without ownership. That closes the second refutation route in the promote_when, which was that the two “could not be dissociated outside involuntary movement”. It is closed only for now: the reports have no expectation control, and THEORY-766 holds that rubber hand reports have not been separated from expectation. A new section records three further points. The two senses interact (they correlate only when the hand is owned, r = 0.503). The comparator is not tested. And “agency” there is felt control of a model finger.
• THEORY-531 (Williams’s two tellings). Nichols & Bruno 2010 (LIT-1269) is cited in “What this does not say” and Connections, not as a source.
  • Among their students, verdicts did not follow the person of the telling, against Williams’s remark on his own two arguments.
  • Memory still mattered when the memories went to no one, which weakly undercuts his experimenter’s-will explanation.
  • The survey asks nothing about fear, and the promote_when already rules out folk reports, so the claim is untouched.

---

Ten works in conversation with Remix, on property and expression: seven read, three Unavailable

2026-10-20 06:48:41

The owner asked for contemporary work in conversation with Lessig’s Remix (LIT-1298, entry of 01:56 today), “at the intersection of property/ownership and expression/communication”. Ten works were proposed, and the owner said to file them all. Each was checked against Crossref (or the court’s or agency’s own page), then searched for a lawful full text. Seven were read in full and three were not reached.

How they were read. Seven sub-agents of this session each took one or two works under a shared brief. The brief told them to read every line, file by luria new, and check every quotation against the extracted text by script. The coordinator re-ran that check on all thirteen files, and every quotation matched. Two gaps were closed by hand:

• The Line was first filed Unavailable, because the Duke repository and MIT Press Direct both returned bot checks. The publisher’s own PDF was then found in MIT Press’s open-access collection on the Internet Archive, and the book was read from it.
• The authors’ posting of The End of Ownership lacks p. 193. That page was read from the same MIT Press collection.

Read, with a NOTE each:

work	LIT	NOTE	copy
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023)	LIT-1302	NOTE-1019	Supreme Court slip opinion
U.S. Copyright Office, Part 3: Generative AI Training (pre-publication, 2025-05-09)	LIT-1293	NOTE-1024	copyright.gov
Boyle, The Public Domain (2008)	LIT-1301	NOTE-1021	author’s PDF, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
Boyle, The Line (2024)	LIT-1288	NOTE-1014	MIT Press OA PDF, CC BY-NC-SA
Perzanowski & Schultz, The End of Ownership (2016)	LIT-1297	NOTE-1026	authors’ LawArXiv posting of the MIT Press OA edition
Tushnet, “Worth a Thousand Words” (2012)	LIT-1303	NOTE-1016	Harvard Law Review PDF
Balganesh, review of Drassinower (2017)	LIT-1291	NOTE-1017	Michigan Law Review PDF

Unavailable (ADR-041), no NOTE:

• Drassinower, What’s Wrong with Copying? (LIT-1285).
• Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox (LIT-1286). Crossref records a CC BY-NC-ND licence, so a lawful copy exists, but OUP Academic bot-checked this client. The eScholarship item of the same title is the book’s Introduction only, and it was not taken for the book.
• McLeod & DiCola, Creative License (LIT-1290).

Drassinower is the one to get first. Balganesh’s review reports his thesis that a work is a communicative act. It does not mention the publisher’s further claim, that an author’s rights reach only as far as “the structure of the dialogue” in which the work takes part allows. Only the book can settle that.

The boundary. The anthology holds nothing on copyright (clone of 2026-10-20, commit d1573d2). The Copyright Office report carries anthology-candidate last (ADR-005), because the anthology’s deployment-and-society topic could hold it. It is filed here for this record’s question: whether training is copying in Lessig’s sense. The Line is about AI but carries no flag. It is legal and moral theory of personhood, as LIT-166 is.

What the batch found, across readings.

• Lessig’s copy trigger is confirmed from three sides. The End of Ownership shows it from the buyer’s side: digital transfer and use make copies, so first sale and lending fail. The Copyright Office accepts it for training’s inputs, down to temporary copies. Boyle describes the same thing as triggers on “individual footsteps”. The Office does not extend it to the trained model: the weights infringe only where a work can be recovered from them.
• “Remix needs the original” is narrowed in law. Boyle and Tushnet agree with Lessig that critique and sampling need the actual artifact. The Warhol majority accepts that only where the original is the target, as with parody. Commentary aimed elsewhere counts as satire, and it must justify the borrowing. The Court measures purpose of use; Kagan’s dissent measures meaning.
• CLAIM-210 gets independent legal instances. Copyright’s independent-creation rule (Balganesh) means sharing a kind without being a rendering is no wrong. In Warhol, sharing the photograph’s purpose mattered only once there was copying. The Office’s new “market dilution” harm is the one place the law reaches outputs that share a kind with their sources without copying any one of them.
• Tushnet adds verbal overshadowing. Describing an image changes how a receiver later sees it. That bears on how CLAIM-220 names its receivers, and it is evidence the translation line lacked.
• Personhood. The Line keeps human, legal person and moral person apart, as ADR-024 does. But it also takes autonomy as evidence of consciousness. Its “inscrutability paradox” predicts that understanding a mechanism leads people to deny it agency, so public attributions would diverge from CLAIM-174’s test.

Possible entries not filed. None of these was filed; each awaits the owner:

• the 1951-to-Katrina melody chain in The Public Domain (ch. 6), as a CASE for CLAIM-002;
• Warhol’s purpose-against-meaning split, as a CASE for QUESTION-002;
• the inscrutability paradox, as an objection to CLAIM-174.

Each NOTE’s open questions name what would settle them.

---

Three entries from the property-and-expression readings: two cases and an objection to CLAIM-174

2026-10-20 07:23:42

The owner asked for the three entries proposed in the curation entry of 06:48 today to be filed.

• CASE-121, the melody chain in Boyle’s The Public Domain: from the Bailey Gospel Singers’ “I’ve Got a Savior” through Ray Charles, Kanye West and Jamie Foxx to The Legendary K.O. It illustrates CLAIM-002 and CLAIM-210. Its three links are three different relations: a rewording, a licensed re-performance and a sample.
• CASE-122, Warhol v. Goldsmith: one rendering, measured by the purpose of its use (the majority) and by its meaning (the dissent), with opposite verdicts. It illustrates CLAIM-034 and CLAIM-210 and bears on QUESTION-002.
• CLAIM-393, a counter to CLAIM-174 from Boyle’s inscrutability paradox in The Line. It does not dispute the test. It says public and legal attributions of agency to artifacts track whether the mechanism is understood, so they cannot be the “independent marks” CLAIM-174’s defeater appeals to.

Each case uses illustrates, not grounds. Neither was asked to bear weight, and adding grounds would change the claims’ own entries.

Checking corrected the draft in three places:

• Several of Boyle’s page numbers were off. The Legendary K.O. story is at pp. 125–126 and 144, not 143–146.
• The Warhol case’s first draft said the other tribute covers did not copy Goldsmith. People’s cover was another Goldsmith photograph, used under licence.
• “Merely programmed” was the record’s paraphrase. It is replaced with Boyle’s own words.

---

Berniūnas & Dranseika’s reply to Nichols & Bruno, filed Unavailable

2026-10-21 02:23:37

The owner asked for Berniūnas & Dranseika 2016 (LIT-1308) to be filed. It is the reply to Nichols & Bruno (LIT-1269) named as an open question in NOTE-996.

No lawful full text was reached, so it is filed Unavailable under ADR-041, from its abstract, and no NOTE is filed. The status note lists where the reader looked. One place is unsettled: PhilPapers and PhilArchive returned 403 to this client. Whether PhilArchive holds a copy should be rechecked from a client it does not refuse, or a copy could be supplied.

From the abstract, the paper argues three things:

• In transformation cases the folk keep “person”, “identity” and “individual” apart, so an individual can keep its identity while no longer counted a person.
• New survey data suggest psychological continuity is necessary for neither.
• Folk intuitions are of doubtful use in theorizing about personal identity.

If the data bear that out, they are folk-side convergent evidence for the split between the personhood and persistence questions that THEORY-417 draws on conceptual grounds. That is a claim about usage, not about the distinction’s correctness. Nothing is changed in any THEORY until the paper is read. Whether it retests Nichols & Bruno’s first- against third-person result, which THEORY-531 now cites, is unknown.

---

An audit of the Open QUESTIONs finds none answered as posed and sixteen that split

2026-10-21 02:26:17

The owner asked whether the QUESTIONs, like the THEORYs and CLAIMs in the promotion audit, had outgrown their status. Of 240 questions, 229 were Open, 9 Deferred and 1 Superseded. None had ever been Answered or Dissolved. All 228 Open questions were read: the 44 that list an Active answerer in full, and the other 184 for signs of being dissolved, superseded, parked or stale. No status was changed. The owner’s ruling on what counts as an answer, and the split pattern, are ADR-049.

Answered as posed: none. In every one of the 44, the Active entries answer one half, one model class, or a sufficient condition where a characterization is asked.

Split candidates (16). The answered part can be stated exactly. The parent stays Open, reworded to the rest.

• On Active CLAIMs:
  • QUESTION-022: restriction-compatible kernels preserve overlap consistency, and kernels from one global kernel preserve extendability (CLAIM-121, CLAIM-070). Open: necessary conditions, and transports that change the cover.
  • QUESTION-100: the linearized instability condition, and that independent scoring removes it (CLAIM-330). Open: the nonlinear regime.
  • QUESTION-121: scoring against committed predictions is not Regime B (CLAIM-340). Open: what does the scoring in one mind.
  • QUESTION-220: information-bottleneck optima at two budgets need not nest (CLAIM-387, CLAIM-392). Open: a condition on P(X, Y).
  • QUESTION-221: the converse is false (CLAIM-388), and the full-state bound holds (CLAIM-390). Open: the aggregate’s bound.
  • QUESTION-222: a finite augmentation exists for a scalar linear coarse variable of a VAR(1) (CLAIM-398). Open: other classes, the error bound, and the ruling on levels.
• On Active THEORYs:
  • QUESTION-010 (THEORY-281);
  • QUESTION-052, linear decisions (THEORY-007, THEORY-228, THEORY-239, THEORY-319);
  • QUESTION-055, negation given a presheaf (THEORY-516, THEORY-037);
  • QUESTION-067, what each noncontextuality failure refutes (THEORY-011, THEORY-015, THEORY-559);
  • QUESTION-093, interventional autonomy without closure (THEORY-222);
  • QUESTION-103, the advantage-to-ROC link (THEORY-357, THEORY-031);
  • QUESTION-114, no reading prices the terms jointly;
  • QUESTION-115, Ψ against dynamical independence (THEORY-764);
  • QUESTION-120, the shared sufficiency argument (THEORY-390, THEORY-397);
  • QUESTION-217, the commuting case (THEORY-745, THEORY-758, THEORY-774).

Status candidates among the rest.

• Dissolved: QUESTION-036. Its body asks whether it dissolved, and CLAIM-249 says the transformations are not group elements. Also the efficiency clause of QUESTION-103, once THEORY-336 is Active.
• Deferred with a set-aside line (owner’s call):
  • QUESTION-129 (authenticity);
  • QUESTION-122 (organizational affect);
  • the cross-agent half of QUESTION-128;
  • QUESTION-190, which follows QUESTION-008 (low confidence).
• Superseded, candidates only: QUESTION-021, refined into QUESTION-001 and restated by QUESTION-029. QUESTION-029 re-asks QUESTION-021 and QUESTION-002.

Repairs found.

• Active answers not linked: CLAIM-366 to QUESTION-127, CLAIM-245 to QUESTION-004, THEORY-276 to QUESTION-063, THEORY-278 to QUESTION-080.
• Stale answers links: CLAIM-047 and CLAIM-080 on QUESTION-015 (premise and supposition), THEORY-195 on QUESTION-025 (disclaims it), THEORY-527 on QUESTION-032 (the agency part moved to THEORY-801), and CLAIM-304 on QUESTION-111 (a precondition).
• Links: QUESTION-209 refines QUESTION-167, but the two are siblings. QUESTION-185 and QUESTION-186 should refine QUESTION-065 and QUESTION-063.
• Overlaps: QUESTION-232 with QUESTION-154. QUESTION-184 bundles a reading of LIT-999 that would settle one part.
• Rewording: QUESTION-091 (its own note shows “branching ratio” is mis-posed outside the linear excitatory case), QUESTION-025, QUESTION-053, QUESTION-102.
• Stale “what the record holds”: QUESTION-022, 052, 058, 067, 069, 080, 100, 114, 141, 219 and others.
• Warrant: CLAIM-392 is demonstrated on a numerical certificate.

How it was done. Five readers each took a share. Codes and statuses were then spot-checked against the files. The verdicts are the readers’ and have not been re-derived, so each split is checked again when it is filed.

---

Thirty-three works registered unread from the exchange on governance, capture and legibility

2026-10-21 02:35:31

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the exchange of 2026-10-20/21, “Branch · Synthesize Research Updates” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad81d8a-e124-83e9-b3fb-7c25f69f86f4, U1–U27). U1–U17 recommended no outside work the record does not hold. U18–U27 did, most of them in A25, which the owner asked for: “has our discussion illuminated additional contemporary literature or research we should consider engaging”. Each work filed here was looked up first, against Crossref, OpenAlex and the arXiv API, and PMLR’s pages for the three proceedings papers without a DOI. Nothing was checked against the anthology (ADR-048).

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• “Kulig & Paulussen (2025/2026), Epistemic Welfare and Algorithmic Recommender Systems” has five authors: Hyzen, Van den Bulck, Puppis, Kulig and Paulussen. The title has a subtitle, “overcoming the epistemic crisis in the digitalized public sphere”.
• Short, Hill and Brown’s title has a subtitle, “Using Antitrust Reform to Understand Expert–Public Cleavages”. It was online on 17 November 2025; the issue is June 2026.
• “Media Capture, Captured” was cited without authors. They are Barnehl and Schumacher.
• Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern’s arXiv title is singular, “Approximate Causal Abstraction”; PMLR’s is “Approximate Causal Abstractions”.
• Weatherall, O’Connor and Bruner’s arXiv title writes “Policy Makers”.
• “Rubenstein et al.” are seven authors, and the URL A25 gave is PMLR’s reissue (R15) of the UAI 2017 paper.
• A21’s figure for Di Tella and Franceschelli, “approximately 0.23 fewer front pages of scandal coverage per month” per standard deviation of government advertising, is the abstract’s. R5 could not verify it.
• Kwok’s online date, 11 October 2026, is right.
• Nothing else was wrong: the other titles, journals, years and DOIs match.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s. The replies named an author and an idea, and no paper, for these:

• A18, “Hayek’s argument about dispersed knowledge”: “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945).
• A19, “W. Brian Arthur’s work” on increasing returns: Arthur (1989).
• A20, “Timothy Thomas documents this tradition”: Thomas (2004). It is the second appearance; the curation entry of 2026-10-13 named it and did not file it.
• A20, the OECD’s definition of policy capture: Preventing Policy Capture (2017), a report.
• A20, “George Stigler’s classic account”: Stigler (1971).
• A21, McCombs and Shaw on agenda-setting (1972) and Entman on framing (1993).
• A22, A23, A25, A26, Scott’s administrative legibility: Seeing Like a State (1998).
• A22, the “later work” of Espeland and Stevens on quantification reshaping organizations: most likely Espeland and Sauder (2007), which A25 and A26 cite by name.
• A25, “Beckers and Halpern subsequently distinguish different strengths of causal abstraction”: “Abstracting Causal Models” (2019), whose abstract says exactly that.
• A24, Pohlhaus’s willful hermeneutical ignorance (Hypatia 2012), Dotson’s epistemic oppression (Social Epistemology 2014), Collins’s outsider within (Social Problems 1986) and Harding’s strong objectivity (Centennial Review 1992). A24 asked for Pohlhaus and Dotson to have entries of their own “rather than absorbing their concepts into our terminology without attribution”.

Dates decided by ADR-002.

• arXiv v1 for Weatherall et al. (2018-01-04), Perdomo et al. (2020-02-16), Kleinberg and Raghavan (2021-01-14), Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern (2019-06-27), Rubenstein et al. (2017-07-04), Beckers and Halpern (2018-12-10) and Kay et al. (2024-08-21).
• An earlier working paper under the same title, as for LIT-853: Di Tella and Franceschelli (NBER, October 2009), Bergemann and Morris (SSRN, 2017, year only) and Mostagir et al. (SSRN, 2019, year only).
• OpenAlex’s date, unconfirmed, as the earlier: Hyzen et al. (2025-07-14), Pohlhaus (2011-09-15, the early view) and Lan (2026-09-01; Crossref gives October 2026).
• Year only, the first of January: Stigler (1971), McCombs and Shaw (1972), Scott (1998), Harding (1992). Scott’s DOI is the Yale e-book, dated 2017 in Crossref; Harding’s is the 1996 Oxford reprint, the only version Crossref holds.
• Entman: December 1993, the print date. Crossref’s online date of 2006 is the archive’s digitization.
• The rest are Crossref’s full date or the first of its month.

Unconfirmed. OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar and Wikipedia refused further lookups partway through (rate limits), and JSTOR refused a script. Hayek (1945; AER 35(4): 519–530, JSTOR 1809376, which is the LIT’s url:) and Harding’s Centennial Review volume and pages are therefore the standard citations, unchecked. The summaries of Lan and of Barnehl and Schumacher are A25’s account, since Crossref carries no abstract for either and ScienceDirect refused the lookup; their LITs say so. The readings of 2026-10-21 (below) settled two of these: Hayek’s volume and pages are confirmed by the Econlib reprint, now the LIT’s url:, and Barnehl and Schumacher’s summary was checked and corrected. Lan’s is still A25’s.

Flags. Three carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005) as machine-learning papers the anthology may want: Perdomo et al., Kleinberg and Raghavan, and Kay et al. None carries an instruction for ML practice. Xu et al., registered on 2026-10-21 (below), carries it too.

Already held, not refiled. Ostrom’s Nobel lecture (LIT-719), Kamenica and Gentzkow (LIT-1021), Holman and Bruner (LIT-744), Rosas et al. (LIT-1306), Feldman and Pentland (LIT-1124, Deferred; A26 summarized it without saying it is unread), Farrell et al. (LIT-848), Fricker (LIT-1004, LIT-1046, LIT-1048, LIT-1049), Robeyns (LIT-287), Sen (LIT-282–LIT-285), Kenton et al. (LIT-909) and Frankfurt (LIT-692).

Named and not registered.

• The OECD’s “regulatory-impact framework” (A18) and its “product-market work” (A19): bodies of guidance, not a locatable work.
• Elizabeth Anderson on structural epistemic injustice (A24): no work was cited; A24 reached her through Fricker (2017), which the record holds as LIT-1048 and reads in THEORY-327.
• Helen Longino (A24, A26): no work was named, and the record holds her SEP entry (LIT-725, THEORY-151) and both books (LIT-717, LIT-732, Unavailable).
• Ostrom’s Governing the Commons, adjacent and not cited, is LIT-737, Unavailable.

Registered Deferred, none read when filed (what the reading of 2026-10-21 found for each is in the next section):

#	work	code	bears on
1	Hayek 1945	LIT-1337	CLAIM-410, NOTE-649 (A18)
2	Arthur 1989	LIT-1314	CLAIM-408, CASE-112, THEORY-429 (A19)
3	Thomas 2004	LIT-1339	CLAIM-404, THEORY-404 (A20)
4	OECD 2017	LIT-1325	TERM-066 (A20)
5	Stigler 1971	LIT-1324	TERM-066, CLAIM-404 (A20)
6	McCombs & Shaw 1972	LIT-1335	CLAIM-404 (A21)
7	Entman 1993	LIT-1332	CLAIM-404 (A21)
8	Besley & Prat 2006	LIT-1333	CLAIM-404, CASE-123 (A21)
9	Di Tella & Franceschelli 2011 (NBER 2009)	LIT-1319	CASE-123, CLAIM-404 (A21)
10	Scott 1998	LIT-1321	TERM-064, QUESTION-253, NOTE-649 (A22, A23, A25, A26)
11	Espeland & Stevens 1998	LIT-1317	TERM-064 (A22)
12	Espeland & Sauder 2007	LIT-1330	CLAIM-402, TERM-064 (A22, A25, A26)
13	Short, Hill & Brown 2026 (online 2025)	LIT-1327	TERM-066, CLAIM-404 (A25, A26)
14	Weatherall, O’Connor & Bruner 2020 (arXiv 2018)	LIT-1341	CLAIM-330, CLAIM-404 (A25, A26)
15	Perdomo et al. 2020	LIT-1336	CLAIM-402, CLAIM-407, TERM-064, CLAIM-350 (A25, A26)
16	Bergemann & Morris 2019 (SSRN 2017)	LIT-1313	CLAIM-404, THEORY-404 (A25, A26)
17	Mostagir, Ozdaglar & Siderius 2022 (SSRN 2019)	LIT-1318	QUESTION-117, CLAIM-330 (A25)
18	Kleinberg & Raghavan 2021	LIT-1326	TERM-064 (A25, A26)
19	Beckers, Eberhardt & Halpern 2020 (arXiv 2019)	LIT-1310	CLAIM-407, CLAIM-409, TERM-065, THEORY-243 (A25, A26)
20	Rubenstein et al. 2017	LIT-1334	CLAIM-407, CLAIM-409 (A25)
21	Beckers & Halpern 2019 (arXiv 2018)	LIT-1316	CLAIM-407, CLAIM-409 (A25)
22	Lan 2026	LIT-1328	TERM-064 (A25)
23	James et al. 2023	LIT-1342	TERM-064, CLAIM-403 (A25)
24	Szeidl & Szucs 2021	LIT-1315	CLAIM-404, CLAIM-407, CASE-123 (A25, A26)
25	Schram & Ule 2024	LIT-1340	CLAIM-404 (A25)
26	Barnehl & Schumacher 2024	LIT-1323	TERM-066 (A25)
27	Hyzen et al. 2026 (online 2025)	LIT-1331	CLAIM-403, TERM-064 (A25)
28	Kwok 2026	LIT-1320	CLAIM-403, CLAIM-406 (A25)
29	Kay, Kasirzadeh & Mohamed 2024	LIT-1338	CLAIM-406, THEORY-327 (A25)
30	Pohlhaus 2012	LIT-1311	CLAIM-403, CLAIM-406, NOTE-853 (A24)
31	Dotson 2014	LIT-1329	CLAIM-406, NOTE-853 (A24)
32	Collins 1986	LIT-1312	CLAIM-406, CLAIM-403 (A24)
33	Harding 1992	LIT-1322	CLAIM-403, CLAIM-406, THEORY-151 (A24)

What to read first. A25’s first priorities were Beckers et al., Perdomo et al., Mostagir et al. and the held Holman and Bruner, because “they most directly affect originality claims we were considering making.” On that advice:

1. LIT-1310, Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern, with Rubenstein et al. and Beckers and Halpern behind it: what governance-response sufficiency adds to causal abstraction.
2. LIT-1336, Perdomo et al.
3. LIT-1318, Mostagir et al.
4. LIT-1327, Short, Hill and Brown, which A25 called “arguably the most directly relevant new reference” for capture.

Open copies: every work with an arXiv identifier has one. Short et al., Kleinberg and Raghavan (PNAS, PMC8179131), Espeland and Sauder (ANU repository), James et al. (Internet Policy Review), Schram and Ule, Barnehl and Schumacher, Besley and Prat (AEA) and Hyzen et al. have open versions according to OpenAlex.

Read on 2026-10-21. The owner: “get started reading the proposed works. also this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10689”. That paper is Xu, Zhao, Song, Stewart and Ermon, “A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraints” (arXiv v1 2020-02-25, ICLR 2020), registered as LIT-1309, the thirty-fourth work, at the owner’s direct request rather than from the replies. Six readers took the thirty-four works in batches. Each looked for a lawful full text (arXiv, publisher open access, working papers, authors’ and institutional pages, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, CORE) and never a shadow library.

• Read, Active (22): Xu et al. (NOTE-1048, in full with the appendices); Perdomo et al. (NOTE-1044); Kleinberg and Raghavan (NOTE-1033); Bergemann and Morris, from the Cowles accepted manuscript (NOTE-1034); Rubenstein et al. (NOTE-1037); Beckers and Halpern (NOTE-1032); Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern (NOTE-1045); Weatherall, O’Connor and Bruner, from the authors’ manuscript (NOTE-1038); Hayek, from the Econlib reprint (NOTE-1036); Arthur, through its 1983 IIASA working paper only (NOTE-1052); the OECD report, chapters 1–2 in full and 3 in part (NOTE-1043); Schram and Ule, main text (NOTE-1053); McCombs and Shaw (NOTE-1046); Besley and Prat, from the 2005 LSE working paper (NOTE-1031); Di Tella and Franceschelli, from the NBER working paper (NOTE-1040); Szeidl and Szucs, with parts of the supplement (NOTE-1039); Barnehl and Schumacher, main text (NOTE-1047); Espeland and Sauder (NOTE-1050); James et al. (NOTE-1041); Kay, Kasirzadeh and Mohamed (NOTE-1049); Short, Hill and Brown, main text (NOTE-1051); Collins, in an authorized Portuguese translation (NOTE-1042).
• Skimmed, Active (1): Hyzen et al., in three passes of the publisher’s page (NOTE-1035).
• Unavailable (11), under ADR-041, each LIT saying where it was looked for: Mostagir, Ozdaglar and Siderius; Stigler; Thomas; Entman; Scott; Espeland and Stevens; Lan; Kwok; Pohlhaus; Dotson; Harding. No NOTE was written from an abstract.

Twenty-three NOTEs (twenty-two Read, one Skimmed) and thirty-two THEORYs, twenty-two Active and ten Proposed. Active: THEORY-846, THEORY-840, THEORY-861, THEORY-839, THEORY-835, THEORY-844, THEORY-847, THEORY-848, THEORY-849, THEORY-843, THEORY-855, THEORY-845, THEORY-863, THEORY-856, THEORY-842, THEORY-837, THEORY-851, THEORY-850, THEORY-860, THEORY-836, THEORY-862 and THEORY-833. Proposed: THEORY-853, THEORY-841, THEORY-858, THEORY-838, THEORY-852, THEORY-854, THEORY-857, THEORY-864, THEORY-859 and THEORY-834. The OECD report, a definitional and advisory work, and the skimmed Hyzen et al. yield none. From the causal-abstraction readings the record filed one claim of its own, CLAIM-399: those papers’ notions accept the hidden-bit coarse-graining that governance-response sufficiency rejects. It corrected TERM-067, which had read the profile as TERM-043’s causal component.

Corrections the readings made.

• Di Tella and Franceschelli: A21’s 0.23 fewer front pages (18%) is the published abstract’s; the working paper read gives 0.31 per standard deviation (25%). The LIT gives both.
• Barnehl and Schumacher: the measure has two poles, regime-owned and uncoercible opposition outlets, not one, and the country is Nicaragua; the paper defines capture by coercion and measures alignment.
• Bergemann and Morris: §3.3’s strategic-substitutes rule (p_B = x + ε, r_B = 0) is infeasible under its own assumption (x > ½, |ε| ≤ x − ½); the linear programme’s optimum is p_B = x/(1 − 2ε), r_B = 2p_B − 1. It is right only for x + ε ≤ ½. Found in the accepted manuscript; the published text was not compared.
• Schram and Ule: the text’s “only 50% invest by period 5” without capture does not match their Table 4 (63% and 84%).
• Short, Hill and Brown: the introduction says “four times” and the analysis “seven times” for the same gap.
• Arthur: the 1989 article was not reached; the reading is of the 1983 working paper, a different text, and A19’s citation is accurate to it.
• Smaller ones, in the LITs and NOTEs: McCombs and Shaw’s summary (an aggregate correlation, not yet committed voters, the authors’ hedge); the OECD definition includes the captor’s intent; Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern weight low-level implementations of one high-level intervention, not the interventions; James et al.’s summary sharpened; slips in Xu et al., Beckers and Halpern, Beckers, Eberhardt and Halpern, Besley and Prat, Szeidl and Szucs and Weatherall et al. noted where found.

The connections the readings bear on are applied to this PR’s entries (TERM-064, TERM-066, TERM-067, TERM-065, CLAIM-407, CLAIM-409, CLAIM-404, CLAIM-406, CLAIM-403, CLAIM-402, CLAIM-408, CLAIM-410, CASE-125, CASE-123, QUESTION-253) and, as dated notes, to the held entries the changelog lists.

Left for the owner.

• Four Unavailable works a browser could reach, where a script was refused: Dotson’s French translation on Érudit (LIT-1329; bot check), Harding on a Waseda faculty page (LIT-1322; Cloudflare), Mostagir et al. on Deep Blue (LIT-1318; Cloudflare), and Thomas on an RIT page (LIT-1339; did not connect). A copy supplied would unblock each; Mostagir et al. would settle the novelty check QUESTION-117 still owes. Kwok (LIT-1320) was online ten days and may reach a repository.
• THEORY-862 (Espeland and Sauder) and THEORY-833 (Short, Hill and Brown) are Active under ADR-047 v3’s one-study rule, titles scoped to the study; the first is an interview study whose quantitative links are cited, not shown, and the second was read without its online appendix. Downgrade either to Proposed if v3 is read more narrowly.
• Arthur (LIT-1314) is Active on a reading of its precursor. Keep it Deferred or Unavailable with the working paper noted, if that is judged too generous.

---

Twenty-two works registered unread from the exchange on experience and interpretation; the unidentified left out

2026-10-21 21:27:24

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the exchange of 2026-10-21, “Experience And Interpretation” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad92c62-4dd0-83e9-9056-fcffd5957cf2; workbench entry of 2026-10-21). The exchange cited or named about forty works. The twenty-two the record lacked, and could identify, are registered here, none read. Each was checked first against Crossref, or against PubMed, the Stanford Encyclopedia’s own page or the publisher’s page. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• The IWMT paper’s title ends “and the Human Consciousness Hypothesis (HCH)”; A6 dropped “(HCH)”.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s.

• A3 said the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on higher-order theories “was substantively updated in January 2026”, without a link. The record took Carruthers and Gennaro’s entry, revised 2026-01-09.
• A6 named “Woods, Windt, and Carter” without a title. Of their two 2022 syntheses in Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, the record took the one on whether contentless experiences are contentless (doi:10.1007/s11097-022-09811-z). The other, “The path to contentless experience in meditation” (doi:10.1007/s11097-022-09812-y), draws on the same expert texts for techniques and interim states, and is not filed.
• A2 cited Putnam’s externalism about the brain in a vat without a work. The record took “Brains in a vat”, chapter 1 of Reason, Truth and History (1981).

Dates. Seven works have an earlier preprint, and published: takes it under ADR-002: Whyte et al. (arXiv), Laukkonen et al., Barrett et al. and Lee-Youngzie et al. (PsyArXiv), Bo et al. and Chandia-Jorquera et al. (bioRxiv; Bo et al.’s under a different title), and Woods et al. (PsyArXiv). Gurnee et al. keep the page’s date, 2026-07-06, before the arXiv copy of 2026-07-16. Putnam’s chapter keeps Crossref’s 1981-12-31, a year placeholder, as LIT-717 and LIT-732 do. No source reached gives a day. Villalobos and Cea’s abstract could not be reached, so their summary follows the exchange, as the history note says.

Already held, not filed again: COGITATE (LIT-973), Luppi et al. 2024 (LIT-949), Botvinick and Cohen (LIT-1277), the rubber hand illusion’s demand-characteristics papers (LIT-1276, LIT-1280), Barrett’s 2017 statement of constructed emotion (LIT-542), Frankish (LIT-458) and Chalmers’s meta-problem (LIT-425).

Left out. A3’s January 2026 review of Charles Bonnet syndrome and its source on somatoparaphrenia were cited without title or author and could not be identified with confidence. A3’s sources on cognitive reappraisal and CBT were cited by search reference only. The philosophers named without a work (Tye, Dretske, Kriegel, Mendelovici, Rosenthal, Varela, Thompson, Noë, O’Regan, Friston, Hohwy, Clark, Worrall, Ladyman) are not registered. A work is not chosen for them here.

One work carries anthology-candidate (ADR-005): Gurnee et al., on a functional global workspace in language models. It is filed here for QUESTION-048 and the overgeneration side of QUESTION-254. It carries no instruction for ML practice.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

LIT	work	published	cited at
LIT-1364	Whyte, On the minimal theory of consciousness implicit in active inference	2024-10-09	U3
LIT-1363	Laukkonen, A beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness	2024-09-08	U3
LIT-1353	Barrett, The Theory of Constructed Emotion: More Than a Feeling	2025-01-23	U3
LIT-1355	Lycan, Representational Theories of Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)	2000-05-22	U3
LIT-1362	Carruthers, Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)	2001-04-03	U3
LIT-1359	Bo, A systems identification approach using Bayes factors to deconstruct the brain bases of emotion regulation	2023-04-27	U3
LIT-1358	Graziano, Illusionism Big and Small: Some Options for Explaining Consciousness	2024-10-29	U4
LIT-1344	Lyre, Neurophenomenal structuralism. A philosophical agenda for a structuralist neuroscience of consciousness	2022-08-23	U4
LIT-1361	Isaac, Phenomenal structure: What is it and what is it for?	2025-12-10	U4
LIT-1346	Negro, Three arguments against metaphysical structuralism in consciousness research	2025-06-19	U4
LIT-1352	Lee-Youngzie, Towards a Mathematical Structure of Global Phenomenal Consciousness	2024-11-06	U6
LIT-1360	Gładziejewski, Real patterns, the predictive mind, and the cognitive construction of the manifest image	2025-10-22	U6
LIT-1345	Safron, Integrated World Modeling Theory (IWMT) and the Human Consciousness Hypothesis (HCH)	2026-05-18	U6
LIT-1357	Luppi, Convergent transcriptomic and connectomic controllers of information integration and its anaesthetic breakdown across mammalian brains	2026-01-28	U6
LIT-1349	He, Report-modulated prefrontal activity and consistent posterior representations during conscious visual perception	2026-05-31	U6
LIT-1347	Gurnee, Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models	2026-07-06	U6
LIT-1348	Aldé, Two geometrical arguments against similarity structuralism	2026-05-04	U6
LIT-1354	Chandia-Jorquera, Distilling the Neurophenomenological Signatures of Pure Awareness during Transcendental Meditation	2025-09-29	U6
LIT-1351	Woods, Evidence synthesis indicates contentless experiences in meditation are neither truly contentless nor identical	2021-11-01	U6
LIT-1350	Villalobos, The explanatory ground of the brainbound view of consciousness: A reply to enactive embodied externalism	2026-09-22	U6
LIT-1356	Ward, What Is Enactivism?	2026-05-20	U6
LIT-1343	Putnam, Brains in a vat	1981-12-31	U2

---

The exchange’s twenty-two works sought: eighteen read, four Unavailable; nineteen Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected

2026-10-22 02:07:24

The owner asked for the readings registered from the exchange on experience and interpretation (curation entry of 2026-10-21) to be added “where you can find them”. Every work was sought on 2026-10-22, using lawful copies only.

How they were read. Seven sub-agents of this session each took two to five works under a shared brief. Each one:

• looked for a lawful full text through OpenAlex and Unpaywall, then the publisher, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, arXiv, bioRxiv, PsyArXiv/OSF and authors’ repositories;
• read every line except reference lists;
• filed a NOTE and a THEORY for each distinct assertion;
• checked every quotation attributed to a work against its extracted text by script.

Each NOTE’s history names the copy read. Where a version of record was closed, the preprint or accepted manuscript was read, and the NOTE says so. That applies to Whyte et al., Laukkonen et al., Bo et al., Chandia-Jorquera et al., Woods et al. and Ward. No reading claims more than its copy.

Outcomes. Eighteen read; four Unavailable under ADR-041.

LIT	work	outcome	NOTE	THEORY (all Proposed)
LIT-1364	Whyte et al. 2026	Read (arXiv v2)	NOTE-1062	THEORY-883
LIT-1363	Laukkonen et al. 2025	Read (PsyArXiv v3)	NOTE-1063	THEORY-882
LIT-1345	Safron et al. 2026	Read	NOTE-1057	THEORY-876
LIT-1353	Barrett et al. 2025	Read	NOTE-1067	none
LIT-1359	Bo et al. 2024	Read (bioRxiv v2)	NOTE-1061	THEORY-878, THEORY-871
LIT-1355	Lycan, SEP	Read	NOTE-1068	THEORY-879
LIT-1362	Carruthers & Gennaro, SEP	Read	NOTE-1066	none
LIT-1344	Lyre 2022	Read	NOTE-1060	THEORY-880
LIT-1346	Negro 2025	Read	NOTE-1054	THEORY-868
LIT-1348	Aldé 2026	Read	NOTE-1055	THEORY-867
LIT-1361	Isaac 2025	Unavailable (access)	—	—
LIT-1352	Lee-Youngzie et al. 2026	Read	NOTE-1059	THEORY-875
LIT-1360	Gładziejewski 2025	Read	NOTE-1056	THEORY-872, THEORY-877
LIT-1358	Graziano 2024	Read	NOTE-1071	THEORY-873
LIT-1357	Luppi et al. 2026	Read	NOTE-1064	THEORY-881
LIT-1349	He et al. 2026	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1347	Gurnee et al. 2026	Read (main text; appendices in part)	NOTE-1069	THEORY-865, THEORY-869
LIT-1354	Chandia-Jorquera et al. 2026	Read (bioRxiv v3)	NOTE-1058	THEORY-870
LIT-1351	Woods et al. 2022	Read (submitted manuscript)	NOTE-1070	THEORY-866
LIT-1350	Villalobos & Cea 2026	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1356	Ward 2026	Read (accepted manuscript)	NOTE-1065	THEORY-874
LIT-1343	Putnam 1981	Unavailable (access: lending copy only)	—	—

Two works got no THEORY. Barrett et al.’s claims are already held as THEORY-057 and THEORY-045. The higher-order survey argues for no thesis of its own.

What the reading corrected in the exchange. Each correction is recorded in the work’s LIT.

• IWMT does not require current sensory coupling. Imagination runs on the same world model “decoupled from sense-data”. What it needs is a capacity for coupling and a history of it.
• Ward never discusses brains in vats, development or grounding. The developmental objection credited to him is the exchange’s. His objection is organicist.
• Barrett et al. never mention CBT or reappraisal.
• In Bo et al., most emotion-responsive regions, cortical ones included, were unchanged by reappraisal, not only a subcortical system.
• Representationalism is nearest the constitutive thesis only on the character of experience.
• Lee-Youngzie et al. formalize binding, not unity, and their worked topology is wrong as printed.
• Gładziejewski does not say that the self-model exaggerates its unity.
• Graziano’s “small” illusionism still denies phenomenal essence.
• Chandia-Jorquera et al. found no link between content ratings and the EEG.
• Woods et al.’s preprint is on MindRxiv, not PsyArXiv.

What it did to the argument. Dated notes of 2026-10-22 on CLAIM-412, CLAIM-411, CLAIM-414, CLAIM-413, QUESTION-254, QUESTION-255, TERM-072, TERM-073 and CLAIM-355 record the bearing of each reading.

• The thesis. None of the eighteen supports the constitutive identity. Several offer rival identities or bridges.
• The objection. Every reading that bears on the counter-claim supports it.
• The demonstrated claim. Gurnee et al. supply a real-system parallel to its first separation.
• The unity question. The Penrose tribar is a candidate case of non-gluing within one percept. That inference is the record’s own.

Left for the owner. Three readers flagged follow-ups on entries outside this batch, not made here:

• adding Barrett et al. 2025 as a source of THEORY-057;
• THEORY-056’s promote_when rules out network differences, which makes it effectively untestable by imaging, and Bo et al. are the first data on the dispute;
• THEORY-240’s promote_when could ask that restored integration be shown on the gateway side, after Luppi et al.

Unavailable.

• He et al. (Consciousness and Cognition) is a subscription article with no lawful copy found.
• Villalobos and Cea is closed, with no preprint found.
• Isaac’s journal is gold open access, but its host reset every connection on 2026-10-22. It is the one to retry first.
• Putnam’s chapter is in the Internet Archive’s lending library only.

---

Twenty-three works registered unread from the exchange “Graph Learning Applications”; the already held cited, and the unidentified and the tooling left out

2026-10-22 10:38:23

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Graph Learning Applications” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad9dfd2-3ed0-83e9-9abe-4e12e94cbdd7; workbench entries of 2026-10-22, 10:38:20 for U1–U19 and 10:38:21 for U20–U40). The exchange named well over a hundred works. Twenty-three the record lacked, could identify, and needs for what it filed are registered here, none read. Each was checked first against Crossref, or against the source’s own page. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• A25’s “2001 Government Accountability Office review” and “January 2002 review” are taken to be one report, GAO-02-195 of 30 January 2002, whose survey ran in 2001. GAO was then the General Accounting Office.
• A35’s reading of Penglase, that the traditions’ social positions “significantly affected their relative commercial and cultural fortunes”, is the exchange’s. The paper’s abstract is about how the matches racialized jiu-jitsu as white. The case says which is which.
• A39 offered Vilone and Polizzi as new. They are LIT-939, read and held as THEORY-242, and are not registered again.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s.

• A25 named the NTSB’s findings on United 173 without the report; the record took NTSB-AAR-79-7, hosted by the FAA. Its adoption date, 7 June 1979, is from a secondary listing.
• A23 and A24 cited “the Jensen Hughes” review of Brookhollow without a title or link. The document was not reached; the record cites it by the county’s project page and its presentation date, 16 December 2024, and gives it a descriptive title.
• A39 cited Cooley’s looking-glass self as “Cooley’s 1902 account”; the record took Human Nature and the Social Order in its Project Gutenberg transcription.
• A15 dated The Ledger of Will to September 2026. The page gives no date or personal author; the record takes its last-modified date, 25 September 2026, and Aevyra as author.

Dates. Lerman et al. take their arXiv posting, 9 June 2015, before PLOS ONE. Acharya, Blackwell and Sen take their 2014 SSRN working paper, year only, under ADR-002’s earlier-date rule. Putnam 1988 and Cooley 1902 are year-only, as the record’s other year-only dates (-01-01, meaning the year). Ten works have the issue month only and take its first day.

Already held, cited and not filed again: List on group consciousness (LIT-401) and on group attitudes (LIT-700, read in NOTE-554, whose §3.6 is the “attributed collective attitude” A39 proposed); Vilone and Polizzi (LIT-939); the Columbia board’s chapter (LIT-734) and Vaughan (LIT-715); Argyris (LIT-745, LIT-739); Rasmussen (LIT-743); Tollefsen (LIT-736); Schwitzgebel (LIT-159); Strawson’s “Against Narrativity” (LIT-452); Barandiaran, Di Paolo and Rohde (LIT-566); Clark and Chalmers (LIT-097); Dennett (LIT-442); Metzinger (LIT-467, LIT-568); Shipman and Marshall (LIT-756); Bratman (LIT-567); ACT (LIT-555); DBT (LIT-1221); Longino (LIT-725); Kamenica and Gentzkow (LIT-1021); Barnett and Seth (LIT-979); Propp (LIT-828); Schram and Ule (LIT-1340); Arthur (LIT-1314); Gross 1998 (LIT-554); Hacking (LIT-475, a different work from the looping-effects paper the exchange meant).

Left out.

• Tooling, not argument. The narrative-planning, narrative-extraction, portfolio and graph-optimization works of A4 (Cardona-Rivera et al.; Keith and Mitra, arXiv:2009.04508; Klerkx and Pelsser, doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.02.007; Vieira et al., doi:10.1016/j.plas.2023.100115; Keith-Norambuena and Flores-Bustos, doi:10.3390/analytics5020018; Tuckett et al.’s conviction narrative theory; Dahlstrom 2014; an unverified QAOA paper). They bear on how manuscripts might be selected, which the record holds only as a question (QUESTION-258).
• Not identified with confidence. Teemu Lari (2024), cited for goals of inquiry; Nick Hughes on epistemic feedback loops; Bodner and Prelec on self-signaling; Pettit’s work with the alcohol cupboard; a 2026 paper on organizational attention; a 2023 split-brain study; Badre’s 2025 review; the judo and taekwondo rule-change studies; Moenig and Kim on taekwondo; the fireground reports for Berkeley, Leonardtown and Cobb County, whose key details could not be verified.
• Named, not needed for what was filed. Pettit’s Consciousness Incorporated; Takahashi’s “Group Well-Being and the Consciousness Requirement” (The Philosophical Quarterly, 2026, doi:10.1093/pq/pqag015), identified but cited only as a novelty threat; Ocasio’s attention-based view; Allison; Tsebelis; Maxwell and Shields; Fligstein and McAdam; Emirbayer; Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury; Mahoney and Thelen; Wacquant’s Body & Soul; Beauchez; Spencer; Brown and Jennings; Sánchez García and Malcolm; Cui-Laughton, Brummans and Cooren (doi:10.1177/08933189251395078); Bowker and Star; the Google SRE book; Sacks on Wearing; Eminem’s “The Way I Am”, which is not a LIT. Each can be registered when a claim needs it.
• The manuscript. A34’s “The Organization of Perspective”, about 8,000 words with 23 references, is not filed. Its references overlap the registrations above.

One work carries anthology-candidate (ADR-005): The Ledger of Will, on memory for language-model agents. It is filed here for CLAIM-295 and QUESTION-112. It carries no instruction for ML practice.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

LIT	work	published
LIT-1379	Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order	1902-01-01
LIT-1371	NTSB, Aircraft Accident Report: United Airlines … Portland, Oregon, December 28, 1978	1979-06-07
LIT-1367	Swidler, Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies	1986-04-01
LIT-1393	Rogers Commission, Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident	1986-06-06
LIT-1375	Putnam, Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games	1988-01-01
LIT-1381	Taylor, Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in Abeyance	1989-10-01
LIT-1383	Sewell, A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation	1992-07-01
LIT-1370	Prentice, Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus	1993-02-01
LIT-1369	Wilson, Dense amnesia in a professional musician following herpes simplex virus encephalitis	1995-10-01
LIT-1386	Helmreich, The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training in Commercial Aviation	1999-01-01
LIT-1372	Pierson, Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics	2000-06-01
LIT-1378	U.S. General Accounting Office, NASA: Better Mechanisms Needed for Sharing Lessons Learned	2002-01-30
LIT-1389	Bénabou, Willpower and Personal Rules	2004-08-01
LIT-1366	Abbott, Linked Ecologies	2005-09-01
LIT-1368	Wilson, Prominent and persistent loss of past awareness in amnesia	2008-11-01
LIT-1388	Acharya, The Political Legacy of American Slavery	2014-01-01
LIT-1390	Lerman, The Majority Illusion in Social Networks	2015-06-09
LIT-1377	Wacquant, A Concise Genealogy and Anatomy of Habitus	2016-02-01
LIT-1380	Schickler, Racial Realignment	2016-04-26
LIT-1365	FEMA, National Incident Management System, Third Edition	2017-10-01
LIT-1374	Jensen Hughes, review of the Brookhollow Apartments fire response	2024-12-16
LIT-1391	Penglase, The Unspoken Whiteness of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu	2025-12-11
LIT-1376	Aevyra, The Ledger of Will	2026-09-25

---

Six works registered unread from the branch of “Graph Learning Applications”, on the doorway effect and Shaolin martial arts

2026-10-22 16:33:54

The owner asked for the record to be updated for the branch of the exchange of 2026-10-22 (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ada3a18-6ee8-83ea-8255-9b4a91b2a86a; workbench entry of 2026-10-22, 16:33:52). The branch cited works on the doorway effect, event cognition and Shaolin martial arts. Six are registered here, none read. Each was checked against Crossref, with its abstract where Crossref or OpenAlex holds one. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

Corrections the lookup made to the exchange.

• The classic doorway paper’s subtitle is “Situation models and experienced space”, not “mental space”.
• Su’s study of Shaolin, cited as 2019, is a 2016 article in The International Journal of the History of Sport, reprinted as a chapter in 2019. Its abstract dates the restriction of Shaolin martial arts to the whole Mao era, 1949–1978, not to the Cultural Revolution alone.

Identifications that are the record’s, not the exchange’s.

• A37 cited “Event Segmentation Theory” by name; the record took Zacks et al. (2007).
• A37’s “2021 investigation” with “no significant doorway-induced forgetting across four experiments” is McFadyen et al., “Doorways do not always cause forgetting”.
• A37’s “2016 investigation” is Pettijohn and Radvansky, and the return-to-the-room finding is Radvansky, Krawietz and Tamplin (2011).

Already held, cited and not filed again: De Jaegher and Di Paolo, “Participatory sense-making” (LIT-571); Barandiaran, Di Paolo and Rohde (LIT-566); Botvinick, Niv and Barto (LIT-581, read as THEORY-688); Minsky’s K-lines (NOTE-352).

Left out. A 2026 virtual-reality study of event boundaries and a study of taijiquan’s change from master–disciple teaching to standardized coaching, both cited without author or title; histories of the “Four Olds” campaign and of Shaolin tourism cited by search reference only.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

LIT	work	published
LIT-1392	Radvansky, Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Situation models and experienced space	2006-07-01
LIT-1382	Zacks, Event perception: A mind-brain perspective	2007-03-01
LIT-1384	Radvansky, Walking through Doorways Causes Forgetting: Further Explorations	2011-08-01
LIT-1373	Su, Reconstruction of Tradition: Modernity, Tourism and Shaolin Martial Arts in the Shaolin Scenic Area, China	2016-06-12
LIT-1385	Pettijohn, Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Event structure or updating disruption?	2016-11-01
LIT-1387	McFadyen, Doorways do not always cause forgetting: a multimodal investigation	2021-03-08

---

The twenty-nine works from “Graph Learning Applications” sought: twenty-one read or skimmed, eight Unavailable; seven Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected

2026-10-22 21:36:26

After the exchange “Graph Learning Applications” was filed (curation entries 10:38:23 and 16:33:54), the owner asked for its registered works to be read. All twenty-nine were sought on 2026-10-22, from lawful copies only.

How they were read. Six sub-agents of this session each took three to six works under a shared brief:

• look for a lawful full text through Unpaywall and OpenAlex, then the publisher, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, arXiv, government sites, Project Gutenberg and authors’ or institutions’ pages;
• file a NOTE that says how deeply the work was read, and a THEORY only where the work establishes something the record does not hold;
• check every quotation by script against the fetched text.

The social-theory agent stopped twice on an API error before finishing its quotation check, and this session finished it: every quotation in its four NOTEs and its THEORY was found in the fetched texts, allowing for OCR errors in the French scan and for p. 277 of Swidler, which was read from the page image.

Each NOTE’s history names the copy read. Two works were read only through a precursor, and their NOTEs say so: Pierson’s 1997 working paper for the 2000 article, and two texts Abbott posts for the 2005 article. Four long works are Skimmed, with the parts read listed: Rogers (volume 1, chapters V to VIII and the recommendations), NIMS (command and coordination), Cooley (chapters I, III, V, VI and VIII), and Abbott.

Outcomes.

LIT	work	outcome	NOTE	THEORY (Proposed)
LIT-1392	Radvansky & Copeland 2006	Read	NOTE-1083	THEORY-888
LIT-1384	Radvansky, Krawietz & Tamplin 2011	Read	NOTE-1082	THEORY-888
LIT-1385	Pettijohn & Radvansky 2016	Read	NOTE-1081	THEORY-888
LIT-1387	McFadyen et al. 2021	Read	NOTE-1079	THEORY-888
LIT-1382	Zacks et al. 2007	Read	NOTE-1084	THEORY-886
LIT-1390	Lerman, Yan & Wu 2016	Read	NOTE-1085	THEORY-887
LIT-1379	Cooley 1902	Skimmed	NOTE-1080	none
LIT-1369	Wilson, Baddeley & Kapur 1995	Unavailable (availability)	none	none
LIT-1368	Wilson, Kopelman & Kapur 2008	Unavailable (availability)	none	none
LIT-1370	Prentice & Miller 1993	Unavailable (availability)	none	none
LIT-1389	Bénabou & Tirole 2004	Unavailable (access)	none	none
LIT-1393	Rogers Commission 1986	Skimmed	NOTE-1090	none
LIT-1378	GAO-02-195	Read	NOTE-1088	none
LIT-1371	NTSB AAR-79-7	Read	NOTE-1086	none
LIT-1386	Helmreich, Merritt & Wilhelm 1999	Read	NOTE-1087	none
LIT-1374	Jensen Hughes, Brookhollow review	Read	NOTE-1073	none
LIT-1365	NIMS, third edition	Skimmed	NOTE-1072	none
LIT-1367	Swidler 1986	Read	NOTE-1075	THEORY-890
LIT-1383	Sewell 1992	Read	NOTE-1078	none
LIT-1377	Wacquant 2016	Read	NOTE-1074	none
LIT-1366	Abbott 2005	Skimmed (2003 precursor)	NOTE-1077	none
LIT-1381	Taylor 1989	Unavailable	none	none
LIT-1372	Pierson 2000	Read (1997 precursor)	NOTE-1076	THEORY-885
LIT-1388	Acharya, Blackwell & Sen 2016	Read	NOTE-1089	THEORY-889
LIT-1375	Putnam 1988	Unavailable (access)	none	none
LIT-1380	Schickler 2016	Unavailable (access)	none	none
LIT-1391	Penglase 2025	Read	NOTE-1092	none
LIT-1376	The Ledger of Will	Read	NOTE-1091	THEORY-884
LIT-1373	Su 2016	Unavailable (access)	none	none

What the reading corrected. Dated notes record each correction on the entry it touches. The main ones:

• Three case titles were wrong about their sources.
  • CASE-136: the doorway effect falls on the object carried through, not on the one set down.
  • CASE-127: the NTSB did not find that the United 173 crew knew the fuel was running out; it found the fuel was not monitored against time.
  • CASE-135: the Brookhollow mayday was a stair roof collapsing on two companies, with no firefighter injuries reported, not four firefighters caught.
• Sources cited for what they do not say.
  • Helmreich et al. never say CRM kept the captain’s command (CASE-127); the documented source is the NTSB’s recommendation X-79-17.
  • GAO-02-195 is about the Mars failures and never discusses Challenger (CASE-138, CLAIM-422).
  • The Rogers report recommends the 1986 safety office but does not record it (CASE-138).
• An earlier correction undone in part. The commercial reading of the Gracie and luta livre rivalry, set down on 2026-10-22 as the exchange’s, is in Penglase’s body, though not his abstract (CASE-130).
• Two sources cited together disagree. Swidler’s repertoire is explicitly not dispositional and Wacquant’s habitus is (CLAIM-417).
• Two phenomena run together. The majority illusion is a skewed sample seen accurately, pluralistic ignorance a misjudgement of what others hold; the exchange and Lerman et al. both conflate them (CLAIM-415).
• The interruption claim’s doorway illustration fits interference better than activation interruption, and returning to the room did not reinstate access (CLAIM-421). The claim’s defeater already allowed for losing the illustration.

Not found, and why.

• Failed on availability: Wilson 1995 and 2008, Prentice & Miller and Taylor. No lawful copy was found anywhere searched.
• Failed on access: Bénabou & Tirole, Putnam, Schickler and Su. Each status note names the copy the owner could reach by hand: Bénabou’s own posted copy behind a bot check, a lending-library copy of Schickler, and publisher pages.

A difference in practice, for the owner. The record has read from publishers’ PDFs posted on instructors’ course pages before (curation entries of 2026-10-03, 2026-10-04 and 2026-10-16), and Swidler and Sewell were read that way here. The politics agent declined the same kind of copy for Putnam and for Pierson’s 2000 article, judging that a course page shows no sign of permission. The two practices are inconsistent. Whether course copies count as lawful for this record is the owner’s call. If they do, Putnam and the 2000 Pierson can be read next.

Left out. No reading carried an instruction for machine-learning practice. The Ledger of Will keeps its anthology-candidate flag; its proposals are untested. Its five sibling papers are not registered.

---

The works cited in the two exchanges of 2026-10-22 and 2026-10-23: twenty-two registered unread, one read in full, three Unavailable, and what checking the abstracts corrected

2026-10-23 03:21:17

The exchanges “Ben Franklin Effect Explained” (workbench 2026-10-23, 03:12:24) and “Framework Overview Request” (03:12:25) cited about thirty outside works. This entry records what became of them.

Four results the owner asked to be filed as chains (CASE, then THEORY, then QUESTION; U8: “CLAIM or THEORY that answers the QUESTION”). Each was sought in full before any THEORY was written, since the record files a THEORY from a reading.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Bigand et al. 2024, dance synchrony	Read in full (Europe PMC, CC BY)	LIT-1424, NOTE-1093, CASE-149, THEORY-891 answering QUESTION-063 in part
Schulz-Hardt et al. 2006, dissent in hidden profiles	Unavailable, on access: the authors’ working paper exists in the Wayback Machine, which this client cannot reach	LIT-1409; dated notes on QUESTION-089 and CASE-108 from the abstract
Mojzisch and Schulz-Hardt 2010, knowing others’ preferences	Unavailable, on availability	LIT-1403; same notes
Jacobs and Campbell 1961, an arbitrary tradition	Unavailable, on access: a lending-library copy only	LIT-1423; dated notes on QUESTION-118 and CASE-101

Twenty-two works registered unread, each checked against Crossref, arXiv or the source itself, with the summary from the abstract:

• From the Ben Franklin exchange: Franklin’s Autobiography (LIT-1402; the borrowed-book passage was checked in the Gutenberg text), Jecker and Landy, Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 and 2008, Paluck, Green and Green, Pettigrew 1998, Kalla and Broockman, Kleinman, Liu and Redding, Oneal, Russett and Berbaum, Barbieri, Copeland, McDonald, Farrell and Newman, and Feng, Huang, Li and Meissner’s 2026 NBER working paper.
• From the framework exchange, for the notes on the proposed studies: Friedkin 2011/2012, Seeley et al., Nisbett and Wilson, Johansson et al., Lu, Yuan and McLeod, and three mixture-of-experts works (Li et al., Switch Transformers, auxiliary-loss-free balancing), the last three carrying anthology-candidate.

What the abstracts corrected in the exchanges.

• Paluck, Green and Green: studies of adults’ racial or ethnic prejudice are absent, not “limited”; the paper first appeared in 2017, not 2019.
• Pettigrew 1998: the abstract says “ingroup reappraisal”; “deprovincialization” is unchecked.
• Kleinman, Liu and Redding: first appeared in 2020; the abstract names no outcome measure, so the exchange’s UN voting and rivalries are unchecked.
• Kalla and Broockman: “durable” is at least four months, the effects are small (d = 0.08 and 0.04), and only Experiment 1 had an argument-only arm.
• Pettigrew and Tropp 2008: knowledge still mediates, less strongly than anxiety and empathy.

Not filed.

• The Byzantine-robust federated-learning comparison A5 cited: not identified with confidence. The best match, Li, Sun and Zheng, “An Experimental Study of Byzantine-Robust Aggregation Schemes in Federated Learning” (arXiv 2302.07173), is the owner’s to confirm.
• The 2016 generalization meta-analysis and the 2024 negative-contact meta-analysis A4 cited without authors; the “recent review” A1 cited for the Ben Franklin effect’s replication record.
• Allport’s The Nature of Prejudice.

Copies only the owner can reach. Schulz-Hardt et al.’s working paper (an archived LMU copy, and a record in Göttingen’s repository behind a bot check), and Jacobs and Campbell in a lending library.

---

Corporate psychopathy: eight works sought, two read in full, six Unavailable, and what the reading changed in the claim

2026-10-23 05:18:04

The owner asked on 2026-10-23 how the record stood on “corporate psychopathy”, “qua treating the corporation as a sociopathic entity”, and then to file what it lacked. The record held the corporate-agency readings (French, Pettit, List and Pettit, Huebner, Floridi) and nothing on the thesis itself or the clinical construct. This entry records the works sought for it.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Wells Fargo independent directors, Sales Practices Investigation Report (2017)	Read in full, 113 pp., from the UCLA mirror; the bank’s own URL is dead	LIT-1425, NOTE-1095, documented CASE-151
Hare and Neumann 2008, psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct	Read in full, from the copy on Hare’s own site	LIT-1428, NOTE-1094, THEORY-892
Bakan 2004, The Corporation	Unavailable; filed from the publisher’s description and the Publishers Weekly review	LIT-1430
Velasquez 1983, why corporations are not morally responsible	Unavailable; PhilArchive behind a bot check	LIT-1429
Velasquez 2003, debunking corporate moral responsibility	Unavailable; abstract only	LIT-1432
Hare 1996, psychopathy as a clinical construct	Unavailable; the author’s ResearchGate upload returned 403	LIT-1427
Boddy 2011, the corporate psychopaths theory of the financial crisis	Unavailable; filed from the abstract, to separate psychopaths in corporations from the psychopathic corporation	LIT-1431
Collins 2019, Group Duties	Unavailable; filed from the abstract	LIT-1426

What the two readings changed. The first draft of the record’s claim said a corporation has nothing that “registers” the costs it imposes on others. The Wells Fargo report showed that wrong: the bank held the signals for twelve years (a 2004 internal investigation, a 2012 HR project, ethics-line trends, a deleted termination count) and none had authority over the sales model. The claim now speaks of authority, after CLAIM-349. The report also showed the harm earned little, so Bakan’s mechanism, harm done when its benefits outweigh its costs, is not needed and is not what happened there.

Hare and Neumann’s review deny that the construct has an essential component: the affective features are tied to the antisocial ones. So a corporation that shows only the conduct matches part of the construct, to a degree, and sits nearer the behaviour-led diagnosis. That went into the claim’s third part and strengthened the objection.

Not done. CASE-014 (Microsoft) stays Deferred; the documented case is Wells Fargo instead, because a public investigation of the firm’s own conduct exists for it. The Wells Fargo reader sent the owner’s email address once to sec.gov, as the contact in a User-Agent header for one request; it should not have, and it read a mirror instead.

Copies only the owner can reach. Velasquez 1983 and 2003 (PhilArchive may hold a copy behind its bot check), Hare 1996 (the author’s ResearchGate upload), Bakan and Collins in print.

Revised the same day, at the owner’s correction. The note above says the claim was moved to “in part”, nearer the behaviour-led diagnosis, because a corporation shows only the conduct. The owner: “one of the specific things our framework equips us to do is to assign affect to corporation-like things.” CLAIM-039, Deferred since 2026-10-04 with reopening left to the owner, is Proposed again on that word. The claim now assigns psychopathy’s affective features functionally, after Frijda (THEORY-055): a harm to others reaching the corporation’s decisions as one of its own concerns is functional remorse, and reaching them only as a threat to its other concerns is functional fear. A corporation with only the second has threat without remorse, which is the construct’s profile across both factors, not part of it. The objection was rewritten to the point that now carries weight: that for a corporation, whose every concern was installed for its own ends, remorse may not be distinguishable from prudence.

---

Prior art for valence as ordering-potential: eight works, three read through lawful stand-ins, one Deferred, and what the reading corrected before filing

2026-10-23 14:25:33

The owner’s reframing of valence as ordering-potential (drafted as hedonic valence, revised to goal-conduciveness valence the same day) (CLAIM-440, TERM-076, CLAIM-436, CLAIM-435) was drafted on 2026-10-23 with three works named as prior art to read before filing. None of the three target papers reached a lawful copy, and each was read through later work by the same authors, as LIT-718 stands in for LIT-742.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Carver and Scheier 1990, affect as a control process	Unavailable: APA closed, only a ResearchGate upload found	LIT-1441
Carver 2018, control theory, goal attainment and psychopathology	Read in full, NIH author manuscript (PMC6707771)	LIT-1449, NOTE-1102
Carver 2003, pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else	Deferred, not yet sought	LIT-1445
Cacioppo and Berntson 1994, evaluative space	Unavailable: the author’s reprint page now returns 404; Wayback captures exist that this client cannot reach	LIT-1453
Cacioppo, Gardner and Berntson 1997, beyond bipolar conceptualizations	Unavailable, as above	LIT-1456
Norris, Gollan, Berntson and Cacioppo 2010, the structure of evaluative space	Read in full, NIH author manuscript (PMC2894997)	LIT-1438, NOTE-1101
Debreu 1954, representation of a preference ordering	Unavailable: no file at Cowles, the reprint paid	LIT-1454
Debreu 1959, Theory of Value	Skimmed: §4.6 and the chapter 4 notes, from the Cowles Foundation’s posted PDF, by OCR checked against the page images	LIT-1435, NOTE-1112

What the reading corrected, before anything merged.

• The sign clause is Carver and Scheier’s, and its neutral point was wrong. Their reference is a rate of progress, not rest; the draft called a system standing still neutral where they call it behind. The claim now reads sign as progress against a reference course.
• The intensity clause has a known difficulty. Carver 2003 is reported to hold that positive affect lowers a goal’s priority. The clause is held for negative valence until it is read.
• The ambivalence–neutrality distinction is the evaluative space model’s, and the model’s ambivalent and neutral outputs coincide, so telling them apart needs a record of which ranking each decision followed. The model’s heterarchy is named in CLAIM-435’s defeater.
• The Veit–ALARM test was wrong as drafted. It said a threshold override has no currency. It has a discontinuous one; only a graded override has none. CLAIM-436 gained part 3a and CLAIM-435 now separates continuous from discontinuous potential. The representation theorem is credited to Eilenberg and Debreu.

Copies only the owner can reach. Carver and Scheier 1990 (a ResearchGate upload), Cacioppo and Berntson 1994 and Cacioppo, Gardner and Berntson 1997 (Wayback captures of the author’s reprint page, 2012-05-16), Debreu 1954 (the 1983 Cambridge reprint).

The reader ran git status once in the repository against its brief, read-only. No email address was sent anywhere.

Second tranche, the same day, at the owner’s direction (“do all four”), aimed at operationalizing felt states.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Berridge and Kringelbach 2015, pleasure systems in the brain	Read in full, NIH author manuscript (PMC4425246)	LIT-1459, NOTE-1110, THEORY-893
Kahneman, Wakker and Sarin 1997, back to Bentham	Read in full, Erasmus University repository	LIT-1448, NOTE-1105
Hesp et al. 2021, deeply felt affect	Read in full (§§1–6), CC BY copy at Aarhus University	LIT-1468, NOTE-1111
Cabanac 1992, pleasure: the common currency	Unavailable: closed, no repository copy	LIT-1467
Luce 1956, semiorders	Unavailable: abstract only	LIT-1460
Tversky 1969, intransitivity of preferences	Unavailable here: a teaching copy on a UCSD faculty page failed TLS from this client	LIT-1472
Elwood and Appel 2009; Appel and Elwood 2009, hermit crabs	Unavailable: abstracts only	LIT-1450, LIT-1470
Gibbons et al. 2022, bumblebee trade-offs, with its 2025 correction	Read in full, CC BY copy in LSE Research Online; deposited data summarized	LIT-1466, NOTE-1114
Scherer 2009, Cognition and Emotion	Unavailable: Geneva archive restricted	LIT-1446
Scherer 2009, Phil. Trans. B, the stand-in	Read in full, PubMed Central	LIT-1451, NOTE-1113
Lewis 2005, BBS target article with commentaries	Read in part (§§2.3–3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 6–7, Sander and Scherer’s commentary and the reply)	LIT-1455, NOTE-1119

What it changed.

• An objection to the owner’s thesis, CLAIM-438: potential as defined tracks ‘wanting’, not ‘liking’ (THEORY-893). It is the thesis’s own second defeater. Whether to rename “hedonic” to “motivational” valence is left to the owner.
• The intensity clause is open for both signs. Hesp et al. make negative valence a weakening of the preference ordering’s precision.
• Measurement. Potential must be read within an episode, since later choices follow remembered utility (Kahneman, Wakker and Sarin); a self-model of potential cannot be validated by retrospective report; Hesp et al.’s lesion comparison tests one without report.
• Credit. The dynamics of potential are Lewis’s; Scherer’s definition holds the claimed–granted precedence distinction and his monitoring component is a precedent for the felt-as-self-model candidate (CLAIM-439), with the warning that a model may not suffice.
• The Veit–ALARM test gained a sweep in both directions, for hysteresis, and a summary of the animal data: compensatory at the costs tested, and not yet reaching the threshold question.

For the owner. The Lewis copy read was posted by the Geneva lab of two of its commentators, Sander and Scherer, filed under their commentary; the owner accepted it, and the Grandjean et al. lab posting, as lawful copies on 2026-10-23. Tversky 1969 is on a UCSD teaching page this client could not reach.

Third tranche, the same day, at the owner’s direction: work building on Scherer’s component process model, a terminology change, and a reply to the wanting–liking objection.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Scherer and Moors 2019, the emotion process	Read in full, the publisher’s free guest copy	LIT-1457, NOTE-1106
Shuman, Sander and Scherer 2013, levels of valence	Read in full, open access	LIT-1458, NOTE-1108
Scherer 2013, relevance and valence appraisals	Unavailable: closed, publisher bot check	LIT-1464
Grandjean, Sander and Scherer 2008, conscious emotional experience	Read in full, the authors’ lab posting	LIT-1452, NOTE-1115
Fontaine et al. 2007, the world of emotions	Unavailable: repository copies restricted	LIT-1437
Moors, Boddez and De Houwer 2017, goal-directed processes	Read in full, submitted manuscript at Ghent	LIT-1434, NOTE-1117
Moors 2022, Demystifying Emotions	Unavailable: front matter only	LIT-1433
Kuppens, Oravecz and Tuerlinckx 2010, DynAffect	Unavailable: a co-author’s copy failed TLS from this client	LIT-1469
Lange et al. 2020, an integrative psychometric model	Read in part, University of Amsterdam repository	LIT-1436, NOTE-1098
Marsella and Gratch 2009, EMA	Read in full, a course reading list, checked against the authors’ manuscript	LIT-1447, NOTE-1100
Sander, Grandjean and Scherer 2018	Read in full, Geneva open archive	LIT-1471, NOTE-1103
Meuleman et al. 2019, threshold effects of appraisal	Read in full, accepted manuscript at Ghent	LIT-1463, NOTE-1104
Meuleman and Rudrauf 2021, emotions in virtual reality	Read in full, accepted manuscript at Geneva	LIT-1440, NOTE-1097
Mohammadi and Vuilleumier 2022, multi-componential emotion recognition	Read in full, arXiv preprint	LIT-1443, NOTE-1118
Mohammadi, Van De Ville and Vuilleumier 2023, brain networks	Read in full, CC BY at Geneva	LIT-1444, NOTE-1107

What it changed.

• “Dominance” renamed “potential” throughout the line, because the word is taken by the pleasure–arousal–dominance model, by Fontaine’s potency–control dimension (which the CPM’s own authors call dominance) and by decision theory; quotations are left verbatim.
• The wanting–liking objection conceded in a principled form (CLAIM-433): on the CPM’s levels of valence the record’s ordering is goal conduciveness, and pleasantness is a separate appraisal. Revising “hedonic” is the owner’s decision.
• Credit. The competitive form of appraisal is Moors’s and EMA’s; the CPM itself does not describe a negotiation. What stays the record’s: perspectives as competitors with no regulator above them, a negotiation that may yield no ordering, and the kind clause.
• The felt candidate gains Grandjean et al. as a partial rival, a recruitment hypothesis and a case that would decide between them.
• Measurement. Attractor strength (DynAffect) for resumption, hysteresis for persistence, devaluation for which ranking prevails; the componential papers measure structure across samples, not coordination within an episode; a continuity test must fit a model that can jump.

For the owner. Kuppens et al. 2010 and Fontaine et al. 2007 are on pages this client could not reach (a co-author’s site; restricted repositories). Scherer 2013 is closed.

Decisions of the owner, the same day. “Hedonic” in the thesis and its term revised to “goal-conduciveness” valence, and the wanting–liking objection (CLAIM-438) conceded and set Active. The Geneva lab postings of Lewis 2005 and Grandjean et al. 2008 accepted as lawful copies.

Fourth batch, the owner’s suggestions.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Berridge and Robinson 2016, liking, wanting and incentive sensitization	Read in full, NIH author manuscript (PMC5171207)	LIT-1461, NOTE-1109, THEORY-895
Hesp et al. 2021, deeply felt affect	Already filed in this batch	LIT-1468, NOTE-1111
Laukkonen, Friston and Chandaria 2025, a beautiful loop	Already held (LIT-1363, NOTE-1063, THEORY-882); NOTE-1063 gains a bearing on CLAIM-439, from preprint v3	NOTE-1063 version 2
Flayelle et al. 2023, a taxonomy of technology design features	Read in full, University of Lausanne repository	LIT-1465, NOTE-1096

What it changed. Incentive sensitization gives QUESTION-267 a mechanism, and breaks CLAIM-433’s asymmetry between ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’: both are cue-bound. The relapsing addict is CLAIM-433’s third defeater in plain form, left open. The beautiful loop is a second rival to CLAIM-439, on sufficiency: on its terms the claim’s condition is local parametric depth, which may be unconscious. The design taxonomy reads, on the record’s mapping, as a firm’s proxy potential installing proxy potential in its users; a documented platform case would test it and is not yet filed.

Fifth batch: the rename to “potential”, at the owner’s direction.

Work	Outcome	Filed
Monderer and Shapley 1996, potential games	Unavailable: closed; two course-page copies failed TLS from this client	LIT-1462, THEORY-896 (second-hand)
Candogan, Menache, Ozdaglar and Parrilo 2011, flows and decompositions of games	Read in full, arXiv	LIT-1442, NOTE-1116, THEORY-894
Jiang, Lim, Yao and Ye 2011, statistical ranking and combinatorial Hodge theory	Read in full, arXiv	LIT-1439, NOTE-1099, THEORY-894

What it changed. “Ascendancy” became “potential”: an ordering prevails when the moves that win the negotiation’s conflicts are improvements along it. CLAIM-434 proves the finite equivalence with no cycles of winning moves, calibrates the Hodge cyclic share of a binary record (a perfect ranking leaves (n − 2)/3n), and separates coherence from alignment, so intensity is how far decisions follow the ordering, not the gradient share. QUESTION-268 gains HodgeRank as its procedure, with cautions. The owner’s claim that ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ are saliences relative to different processes (CLAIM-437) was filed with it.

Revised after review. A review of the pull request found that the measures confused ordinal and cardinal structure: the Hodge gradient can reverse a comparison the wins settle, netting erases alternation, and the (n − 2)/3n baseline holds only for complete tournaments. The procedure of QUESTION-268 is now ordinal first, with HodgeRank kept for margins; CLAIM-434 gains parts 4 to 8, and two terms carry the review’s hierarchy (TERM-077, TERM-078). The synthetic cases are in scratch/formal/valence.py.

For the owner. Monderer and Shapley are on two course pages (Frieze’s CMU reading list; a Bowdoin course page) this client could not reach. Jiang et al.’s Table 1 reports a cyclicity ratio above 1, which their orthogonality forbids; the published version was not checked.

---

Twenty-seven works registered unread from the exchange on governance, anxiety and legibility; three already held

2026-10-24 03:17:12

The owner asked for the exchange of 2026-10-23/24 to be added to the record (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6adc1ece-bb28-83e9-a8f6-cadf0f8b7113; workbench entry of 2026-10-24). The exchange named about thirty works that it did not already find in the record. The twenty-seven the record lacked are registered here, none read. Each was checked first against Crossref, or against the publisher’s or a listing page. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

Corrections the lookups made to the exchange.

• The “2026 randomized DBT skills-group study” is Amestoy, Gulamani and Uliaszek, online July 2025. Its 54 participants were university students, randomized to DBT skills or positive psychotherapy. The mediators were impulse control, access to emotion-regulation strategies and acting with awareness. Distress tolerance and the other mindfulness facets did not mediate.
• The 56 DBT completers are Edwards et al. 2021, a correlational study in an intensive outpatient programme.
• The “2026” review of 116 avoidance-learning studies is Mancinelli and Bach, a preprint of June 2025, in print November 2026. Its abstract favours inference-based over associative accounts and does not name expectancy accounts.
• The 2024 exploration review is Chou, Wilson and Smith. The increase it finds is in directed, not random, exploration, and in foraging tasks anxiety consistently goes with less exploration.
• De Kleine et al.’s 139 patients are 33 OCD, 40 panic disorder with agoraphobia and 66 PTSD.
• Bjørnskov, Voigt and Khesali say “unlawful” of the 115 declarations.
• The February 2026 five-country study is a research summary of the Israel Democracy Institute (Dagan and Benvenisty: South Korea, India, Hungary, Venezuela, Turkey). It is not peer-reviewed.
• Friedkin, Jia and Bullo’s 2016 paper is “A Theory of the Evolution of Social Power: Natural Trajectories of Interpersonal Influence Systems along Issue Sequences”.
• The Pierson the record reads in THEORY-885 is the 2000 paper on increasing returns. The 1993 paper on policy feedback that the exchange described is registered separately.

Dates. Under ADR-002, published: takes the earliest version: the PsyArXiv preprint of Brown, Price and Dombrovski (2022), the bioRxiv preprint of Zorowitz et al. (2019), Mancinelli and Bach’s preprint, and the online dates of Sheeran et al. (2024) and Amestoy et al. (2025). Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde take Crossref’s 1997-11-01, although the book is usually cited as 1998. Bjørnskov et al. take 2021-10-02, the date of the SSRN record. Crossref gives only the year, and a year-end placeholder would fall after a date the paper is known to have existed by. Gollwitzer and Sheeran keep a year placeholder. Linehan’s manual has no DOI and is filed by Guilford’s URL, dated from a search of Guilford’s listing that could not be fetched directly.

Already held, not filed again: Jia, MirTabatabaei, Friedkin and Bullo 2015 (LIT-1146), Watanabe’s WBIC (LIT-616) and Amari’s natural gradient (LIT-607).

Left out. The software the exchange named for toy models (pomdp_py, pymdp, Mesa, NetLogo’s Rebellion, PettingZoo, Gymnasium) is not literature. The works A26 cited on knowledge (Gettier and the analysis of knowledge, epistemic safety) are not registered, since the owner set the distinction aside at U27. Works that the exchange cited only by search reference are not registered. For DBT the exchange named only the curriculum, and the manual is registered.

One work carries anthology-candidate (ADR-005): Gerstner et al. on three-factor learning rules. It is filed for CLAIM-443 and carries no instruction for ML practice.

Registered, Deferred, none read, no copy yet sought:

LIT	work	published	cited at
LIT-1492	Linehan, DBT Skills Training Manual (2nd ed.)	2014-10-19	U9
LIT-1497	Gollwitzer, Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis	2006-12-31	U10
LIT-1488	Sheeran, The when and how of planning … 642 tests	2024-03-27	U10
LIT-1480	Edwards, Skills-homework completion and phone coaching … DBT IOP	2021-03-27	U10
LIT-1486	Amestoy, Target validation in DBT skills group	2025-07-02	U10
LIT-1476	Friston, Active inference and learning	2016-06-29	U11
LIT-1494	Gerstner, Eligibility traces … neoHebbian three-factor learning rules	2018-07-31	U11
LIT-1474	Harmon-Jones, An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes	2015-06-01	U13
LIT-1479	Brown, Anxiety as a disorder of uncertainty	2022-08-30	U14
LIT-1477	Mancinelli, A systematic review of human avoidance learning	2025-06-11	U14
LIT-1496	Zorowitz, Anxiety, avoidance, and sequential evaluation	2019-08-05	U14
LIT-1483	Chou, The influence of anxiety on exploration	2024-11-07	U15
LIT-1498	Gangemi, Behavior as information: “If I avoid, then there must be a danger”	2012-05-12	U15
LIT-1490	De Kleine, Impaired action-safety learning and excessive relief during avoidance	2023-03-17	U15
LIT-1491	Goodson, The standalone effect of safety behavior manipulations	2026-01-16	U15
LIT-1500	Craske, Maximizing exposure therapy: an inhibitory learning approach	2014-05-09	U15
LIT-1499	Buzan, Security: A New Framework for Analysis	1997-11-01	U16
LIT-1493	Pierson, When effect becomes cause	1993-07-01	U16
LIT-1495	Scheuerman, Emergency powers	2006-12-01	U16
LIT-1475	Jervis, Cooperation under the security dilemma	1978-01-01	U16
LIT-1481	Tilly, War making and state making as organized crime	1985-09-13	U16
LIT-1489	Juhász, Temporary protection and technology adoption	2018-11-01	U16
LIT-1485	Rooney, Emergency powers in democratic states	2019-10-01	U16
LIT-1473	Bjørnskov, Unconstitutional states of emergency	2021-10-02	U16
LIT-1487	Dagan, Autocratization and States of Emergency in Comparative Perspective	2026-02-26	U16
LIT-1478	Ku, Routines die hard	2024-12-16	U16
LIT-1482	Friedkin, A theory of the evolution of social power	2016-06-01	U19

---

The exchange’s twenty-eight works sought: eighteen read, ten Unavailable; twenty-five Proposed THEORYs, and what the reading corrected

2026-10-24 03:47:58

The owner asked for work to start on the readings registered from the exchange of 2026-10-23/24 (curation entry of 2026-10-24, 03:17). Every work was sought on 2026-10-24, using lawful copies only. The batch also included Jia et al. 2015, which was already held as Deferred.

How they were read. The 2026-10-22 procedure was followed. Six sub-agents of this session each took four or five works under a shared brief. Each one:

• looked for a lawful full text through OpenAlex and Unpaywall, then the publisher, PubMed Central and Europe PMC, the preprint servers and the authors’ or institutions’ repositories;
• read every line except reference lists;
• filed a NOTE, and a THEORY for each assertion the record would lean on;
• checked every quotation against the extracted text by script.

Each LIT’s history names the copy read, or what was tried. Course-page reposts of closed articles, an author copy whose cover sheet forbids posting, and “free PDF” sites were found and not used.

Outcomes.

LIT	work	outcome	NOTE	THEORY (all Proposed)
LIT-1497	Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006	Read (repository scan, OCR)	NOTE-1124	THEORY-913, THEORY-904
LIT-1488	Sheeran et al. 2024	Read (repository, version of record)	NOTE-1131	THEORY-918, THEORY-908
LIT-1480	Edwards et al. 2021	Read (publisher PDF on co-author’s lab site)	NOTE-1121	THEORY-922
LIT-1486	Amestoy et al. 2025	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1492	Linehan 2014	Unavailable (availability: commercial book)	—	—
LIT-1476	Friston et al. 2016	Read (version of record, CC BY)	NOTE-1138	THEORY-923
LIT-1494	Gerstner et al. 2018	Read (version of record, CC BY)	NOTE-1130	THEORY-909
LIT-1474	Harmon-Jones et al. 2015	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1482	Friedkin et al. 2016	Read (version of record, CC BY, with supplement)	NOTE-1126	THEORY-902
LIT-1146	Jia et al. 2015	Read (version of record on an author’s site; proofs skimmed)	NOTE-1135	THEORY-916
LIT-1479	Brown et al. 2023	Read (NIH author manuscript)	NOTE-1120	THEORY-897, THEORY-910
LIT-1477	Mancinelli & Bach	Read (PsyArXiv v1)	NOTE-1134	THEORY-901, THEORY-920, THEORY-900
LIT-1496	Zorowitz et al. 2020	Read (version of record, CC BY)	NOTE-1136	THEORY-915
LIT-1483	Chou et al. 2024	Read (PsyArXiv v1, CC BY)	NOTE-1127	THEORY-917, THEORY-907
LIT-1498	Gangemi et al. 2012	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1490	De Kleine et al. 2023	Read (version of record, CC BY)	NOTE-1123	THEORY-912
LIT-1491	Goodson et al. 2026	Read (NIH author manuscript; supplement not seen)	NOTE-1128	THEORY-903
LIT-1500	Craske et al. 2014	Read (NIH accepted manuscript)	NOTE-1137	THEORY-914, THEORY-921
LIT-1499	Buzan et al. 1997	Unavailable (availability: commercial book)	—	—
LIT-1493	Pierson 1993	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1495	Scheuerman 2006	Unavailable (access: open copy behind a bot check)	—	—
LIT-1475	Jervis 1978	Unavailable (availability)	—	—
LIT-1481	Tilly 1985	Unavailable (access: repository copy behind a bot check)	—	—
LIT-1489	Juhász 2018	Read (2015 working draft; appendices not seen)	NOTE-1122	THEORY-919
LIT-1485	Rooney 2019	Unavailable (access: open copy behind a bot check)	—	—
LIT-1473	Bjørnskov et al.	Read (2021 working paper, EconStor)	NOTE-1125	THEORY-911
LIT-1487	Dagan & Benvenisty 2026	Read (the whole published summary)	NOTE-1129	THEORY-906
LIT-1478	Ku & Finch 2024	Read (version of record, CC BY)	NOTE-1133	THEORY-898

Scheuerman, Tilly and Rooney have lawful open copies that a bot check blocked. They are the first to retry.

What the reading corrected. Each correction is recorded in the work’s LIT.

• The implementation-intention effect is d = .65 in 2006, uncorrected for publication bias, and about .15 after the 2024 review’s correction.
• Edwards et al.’s associations are with falling urges, not behaviour, and phone coaching did not predict outcome.
• Friston et al.’s learned prior is over action policies, grows by frequency with no reward gate, and shows persistence, not amortization.
• Three-factor rules are established only at the hour scale of synaptic consolidation.
• Friedkin et al.’s discussions follow Friedkin–Johnsen, not DeGroot, and the predicted end state was not reached.
• Brown et al. is a narrative review of fear-based disorders.
• Mancinelli and Bach covers healthy volunteers only. It names expectancy theory as best supported and finds that avoidance offered and withdrawn can raise threat expectancy.
• Zorowitz et al. is simulation only. The misbelief is about future control, not danger.
• In Chou et al., less exploration fits only state or somatic anxiety and foraging tasks.
• De Kleine et al.’s effects hold in two of three patient groups each, and relief was already higher before avoidance was available.
• Goodson et al.’s bias-corrected effect is d = 0.31.
• Juhász’s protection was a war blockade, not a tariff.
• Bjørnskov et al.’s cases are suspected unlawful, from news and NGO coding.
• The IDI summary gives no method and reads the channels as deliberate.
• Ku and Finch’s publics keep routines against the anxiety, while the narrative is held latently.

Changes to published: under ADR-002: Chou et al. 2024-06-24, Friedkin et al. 2016-06-21, Bjørnskov et al. 2021-08-01.

What it changed in the claims. Revised before merge, with the readings as grounds:

• CLAIM-443: three-factor rules are narrowed; Friston’s prior and implementation intentions are read as priors over actions; the test is the implementation-intention literature’s own open question.
• CLAIM-446: avoidance can raise threat expectancy as well as freeze it. The test now also holds fixed the uncertainty estimate and the belief about future control. Inhibitory-learning memory is named as a rival, and the evidence-acquisition clause is narrowed by kind of anxiety.
• CLAIM-445: the Juhász passage and the Ku and Finch bullet are corrected.
• CLAIM-448: the DeGroot–Friedkin baseline is stated from the proofs and the laboratory test, with the reserved-authority complication.

CLAIM-451 is unchanged, since Harmon-Jones et al. is Unavailable. None of the read studies measured authority as CLAIM-446 or CLAIM-443 define it, so their distinctive parts stay untested.

Not registered: van den Hout et al. 2014 (JBTEP 45: 489–495), a patient follow-up to Gangemi et al. that the search turned up.

---

Soma et al., “The hive mind is a single reinforcement learning agent”, filed and read at the owner’s request

2026-10-24 07:01:29

The owner asked on 2026-10-24 for arXiv:2410.17517 to be read and filed. It was not held. It is filed as LIT-1484 and was read in full from arXiv v6 (21 July 2026, CC BY 4.0) in NOTE-1132. The version of record in Swarm Intelligence (doi:10.1007/s11721-026-00264-7, 17 October 2026, per Crossref) was not sought. published: is v1’s date, 2024-10-23. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made; the work carries anthology-candidate because the authors offer it for designing collective RL systems (ADR-005).

Two Proposed THEORYs:

• THEORY-899: the proved equivalence. Imitation of success is Cross Learning and the weighted voter model is Maynard-Cross Learning, in expectation, for an infinite well-mixed population. The derivation was re-checked when filed.
• THEORY-905: the simulation-scoped limits. Finite populations lose options, pure imitation cannot re-explore after a change, and comparison is faster than blind imitation.

The NOTE says how the reading bears on the distributed-agency line, THEORY-043, CLAIM-443, CLAIM-369 and THEORY-142. No claim was revised.

---

Multi-agent learning and learning in games: twenty-one works registered and sought, eighteen read, three Unavailable; twenty-three Proposed THEORYs

2026-10-24 17:31:52

The owner asked on 2026-10-24 how the record stands on multi-agent reinforcement learning. It held almost nothing: game-theoretic and organizational neighbours, no MARL. The owner then asked for the core works to be registered and read in a new pull request. Four sub-agents of this session each registered and read one group under a shared brief: Crossref or arXiv checks, lawful copies only, every line read except references, quotations checked by script, and key proofs re-derived where feasible. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made. Works on ML methods carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005), filed for understanding.

Learning in games.

• Börgers & Sarin 1997 (LIT-1505): read from the 1995 working paper.
• Sato & Crutchfield 2003 (LIT-1520): read.
• Tuyls, Verbeeck & Lenaerts 2003 (LIT-1501): Unavailable. In its place, Kaisers & Tuyls 2010 (LIT-1511) was read.
• Hart & Mas-Colell 2000 (LIT-1521): read.

Evaluation when wins cycle. All read:

• Balduzzi et al. 2018 (LIT-1508) and 2019 (LIT-1509);
• Omidshafiei et al. 2019, α-Rank (LIT-1516);
• Czarnecki et al. 2020 (LIT-1504).

Credit and shaping.

• COMA (LIT-1517), QMIX (LIT-1503), QTRAN (LIT-1510) and LOLA (LIT-1519): read.
• Wolpert & Tumer’s paper in Advances in Complex Systems, 2001 not 2002 (LIT-1515): Unavailable. In its place, their NASA report on the same utilities (LIT-1506) was read.

Scoring without ground truth, experts, scale.

• Miller, Resnick & Zeckhauser 2005 (LIT-1518): read.
• Prelec 2004 (LIT-1502): Unavailable.
• Jacobs et al. 1991 (LIT-1514), Shazeer et al. 2017 (LIT-1507), Yang et al. 2018 (LIT-1512) and Leibo et al. 2017 (LIT-1513): read.

Each LIT’s history names the copy read or what was tried. Copies on third-party course servers were found and not used.

What the readings corrected in the lead’s descriptions.

• Cross learning follows the replicator dynamic only in expectation and at finite horizons. Actual runs lock on to pure profiles.
• “Replicator plus entropy” comes from forgetting under softmax. In plain Q-learning, bandit feedback adds a frequency factor.
• Regret matching reaches the set of correlated equilibria in time average, not a point.
• Nash averaging resists copies only with a unique equilibrium. A counterexample was re-derived when filed.
• α-Rank’s limit ranking is not characterized, and it is sensitive to copies; that second point is the reader’s finding.
• The spinning-top geometry is empirical, not proved, and one proof in that paper is defective.
• COMA’s counterfactual is the agent’s own policy-averaged alternative, with the others held fixed.
• IGM and monotone mixing are not currency conditions. They are ordinal separability conditions.
• LOLA’s shaping was benign and symmetric.
• Peer prediction’s truthful equilibrium is one of several.
• Mixture-of-experts load balancing is imposed diversity, not protected access.
• Gating in Jacobs et al. shows competence-earned authority, not collapse.
• Mean-field MARL needs interchangeable agents.
• The social-dilemma environments have no depletable commons and no protective regime.

Reader findings, not the papers’.

• The Nash-averaging counterexample, re-derived when filed.
• α-Rank’s sensitivity to copies. Not re-checked.
• The acyclic quotient of the win graph.
• Sato & Crutchfield’s rest points as logit equilibria.

What it changed. These were revised from the readings:

• QUESTION-271, rewritten before merge, since it was filed in this pull request.
• Dated notes on CASE-155, CLAIM-444 (three conditions the replicator reduction needs), CLAIM-451 (the level of a cycle, and a fourth relief), CLAIM-446 (the identifiability step in exact form) and THEORY-414.

---

Seven works registered unread from the exchange on partial monitoring, drift–diffusion and diffusion populations; four named works not registered

2026-10-25 04:19:35

The owner asked for the continuation of the exchange “Review PR 327 Improvements” to be added to the record (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6add7ae3-1a38-83ea-ac83-4f490e399824; turns U28 to U47, 2026-10-24 18:01 to 2026-10-25 03:12 UTC). Its first twenty-seven turns are the exchange filed on 2026-10-24, so only U28–U47 were read for works. Seven are registered here. All seven were sought the same day: five were read and are Active, and two were found Unavailable and then read from copies the owner supplied, and are Active (below). Five were cited by the exchange. Two, MultiDiffusion and Multi-LoRA Composition, were not cited; the record’s reading of U45–U46 named them as the nearest prior art, and they are registered as such. Each was checked against Crossref, the arXiv record or the proceedings page, with OpenAlex for dates and access, and literature.d was searched by surname, title words and identifier first; none was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

Corrections the lookups made to the exchange.

• Kwon and Perchet’s title, as U29 and U30 give it, lacks its subtitle: it is “Online Learning and Blackwell Approachability with Partial Monitoring: Optimal Convergence Rates”, AISTATS 2017, PMLR 54: 604–613. The rates U29 reports (T^-1/2 for signals independent of the decision, T^-1/3 for general signals) match the abstract. There is no DOI or arXiv copy, so it is filed by URL.
• The sequential probability ratio test that U35 cites as “classical”, with no author, is Wald’s 1945 paper in the Annals of Mathematical Statistics, registered as the primary source. The record held the test only as restated by Bogacz et al. (LIT-569) and THEORY-068.
• The “classical consensus and DeGroot models” of U36, cited without a title, are DeGroot’s “Reaching a Consensus” (JASA 1974). The record read the model only through later work (LIT-999, LIT-1146, LIT-1482).
• U29 labels Bartók et al. and Chaloner and Verdinelli “Read:”. The exchange’s reply did not read them in any sense the record uses. Both were filed Deferred, and the record read them later the same day.
• The two works the record’s reader named from memory were confirmed: MultiDiffusion is arXiv 2302.08113 (ICML 2023, PMLR 202), and Multi-LoRA Composition is arXiv 2402.16843 (TMLR 2024).

Dates. Under ADR-002, Bartók et al. take 2014-06-27, the date OpenAlex gives for the journal’s advance article, which is earlier than the November 2014 issue on Crossref; the publisher’s page returned 403, so the date was not seen there. Wald and DeGroot keep month placeholders (June 1945, March 1974), Crossref giving no day. Kwon and Perchet take the PMLR publication date, and the two arXiv works their v1 dates.

Named but not registered. The exchange named four further things without citing a specific work, so nothing is registered for them: Borkar’s two-timescale stochastic approximation (U29), dynamic epistemic logic and its action models (U29), network voter models giving Wright–Fisher-type diffusion (U36, and U34’s “Moran or voter-model”), and the Pólya urn as a model of reinforcement (U36). The record’s nearest holdings are THEORY-899 on the voter-model side and Arthur’s lock-in (LIT-1314) on the urn side. Blackwell approachability, which U29 and U30 also named, is in the record only as Hart and Mas-Colell’s engine (LIT-1521); Blackwell’s 1956 paper is not registered, since no reply cited it. Stable Diffusion, LoRA and the Diffusers documentation (U45–U47) are software and its documentation, cited by search reference only.

Five of the seven carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005): the two works on partial monitoring, as LIT-1521 does for learning in games, and the three on diffusion and LoRA composition, as LIT-770 does. They are filed here for the record’s questions about what an organization can learn of its processes and how influence over a shared representation is allocated, and carry no instruction for ML practice.

Registered, with the status each reached in the readings of 2026-10-25:

LIT	work	published	cited at	status	NOTE	THEORY
LIT-1528	Bartók, Partial monitoring—classification, regret bounds, and algorithms	2014-06-27	U29 (used at U30, U31)	Active	NOTE-1164	THEORY-962, THEORY-964
LIT-1525	Chaloner, Bayesian experimental design: a review	1995-08-01	U29	Active	NOTE-1161	THEORY-956, THEORY-954
LIT-1526	Kwon, Online learning and Blackwell approachability with partial monitoring: optimal convergence rates	2017-04-10	U29, U30	Active	NOTE-1159	THEORY-947, THEORY-957
LIT-1523	Wald, Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses	1945-06-01	U35 (the test, no author)	Active (owner’s copy)	NOTE-1165	THEORY-952, THEORY-951
LIT-1527	DeGroot, Reaching a consensus	1974-03-01	U36 (the model, no title)	Active (owner’s copy)	NOTE-1157	THEORY-960
LIT-1522	Bar-Tal, MultiDiffusion: fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation	2023-02-16	not cited; prior art for U45–U46	Active	NOTE-1158	THEORY-958, THEORY-948
LIT-1529	Zhong, Multi-LoRA composition for image generation	2024-02-26	U46 (the genre, no work)	Active	NOTE-1160	THEORY-955, THEORY-949

THEORY-947 and THEORY-949 are Proposed, and THEORY-964 was Superseded by THEORY-963 at the owner’s decision of 2026-10-25; the other ten are Active.

The readings of 2026-10-25. Each work read gained a url:, except Kwon and Perchet, already filed by its PMLR page: the authors’ 2013 preprint of Bartók et al. (the publisher’s page returned 403), the authors’ 1995 technical report of Chaloner and Verdinelli in the UMN Digital Conservancy (Project Euclid’s copy was refused by a bot check), the PMLR page of MultiDiffusion, and the OpenReview forum of Multi-LoRA Composition. What the readings corrected:

• MultiDiffusion’s Eq. 4. As printed it puts the weights W inside the norm, so its minimizer weights by W², not W. Eq. 5, with weights to the first power, is exact only for 0/1 weights, which are all the paper uses. Its Proposition 3.1 is correct but needs zero loss at every step, so it covers neither disagreeing overlaps nor masked region generation (THEORY-958).
• Multi-LoRA Composition’s §5.1.1 attributes LoRA Switch’s scores of 6.56 and 5.08 to LoRA Composite, whose scores are 6.09 and 4.53.
• The unrescaled merge. Multi-LoRA Composition’s weight-merging baseline sums k adapters at 0.8 each, so its scale grows with k, and no rescaled merge was run. The finding that merging degrades as k grows is confounded with that (THEORY-955).
• Bartók et al.’s adversarial classification covers only non-degenerate games. Lattimore and Szepesvári later corrected it and extended it to all games (THEORY-964). The stochastic case covers all games.

Wald was not reached for access: Project Euclid’s free PDF returned only a bot-check page, and the Internet Archive’s captures could not be fetched from this session. DeGroot was not reached for availability: no lawful open copy was found. Neither summary could be checked against the text, and both stand as filed. The record’s uses of the SPRT and of DeGroot’s model rested, as before, on LIT-569 with THEORY-068 and on LIT-999 with THEORY-321.

The owner then supplied copies of both, the same day, and both were read in full (scans with no text layer, read from page images and OCR). Wald is held in NOTE-1165, with the boundaries and error inequalities in THEORY-952 and the OC, ASN, optimality up to the overshoot and the coincidence with Brownian motion in THEORY-951. DeGroot is held in NOTE-1157, with the consensus conditions and weights in THEORY-960. Both LITs are Active, and both summaries were checked against the text.

Left for the owner.

• Lattimore and Szepesvári (2019), “Cleaning up the neighborhood” (arXiv:1805.09247), the corrected and complete adversarial classification, is not registered. It is the natural next reading for THEORY-964’s promote_when.
• Two filings the reading of Bartók et al. and Chaloner and Verdinelli proposed and that were not made: a child QUESTION of QUESTION-031 for the one decision family THEORY-962 answers (pairwise comparisons of actions), and a demonstrated CLAIM that the shares π of a mixture with known profiles are identifiable from contexts C iff the stacked profile vectors are affinely independent, which would answer QUESTION-031 for that model class.

---

Thirteen works registered from the exchange on organizational latent features and transformer learning dynamics, and read the same day; families and uncited originals not registered

2026-10-26 19:45:37

The owner asked for the discussion behind the PerspectiveLab experiments to be added to the record (the exchange “Experimental Infrastructure Review”, shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6adfa6e4-a0b0-83e9-b3a0-0b53e6000277). The share could not be fetched; the saved copy the owner uploaded holds turns T18 to T24 only, and T24’s reply, which had failed to render, was pasted by the owner. No dates survive in the page. T18–T20 cite no work. T21–T23 cite the Bayesian nonparametric literature on topic hierarchies and latent features, almost always by a bare host name (“jmlr.org”, “proceedings.mlr.press”, “Journal of the ACM”, “IBM Research”) and an author surname, never by title. T24 cites interpretability work on training dynamics by paraphrase alone, with no author, title or link.

Thirteen works are registered here. They were filed Deferred, unread, and the owner then asked for all of them to be read (“go ahead and read all of them”); all thirteen were read the same day (below). Each was identified from the reply’s wording, checked against the arXiv record, Crossref, or the JMLR or PMLR page (OpenAlex for access, until its free daily allowance ran out; Semantic Scholar refused for rate), and literature.d was searched by surname, title words and identifier first; none was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made. Two the replies already relied on are held: Elhage et al.’s Toy Models of Superposition (LIT-323, T24) and the nested HDP (LIT-002, NOTE-023; T21–T23).

Corrections the lookups made.

• The “Rosen-Zvi and colleagues” author–topic work “applied … to corporate email” (T21) is the ACM TOIS paper of 2010, the only one of their author–topic papers with the Enron corpus; the UAI 2004 paper that introduced the model (arXiv 1207.4169) used NIPS and CiteSeer.
• The “dependent IBP of Williamson, Orbanz, and Ghahramani” (T22, T23) is AISTATS 2010, PMLR 9. It is not the IBP compound Dirichlet process (Williamson, Wang, Heller and Blei, ICML 2010), which this filing’s plan had listed as the candidate.
• “Correlated nonparametric latent feature models” (T22, no authors) is Doshi-Velez and Ghahramani, UAI 2009, which PMLR reissued as volume R7; hence the reply’s “proceedings.mlr.press”.
• The three IBP links of T22–T23 (“jmlr.org” twice, “jmlr.csail.mit.edu” for finite beta–Bernoulli approximations) are taken as one work, Griffiths and Ghahramani’s JMLR review of 2011, which derives the finite beta–Bernoulli model in its §3.
• hLDA is attributed at T21 to “Blei, Griffiths, and Jordan”, with the JACM link. The JACM paper (2010; arXiv 2007) is registered as cited; hLDA itself first appeared in an earlier paper with Tenenbaum (below).
• All six works T24 cites without author or title were identified: the induction-heads paper (Olsson et al. 2022), MIB (Mueller et al. 2025), the refined-LLC paper (Wang, Hoogland, van Wingerden, Furman and Murfet 2024; the record’s reader had named it from memory, and the lookup confirmed it), the cross-checkpoint crosscoders of Bayazit, Mueller and Bosselut (2025), whose abstract ends in the reply’s words “emergence, maintenance, and discontinuation”, the fine-tuning circuit paper of Wang et al. (2025), and the “July 2026 theoretical study”, which is Musat, Pimentel, Zucchet and Hofmann, arXiv 2607.11875, submitted 13 July 2026. The fine-tuning identification rests on a single sentence (“circuit connectivity can change substantially even when the components involved remain similar”) matching that abstract’s main finding, and is the least certain.
• The paraphrases of MIB (SAE features no better than neurons; supervised DAS best) and of Olsson et al. (stronger causal evidence in small attention-only models) match the abstracts.

Dates. Under ADR-002, the JACM paper, the blockmodel paper and every interpretability work but one take their arXiv v1 dates. The exception, found when it was read, is the induction-heads paper, which first appeared on the Transformer Circuits site on 8 March 2022, months before its arXiv copy, and takes that date as LIT-323 does. Doshi-Velez and Ghahramani take the UAI date PMLR gives (18 June 2009), earlier than its arXiv copy of 2012. The author–topic paper takes Crossref’s online date (29 January 2010). Thibaux and Jordan and Williamson et al. take their PMLR dates. The IBP review keeps a month placeholder (April 2011, from the PDF’s “Published 4/11”), JMLR giving no day.

Named but not registered.

• “temporal stochastic blockmodels”, “temporal relational event model” and “conventional agent-based organizational models” (T23; T18–T20 for the last) name families, not works. For the last, the record already holds March’s model of organizational learning (LIT-729), which the replies did not use.
• Two originals the replies did not cite: Griffiths and Ghahramani’s NIPS 2005 paper introducing the IBP, and Blei, Griffiths, Jordan and Tenenbaum’s NIPS 2003 paper introducing hLDA. The registered JMLR review and JACM paper restate them.
• T24’s “developmental interpretability research has tracked attention-head specialization” is taken as the refined-LLC paper, not a further work.

Every work was identified; none had to be left unregistered for want of an identification.

Six of the thirteen carry anthology-candidate (ADR-005): the interpretability and training-dynamics works, as LIT-323 and LIT-987 do. They are filed for the record’s questions about how perspectives are individuated from members’ activity, and whether that framework reads transformer training, and carry no instruction for ML practice. The record’s only holdings on singular learning theory were LIT-354 (Unavailable) and LIT-616.

Registered, filed Deferred and read the same day (Active):

LIT	work	published	cited at	bears on
LIT-1556	Griffiths, The Indian buffet process: an introduction and review	2011-04-01	T22, T23	CASE-165, QUESTION-276, CLAIM-454
LIT-1542	Blei, The nested Chinese restaurant process and Bayesian nonparametric inference of topic hierarchies	2007-10-03	T21	QUESTION-276, LIT-002
LIT-1546	Rosen-Zvi, Learning author-topic models from text corpora	2010-01-29	T21	QUESTION-276
LIT-1553	Airoldi, Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels	2007-05-30	T21	QUESTION-276
LIT-1537	Thibaux, Hierarchical beta processes and the Indian buffet process	2007-03-11	T22, T23	CASE-165
LIT-1548	Williamson, Dependent Indian buffet processes	2010-03-31	T22, T23	CASE-165
LIT-1544	Doshi-Velez, Correlated non-parametric latent feature models	2009-06-18	T22	CASE-165
LIT-1538	Olsson, In-context learning and induction heads	2022-03-08	T24	QUESTION-275, QUESTION-039
LIT-1550	Mueller, MIB: a mechanistic interpretability benchmark	2025-04-17	T24	QUESTION-275, CLAIM-454
LIT-1535	Wang, Differentiation and specialization of attention heads via the refined local learning coefficient	2024-10-03	T24	QUESTION-275
LIT-1555	Bayazit, Crosscoding through time	2025-09-05	T24	QUESTION-275
LIT-1539	Wang, Towards understanding fine-tuning mechanisms of LLMs via circuit analysis	2025-02-17	T24	QUESTION-275
LIT-1530	Musat, Invariant learning dynamics of transformers in inductive reasoning tasks	2026-07-13	T24	QUESTION-275

Read, the same day. All thirteen were reached lawfully (arXiv, JMLR, PMLR, and the Griffiths lab’s copy of the author–topic paper) and read in full, appendices included; figures that could not be rendered were read from captions and text, and each NOTE says so. All thirteen are Active, with thirteen NOTEs, all Read, and twenty-two THEORYs, fifteen Active (re-derived, checked numerically, or one study read in full under ADR-047 v3) and seven Proposed.

LIT	NOTE	THEORYs (Active; Proposed)
LIT-1556	NOTE-1172	THEORY-999
LIT-1542	NOTE-1176	THEORY-969, THEORY-1010; THEORY-989
LIT-1546	NOTE-1180	THEORY-972, THEORY-1003
LIT-1553	NOTE-1179	THEORY-993; THEORY-1008
LIT-1537	NOTE-1171	THEORY-985, THEORY-1015
LIT-1548	NOTE-1175	THEORY-1006
LIT-1544	NOTE-1184	THEORY-1012
LIT-1538	NOTE-1173	THEORY-973; THEORY-990
LIT-1550	NOTE-1169	THEORY-968
LIT-1535	NOTE-1188	THEORY-975; THEORY-967
LIT-1555	NOTE-1186	THEORY-1004
LIT-1539	NOTE-1183	THEORY-997
LIT-1530	NOTE-1177	THEORY-981, THEORY-1009; THEORY-1001

What the readings corrected.

• In the replies. The IBP review gives αH_N for the infinite limit only, so T23’s quotation of it for sixteen features has no support there (THEORY-999), as CASE-165 had found. The correlated latent-feature paper supports features that reinforce or depend on one another, not ones that “inhibit” each other, which T22 cited it for (THEORY-1012). The fine-tuning identification held on reading.
• In the works. The dependent IBP’s marginals are an IBP for the whole matrix only in its collapsed form (THEORY-1006). The blockmodel’s §5 says its block matrix and memberships do not trade off; its likelihood has a continuum of trades, and its printed sparsity estimate is the fraction of absent edges whatever the fit (THEORY-993). The author–topic model is unidentified beyond the permutations it names (THEORY-972). hLDA’s level conditional uses the stick’s parameters reversed, and one of its settings is out of range (NOTE-1176). The induction-heads paper gives two different token windows for its phase change, and its small models’ window overlaps learning-rate warm-up (NOTE-1173). The fine-tuning paper’s node-against-edge contrast is produced by a fixed edge budget alone in the record’s null simulation, and its abstract’s 2.46% gain could not be reproduced from its tables (THEORY-997). The invariant-dynamics paper is inconsistent about the size of its aiding directions’ effect (NOTE-1177).
• In these entries. The dependent IBP’s “Why this is here” was narrowed to the collapsed form; the induction-heads date was moved (above); and the benchmark’s “four tasks” and “five models” were corrected in its summary.

The readings’ bearing on the exchange’s entries was written into CASE-165, QUESTION-276, QUESTION-275 and CLAIM-454, and into dated notes on CLAIM-135, CLAIM-148, CLAIM-203, CLAIM-329, CLAIM-367, QUESTION-039, QUESTION-193, QUESTION-234, THEORY-039, THEORY-253, THEORY-279, THEORY-783 and LIT-002. One further work the readings point to, the Markov IBP of Van Gael et al. (2009), the closest established relative of T23’s persistence term, is named in CASE-165 and not registered.

---

Fourteen core circuits works registered and read the same day, at the owner’s request after the record was found to hold almost none of them

2026-10-27 00:12:51

On 2026-10-26 the owner asked “how’s the record on neural circuit theory?”. The answer found that the record’s circuits line (QUESTION-039, QUESTION-234, THEORY-802, THEORY-018, LIT-968, LIT-961, LIT-323 and the works read that day for the exchange “Experimental Infrastructure Review”, among them Olsson et al., LIT-1538, and MIB, LIT-1550) leaned on the core mechanistic-interpretability literature without holding it: the circuits programme, the transformer framework, the first circuits in pretrained language models, the tools for finding and testing circuits, and the dictionary-learning line. The owner said “go ahead and register and read those”. Fourteen works were registered and read the same day, in four batches.

Each was checked as not held first (literature.d and notes.d searched by title words, first author, identifier and venue URL). None was; the only hits were passing mentions (ACDC in NOTE-106, DAS in NOTE-809 and LIT-961, Dunefsky et al. in NOTE-482). Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made, and no anthology code was known for any of them. All fourteen carry anthology-candidate last (ADR-005): they are filed for the record’s questions about what a circuit is and how it is found, and carry no instruction for machine-learning practice.

Dates and identifiers. Under ADR-002 each takes its first public appearance. The Transformer Circuits and Distill articles have no arXiv deposit and take their own pages’ dates, and are cited by url: (Zoom In also by its Distill DOI). Causal scrubbing, an Alignment Forum post with no arXiv or DOI, takes its posting date. The arXiv works take v1. ROME’s v1 was titled “Locating and Editing Factual Knowledge in GPT”. The IOI paper’s ICLR 2023 venue was not asserted, the arXiv record naming none.

The fourteen

All fourteen were filed Deferred and moved to Active on reading; every NOTE is Read. THEORYs are listed Active first, then Proposed.

work	published	LIT	NOTE	THEORYs (Active; Proposed)
Olah et al., Zoom In: An Introduction to Circuits	2020-03-10	LIT-1543	NOTE-1182	none; THEORY-1013, THEORY-986
Elhage et al., A Mathematical Framework for Transformer Circuits	2021-12-22	LIT-1534	NOTE-1189	THEORY-988, THEORY-977
Wang et al., Interpretability in the Wild (IOI)	2022-11-01	LIT-1540	NOTE-1167	THEORY-980; THEORY-995
Meng et al., Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT (ROME)	2022-02-10	LIT-1536	NOTE-1166	THEORY-998; THEORY-1011
Chan et al., Causal Scrubbing	2022-12-03	LIT-1549	NOTE-1168	THEORY-978
Conmy et al., Towards Automated Circuit Discovery (ACDC)	2023-04-28	LIT-1547	NOTE-1170	THEORY-970, THEORY-966
Kramár et al., AtP*	2024-03-01	LIT-1531	NOTE-1190	THEORY-996; THEORY-1000
Geiger et al., Finding Alignments Between Interpretable Causal Variables and Distributed Neural Representations (DAS)	2023-03-05	LIT-1551	NOTE-1192	THEORY-983, THEORY-1002
Bricken et al., Towards Monosemanticity	2023-10-04	LIT-1545	NOTE-1191	THEORY-991; THEORY-1016
Templeton et al., Scaling Monosemanticity	2024-05-21	LIT-1533	NOTE-1178	THEORY-987, THEORY-992; THEORY-965
Marks et al., Sparse Feature Circuits	2024-03-28	LIT-1532	NOTE-1187	THEORY-1007; THEORY-1014
Dunefsky, Chlenski and Nanda, Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuits	2024-06-17	LIT-1554	NOTE-1174	THEORY-974, THEORY-1005
Ameisen et al., Circuit Tracing	2025-03-27	LIT-1552	NOTE-1185	THEORY-979, THEORY-994, THEORY-971
Lindsey et al., On the Biology of a Large Language Model	2025-03-27	LIT-1541	NOTE-1181	THEORY-984, THEORY-1017, THEORY-1018, THEORY-976; THEORY-982

Thirty-two THEORYs: twenty-three Active (re-derived and checked numerically, demonstrated in a constructed case, or one study read in full with the title limited to what was measured, under ADR-047 v3) and nine Proposed, each with a promote_when. LIT-1552 extends LIT-1554.

What was read of each

Every copy was lawful: arXiv, or the work’s own venue (distill.pub, transformer-circuits.pub, the Alignment Forum’s own API). The interactive figures of the HTML articles were never rendered; their content was taken from captions, text and inline tables, and each NOTE says so.

• Zoom In: the Distill article in full, glossary, footnotes and references included. It has no quantitative results.
• Mathematical Framework: the current page, which carries a follow-up summary of February 2023 and the authors’ correction; all text sections and appendices. The equations set as images, the videos and the problem set were not used.
• IOI: arXiv v1, §§1–6 and Appendices A–M.
• ROME: arXiv v5, §§1–6 and Appendices A–J; v1 compared only on its title, trace numbers, dataset count and edit layer.
• Causal scrubbing: the main post in full, with all 22 footnotes. The three companion posts (the appendix, and the paren-checker and induction results) were not read, so §5’s numbers come from the main post’s summaries of them.
• ACDC: arXiv v4 in full, §§1–6 and Appendices B–N.
• AtP*: arXiv v1, §§1–6 and Appendices A, B and C.1. The rest of Appendix C (edge AtP) and Appendix D were not read. The method comparison exists only as charts, read from page renderings, so the relative costs taken from them are approximate.
• DAS: arXiv v4 in full, §§1–6 and Appendices A–D.
• Towards Monosemanticity: the article’s text whole (about 165,000 characters), every section, appendix and all 44 footnotes. The feature browsers were not opened.
• Scaling Monosemanticity: the article’s text whole (about 146,000 characters), every section, the appendices and all 16 footnotes. Numbers that appear only in figures (scaling exponents, the automated-interpretability histograms) were not used.
• Sparse Feature Circuits: arXiv v3 in full, §§1–8 and Appendices A–H; Figure 3 read from a rendering of its page. v1 and v2 were not compared.
• Transcoders: arXiv v2 in full, Appendices A–H and the references.
• Circuit Tracing: every main-text section, and five appendices (CLT implementation details; validating the replacement model; nuances of steering; unexplained variance and the choice of steering factors; the opening of similar features and supernodes). The other appendices were not read, and the NOTE’s history lists them.
• Biology: every section, all ten case studies, Related Work and the appendices (Open Questions, Special Tokens, Graph Pruning and Visualization); only the Acknowledgments and Author Contributions were not read. It was read in two passes the same day. The first pass covered about half the case studies; the rest were read at the coordinator’s request so that the NOTE could be Read rather than Skimmed, and the NOTE’s history says so. THEORY-1018 and THEORY-976 come from the second pass, and the Proposed THEORY-982 was revised in place to count its cases for and against.

Errors found in the works

Arithmetic and claims were checked where cheap; the scripts are the readers’ own and are not part of the record.

• Mathematical Framework. The authors’ own correction (a cyclic permutation inside a Frobenius norm) was confirmed numerically: ‖AB‖_F ≠ ‖BA‖_F while the eigenvalues agree. “Transformer weights are organized into convolutions” should read conv-net weights, and W_QK is written with and without its transpose.
• IOI. §4.4 calls the naive circuit’s faithfulness of 0.1 “comparable” to the full circuit’s 0.46, where lower is better, so by this measure the naive circuit is the more faithful. Algorithm 3’s greedy step maximizes a quantity with no M in it, not the incompleteness score §4.2 says it maximizes.
• ROME. §2.1’s “AIE=8.7% at layer 15” disagrees with Appendix B.1’s figures (15.0% from 8.47%, an AIE of 6.5%). Figure panels and an analysis cited in v5 are left over from v1, and the edit layer is given as 18, 17 and 15 in different places.
• ACDC. §4.1 says ACDC beats both baselines on tracr-reverse; its own Table 2 gives 0.200 against HISP’s 0.577 with corrupted activations. Appendix H says “8 main heads” and lists seven, and “39 edges” against 37 elsewhere.
• AtP*. The method’s origin is cited as “Nanda, 2022”; the post appeared on 2023-02-04, describing work of 2022.
• DAS. Table 2’s (MoNLI) brute-force row is digit for digit Table 1’s, almost certainly a copying error, so that comparison is unusable as printed. IIA is reported on training data although held-out sets were built, C(768, 32) is given as 2e58 where it is 4.2e56, and the conclusion that random networks “cannot construct entirely new behaviors” is contradicted in part by 0.64 at width 4,096.
• Towards Monosemanticity. An index slip in the ablation appendix (d_j for d_i). The 79% loss recovered is, by the authors’ own word, an overestimate.
• Scaling Monosemanticity. Two entries of the appendix’s table of safety-relevant features sit under the wrong categories.
• Sparse Feature Circuits. SHIFT is expanded two ways; Gemma Scope’s width is “8 × d” in §2 (18,432) and 16,384 in Appendix B.2; §4 says the Gemma feature ablations damage performance where Table 2 shows balanced accuracy rising; and the claim that SHIFT picks features “optimally or near-optimally” is not borne out by its own skylines.
• Transcoders. “Six of the eight” restricted case studies where Table 4 lists nine studies, seven restricted; a mis-cited reference for the greater-than circuit; and a re-derivation found a per-token LayerNorm scale that Eq. 7 omits and Appendix D.4 applies (THEORY-974).
• Circuit Tracing. The Biology summary announces nine case studies and lists ten; the cosine agreement one layer after a perturbation is “~0.8” in the text and “around 60–80%” in the appendix; and the re-derivation of constrained patching found it exact only if the normalization denominators are also frozen (THEORY-979).
• Biology. The revenue-table text says the cost rises “by $8,970from$26,880” to $35,820, but 26,880 + 8,970 = 35,850. The poem table’s “success cases” for the “rabbit” injection include a line ending in “hare”. The 70% injection figure leaves its denominator unstated, the hidden-goal case’s ~48% baseline is not explained beside its ~85%, and the introduction’s “routinely” conflicts with the Limitations’ “only claims about specific examples”.
• Zoom In and causal scrubbing have only slips (a glossary typo; a misspelled author name in the BibTeX, which AtP* copies). Zoom In’s claim that feature visualization “establishes a causal link” overstates its argument, and the NOTE records it as a limitation.

The record’s own conflicts, checked

Gemma Scope (NOTE-482) reports transcoders worse than MLP-output autoencoders on Gemma 2 2B, “reversing” Dunefsky et al. As filed (THEORY-1005, scoped to the three models measured) the two do not contradict, and NOTE-482 now says so. ROME’s storage reading is filed Proposed (THEORY-1011) because LIT-968 and THEORY-282 already show that an edit’s success does not locate a fact.

Named by the readings, not registered

• Hase et al. 2023, “Does Localization Inform Editing?”, arXiv 2301.04213. It tests THEORY-1011’s promote_when directly, and NOTE-782 already names its finding.
• Geva et al. 2021, “Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memories”, arXiv 2012.14913, from which ROME takes its reading of MLPs.
• Meng et al. 2022, MEMIT, arXiv 2210.07229, ROME’s extension to many edits.
• Cammarata et al. 2020, “Curve Detectors”, Distill, which holds the evidence Zoom In defers for THEORY-1013.
• Nanda 2023, “Attribution Patching: Activation Patching At Industrial Scale” (neelnanda.io, 2023-02-04), the method’s origin, named in LIT-1531’s history and body.
• Causal scrubbing’s three companion posts, whose results the record holds only through the main post’s summaries.
• Marks et al.’s model organism of hidden objectives, on which the Biology paper’s hidden-goals case (THEORY-976) is run.

Bearing written into the record

The readings were cross-cited among themselves (the Monosemanticity papers, sparse feature circuits, transcoders and Circuit Tracing; IOI and the tools that take it as ground truth; DAS and MIB), and written into the entries filed earlier in the same contribution: QUESTION-275 (units, circuit-only instruments, and cautions for both arms), CLAIM-454 (six supporting cases in networks), NOTE-1173, THEORY-973, THEORY-990, NOTE-1169, THEORY-968, THEORY-997, NOTE-1183, THEORY-1004, NOTE-1186, THEORY-975, THEORY-967, THEORY-981 and THEORY-1009. Dated notes of 2026-10-27 went on LIT-323, NOTE-782, NOTE-809, THEORY-802, QUESTION-234, THEORY-018, CLAIM-263, CLAIM-367, LIT-1310, NOTE-106, NOTE-482, THEORY-504 and THEORY-022. Dictionary-relativity of circuits, raised by two of the readings and tested by neither, is filed as QUESTION-274.

---

Reductive evolution and endosymbiosis: eighteen works registered unread from the exchange on the record’s coverage, and one Open QUESTION

2026-10-27 00:41:24

The owner asked for the record to account for an exchange, “Repository coverage assessment” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6adff120-f60c-83ea-a5a8-dc593a4cd4ad; 2026-10-27, 00:05 to 00:24 UTC). U1 asked how the record covers reductive evolution and endosymbiosis, and U2 asked for “more”. The replies, A1 and A2, audited the record and proposed works, cases and a framework. The share page renders client-side, so the text was read from the data embedded in the page.

What the exchange found. The record is strong on transitions in individuality, multilevel selection and biological individuality. It is moderate on holobionts, limited on eukaryogenesis, and has no treatment of reductive genome evolution or of the endosymbiont-to-organelle transition. A2’s summary: “substantial second-order discussion of biological individuality without much of the first-order biology of how obligate associations evolve”. The checks below confirm the absence. Before filing, a search of record/ found no match for genome reduction, Black Queen, Paulinella, Tremblaya, Hodgkinia, nitroplast, UCYN-A, McCutcheon, Husnik, Athreya, organellogenesis or Monocercomonoides. “Endosymbio” occurs in three files, NOTE-114, NOTE-159 and LIT-528, each in passing. The counts A1 reported hold: 1,529 LITs, 1,165 NOTEs, 46 LITs tagged philosophy-of-biology and 18 tagged ecology.

Registered. Eighteen works, all Deferred, none read. Fifteen were cited with a DOI or link. The other three were described without author or title. They were identified from the exchange’s own search results and confirmed against their abstracts: the “2013 genomic study” of the mealybug system, “Husnik et al. (2016)”, and the “2019 genomic analysis” of Monocercomonoides. Each was checked against Crossref and PubMed, and Crossref was searched for a preprint under its title. The summaries are drawn from the abstracts. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

• Genome reduction and its causes. McCutcheon & Moran (LIT-1559), the Black Queen Hypothesis (LIT-1568), Moran 1996 (LIT-1573) and McCutcheon et al. 2024 (LIT-1571).
• Nested and split symbioses. The mealybug patchwork (LIT-1565), its horizontally transferred genes (LIT-1569), the repeated replacement of its inner symbiont (LIT-1572), and Hodgkinia’s split into two lineages (LIT-1563).
• Organellogenesis. Protein import into Paulinella’s chromatophores (LIT-1557), the nitroplast (LIT-1562), and the review of import into endosymbionts (LIT-1560).
• Organelle loss. Monocercomonoides without mitochondria (LIT-1567), and its genome’s canonical complexity (LIT-1574).
• Eukaryogenesis. Chimeric carbon metabolism (LIT-1564), and the three programmes A2 set side by side: Kay et al. (LIT-1566), Tobiasson et al. (LIT-1558) and Bernabeu et al. (LIT-1561).
• Theory. Athreya, Czuppon & Gokhale on dependence and cohesion (LIT-1570). It was A2’s first priority.

The argument. A1 and A2 made one argument. Interdependence can grow without cooperation, unity, autonomy or adaptation. Different routes to dependence move different properties, and none of the routes is selection for the collective. This is filed as QUESTION-277, refining QUESTION-035. The question also carries A2’s five-dimension schema (D, G, R, C, S), which A2 itself called “a conceptual schema, not an established metric”. It is the exchange’s proposal and is not a CLAIM, because the record has read none of the works it rests on. A2 tied it to three entries, and the question cites each one: CLAIM-060, THEORY-418 and THEORY-443.

Corrections the lookups made to the exchange.

• Dates. Three works first appeared earlier than the exchange’s years. McCutcheon & Moran was online on 2011-11-08 (the exchange gives 2012). Sørensen et al. was online on 2024-12-10 (the exchange gives 2025). Athreya et al. was posted as a preprint on 2023-07-19 (the exchange gives 2025). Under ADR-002, four other works take their preprint dates. Each LIT’s history says which.
• Black Queen. The abstract states the hypothesis for free-living bacteria, Prochlorococcus and Pelagibacter. It attributes the genome reduction common in endosymbionts to drift. The exchange applies the hypothesis to symbiosis generally. LIT-1568 asks a reading to settle this.
• Husnik et al. (2016) has two authors, Husnik and McCutcheon.
• How the record was described. A1 quoted “Constitutive dependence does not entail alignment of interests” as CLAIM-060’s generalization. It is an assistant’s line from an earlier exchange (A135), which CLAIM-060 quotes, and CLAIM-060’s notes give it as the claim’s converse. The claim itself is that an organization’s success does not establish its constituents’ well-being. A1 described THEORY-418 as distinguishing “coordination, cooperation, and organizational integration”. Its terms are coordination, cooperation and collaboration, with closure from generatively entrenched interactions. A2 gives this correctly. A1 said LIT-188, THEORY-141, THEORY-418 and THEORY-443 “represent” frameworks. All four are Proposed.

Named but not registered.

• Other cicadas. A2 said “other cicadas show extensive genome fragmentation” and cited no work by name. Its search results point to several Hodgkinia papers, but which one it meant cannot be told from the text.
• Formal methods. The modelling families A1 listed (multitype branching processes, population-genetic models of gene loss, metabolic-network constraints) name no work.
• CASEs. A1 proposed CASE entries for aphid–Buchnera and for Paulinella and the nitroplast. No CASE is filed until the works behind them are read. A CASE reports what a source shows, and nothing here has been read.

Tags. The exchange suggested a reductive-evolution or endosymbiosis topic “once several targeted works have entered the record”. No word is added. ecology already covers symbiosis and host–microbe partnerships (ADR-028). natural-sciences covers biology read outside any machine-learning claim. The eukaryogenesis and organelle-loss works carry natural-sciences alone, since they are not about how organisms interact. If the readings show the two words hiding a shared mechanism, as A1 expected, the new word should be added by decision then.

Next. Read the works, starting with A2’s four “Critical” ones: LIT-1570, LIT-1568, LIT-1573 and LIT-1571. Then decide the CASEs. Most of the eighteen have lawful free copies: PMC, bioRxiv, or the publisher’s open access. The Science paper may not.

---

Twenty works registered unread from the exchange “About the Chagossians”: fifteen readings on law, remedy, responsibility and systems safety, and five sources for its cases; the press and court records it cited by search are named, not registered

2026-10-27 01:01:26

The owner asked for the exchange “About the Chagossians” to be added to the record (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6adff1a6-6e28-83e8-9796-6439b260b9bb; U1 to U12, 2026-10-26 21:18 to 23:04 UTC). Twenty works are registered, all Deferred and unread. Fifteen are readings A8 and A9 proposed for an account of remedy and accountability; five are sources for the cases filed from the exchange. Each was checked against Crossref or the publisher’s, court’s or organization’s own page on 2026-10-27, and literature.d was searched by surname and title words first; none was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made, and none carries anthology-candidate: none bears on machine-learning practice.

LIT	work	published	cited at	for
LIT-1593	Human Rights Watch, “That’s When the Nightmare Started”	2023-02-15	A2, A3	CASE-169
LIT-1620	Jeffery, How a plantation became paradise	2007-11-16	A3 (the study, no title)	CASE-169
LIT-1598	Jeffery, Chagos Islanders in Mauritius and the UK	2011-08-31	A3 (“Jeffery’s ethnography”)	CASE-169
LIT-1589	ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago	2019-02-25	A1, A3	CASE-169
LIT-1606	Supreme Court, Noem v. Abrego Garcia	2025-04-10	A7	CASE-175
LIT-1601	Cover, Violence and the Word	1986-07-01	A8, A9	CASE-176, CLAIM-462
LIT-1600	Fiss, The Forms of Justice	1979-11-01	A8	CASE-176, CASE-172
LIT-1587	Sabel & Simon, Destabilization Rights	2004-02-01	A8, A9	QUESTION-278
LIT-1607	Hillebrecht, Compliance with Judicial Decisions	2024-02-22	A8, A9	CLAIM-457, QUESTION-278
LIT-1615	Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope (3rd ed.)	2023-01-01	A8	CLAIM-462
LIT-1599	Thompson, Responsibility for Failures of Government	2014-03-09	A8, A9	CLAIM-457
LIT-1618	Nissenbaum, Accountability in a computerized society	1996-03-01	A8	CASE-172
LIT-1613	Leveson, Engineering a Safer World	2012-01-13	A8, A9	QUESTION-278
LIT-1610	Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule	1991-01-17	A8	CLAIM-464
LIT-1592	Levinson, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration	1999-05-01	A8	TERM-085
LIT-1604	Scheppele, Autocratic Legalism	2018-03-01	A8	CLAIM-464
LIT-1609	Herd & Moynihan, Administrative Burden	2019-01-09	A8	CASE-172
LIT-1594	Jasanoff, Technologies of Humility	2003-09-01	A8	CASE-172
LIT-1614	Pettit, Republicanism	1999-09-16	A9	TERM-085
LIT-1619	ECtHR, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	2012-12-13	A8	CASE-175

Corrections the lookups made to the exchange.

• Fiss’s Foreword is filed under Crossref’s title, “The Supreme Court, 1978 Term”; “The Forms of Justice”, the title A8 gave, is the Foreword’s own, and the LIT’s citation gives both.
• Levinson’s article is Columbia Law Review 99(4), doi 10.2307/1123480; A8 linked the SSRN copy (155564), which is the same paper.
• Thompson’s title on Crossref lacks the subtitle A8 gave (“The Problem of Many Hands”).
• Dates under ADR-002 differ from the exchange’s for three books, because Crossref’s earliest full date is the online record: Leveson (2012-01-13 for a book of 2011), Herd and Moynihan (2019-01-09 for 2018) and Pettit (1999-09-16 for 1997). Each LIT’s history says so. Rosenberg’s third edition has a year only on Crossref, and Scheppele’s article a year and issue only on its repository page (no Crossref record was returned), so both carry placeholders.
• A3 cited “Laura Jeffery’s ethnography” without a title, and a study of plants as cultural heritage. The monograph registered (LIT for Jeffery 2011) is the record’s identification, not the exchange’s; the plants study was not identified and is not registered.

Already held, and named by the exchange. Rubenstein et al. (LIT-1334) and Beckers et al. (LIT-1310), both read, which A8 proposed as new and A9 found on file; Pierson (LIT-1372, NOTE-1076), Farrell and Newman (LIT-1401, unread), Hutchins (LIT-1066), Lieder and Griffiths (NOTE-873), Longino (THEORY-151) and Ashby (THEORY-324), all found by the replies. For collective intention A12 cited Tuomela (LIT-476); the record also holds Bratman (LIT-471, LIT-488), Gilbert (LIT-477) and List and Pettit (LIT-391), none read. Bratman’s, Gilbert’s, Tuomela’s and List and Pettit’s views are named in TERM-080.

Named but not registered. The replies’ 2025–2026 particulars came from reporting and records they cited by opaque search references, with no title or address the share carries: Nature investigations of 2026 (January, and later) on grants, departures and advisory committees; GAO reports on the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights and on DOGE’s reported savings; the Education Department inspector general’s review; the SciOPS survey; UNESCO’s listing of sega tambour Chagos; the UK parliamentary inquiry of 2025 and the UK–Mauritius treaty; Security Management on USIP’s contractor; AP, NPR and ProPublica on USIP and Mohammad Halimi; the USIP TRO transcript and Howell’s opinion of 19 May 2025; the D.C. Circuit’s orders; J.G.G. v. Trump and its custody ruling; and the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court rulings on the East Wing of August 2026. Marisa Kabas’s investigation of the USIP footage was linked (thehandbasket.co), but the page refused this client (403), so its title and date could not be checked and it is not registered. The University of Edinburgh’s CHAGOS archive (archive.sps.ed.ac.uk/chagos) is a collection, not a work, and is named in CASE-169. The cases hold these particulars as the exchange’s.

Left for the owner. Whether to read A8’s first pass, which it ordered Cover, Hillebrecht, Fiss, Thompson, Leveson, then the causal-abstraction pair, the last already read here. Hillebrecht and Leveson are the two A8 and A9 named as the rivals the record’s account of remedy must beat (CLAIM-427).

---

Ten works named by the circuits readings registered and read, at the owner’s request

2026-10-27 02:06:33

The readings of the core circuits works, registered on 2026-10-26 and read by 2026-10-27 (the curation entry of 2026-10-27 00:12, which names them), named seven works they did not register, and CASE-165 and NOTE-1172 named an eighth, Van Gael et al.’s Markov Indian buffet process. On 2026-10-27 the owner said “get started on the seven works and markov IBP”. The seven are six works and causal scrubbing’s three companion posts, so ten works were registered and read the same day, in three batches.

Each was checked as not held first (literature.d and notes.d searched by title words, first author, identifier and venue URL). None was. The only hits were passing mentions: Hase et al., Geva et al. and MEMIT in NOTE-1166, NOTE-782 and NOTE-755; curve detectors in NOTE-1182; Nanda’s post in LIT-1531 and NOTE-1190; the Markov IBP in CASE-165, NOTE-1172, NOTE-1175, NOTE-1184 and LIT-1556. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made, and no anthology code was known for any of them. The nine interpretability works carry anthology-candidate last (ADR-005); the Markov IBP, a Bayesian nonparametric model, follows LIT-1556 and carries none. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

The ten

All ten were filed Deferred and moved to Active on reading; every NOTE is Read. THEORYs are listed Active first, then Proposed.

work	published	LIT	NOTE	THEORYs (Active; Proposed)
Hase, Bansal, Kim and Ghandeharioun, Does Localization Inform Editing?	2023-01-10	LIT-1578	NOTE-1194	THEORY-1024; THEORY-1026
Geva, Schuster, Berant and Levy, Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memories	2020-12-29	LIT-1576	NOTE-1200	THEORY-1033; THEORY-1030
Meng, Sen Sharma, Andonian, Belinkov and Bau, Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformer (MEMIT)	2022-10-13	LIT-1582	NOTE-1197	THEORY-1031
Cammarata, Goh, Carter, Schubert, Petrov and Olah, Curve Detectors	2020-06-17	LIT-1575	NOTE-1198	THEORY-1028; THEORY-1022
Nanda, Attribution Patching: Activation Patching At Industrial Scale	2023-02-04	LIT-1581	NOTE-1201	THEORY-1023; THEORY-1021
Marks, Treutlein et al., Auditing language models for hidden objectives	2025-03-14	LIT-1584	NOTE-1193	THEORY-1032; THEORY-1027
Chan et al., Causal scrubbing: results on a paren balance checker	2022-12-03	LIT-1580	NOTE-1195	THEORY-1029
Chan et al., Causal scrubbing: results on induction heads	2022-12-03	LIT-1579	NOTE-1196	THEORY-1020
Chan et al., Causal scrubbing: Appendix	2022-12-03	LIT-1583	NOTE-1202	THEORY-1025
Van Gael, Teh and Ghahramani, The Infinite Factorial Hidden Markov Model	2008-12-01	LIT-1577	NOTE-1199	THEORY-1034, THEORY-1019

Sixteen THEORYs: eleven Active (re-derived and checked numerically, or one study read in full with the title limited to what was measured, under ADR-047 v3) and five Proposed, each with a promote_when. MEMIT has no Proposed THEORY: the storage reading it relies on is already THEORY-1011. LIT-1582 extends LIT-1536; the three companion posts extend LIT-1549; LIT-1531 now extends LIT-1581.

Dates and identifiers. Under ADR-002 each takes its first public appearance. The arXiv works (Hase, Geva, MEMIT, Marks) take v1; Geva also carries its EMNLP 2021 DOI. Curve Detectors is cited by its Distill DOI and URL, Nanda’s post by its URL (the date from the page’s own metadata), the companion posts by their Alignment Forum URLs, and the Markov IBP by its NeurIPS proceedings page.

What was read of each

Every copy was lawful: arXiv, or the work’s own venue (distill.pub, the author’s page, the Alignment Forum’s own API, the NeurIPS proceedings). Figures in charts were read from captions and text; no number was taken from a chart, and each NOTE says so.

• Hase et al.: arXiv v2 (NeurIPS 2023) in full, §§1–9, Appendices A–C and Tables 1–8; Figure 6 rendered and checked against Table 3.
• Geva et al.: arXiv v2 (EMNLP 2021) in full, §§1–7, Tables 1–2 and Appendices A–B.
• MEMIT: arXiv v2 in full, §§1–9, Appendices A–F and Tables 1–2; one page rendered for a garbled fraction.
• Curve Detectors: the Distill article’s text in full, footnotes, references and contributions included. The interactive figures were not rendered, and the notebooks and companion articles were not read.
• Attribution Patching: the author’s page in full, all sections and asides; the plots (images) and the notebook were not seen. The derivation, the LayerNorm claim and the cost arithmetic were re-derived and checked numerically.
• Auditing for hidden objectives: arXiv v2 (63 pp.) in full, §§1–8 and Appendices A–G; of Appendix H’s ten example documents, 1–6 in full and 7–10 by their fact and type lines. A diff against v1 shows only the version stamp and one paragraph’s typesetting.
• The paren balance checker post: in full, its appendix sections and all 11 footnotes.
• The induction heads post: in full, its appendices (bonus hypothesis 5 included) and the 3 footnotes; the interactive attention viewers were not opened.
• The appendix post: §§1–8 and the 4 footnotes, in full.
• The infinite factorial HMM: the proceedings’ PDF (8 pp.), §§1–5, captions and references; garbled equations were reconstructed and re-derived. The authors’ later write-up of the M → ∞ limit was not read.

Decisions

The companion posts are filed separately. Each of causal scrubbing’s three companion posts is its own Alignment Forum post with its own address, and the two results posts add an author (Tao Lin) whom the main post and the appendix do not have. The record files one LIT per work, a source names one work, and a NOTE is one reading of one work, so each is its own LIT, extends LIT-1549. Folding them into LIT-1549 would have hidden three readings inside one NOTE and given one source to four works.

The Markov IBP’s year. The record’s “Van Gael et al. 2009” (CASE-165, NOTE-1172, NOTE-1175) comes from the IBP review, LIT-1556, which cites “volume 21, 2009”, the year of the printed NIPS volume. The paper, which introduces the Markov IBP, appeared at NIPS 21, the conference of December 2008 (pp. 1697–1704), and the proceedings’ BibTeX says 2008. It is the same work. The record dates it 2008-12-01, to the month, since the PDF carries no date, following LIT-677’s precedent for a NeurIPS paper. The NeurIPS site files the first author as “Gael”; the PDF’s “Van Gael” is used.

Errors found in the works

Numbers and claims were checked where cheap; the scripts are the readers’ own and are not part of the record.

• Hase et al. Table 3’s FT-1 Tracing Reversal R² (0.067) disagrees with Figure 6 (29.4), and §5.3’s “58.5% average” uses the figure’s value; the figure’s cell equals Table 6’s, and Table 3’s FT-5 row matches Table 6’s digit for digit, so one row was taken from the wrong table. The conclusion is unaffected. The edit layers are given with 25 in §4.2 and 24 in Appendix A, and n = 652 is 32.6% of 2,000 records, not of “about 10%” of CounterFact.
• Geva et al. Only a wording slip (“rank … increases” where the rank improves). Noted as weaknesses: one annotator per key, no random-direction control.
• MEMIT. Slips (“token T” for S, “GPT-XL”, “Figure D” for Figure 10, “Speficity”); CounterFact called “21,919 factual statements” where they are counterfactual records; the GPT-NeoX clamp names ‖h‖ for δ. Eq. 14 was checked to be the joint least-squares solution, and every S is the harmonic mean of its parts.
• Curve Detectors. The firing rate is “10%” in the opening and 11% elsewhere; “only a couple convolutional layers deep” contradicts “five convolutional layers” (the second is right); typos. The causal reading of feature visualization is overstated, as in Zoom In.
• Attribution Patching. “d_head 6” for 64; two formulas use an activation where its gradient belongs; the translation heads of the induction-heads paper are placed in GPT-J, where they are in that paper’s own 40-layer model; Vig et al.’s title misquoted.
• Auditing for hidden objectives. Team 1’s prompt is quoted two ways; the SFT set is 74,177 samples and “≈70,000”; C.2’s “28% increase” is 28 percentage points (a 165% relative increase).
• Paren balance checker. The horizon test is stated backwards twice; experiment 2b’s loss is 0.56 in the text and 0.53 in the table; row 2a gives 87.2% where 88% is printed; “class-balanced” contradicts about 26% balanced.
• Induction heads. “K individually (94 -> 97%)” where by the post’s numbers K went from 91% to 94%; the introduction’s headline 89% is the bonus hypothesis, the main result’s 86% hypothesis 4.
• Across the companion posts. The appendix says both results posts use the randomized-loss baseline. The induction post’s 0% is the heads run on another sequence (a 0.053-nat gap), the paren post’s a 4.30-nat gap, so “35% to 86%” and “93% to 72%” are on different scales; LIT-1549’s summary sets them side by side. The appendix’s Lemma 1 says “product distribution” where its proof shows the joint.
• The infinite factorial HMM. Both of the sequential buffet’s printed predictive rules are wrong: the stay-on rule should have γ where δ is printed, and the switch-on rule is c01/(c00 + c01 + 1), not c00/(c00 + c01); checked as exact ratios of the paper’s eq. (6), the printed stay-on rule gives 0.21 where the exact value is 0.86. Also ”∝” for ”∼” in (11), and typos.

A question for the owner: THEORY-1011

THEORY-1011, ROME’s storage reading, is Proposed, and its promote_when says it is “refuted if edits of equal quality are available at layers that tracing does not implicate”. Hase et al. report exactly that, in GPT-J on 652 CounterFact facts: ROME rewrites at over 96% at every layer but the last, and the per-fact tracing effect adds 0.1 point of R² for ROME at layer 6 (0.947 to 0.948) and at most 3.2 points across methods and objectives (THEORY-1024). The localization part of THEORY-1011 meets its own refutation clause. Its conjecture that “any middle layer could store a given fact equally” is not refuted, and is close to Hase et al.’s own “many layers could store a fact” (THEORY-1026). The readers suggest an ADR-047 disposition of split or needs-correction rather than a flat rejection. The status was not changed: what to do with THEORY-1011 is the owner’s decision, and its dated note of 2026-10-27 records the evidence and leaves it open.

Bearing written into the record

Dated notes of 2026-10-27 went on THEORY-1011, NOTE-1166, NOTE-782 (its second of the day), THEORY-998 (Hase et al. and MEMIT); THEORY-1013, NOTE-1182, THEORY-986 (Curve Detectors); LIT-1531, NOTE-1190, THEORY-996, THEORY-1000 (Nanda’s post); THEORY-976, NOTE-1181, QUESTION-274 (the hidden-objectives paper); LIT-1549, NOTE-1168, THEORY-978, THEORY-973, THEORY-990 (the companion posts); and CASE-165, NOTE-1172, NOTE-1175, NOTE-1184 and LIT-1556 (the Markov IBP). Each says which earlier statement (“not registered”, “not held”, “not read”) is no longer true, rather than the statement being edited. No title, status or warrant changed. CASE-165’s item 2 now has the Markov IBP’s two THEORYs beside it: the Markov IBP fixes the coupling of persistence to rarity that the case finds (THEORY-1034), but not the drift from the buffet’s prior after the first step (THEORY-1019), and it models one sequence, with no axis of members.

Considered and not written: dated notes on THEORY-982 and CLAIM-454 or QUESTION-275 from the hidden-objectives paper (neither entry counts the hidden-goal case directly; the bearing is in NOTE-1193), on THEORY-802 and QUESTION-234 (Geva’s neuron basis; Hase et al.’s two answers to “where”), on THEORY-282, LIT-1536, LIT-1543, LIT-1534 and NOTE-755, and LIT-1584 as a second source of THEORY-976. Each is a cross-mention the new NOTEs already make.

This entry closes the earlier one’s list

The curation entry of 2026-10-27 00:12 lists these works under “Named by the readings, not registered”. Curation entries are dated and never rewritten (ADR-047), so that list stands as written, and this entry records that every work on it, and the Markov IBP, was registered and read in this contribution.

Named by the readings, not registered

• Olah et al. 2020, An Overview of Early Vision in InceptionV1, Distill, doi:10.23915/distill.00024.002. It sorts the early layers’ units into families, so it is the likeliest source of the per-layer count THEORY-1013’s promote_when asks for.
• Cammarata et al. 2021, Curve Circuits, Distill, the next article in the thread (its DOI suffix was not checked). It holds the circuit, downstream-use and hand-reimplementation arguments Curve Detectors defers.
• Redwood’s polysemanticity toy-model paper, named in the causal scrubbing appendix (§6).
• Griffiths and Ghahramani 2005, the IBP’s original NIPS paper. If registered, LIT-1577 should extend it.
• Teh, Görür and Ghahramani 2007 (the stick-breaking IBP), Van Gael, Saatci, Teh and Ghahramani 2008 (the beam sampler), Ghahramani and Jordan 1997 (factorial HMMs) and Knowles and Ghahramani 2007 (infinite ICA), all named by the infinite factorial HMM.

---

Reductive evolution and endosymbiosis, second pass: endosymbiosis joins the topics, six Proposed CASEs, and seventeen works for what the exchange mentioned without citing

2026-10-27 02:19:17

The first pass on the exchange of 2026-10-27 is PR #337 and the curation entry of 00:41. It registered eighteen works and filed QUESTION-277. It left three things undone: the CASEs, a topic word, and the things the exchange mentioned without citing a work. The owner then asked for all three. For the unnamed things, the owner said: “make a good faith effort to find anything mentioned that wasn’t registered. if you can’t find it, try to find adjacent material that at least accounts for the ideas we’re hoping to reference”. This entry records that pass.

The topic. ADR-055 adds endosymbiosis, labelled “Endosymbiosis and reductive evolution”. ADR-028 takes a history note, and ecology’s blurb now points to the new word. The eighteen works of the first pass and QUESTION-277 are retagged, each with a version bump and history item. All the works take the new word first. QUESTION-277 keeps individuation first.

The CASEs. Six are filed, all documented, specimen and Proposed, because every source is unread. Under ADR-051 a case may cite a work the record has not read. Each case says that what it shows rests on the abstracts until the works are read.

• Aphid–Buchnera, CASE-173. A1 proposed it.
• The mealybug’s nested symbionts, CASE-171.
• Hodgkinia in cicadas, CASE-177.
• Paulinella, CASE-174. A1 proposed it.
• The nitroplast, CASE-167. A1 proposed it.
• Monocercomonoides, CASE-168.

A1 proposed two “case families”, obligate insect–bacterial associations and recent organelles. A2 then built its argument on three systems and a negative control. Filing all six keeps each system to one code. The aphid–Buchnera and Hodgkinia cases illustrate CLAIM-060. The others relate to no CLAIM, because the claims they bear on are QUESTION-277’s open dimensions, and a CASE relates only to claims. While drafting, one statement was removed from the Buchnera case: that no symbiont gene is known to have moved to the host. None of the sources at hand states it. The case now says only that the abstracts report no transfer.

Found: works the exchange mentioned without naming.

• “Other cicadas show extensive genome fragmentation” (A2). Its search results and the abstracts point to the two Magicicada papers: Campbell et al. 2015 (LIT-1612) and Campbell et al. 2017 (LIT-1602). Łukasik et al. 2018 (LIT-1586) is registered as well. It shows that the Tettigades splitting A2 described, from one paper (LIT-1563), happened at least six times.
• Paulinella’s independent origin and genome reduction (A2). These were cited to a search result. The primary source is the chromatophore genome paper, Nowack et al. 2008 (LIT-1621).
• Aphid–Buchnera (A1’s case). The founding genome paper is Shigenobu et al. 2000 (LIT-1596).
• Host compensation (A2’s mechanism table). Campbell et al. 2018 (LIT-1590) documents a host compensating at transmission.
• Endosymbiotic gene transfer (A1 and A2). The standard review is Timmis et al. 2004 (LIT-1588). No abstract was seen, so its summary is what it is standardly cited for.
• The eukaryogenesis scenarios A1 listed. For “metabolic syntrophy”: the hydrogen hypothesis (Martin & Müller 1998, LIT-1597) and the first cultured Asgard archaeon, which lives by syntrophy (Imachi et al. 2020, LIT-1591). For “cellular complexity preceding mitochondrial acquisition”: Pittis & Gabaldón 2016 (LIT-1595), the earlier statement of the case LIT-1566 and LIT-1561 continue.

Adjacent: ideas the exchange named with no work, accounted for by standard references.

• “Population-genetic models of gene loss” (A1): Kuo, Moran & Ochman 2009 (LIT-1611) on drift and genome size, and Mira, Ochman & Moran 2001 (LIT-1616) on deletional bias.
• “Metabolic network constraints” (A1): Pál et al. 2006 (LIT-1585). It simulates gene loss on a metabolic network and predicts Buchnera’s gene content.
• “Mutualism theory” (A2’s answer to why a partnership persists): Sachs et al. 2004 (LIT-1603). The record held cooperation within species (LIT-498, LIT-501) and no synthesis between species.
• Host control, and within-collective conflict (A1’s “host control of symbiont replication”; A2’s C and S): Frank’s two 1996 models (LIT-1617, LIT-1605). The second had no PubMed record that matched (the DOI search returned an unrelated paper), so its summary is drawn from the title and from what it is standardly cited for.
• “Multitype branching processes” (A1): Haccou, Jagers & Vatutin 2005 (LIT-1608), a standard monograph. A search for an endosymbiosis model built on multitype branching processes found none. This is the least specific registration in the batch.

How they were checked. As in the first pass, each work was checked against Crossref and PubMed, and Crossref was searched for a preprint under its title. Three take preprint dates under ADR-002: Campbell 2017, Campbell 2018 and Imachi. Five keep month precision because no source gives a day: Timmis, Mira, Sachs and Frank’s American Naturalist paper, with the monograph dated by its print date. Literature.d was searched first for each surname and title, and none was held.

Still not registered. A1 mentioned “multilevel selection” models. The record holds these already (THEORY-141 and the readings behind it), and the exchange pointed to them. The exchange named no other work or idea without something registered for it.

Next. Read the works, starting with A2’s four “Critical” ones: LIT-1570, LIT-1568, LIT-1573 and LIT-1571. Then read the primary sources of the six cases and decide whether each case can become Active.

---

Eight works named by the readings of PR 338 registered and read, at the owner’s request

2026-10-27 03:57:30

The readings merged in PR #338 (the curation entry of 2026-10-27 02:06) named eight works they did not register, under “Named by the readings, not registered”. On 2026-10-27 the owner said “file the next readings”. All eight were registered and read the same day, in two batches: three circuits works, and the Indian buffet process’s original paper with the four works the infinite factorial HMM (LIT-1577) names.

Each was checked as not held first: literature.d and notes.d were searched by title words, first author, identifier and venue URL. None was held. The only hits were passing mentions, in NOTE-1198, NOTE-1182, NOTE-1201 and NOTE-1202 for the circuits works, and in LIT-1556, NOTE-1172 and NOTE-1199 for the others. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made. The three circuits works carry anthology-candidate last (ADR-005). The five probabilistic works follow LIT-1556 and LIT-1577 and carry none. None carries an instruction for machine-learning practice.

The eight

All eight were filed Deferred and moved to Active on reading, and every NOTE is Read. THEORYs are listed Active first, then Proposed.

work	published	LIT	NOTE	THEORYs (Active; Proposed)
Olah, Cammarata, Schubert, Goh, Petrov and Carter, An Overview of Early Vision in InceptionV1	2020-04-01	LIT-1624	NOTE-1206	THEORY-1042; THEORY-1040
Cammarata, Goh, Carter, Voss, Schubert and Olah, Curve Circuits	2021-01-30	LIT-1629	NOTE-1207	THEORY-1038; THEORY-1047
Scherlis, Sachan, Jermyn, Benton and Shlegeris, Polysemanticity and Capacity in Neural Networks	2022-10-04	LIT-1625	NOTE-1205	THEORY-1036; THEORY-1035
Griffiths and Ghahramani, Infinite Latent Feature Models and the Indian Buffet Process	2005-12-01	LIT-1623	NOTE-1208	THEORY-1043
Teh, Görür and Ghahramani, Stick-breaking Construction for the Indian Buffet Process	2007-03-11	LIT-1627	NOTE-1210	THEORY-1041
Van Gael, Saatci, Teh and Ghahramani, Beam Sampling for the Infinite Hidden Markov Model	2008-07-01	LIT-1622	NOTE-1204	THEORY-1037; THEORY-1044
Ghahramani and Jordan, Factorial Hidden Markov Models	1995-11-01	LIT-1628	NOTE-1203	THEORY-1045
Knowles and Ghahramani, Infinite Sparse Factor Analysis and Infinite Independent Components Analysis	2007-09-01	LIT-1626	NOTE-1209	THEORY-1046

There are twelve THEORYs. Eight are Active: re-derived and checked numerically, or one study read in full with the title limited to what was measured, under ADR-047 v3. Four are Proposed, each with a promote_when.

Lineage:

• LIT-1629 extends LIT-1575, and LIT-1625 extends LIT-323.
• LIT-1627 and LIT-1626 extend LIT-1623.
• LIT-1577 now extends LIT-1623 and LIT-1628 and is compared_against LIT-1626.
• LIT-1556 now extends LIT-1623.

Scherlis et al. was identified, not guessed. The earlier entry names it only as “Redwood’s polysemanticity toy-model paper”. The causal scrubbing appendix’s own HTML links §6’s “our polysemanticity toy model paper” to the Alignment Forum post that announces arXiv 2210.01892, and §6’s model is that paper’s quadratic model with two features and one neuron.

A slip in the brief. The reading brief called LIT-1577 “the IBP review”. LIT-1577 is the infinite factorial HMM, and the review is LIT-1556. The relations were written to the right entries: the earlier entry’s “LIT-1577 should extend Griffiths and Ghahramani 2005” went on the infinite factorial HMM, and the review takes its own extends.

What was read of each

Every copy was lawful: arXiv, the work’s own venue (distill.pub, PMLR, the NeurIPS proceedings, the Alignment Forum), or the authors’ copies on the Cambridge MLG and Oxford servers. Figures in charts were read from captions and text, and no number was taken from a chart. Each NOTE says so.

• Early Vision: the Distill page’s HTML in full, with every section, group and circuit caption, the footnotes and the references. The neuron grids were parsed to count each group’s units. The counts agree with each “Show all N” line and, unit for unit, with the five layer_data taxonomy files the article offers. The images were not looked at.
• Curve Circuits: the article’s text in full. The text (about 20,600 characters) and every figure caption are compiled into the page’s index.js and were extracted by a static parse of the bundle, without running it. Every section, footnote and caption, the contributions and the acknowledgements were read. The figures were not rendered, and the Colab notebook was not opened.
• Scherlis et al.: arXiv v4 (23 pp.) in full, §§1–5 and Appendices A–H with their lemmas and theorems. v1–v3 were compared where it mattered, and the Alignment Forum post was read in full.
• Griffiths and Ghahramani 2005: the NeurIPS proceedings PDF, 8 pp., in full, with §§1–4, the captions and the references. The Gatsby technical report it defers to was not read.
• Teh, Görür and Ghahramani 2007: PMLR’s PDF, 8 pp., in full, with §§1–8, the appendix, the captions and the references.
• The beam sampler: the authors’ PDF, which carries the ICML 2008 footer, in full, with §§1–6, the captions, both footnotes and the references. The ACM copy was not compared.
• Factorial HMMs: the journal version in full (§§1–6, Appendices A–D, the ten notes, Tables 1–2 and the references), from the authors’ copy. Its numbers, notes and received dates were checked against the publisher’s PDF. The NIPS 1995 version was downloaded and not read.
• Knowles and Ghahramani 2007: the authors’ PDF in full, with §§1–5, the captions and the 8 references. The Springer copy was not compared.

Identifiers and dates

Two printed Distill DOIs do not resolve. Early Vision prints 10.23915/distill.00024.002 and Curve Circuits prints 10.23915/distill.00024.006. On 2026-10-27 both returned 404 at doi.org and at its handle API, and Crossref has no record of either. The thread’s other DOIs (.001, .003, .004, .005, .007 and .008) all resolve. So both LITs cite their distill.pub URLs as the source, and keep the printed DOI in the citation and the history note only. A DOI that does not resolve cannot be pinned, so it is not used as the source. This answers the earlier entry’s “its DOI suffix was not checked” for Curve Circuits.

The factorial HMM is dated by its NIPS version. The registered work is the journal article, Machine Learning 29: 245–273, which Crossref dates November 1997. An earlier version with the same title and authors appeared at NIPS 8. ADR-002’s earlier-version rule takes the earlier date, so published: is 1995-11-01, to the month. The LIT’s version-1 history says the month came from memory, not from a page checked that day. A second, independent recollection agrees (NIPS 8 met in Denver from 27 November to 2 December 1995), but no page was checked for it either, so the month is still unverified. A technical-report version (DTIC, 10.21236/ada307097, dated 1996-01-01 by Crossref) is later than the NIPS paper and was not read.

The other dates are first public appearances under ADR-002:

• Early Vision and Curve Circuits: the date printed on each page.
• Scherlis et al.: arXiv v1.
• Griffiths and Ghahramani 2005: December 2005, the month of NIPS 18, as LIT-1577 and LIT-677 are dated.
• Teh et al.: PMLR’s citation date.
• The beam sampler: ICML 2008, held 5–9 July 2008. Crossref gives the year only.
• Knowles and Ghahramani: ICA 2007, held 9–12 September 2007. Springer gives the year only. The authors’ PDF was created on 2007-06-01, but when it was posted is not known, so that date is not used.

Errors found in the works

Numbers and claims were checked where cheap. The scripts are the readers’ own and are not part of the record.

• Early Vision.
  • mixed3b’s “Color Contrast/Gradient” caption repeats the center-surround caption word for word, which contradicts its own first sentence.
  • A parenthesis is misplaced: “(Color Center-Surround mixed3a)”.
  • The downloadable taxonomy files are not valid JSON (trailing commas).
  • There are typos.
  • The printed DOI does not resolve.
  • Checked and correct: 1,056 = 64 + 64 + 192 + 256 + 480, and conv2d2’s “about 25%” line detectors are 49 of 192.
• Curve Circuits.
  • The downstream-use sentence says the curve units build “sophisticated curves, circles, S-shapes, spirals, divots and evolutes” in mixed4a. Each word links to a mixed3b group of Early Vision, in the curve units’ own layer, and the sentence is nearly Early Vision’s mixed3b text. Either the links or the layer are wrong.
  • The “~50x” reduction and “more than 50,000 parameters” are stated, not derived.
  • There are caption typos, and the printed DOI does not resolve.
  • Not an error, but the two articles sort mixed3a’s line-like units differently.
• Scherlis et al.
  • The model is “one-layer” in §§1–2 and “two-layer” in §§3 and 5, in all four versions.
  • λ means three different things. Eq. 15’s λ is √(λ₄/2) of eq. 4’s multiplier.
  • §4.3 states n_i = λ_k C_i where it needs √λ_k R_k. v4 corrected §4.4 but not §4.3.
  • §3.6 calls the same dense-input curves “convex” and “concave” within one paragraph.
  • Figure 4’s caption calls ∂L/∂C_i the “marginal loss reduction”, which is its negative.
  • Appendix E prints “(k − 1)(X, Y)” where the covariance is meant. The result holds with the covariance.
  • §3.2 claims no assumption beyond mean and covariance, but eq. 12 needs independence and a common fourth moment.
  • The contributions credit “JS”, which matches no listed author. The Alignment Forum post names Jacob Steinhardt as a co-author, and all four arXiv versions thank him instead of listing him.
• Griffiths and Ghahramani 2005. Nothing of substance. There is one garbled sentence, the image size is given as 240 × 320 in the text and 320 × 240 in the caption, and the NeurIPS site reverses the author order.
• Teh, Görür and Ghahramani 2007. The derivations re-derive. The truncation error is never computed, and the sampler comparison exists only in a chart. Ref. [6] dates the NIPS 18 paper 2006. There are typos. PMLR misspells the second author as “Grür”.
• The beam sampler.
  • §4 writes [0, π_{s_t,s_{t−1}}] for [0, π_{s_{t−1},s_t}].
  • Neal’s Slice sampling is cited as pp. 705–741. Teh et al. cite it as 705–767, and neither was checked.
  • Daumé is garbled to “III, H. D.”.
  • One hyperparameter setting was “chosen using the values the beam and Gibbs samplers converged to”, which is circular for a comparison of the two.
• Factorial HMMs.
  • Note 3 is wrong as stated. Orthogonal columns of W^(m) and W^(n) with a diagonal C do not decouple the chains given an observation. A counterexample gives a posterior odds ratio of e^{−1} whatever Y is. The note needs C ∝ I, or orthogonality in the C^{−1} inner product.
  • Note 7’s factor “3.8” is √15 = 3.87.
  • The Bach result’s “an order of magnitude larger” leaves its unit open.
• Knowles and Ghahramani 2007.
  • §2.1 calls Nα “the total number of features”. Nα is the expected number of non-zero entries. The same paragraph gives the total as Poisson(αH_N).
  • Figure 2’s caption gives “D = 7, N = 6, N = 100” where the text has D = 7, K = 6, N = 200.
  • The prior on β is G(1, 2) in the table of variants and G(1, 1) in the MH step.
  • “Significantly better” is used with no test reported.

Bearing written into the record

Dated notes of 2026-10-27 went on:

• The circuits works: THEORY-1013, NOTE-1182 (the second note of the day on each), NOTE-1198, THEORY-1022, LIT-1575, THEORY-1028 and NOTE-1201 (Early Vision and Curve Circuits), and NOTE-1202 (Scherlis et al., and Curve Detectors, which it called not registered).
• The probabilistic works: CASE-165, NOTE-1172 and LIT-1556 (the second note of the day on each), and LIT-1577, NOTE-1199 and THEORY-999.

Each says which earlier statement (“not registered”, “not held”, “not read”, “proposed for registration”) is no longer true, rather than the statement being edited. No title, status or warrant changed.

What changed in what the record can say:

• THEORY-1013 now has a denominator but still lacks a criterion. Early Vision sorts all 1,056 units of five layers, and its own captions flag 37% of them. Curve Circuits completes Zoom In’s seven arguments for one family, with one tested weight edit. The account stays Proposed.
• THEORY-1022’s promote_when is not met. The reimplementation is not compared on weak firings, and the substitution is an intervention on accuracy.
• CASE-165 takes one merged note.
  • Item 1’s 8.97 is exact. Its reason is qualified: the dropped tail is occupied in 24% of draws.
  • Item 3’s “not by the data” holds only with the activation fixed. With the activation integrated out, the data carry an Occam factor against a held but unused feature.
  • Item 4’s worked example is traced to the original paper.
  • The model per member is a factorial HMM, whose exact inference at sixteen features costs about 2.1 million terms per member per day.

LIT-1575 and LIT-323 receive the converse extended_by from CI.

Proposals considered and not written:

• THEORY-986. Early Vision asserts that early vision “seems most likely to be universal”, but the only other model it shows is TF-Slim InceptionV1’s first layer, so it adds no cross-model evidence.
• LIT-1583. A pointer to Scherlis et al. The statement that is no longer true is in NOTE-1202, and the note went there.
• THEORY-802 and THEORY-991. Scherlis et al.’s §4 geometry is basis-relative: small blocks are monosemantic after a rotation, and a large block is polysemantic in every basis. Writing that onto the accounts is an argument, not a correction, and is left for a reading that takes it up. The bearing is in NOTE-1205.

This entry closes the earlier one’s list

The curation entry of 2026-10-27 02:06 lists these eight works under “Named by the readings, not registered”. That list stands as written (ADR-047), and this entry records that every work on it was registered and read in this contribution.

Named by the readings, not registered

• Bau et al. 2017, Network Dissection, which Early Vision cites as the systematic alternative to sorting units by eye.
• Olah, Mordvintsev and Schubert 2017, Feature Visualization, Distill, doi:10.23915/distill.00007, and Olah et al. 2018, The Building Blocks of Interpretability, doi:10.23915/distill.00010. Early Vision cites both for its methods.
• Olah et al., Naturally Occurring Equivariance in Neural Networks, Distill, doi:10.23915/distill.00024.004 (it resolves), named by Curve Circuits.
• The planned third curve article, on “prevalence across models”. Nobody looked for it. If it exists, it is the cross-model evidence THEORY-986 lacks.
• Elhage et al. 2022, Softmax Linear Units, transformer-circuits.pub/2022/solu, named by Scherlis et al.
• Griffiths and Ghahramani’s technical report, Gatsby TR 2005-001, to which the NIPS paper defers.
• Neal 2003, Slice sampling, whose page range the beam sampler and Teh et al. cite differently.

Bret Victor’s “Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction”, which Curve Circuits cites, is not a candidate.

---

Thirteen works registered unread from the exchange “Field Existence Question”: Barad and her two critics, the prior art for relata as realizations of constraints, and three classics of the structural-realism debate; the other ancestors it named are not registered

2026-10-27 08:06:55

The owner asked for the exchange “Field Existence Question” to be added to the record (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae058d9-2550-83e8-8f8a-aa0ffff12d7d; U1 to U10, 2026-10-27 06:20 to 07:46 UTC). Thirteen works are registered, all Deferred and unread. Each was checked against Crossref, arXiv or the publisher’s own page on 2026-10-27, and literature.d was searched by first author and title words first; none was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made, and none carries anthology-candidate: none bears on machine-learning practice.

LIT	work	published	cited at	for
LIT-1653	Barad, Posthumanist Performativity	2003-03-01	A4, A6, A9	TERM-087, CLAIM-476
LIT-1657	Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway	2007-07-11	A3–A6	CLAIM-476, CLAIM-472
LIT-1647	Barad, Agential Realism—A Relation Ontology Interpretation of Quantum Physics	2022-03-07	A4	CLAIM-136
LIT-1672	Faye & Jaksland, Barad, Bohr, and quantum mechanics	2021-04-18	A4, A6	CLAIM-476
LIT-1673	Jaksland, Naturalized, Fundamental, and Feminist Metaphysics All at Once	2024-03-15	A4, A6, A9, A10	QUESTION-280
LIT-1648	Simondon, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information	2020-11-10	A9, A10	CLAIM-477
LIT-1661	Goguen & Burstall, Institutions	1992-01-02	A9	CLAIM-477, CLAIM-476
LIT-1650	Hacking, The looping effects of human kinds	1996-07-11	A9, A10	CLAIM-476
LIT-1667	Brandom, Articulating Reasons	2000-12-31	A9	CLAIM-479
LIT-1656	Maturana & Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition	2011-09-22	A9	CLAIM-477
LIT-1635	Rovelli, Relational Quantum Mechanics	1996-08-31	A3	LIT-1672
LIT-1633	Newman, Mr. Russell’s “Causal Theory of Perception”	1928-04-01	A3	CLAIM-138
LIT-1637	van Fraassen, The Scientific Image	1980-12-11	A3	CLAIM-150

Corrections the lookups made to the exchange.

• A4 linked Barad’s handbook chapter as doi 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198844495.013.0043, which Crossref does not resolve; the registered DOI is …013.43, pp. 1030–1054, print 7 March 2022.
• Crossref gives Meeting the Universe Halfway an issue year of 2006 and no full date; Duke University Press gives 11 July 2007, which is published:.
• Dates under ADR-002 differ from the exchange’s for three works, because Crossref’s earliest full date is a later record: Maturana and Varela (2011-09-22, the online record, for a book of 1980), Hacking (1996-07-11 for a chapter in a volume of 1995) and Brandom (2000-12-31, for the book of 2000; A9 linked the JSTOR edition of 2009, the same book). Each LIT’s history says so.
• Simondon’s book has no Crossref record; the date is the English translation’s, from the University of Minnesota Press, and the LIT gives the thesis of 1958. Newman’s paper has a year only on Crossref; issue 146 of Mind is April 1928.
• Rovelli’s paper takes its arXiv v1 date, 31 August 1996, ahead of the journal’s August 1996 issue.
• A3’s “Esfeld — A Moderate Structural Realism (2004)” names no work that could be identified. The position it describes is Esfeld and Lam’s, held and read (LIT-895, NOTE-695), and nothing was registered for it.

Already held, and named by the exchange. The Stanford entry on structural realism (LIT-045, read), Ladyman’s What is Structural Realism? and Every Thing Must Go (LIT-342, LIT-301, unavailable), Esfeld and Lam (LIT-895, read), Chakravartty (LIT-196), Worrall (LIT-315), Rovelli’s later account (LIT-177), Montévil and Mossio (LIT-582, read in NOTE-468), Pattee (LIT-1190, read in NOTE-952), Ladyman and Lorenzetti (LIT-184, read in NOTE-129), Brandom’s Making It Explicit (LIT-794), Searle (LIT-482, read in NOTE-388), Deacon (LIT-529, unavailable), Hacking’s The Social Construction of What? (LIT-475, unavailable) and Griesemer and Shavit (LIT-188, read in NOTE-173), whose borrowing of intra-action A5 found. Only A5 cited any of these by code.

Named but not registered. A3’s ancestors and neighbours, each named once with at most a title and year, and none bearing on what is filed: Bohr; Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis (1902); Cassirer, Substance and Function (1910), which A3 put first in its reading order; Peirce, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” (1878); Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics (1927); Whitehead, Process and Reality (1929), whom A5, A9 and A10 came back to; Wheeler’s “it from bit”; Bateson; and Dewey. Varela’s later work on organizational closure was named without a title (A9 §2), and Hacking’s “making up people” without a citation. A7’s luria documents are the owner’s tool, cited by their codes (LU-DP-016, LU-ADR-124) where filed entries use them, not registered as works.

Left for the owner. Whether to read Barad’s 2003 paper first, as A4 proposed, and Jaksland 2024, the paper the owner asked about at U6; and whether Whitehead and Cassirer, the two A3 and A9 leaned on most among those not registered, should be.

---

The first readings from the “Field Existence Question” exchange: Jaksland 2024 and Faye & Jaksland 2021 read in full, Barad 2003 unavailable; luria’s comparison with Barad’s apparatus turns out to rest on the conception of agential realism Barad rejects

2026-10-27 09:02:40

The owner asked, after the exchange “Field Existence Question” was filed, to “get started on those readings”: the three its workbench entry put first. Two were read in full the same day, from lawful open copies, and one could not be reached.

LIT	work	outcome	NOTE	THEORYs
LIT-1673	Jaksland 2024, Hypatia	Read; Active	NOTE-1230	THEORY-1083 (Active), THEORY-1086 (Proposed)
LIT-1672	Faye & Jaksland 2021, Synthese	Read; Active	NOTE-1220	THEORY-1076 (Active), THEORY-1071 (Active), THEORY-1091 (Proposed)
LIT-1653	Barad 2003, Signs	Unavailable (ADR-041)	none	none

Lookups. Jaksland 2024 is open access (CC BY) at Cambridge Core and was read from the publisher’s PDF. Faye and Jaksland 2021 is open access (CC BY), but the Springer PDF, the Copenhagen repository copy and the PhilPapers preprint all returned a bot challenge to this client; it was read from the publisher’s HTML full text, rendered in a headless browser, which has no page numbers. Barad 2003 has no open copy: Unpaywall reports it closed, and OpenAlex lists no open location and no repository full text. Its two most-quoted passages (pp. 814–815) are read at second hand in both notes.

What the readings found, against what the record filed this morning.

• The exchange’s accounts held up. A4 and A6 reported both papers accurately: the three criticisms of Faye and Jaksland, Jaksland’s bracketing of the quantum question, his reconstruction of Barad as favouring features that resist approximation, and his leaving that open.
• CLAIM-476 compares on the template conception, which Barad rejects. Jaksland shows Barad holds agential realism as naturalized metaphysics applied once, and rejects both analogy and a template other domains instantiate (THEORY-1083). The luria comparison is the template reading. Its argument never leaned on Barad’s quantum credentials, which Faye and Jaksland show quantum mechanics does not supply (THEORY-1071), so it stands, with a dated note saying which conception it uses.
• CLAIM-477 is an unrestricted template too. Its route to unrestricted scope is the template’s, needing a warrant in each domain, not Barad’s, which needs features that admit no approximation (THEORY-1086). Its non-eliminative physical precedent is Bohr as Faye and Jaksland read him (THEORY-1076), not Barad.
• QUESTION-280 asked the easier half. Jaksland finds individualism “immediately more agreeable” as approximable; the dualisms are the open case. He adds a third answer: independence that is real but contingent, on the size of Planck’s constant.
• TERM-087 is corrected in place. It had kept the Heisenberg cut apart. Jaksland glosses the agential cut as “more commonly known as a Heisenberg cut”, and Faye and Jaksland note that a movable cut is Heisenberg’s view against Bohr’s. The TERM now has Barad’s definition of an apparatus at second hand (2007, 148, as Faye and Jaksland quote it).
• CLAIM-136 and CLAIM-472. Barad’s view is eliminative at the fundamental level (“relations without preexisting relata”); the first half of CLAIM-472 has Barad’s own statement of exclusion (2010, 253, as Jaksland quotes it).

Not done. Meeting the Universe Halfway (LIT-1657) and Barad 2022 (LIT-1647) were not attempted, so Barad’s own text remains unread here. The other ten works registered from the exchange were not started.

Left for the owner. A copy of Barad 2003 or 2007, if the owner has one: TERM-087’s third sense, CLAIM-476 and CLAIM-472 all still rest on second-hand accounts of her. And whether Simondon or Goguen and Burstall, the prior art CLAIM-477 leans on most among the unread, are next.

---

Thirteen works registered unread from U11–U14 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: experimental practice and classification, constructor theory and relational biology, and the dynamics of scale separation, transitions and localized structure; the canonical works it named are mostly held

2026-10-27 09:14:01

The owner added four more turns of the exchange “Field Existence Question” (a second share, https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae069fb-a2bc-83ea-9b89-a5b8cfc71ea8; U11 to U14, 08:15 to 09:05 UTC). Thirteen works are registered, all Deferred and unread. Each was checked against Crossref, arXiv or the publisher’s page on 2026-10-27, and literature.d was searched by first author and title words first. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made, and none carries anthology-candidate.

LIT	work	published	cited at	for
LIT-1665	Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things	1997-01-01	A11, A13	CLAIM-476
LIT-1636	Pickering, The Mangle of Practice	1995-01-01	A11	CLAIM-476
LIT-1631	Bowker & Star, Sorting Things Out	1999-09-29	A11	CLAIM-472
LIT-1663	Deutsch & Marletto, Constructor theory of information	2014-05-21	A11	CLAIM-477
LIT-1669	Rosen, Life Itself	1991-10-01	A11	CLAIM-476
LIT-1638	Fenichel, Geometric singular perturbation theory	1979-01-01	A12, A13	CLAIM-478
LIT-1671	Haken, Slaving principle revisited	1996-10-01	A12, A13	CLAIM-478
LIT-1630	Flack, Coarse-graining as a downward causation mechanism	2017-11-13	A12, A13	CLAIM-327
LIT-1632	Wilson, The renormalization group	1975-10-01	A12, A13	CLAIM-478
LIT-1642	Knobloch, Spatial Localization in Dissipative Systems	2015-03-01	A14	QUESTION-281
LIT-1664	Langer, Statistical theory of the decay of metastable states	1969-09-01	A14	QUESTION-281
LIT-1654	Ashwin et al., Tipping points in open systems	2012-03-13	A14	QUESTION-281
LIT-1670	Toner & Tu, How Birds Fly Together	1995-12-04	A14	QUESTION-281

Lookups and corrections.

• Rheinberger’s and Rosen’s books have no Crossref record. Rosen’s date is the hardcover’s month from Columbia University Press. Stanford University Press’s page for Rheinberger answered with a bot checkpoint, so its date is a year-only placeholder, as are Pickering’s and Fenichel’s (Crossref gives year, or year and month).
• Deutsch and Marletto take their arXiv v1 date (21 May 2014, 1405.5563) ahead of the journal’s online date of 8 February 2015.
• A13 cited “Haken’s 1996 Slaving Principle Revisited”; its DOI is 10.1016/0167-2789(96)00080-2.

Already held, and named by the exchange. Barwise and Seligman (LIT-1019), Ásta (LIT-491) and Haken’s Synergetics (LIT-923), each called unread by the replies, are Unavailable: a reading was attempted and failed. Also held are Canguilhem (LIT-817, unavailable), Formal Concept Analysis (LIT-344, LIT-337, unavailable), Wimsatt (LIT-707, unavailable; generative entrenchment is named in NOTE-173), De Jaegher and Di Paolo (LIT-571, read in NOTE-456), Simon (LIT-905; Simon and Ando, LIT-1127, unavailable), Flack 2012 (LIT-1122), Turing (LIT-535), Cross and Hohenberg (LIT-527, Skimmed in NOTE-418), Prigogine’s Nobel lecture (LIT-516), Nicolis and Prigogine (LIT-524, unavailable) and Trefethen et al. (LIT-932). Several that the replies did not name bear on what they proposed: Bousquet et al. on singular perturbation and near-decomposability (LIT-1292, read in NOTE-1025), Vekilov on nucleation (LIT-919, read in NOTE-708), Langer on crystal growth (LIT-927, unavailable), and renormalization work (LIT-039, LIT-885, LIT-881, LIT-873, LIT-869).

Named but not registered. Tikhonov (1952), Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form (no lookup returned a record), Luhmann (no work named), von Foerster, Foucault’s dispositif (no work named), Thom’s catastrophe theory (no edition named), Burke and Knobloch on homoclinic snaking (named in a table, no paper), Kadanoff, Mori and Zwanzig (read through NOTE-973), Federico Vega’s 2023 paper on realizing (M,R) systems and the 2024 semiotic variant (no titles given), and hydrodynamic effective theory in general.

Left for the owner. A11 ordered its recommendations: Rheinberger and Pickering first, then Barwise–Seligman and constructor theory, then Rosen, Montévil–Mossio and Wimsatt. A12 put Haken’s slaving principle, then Tikhonov–Fenichel, then Flack 2017. A14 put Knobloch’s review first, and the unread technical core of Cross and Hohenberg as “probably the most efficient single reading”.

---

The remaining twenty-three works from the exchange “Field Existence Question” looked for: five read in full (Rovelli, Deutsch and Marletto, Flack, Ashwin et al., Toner and Tu), three Unfetched behind Cloudflare challenges, fifteen Unavailable; Flack’s criteria are not CLAIM-327’s third stage

2026-10-27 14:25:00

The owner asked to “take care of those readings”: every work registered unread from the exchange “Field Existence Question” (curation entries of 08:06 and 09:14), after Jaksland 2024 and Faye and Jaksland 2021 were read this morning (curation entry of 09:02). Twenty-three were looked for on 2026-10-27. Each was looked up on Unpaywall, and on OpenAlex and arXiv where those could be reached.

outcome	works
Read in full; Active	Rovelli 1996 (LIT-1635, NOTE-1227), Deutsch and Marletto 2015 (LIT-1663, NOTE-1219), Flack 2017 (LIT-1630, NOTE-1216), Ashwin et al. 2012 (LIT-1654, NOTE-1215), Toner and Tu 1995 (LIT-1670, NOTE-1228)
Unfetched (ADR-053)	Goguen and Burstall 1992 (LIT-1661, ACM), Fenichel 1979 (LIT-1638, ScienceDirect open archive), Knobloch 2015 (LIT-1642, Annual Reviews)
Unavailable (ADR-041)	Barad 2007 and 2022, Simondon, Hacking 1995, Brandom 2000, Maturana and Varela, Newman 1928, van Fraassen 1980, Rheinberger, Pickering, Bowker and Star, Rosen, Haken 1996, Wilson 1975, Langer 1969

Sources read. Rovelli: the arXiv preprint, v2 of 24 February 1997. Ashwin et al.: the arXiv preprint, v5 of 13 February 2013, which carries the authors’ published correction to §§2.1–2.2. Toner and Tu: the arXiv preprint adap-org/9506001 v1. Deutsch and Marletto: the published version as Europe PMC full-text XML (PMC4309123, CC BY 4.0), checked against the arXiv PDF for equations. Flack: the published version as Europe PMC XML (PMC5686398, CC BY 4.0). The two XML sources have no page numbers, so their readings cite sections. The five readings were done in parallel by separate readers, each of which read one paper in full; quotations the dated notes rest on were rechecked against the extracted texts.

Lookups and corrections.

• Three open copies were not fetched. Unpaywall lists them, and each answered with an HTTP 403 Cloudflare challenge. A headless browser was not used to get past the challenges. This morning the Springer HTML of Faye and Jaksland was rendered in a headless browser after its PDF answered with a challenge; that page was the publisher’s open-access full text, and whether the browser passed a challenge to render it was not checked. This time no browser fetch was attempted.
• Dates under ADR-002. Ashwin et al. (arXiv 1103.0169, v1 2011-03-01) and Toner and Tu (adap-org/9506001, v1 1995-06-08) now take their arXiv dates. Toner and Tu’s preprint lists the authors as Tu and Toner, with the two halves of the title reversed.
• Summaries rewritten from the texts, with these corrections. Deutsch and Marletto define information variables by possible tasks and distinguishability after them, the reverse of the registration. Toner and Tu’s stated mechanism is the convective term (v·∇)v, not coupling to density. Flack’s paper is a review with no new data, and her criteria do not include “accessible”.
• Three statuses rest on looking without finding. Simondon, Rheinberger and Rosen have no DOI to look up on Unpaywall, and OpenAlex’s title search was out of its daily budget for this client, so “no open copy” for those three means none is known, not that none exists.

What the readings found against the record.

• CLAIM-327’s third stage is not Flack’s (THEORY-1061). Regeneration of the variable by use is not among her criteria. What reinforces itself is agreement among members’ estimates, and a new level needs her strong criteria, not use alone. Dated note on the claim, and on CASE-116, whose arm B runs against her stipulation of slowness rather than any finding.
• CLAIM-478 is supported and widened. Flack states its first half for social systems, with a limit (a poor summary fails later the larger the separation). Ashwin et al. state its window and add a route by which separation is lost without any mode slowing. Toner and Tu add broken symmetry as a source of slow modes.
• QUESTION-281 has a worked case. In Toner and Tu, the bifurcation creates the local speed and a separate mechanism stabilizes the order in two dimensions. Ashwin et al. correct the question’s gloss of rate-induced tipping (“destroyed” is too strong; rate can also preserve a form).
• THEORY-1071’s source is corrected. The 1996 RQM assumes systems prior to interactions, but the “sparse ontology of events” is Rovelli 2018.
• CLAIM-477’s defeater (b) is pressed by constructor theory’s modal individuation, without being settled.
• Dated notes also on CLAIM-157 and THEORY-136.

Left for the owner. A browser fetch of the three Unfetched works: Goguen and Burstall bears most on CLAIM-477, Knobloch on QUESTION-281 and Fenichel on CLAIM-478. Copies of any of the fifteen Unavailable, of which Barad 2007, Rheinberger and Haken 1996 bear most on what is filed. And Flack 2012 (LIT-1122), which CLAIM-327 was filed from and which is still unread; Flack 2017 defers its detail to it.

---

Twenty-one works registered unread from U15–U23 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: inquiry and its bounds, relative and redundant facts, sheaves and synchronization, and compositional systems theory; every identifier checked, three recent sources real

2026-10-27 17:19:39

The owner added nine more turns of the exchange “Field Existence Question” (a third share, https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae0d962-5e30-83e9-ba0c-305634d9566a; U15 to U23, 14:41 to 16:26 UTC). Twenty-one works are registered, all Deferred and unread. Each names its source and says what it bears on.

group	works
Inquiry as specification (U15)	Dewey 1938 (LIT-1645), Collingwood 1939 (LIT-1651), Clarke et al. 2000, CEGAR (LIT-1652), Lindley 1956 (LIT-1675), Chang 2022 (LIT-1641)
Bounded inquiry (U17)	Simon 1973 (LIT-1634), Thorstad 2024 (LIT-1662), Fagin and Halpern 1987 (LIT-1643)
Observation without an observer (U19)	Di Biagio and Rovelli 2021 (LIT-1666) and 2025 (LIT-1676), Zurek 2009 (LIT-1640)
Gluing, synchronization and composition (U20–U22)	Hansen and Ghrist 2019 (LIT-1659) and 2021 (LIT-1646), Singer 2011 (LIT-1655), Robinson 2017 (LIT-1658), Torres-Hugas et al. 2026 (LIT-1668), Willems 2007 (LIT-1660), Baez and Fong 2018 (LIT-1644), Cervera et al. 2007 (LIT-1639), Spivak 2026 (LIT-1649), Stewart, Golubitsky and Pivato 2003 (LIT-1674)

Lookups. All fifteen DOIs resolve in Crossref to the works the replies described. All nine arXiv identifiers resolve in the arXiv API. The published: dates follow ADR-002. Three sources are recent enough to need checking:

• Torres-Hugas et al. (Communications Physics, online 13 October 2026);
• Spivak (arXiv 2606.28984, June 2026);
• Di Biagio and Rovelli (arXiv 2510.11349, October 2025).

All three exist as the replies described them. Their summaries are the exchange’s, marked so, and stand until read.

What was not registered, and why.

• Held already. These works were named without a code:
  • Pattee 2001 (LIT-1190, read);
  • Montévil and Mossio 2015 (LIT-582, read);
  • Abramsky and Brandenburger 2011 (LIT-016, read);
  • Lieder and Griffiths (LIT-1071, read);
  • Hutchins (LIT-1060, Unavailable; LIT-1066, read);
  • the knowledge-sheaves paper (LIT-232);
  • Mori–Zwanzig (LIT-1245 and neighbours);
  • Simon–Ando (LIT-1241);
  • Landauer (LIT-360);
  • Fong and Spivak (LIT-803);
  • Rovelli 1996 and Rheinberger, registered or read this morning.
• Named in passing, without weight. Kuhn 1962, and Belnap and Steel 1976 (van Fraassen 1980 is held, LIT-1637). Also Thom, Whitehead, and Friston beyond the critiques the record reads.
• Cited by the replies without a name (hidden citation markers). These are the chemotaxis literature, spectrum-broadcast structures and strong quantum Darwinism, Kron reduction, and the technical critiques of the free-energy principle. Stewart, Golubitsky and Pivato 2003 is registered for A22’s “Golubitsky, Stewart, and collaborators”, as the paper that introduced balanced equivalence relations.

Books without DOIs. Dewey 1938 and Collingwood 1939 have none. Their url: is the Internet Archive’s catalogue record of a printing, found by its search API. Whether either is a lawful open copy was not checked; a reading must check that first (ADR-041).

---

The twenty-one works registered from U15–U23 of the exchange “Field Existence Question”: thirteen read in full, three Unfetched behind bot challenges, five Unavailable; the papers fill the record’s correspondence and evidence rows, and the half of CLAIM-471 that says interaction makes a correspondence still rests on argument

2026-10-27 17:42:30

The owner asked to “get started on the readings”: the twenty-one works registered from U15–U23 (curation entry of 17:19). All were looked for on 2026-10-27, on Unpaywall and arXiv, and on OpenAlex for those Unpaywall gave as closed.

outcome	works
Read in full; Active	Hansen and Ghrist 2019 (NOTE-1233) and 2021 (NOTE-1222), Singer (NOTE-1224), Robinson (NOTE-1221), Torres-Hugas et al. (NOTE-1218), Baez and Fong (NOTE-1223), Spivak (NOTE-1225), Stewart, Golubitsky and Pivato (NOTE-1217), Di Biagio and Rovelli 2021 (NOTE-1226) and 2025 (NOTE-1214), Zurek (NOTE-1229), Simon 1973 (NOTE-1232), Clarke et al. 2000 (NOTE-1231)
Unfetched (ADR-053)	Lindley 1956 (Project Euclid), Thorstad 2024 (Oxford Academic), Cervera et al. 2007 (Groningen repository): each answered with a bot challenge
Unavailable (ADR-041)	Fagin and Halpern 1987, Willems 2007, Dewey 1938, Collingwood 1939, Chang 2022

How they were read. Thirteen readers each read one paper in full, in parallel. Each filed a NOTE, one to three THEORYs and the LIT update. The quotations the dated notes rest on were rechecked against the extracted texts. Two needed the PDF itself, because of a hyphenated line break and a figure caption. Several readers checked results by computation:

• Torres-Hugas et al.’s spectra and instability threshold;
• the conserved quantity of Hansen and Ghrist’s Thm 9.3, which holds only with its weights;
• Spivak’s wave and heat steps.

They found errors in the papers, recorded in the NOTEs:

• a sign in Di Biagio and Rovelli 2025’s (B8);
• the proof of Hansen and Ghrist 2021’s Thm 9.3 holds only for α = β;
• the uniqueness claim of Robinson’s Prop. 25 is false under the max norm.

Sources were the arXiv preprints, except:

• Simon: a scan of the published article that Unpaywall lists;
• Clarke et al.: the authors’ manuscript in Carnegie Mellon’s repository;
• Stewart et al.: the accepted version in Warwick’s repository.

Lookups and corrections.

• Dates under ADR-002.
  • Torres-Hugas et al. now take their arXiv v1 date, 21 April 2026; the journal version is of 13 October.
  • Zurek takes the journal’s online date, 2 March 2009, which is earlier than the arXiv posting (ADR-002 v2).
  • Stewart et al. take the electronic publication date the article prints, 22 December 2003; Crossref’s January 2003 print month is impossible for a paper accepted in August.
• Summaries rewritten from the texts. The exchange’s descriptions were mostly right in outline and wrong in emphasis:
  • Hansen and Ghrist prove no Cheeger inequality.
  • Their “synchronization” is an estimation problem.
  • Spivak’s paper never speaks of time scales; the difference between its heat and wave dynamics is the integrator, not the coupling.
  • Robinson’s “canonical” rests on axioms, not a theorem, and his networks do not recalibrate.
  • Di Biagio and Rovelli’s stable facts are stable for a third system, through inaccessibility. They are not records that persist.
• Corrected in place:
  • QUESTION-285’s attributions of persistence to Di Biagio and Rovelli and of recalibration to Robinson;
  • CLAIM-471’s “prove” for Torres-Hugas et al.;
  • CLAIM-471’s “which the dynamics selects” for Stewart et al.
• What was not used. CiteSeerX caches were not used, being neither the authors’ nor the publisher’s copies. Neither were the Internet Archive’s controlled-lending copies or a Digital Library of India scan of uncertain status. No headless browser was used.

What the readings found against the record.

• CLAIM-471’s thesis half is untested. Almost every paper takes its correspondences as given, measured or designed. Interaction changes a correspondence only in Hansen and Ghrist’s discourse sheaves, a constructed model, where the outcome is “learning to lie”.
• CLAIM-480’s computation is Baez and Fong’s Example 2.9. Composition can make a constraint of a new kind: eliminating an interior of a sheaf can leave a boundary constraint no pairwise sheaf expresses (Hansen and Ghrist §4.2).
• CLAIM-475 is supported by Simon. Singer adds a third regime, where the evidence does not determine the gluing whatever the resources.
• CLAIM-470. CEGAR is a worked case of refinement within a fixed answer space, the shape of its defeater (a), and so no case for its last clause.
• THEORY-621’s price (“values are not held at all times”) is dated. Di Biagio and Rovelli 2025 give relative facts between interactions.
• QUESTION-285. It gains an observer-free criterion for correlation, a repeatability criterion for records, a negative case for the top rung (learning to lie) and a positive one (a truth withheld from the apparatus).

Dated notes on CLAIM-471, CLAIM-481, CLAIM-480, CLAIM-473, CLAIM-475, CLAIM-470, CLAIM-419, CLAIM-476, CLAIM-477, CLAIM-143, CLAIM-342, CLAIM-478, QUESTION-285, QUESTION-280, QUESTION-281, QUESTION-063, TERM-089, THEORY-621 and THEORY-276.

Left for the owner.

• Browser fetches of Lindley, Thorstad and Cervera et al.
• Copies of Willems 2007, which A23 proposed as the synthesis’s starting point, and of Dewey.
• Whether THEORY-621 should be superseded by a reading of the 2025 formulation.

---

Twenty-eight works registered unread from the self-categorization and fandom readings, and from the owner’s thesis that there is no selfless action; two topics added

2026-10-29 01:24:47

The owner asked for the works and ideas that the self-categorization and fandom readings pointed to to be filed. The owner then added the context of the original question: their position that there is no selflessness, only self-interest on selves of different sizes. Every work was checked against Crossref (and Open Library for books) before it was filed. Under ADR-002’s rules, published: takes the print month when Crossref’s online date is a later backfile.

Corrections the lookup made. Tyler and Cobbs 2015 is in the European Sport Management Quarterly 15(2), not the Journal of Sport Management. Tajfel and Turner 1979 has no DOI of its own; the URL is the LCCN record of the Austin and Worchel volume, and the 2004 reprint’s DOI is noted. No large preregistered direct replication of the minimal-group effect was found. Robertson, Akles and Van Bavel 2024, a preregistered replication of a moral-hypocrisy study that found minimal-group favouritism along the way, is filed as the nearest.

Registered, Deferred, no copy yet sought:

for	works
evidence THEORY-1114 needs	Oakes, Turner & Haslam 1991; Haslam et al. 1992
the minimal group and social identity theory	Tajfel et al. 1971; Tajfel & Turner 1979; Robertson et al. 2024; Rubin & Hewstone 1998
group-based emotion and crowds	Smith 1993; Reicher, Spears & Postmes 1995; Postmes & Spears 1998
recategorization	Gaertner et al. 1989; Gaertner et al. 1993
CASE-104 and power	Turner 2005
rivalry (CASE-098)	Kilduff, Elfenbein & Staw 2010; Tyler & Cobbs 2015; Botzung et al. 2010
identification	Ashmore, Deaux & McLaughlin-Volpe 2004; Brewer & Gardner 1996
the phenomenology of the “we”	Zahavi 2016/2019; Salice & Miyazono 2019/2020
the owner’s thesis (CLAIM-491)	Cialdini et al. 1997; Batson et al. 1997; Aron et al. 1991; Swann et al. 2009; Markus & Kitayama 1991; Sugden 2003; Akerlof & Kranton 2000; Sober & Wilson 1998; Johnston 2010

Not registered, and why. Skorich et al., the experiments under review that SCT2.0 cites, have no identifier yet; THEORY-1112’s promote_when names them. Campbell 1958 on entitativity is named in TERM-096 and not filed.

Already held, and now joined.

• Hamilton’s two papers (LIT-497, LIT-506) and THEORY-655, Boehm (LIT-514) and Parfit’s Reasons and Persons (LIT-469) take the new altruism topic.
• Archer on parasocial relationships (LIT-172) is linked from Giulianotti’s “fan” type.
• THEORY-464 (what matters is not identity) is named in the owner’s question.

The record’s own argument.

• The owner’s thesis. CLAIM-491 (thesis) answers QUESTION-300. Two counters: the empathy–altruism evidence (CLAIM-494) and the risk of trivial truth (CLAIM-492).
• Two mechanisms for QUESTION-119.
  • In an intergroup dispute, extreme members become prototypical (CLAIM-493).
  • The composition of fan types weights the stance (CLAIM-490).
• One proposed study. Does perceived reciprocity of a rivalry match the other side’s (QUESTION-298)?
• One Proposed term. A group entity as distinct from a category of members (TERM-096).
• Two topics, by ADR-062: social-identity and altruism.

---

Legacy, obligations to the future and intergenerational trauma: forty-two works registered, the open works read in place of unavailable ones, and the future-generations topic

2026-10-29 02:25:31

Legacy. The owner noted on 2026-10-29 that Johnston’s Surviving Death opens another angle: notions, and the psychology, of legacy. The owner’s thesis (CLAIM-491) extends the self across people; legacy extends it across time, past death. QUESTION-301 states the question. Every work was checked against Crossref or Open Library, and Unpaywall was asked for an open copy; only Hershfield 2011 has one, in Europe PMC, which refused this client, so it is Unfetched. The others are Deferred, no further copy yet sought.

for	works
the self over time	Hershfield 2011 (LIT-1702)
legacy motivation	McAdams & de St. Aubin 1992 (LIT-1777); Wade-Benzoni 2006 (LIT-1716); Wade-Benzoni et al. 2012 (LIT-1760); Zaval, Markowitz & Weber 2015 (LIT-1724)
death, symbolic immortality and the group	Lifton 1979 (LIT-1714); Burke, Martens & Faucher 2010 (LIT-1687); Castano et al. 2002 (LIT-1719)
philosophy of what comes after us	Scheffler 2013 (LIT-1754); Pitcher 1984 (LIT-1740)

Pitcher’s article has no DOI; its source is the DOI of the 1993 reprint in Fischer’s The Metaphysics of Death. The record already holds the owner’s own version of legacy, “immortality” through influence (CLAIM-420), and McAdams on narrative identity (LIT-595).

Read in place of unavailable works. The search of 2026-10-29 for open works that report the seventeen Unavailable works found fifteen, covering all but one, filed Active with NOTEs. Each original keeps its status and gains a “Read in its place” section saying what the stand-in gives and what is still missing.

original	read in its place
Sugden 2003	Sugden 2015 (LIT-1698)
Sober & Wilson 1998	Stich 2006 (LIT-1737)
Johnston 2010	Johnston 2023 (LIT-1788)
Tajfel et al. 1971	Otten 2016 (LIT-1711); Pinter & Greenwald 2011 (LIT-1677)
Tajfel & Turner 1979	Scheepers & Ellemers 2019 (LIT-1772)
Batson et al. 1997; Cialdini et al. 1997	SEP, “Empirical Approaches to Altruism” (LIT-1729); Miyazono & Inarimori 2021 (LIT-1783)
Aron et al. 1991	Branand, Mashek & Aron 2019 (LIT-1699)
Gaertner et al. 1989; Gaertner et al. 1993	Dovidio et al. 2009 (LIT-1766)
Smith 1993	Smith & Mackie 2016 (LIT-1690)
Brewer & Gardner 1996	Brewer 2007 (LIT-1775)
Ashmore et al. 2004	Leach et al. 2008 (LIT-1786)
Oakes, Turner & Haslam 1991	Spears 2021 (LIT-1771)
Reicher, Spears & Postmes 1995	Spears & Postmes 2015 (LIT-1705)
Postmes & Spears 1998	Spears 2021; Spears & Postmes 2015

None was found for Haslam et al. 1992. The readings of the psychology were drafted by four reading agents, each from the full text, and checked against the sources before filing. The copies came from authors’ and institutions’ own pages and from open journals; the owner approved the Groningen and VU repositories’ own download paths. Copies on course pages, Scribd and third-party sites were not used, and fetches refused by bot checks were not routed around.

Obligations to the future. The owner then asked for the legacy line to be extended “to broader questions about obligations towards the future, e.g. longtermism”. QUESTION-299 asks what the living owe the far future and on what ground. Sixteen works are filed with it, each checked against Crossref or Open Library, and ADR-063 adds the topic future-generations.

for	works
longtermism and existential risk	Greaves & MacAskill 2025 (LIT-1684); Bostrom 2003 (LIT-1739), 2013 (LIT-1773); MacAskill 2022 (LIT-1747); Ord 2020 (LIT-1678)
its critics	Tarsney 2023 (LIT-1753); Thorstad 2023 (LIT-1688)
person-affecting views and non-identity	Narveson 1973 (LIT-1769); Parfit 2017 (LIT-1768)
intergenerational justice and discounting	Meyer, SEP (LIT-1756); Gardiner 2006 (LIT-1681); Ramsey 1928 (LIT-1733)
concern grounded in what the living value	Scheffler 2018 (LIT-1712)
the psychology of concern for the future	Schubert, Caviola & Faber 2019 (LIT-1748); Caviola et al. 2022 (LIT-1749); Syropoulos & Markowitz 2021 (LIT-1741)

Eight have lawful open copies and are being read. Three of them are read in the authors’ working-paper versions from the Global Priorities Institute, because the published versions’ open copies refused this client:

• Greaves & MacAskill, the OUP chapter;
• Tarsney, at PhilArchive;
• Thorstad, at Wiley.

Intergenerational trauma and epigenetic transmission. The owner asked, “how about intergenerational trauma? epigenetic transmission?”. This is the past reaching the living, where legacy is the living reaching the future. QUESTION-297 asks by which route the effects of trauma reach descendants, and whether on the identity route an ancestor’s injury becomes part of the descendant’s self. Sixteen works are filed with it, each checked against Crossref; ten have open copies (Unpaywall).

for	works
epigenetic inheritance, and the sceptics	Heard & Martienssen 2014 (LIT-1745); Horsthemke 2018 (LIT-1762); Bird 2024 (LIT-1708)
animal evidence and mechanisms	Dias & Ressler 2014 (LIT-1746); Bohacek & Mansuy 2015 (LIT-1738)
human exposure and epidemiology	Heijmans et al. 2008 (LIT-1751); Pembrey et al. 2006 (LIT-1764); Costa et al. 2018 (LIT-1696)
trauma in survivors’ descendants	Yehuda et al. 2016 (LIT-1692); Yehuda & Lehrner 2018 (LIT-1715); van IJzendoorn et al. 2003 (LIT-1718); Sagi-Schwartz et al. 2008 (LIT-1770); Danieli 1998 (LIT-1701)
trauma as group identity	Volkan 2001 (LIT-1727); Alexander et al. 2004 (LIT-1679); Lehrner & Yehuda 2018 (LIT-1793)

No new topic: the works take natural-sciences, psychopathology-and-treatment and social-identity.

The same day the trauma works were read. Six were read themselves: Dias and Ressler, Costa et al., Heijmans et al. (from the reprint in Tobi’s 2013 Leiden thesis), Heard and Martienssen, Horsthemke, and Bird. Three are Unfetched under ADR-053, since a free copy refused this client: Yehuda et al. 2016, Yehuda and Lehrner 2018, and Pembrey et al. 2006. The rest are Unavailable. Read in place of them:

original	read in its place
Bohacek & Mansuy 2015 (LIT-1738)	Jawaid & Mansuy 2019 (LIT-1774)
Pembrey et al. 2006 (LIT-1764)	Pembrey, Saffery & Bygren 2014 (LIT-1704)
Yehuda et al. 2016 (LIT-1692)	Youssef et al. 2018 (LIT-1725)
van IJzendoorn et al. 2003 (LIT-1718); Sagi-Schwartz et al. 2008 (LIT-1770)	Fridman 2011, Leiden thesis (LIT-1694)
Volkan 2001 (LIT-1727)	Volkan 2021 (LIT-1685)
Alexander et al. 2004 (LIT-1679)	Eyerman 2001, ch. 1 (LIT-1789); Hirst, Cyr & Merck 2020 (LIT-1787)

No stand-in was read for Lehrner and Yehuda 2018: the authors’ open restatement of the same year refused this client. For Danieli’s handbook, a 2016 article testing its framework (Danieli, Norris and Engdahl, LIT-1736) is posted by a co-author’s institution as the publisher’s PDF under a personal-use notice. The owner approved that route, and it was read in the handbook’s place.

Memory through metamorphosis. The owner recalled work on memory that persists through metamorphosis, and a child’s science-fair experiment on whether caterpillars would remember him as butterflies. The search found that the publication came first. Blackiston, Silva Casey and Weiss 2008 showed odour aversion surviving from caterpillar to moth. Jo Nagai, a schoolboy in Kobe, repeated the design with swallowtails, advised by Weiss. His work was reported in 2026 as presented in Japan but unpublished, with a claim of transmission to offspring that rests on secondary accounts, and it is not filed. Filed with QUESTION-302:

• Blackiston et al. 2008 (LIT-1680), open;
• Alloway 1972 on beetles (LIT-1781);
• Shomrat and Levin 2013 on planarian memory through head regeneration (LIT-1732);
• Blackiston, Shomrat and Levin’s 2015 perspective (LIT-1707), open.

The rest, read. The owner then asked to read “anything that’s still unread”. A search for lawful copies found the work itself for eleven works. Five came from author or institutional repositories after the routes tried earlier had refused this client:

• Markus and Kitayama, from Markus’s own site;
• Akerlof and Kranton, through the API of Duke’s repository, whose web pages put a bot check in front of the file;
• Zahavi, from Copenhagen’s repository;
• Rubin and Hewstone, from Newcastle’s repository;
• Botzung et al., from NIH’s open-data service.

The other six were Gardiner (a reprint authorised by the publisher), Parfit (from the Philosophers’ Annual), Ramsey (public domain) and the two moth papers. Read in place of works that stay closed:

original	read in its place
Shomrat & Levin 2013 (LIT-1732)	the authors’ post on The Node (LIT-1776), skimmed
Ord 2020 (LIT-1678), Unfetched	Ord 2024 (LIT-1720); Ord’s trajectory chapter (LIT-1761)
MacAskill 2022 (LIT-1747)	the SPC framework (LIT-1778)
Narveson 1973 (LIT-1769)	Narveson 2017 (LIT-1763)
Syropoulos & Markowitz 2021 (LIT-1741)	Syropoulos et al. 2023 (LIT-1713)
Zaval et al. 2015 (LIT-1724)	Wickersham et al. 2020 (LIT-1750)

Still unread, each with its search recorded:

• Alloway 1972 and Scheffler 2018 (whose 2015 lectures exist only as audio);
• Haslam et al. 1992 and Lehrner and Yehuda 2018;
• the five works whose free copies still refuse this client: Tyler and Cobbs, Turner 2005, Yehuda and Lehrner, Yehuda et al. 2016 and Pembrey et al. 2006.

---

The exchange “Paper assessment”: Sarkar, Mukherjee and Sato’s gauge-theoretic attention read in full, its companion skimmed, twenty-three recommended works registered unread with every identifier checked, and two claims, a question and a proposed study for the record’s own argument

2026-10-29 07:32:27

The owner asked for the record to account for the exchange “Paper assessment” (shared at https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae2f25a-7404-83ea-82ef-2dba18fd7410). The share page was fetched with curl and its embedded conversation decoded. It holds seven turns, U1 at 2026-10-28 23:49 UTC to U7 at 2026-10-29 06:25 UTC. A second user message at 23:49:26, “Original custom instructions no longer available”, is an artefact of the share and is not counted. Turns are numbered U1–U7 and A1–A7 here and in the entries filed.

turn	the owner asked	A’s substance
U1	is arXiv 2610.37656 “on to something or … AI slop”	legitimate mathematics, overstated implications
U2	how it connects to the record	QUESTION-130, THEORY-1082, CLAIM-471, QUESTION-282, CASE-179
U3	how the record might build on its tools	diagnostics, inference from paths, transports learned from anchors, CASE-179 arms
U4	translation and transport of meaning	path discrepancy, intertwining, path agreement ≠ fidelity, a CASE-055 extension
U5	other work or tools	pragmatic corpora, GW alignment, CycleGAN, neural sheaf diffusion
U6	the neighbourhood of Alvarez-Melis and Jaakkola	COOT, FGW, partial GW, hyperbolic matching, barycenters, multiway OT
U7	more connections to the record	active OT, causal OT, directed GW, functional maps, institutions, CEGAR

The paper, read. LIT-1820 was read in full (NOTE-1331), and its companion LIT-1803 was skimmed for the parts A1 relied on (NOTE-1326). Three numbers were recomputed: the cancellation rate behind the 0.99 AUC (1.42%, ceiling 0.9929), the commuting-score cap for S4 (0.761), and the gauge covariance of the two-hop update. A1’s assessment holds on every point checked:

• Table 1’s figures;
• “unique” naming a family;
• the snap to the library being equivariant only under the permutation gauge;
• the AlphaFold reading being a prediction;
• the premise being called an inductive bias in the companion paper;
• the CLUTRR control (0.848, 0.436 and 0.202).

Two qualifications. A1 presented the AUC as “almost built into the experiment” as though the paper hid it, but the paper computes the ceiling itself (p. 4) and says “Holonomy attention is not a better synchronizer” (p. 3); the overstatement is in its abstract and title. And A1 left out the companion’s StepGame result, where rotations help. That result is why the record files the premise as task-relative, not as false (THEORY-1140). Both papers carry anthology-candidate.

The record’s own argument.

• CLAIM-496, from A4 §4 and A5: agreement between translation routes and task-relative loss are independent, shown by two constructions.
• CLAIM-495, from A2 §2 and A3 §1: for O(d) connections the global sections are the holonomies’ common fixed subspace, so compatibility can be graded; and non-commutativity is not holonomy. It generalizes THEORY-1082.
• QUESTION-319, from A2 §5: holonomy as an organization’s maintained feature, not its error.
• CASE-185, from A4 §6, A5 §5 and A6: relay translations and fitted correspondences, as a variant of CASE-055.
• QUESTION-130, v2: one paragraph naming the paper.

Registered, Deferred, not read. Each was checked against arXiv, Crossref, the ACL Anthology, PMLR or the publisher’s page on 2026-10-29, and literature.d was searched by identifier, first author and title words; none was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

for	works
pragmatic material and measures (A5)	PETra, Osmelak et al. (LIT-1798); VakyArth, Singh et al. (LIT-1817); TyDiP, Srinivasan & Choi (LIT-1799); Ward & Marco’s pragmatic-similarity judgments (LIT-1812); xCOMET, Guerreiro et al. (LIT-1816)
alignment without shared coordinates (A5, A6)	Alvarez-Melis & Jaakkola 2018 (LIT-1818); Søgaard, Ruder & Vulić 2018 (LIT-1819); Hashimoto, Alvarez-Melis & Jaakkola 2016 (LIT-1801); Gentner 1983 (LIT-1810)
the GW neighbourhood (A6)	COOT, Redko et al. (LIT-1804); FGW, Vayer et al. (LIT-1813); hyperbolic hierarchy matching (LIT-1808); GW barycenters, Peyré et al. (LIT-1797); multi-marginal network alignment, Zeng et al. (LIT-1814); OT with global invariances (LIT-1805); structured OT (LIT-1815)
learned maps and their failures (A5)	neural sheaf diffusion, Bodnar et al. (LIT-1811); CycleGAN steganography, Chu et al. (LIT-1800)
inquiry, causation and direction (A7)	AvAtar, Yu et al. (LIT-1807); causal OT of abstractions, Felekis et al. (LIT-1806); Chowdhury & Mémoli (LIT-1822); the causal information bottleneck, Simoes et al. (LIT-1802)
the tool (A5, A6)	POT, Flamary et al. (LIT-1809)

The three recent ones exist as described: PETra at LREC 2026, VakyArth in Findings of EMNLP 2026 and AvAtar at ICML 2026, each on its venue page and on arXiv. Their summaries come from their abstracts.

Corrections the lookups made.

• “PragSim” is the name of a data repository. The paper is Ward and Marco’s “A Collection of Pragmatic-Similarity Judgments over Spoken Dialog Utterances”.
• TyDiP’s full title was supplied.
• Chowdhury and Mémoli’s title begins with “The”.
• Simoes is spelt without a tilde.
• The NeurIPS proceedings list Vayer first for COOT.
• Gentner takes the Wiley DOI, as LIT-402 did for this journal. The Elsevier DOI A6 gave dates the issue June, Wiley April.
• Hashimoto et al. has December 2016 only. The broader preprint arXiv 1509.05808 is not taken as the same work.
• Under ADR-002, PETra, xCOMET, FGW, COOT, the hierarchy matching paper, Zeng et al. and Chowdhury and Mémoli take arXiv dates earlier than their venues’.

The exchange on the record. A4 and A6 cite CLAIM-115, which is Superseded by CLAIM-220. The entries filed here cite neither. The descriptions of the other fifty-odd codes A2–A7 cite were checked against their titles and are accurate.

Already held, and named by the exchange.

• Singer (LIT-1655, read in NOTE-1224), the paper’s own baseline.
• Fritz on Markov kernels (LIT-772).
• Bisimulation metrics as OT (LIT-962).
• Functional maps (LIT-993, THEORY-297). A7’s dual reading, a kernel pulling target questions back to the source, is not filed. On finite spaces it is the standard correspondence between Markov kernels and positive unital maps on functions.
• Goguen and Burstall’s institutions (LIT-1661, Unfetched).
• The dynamic-semantics sources behind THEORY-162.
• Hansen and Ghrist’s discourse sheaves (THEORY-1088) and higher-order reduction (THEORY-1090).

Not registered, and why.

• Partial and unbalanced GW were named without a citation.
• The COMET toolkit is xCOMET’s.
• The neural-sheaf-diffusion code is its paper’s.
• The paper’s own references (Lerman and Shi; Gao, Brodzki and Mukherjee; Bandeira, Singer and Spielman; Hansen and Gebhart; Bergen et al.’s Edge Transformer) were not named by the exchange and are not held.

Proposed connections not filed as argument. A3 and A7 proposed further studies. Each is recorded here with its anchors, in case the owner wants one taken up:

• a holonomy and synchronization workbench with a tree as negative control (CASE-179);
• Markov-kernel path discrepancy for non-invertible transports (QUESTION-283);
• a protocol for revising the observational vocabulary that keeps refining within a vocabulary apart from revising it (THEORY-1064, THEORY-1094, TERM-092);
• institution-theoretic conditions for record migrations (LIT-1661, CLAIM-469);
• a protected channel for excluded challenges, predicted to make measured alignment worse at first (CLAIM-448, CASE-124);
• alignment that changes the practices it aligns (CLAIM-402, THEORY-861).

A3’s suggestion to put path-consistency checks on Luria’s own relations was answered by A3 itself: rests_on and objects_to have no inverses, so it would be typed reasoning, not gauge theory.

---

The works registered from the exchange “Paper assessment”, Goguen and Burstall’s Institutions from the owner’s copy, and Nicholson on Paul Weiss: twenty-five read in full, thirty-nine THEORYs, and what the readings changed in the record’s own entries

2026-10-29 09:16:22

The owner asked on 2026-10-29 for readings of the works registered from the exchange “Paper assessment” (curation entry of 07:32), “as you’re able”. The owner also supplied a copy of Goguen and Burstall’s Institutions (LIT-1661, Unfetched), and asked for Nicholson 2026 to be registered and read (LIT-1821).

How they were read. Seven readers worked in parallel. Each read three to five papers in full and filed a NOTE, THEORYs and the LIT update. Readers rechecked their quotations against the extracted texts and checked key results by computation; each NOTE’s history says what was checked. Three readers stopped at a usage limit and were resumed.

Outcome. All twenty-five are Active, each with a Read NOTE.

LIT	NOTE	THEORYs
LIT-1661, Goguen & Burstall	NOTE-1348	THEORY-1150, THEORY-1142 (Active)
LIT-1821, Nicholson	NOTE-1340	THEORY-1122 (Active), THEORY-1126
LIT-1810, Gentner	NOTE-1349	THEORY-1154
LIT-1801, Hashimoto et al.	NOTE-1329	THEORY-1128 (Active), THEORY-1124
LIT-1798, PETra	NOTE-1344	THEORY-1153
LIT-1817, VakyArth	NOTE-1345	THEORY-1131, THEORY-1120
LIT-1799, TyDiP	NOTE-1339	THEORY-1157, THEORY-1144
LIT-1812, Ward & Marco	NOTE-1338	THEORY-1148
LIT-1818, Alvarez-Melis & Jaakkola	NOTE-1336	THEORY-1133 (Active)
LIT-1819, Søgaard et al.	NOTE-1337	THEORY-1145
LIT-1805, global invariances	NOTE-1333	THEORY-1135 (Active)
LIT-1808, hyperbolic matching	NOTE-1323	THEORY-1136
LIT-1804, COOT	NOTE-1335	THEORY-1149, THEORY-1155 (Active)
LIT-1813, FGW	NOTE-1328	THEORY-1156, THEORY-1129 (Active)
LIT-1797, GW averaging	NOTE-1343	THEORY-1121 (Active)
LIT-1815, structured OT	NOTE-1324	THEORY-1138 (Active)
LIT-1822, Chowdhury & Mémoli	NOTE-1330	THEORY-1130, THEORY-1152 (Active)
LIT-1814, Zeng et al.	NOTE-1334	THEORY-1132 (Active), THEORY-1159
LIT-1807, AvAtar	NOTE-1327	THEORY-1147 (Active), THEORY-1160
LIT-1809, POT	NOTE-1325	none (a software paper)
LIT-1811, neural sheaf diffusion	NOTE-1332	THEORY-1141 (Active), THEORY-1139
LIT-1800, CycleGAN steganography	NOTE-1346	THEORY-1127, THEORY-1143
LIT-1816, xCOMET	NOTE-1341	THEORY-1134, THEORY-1151
LIT-1806, COTA	NOTE-1342	THEORY-1123 (Active), THEORY-1137
LIT-1802, causal information bottleneck	NOTE-1347	THEORY-1125 (Active), THEORY-1146

THEORYs not marked Active are Proposed.

Copies.

• Most were read from arXiv, the ACL Anthology, PMLR or JMLR.
• Nicholson: the Europe PMC XML of the version of record (PMC13690892, CC BY), since Springer answered with a bot challenge.
• Gentner: a scan of the published article on her Northwestern laboratory page, since Wiley answered with a challenge and DTIC with a 403.
• Goguen and Burstall: the owner’s scan of the JACM article, read in part from page images because its OCR garbles formulas.

What the readings changed in the record’s own entries.

• CASE-185 was corrected twice. Neither PETra nor VakyArth supplies its items:

  • PETra has one English→X route per item and reports no annotator agreement.
  • VakyArth’s translation and inference items barely overlap.

  Its criterion must be a panel mean, since single judges of pragmatic similarity agree at 0.45 (Ward and Marco’s first session) and of politeness at about 0.46 (TyDiP). Its correspondence arm now carries the identification results of THEORY-1133, THEORY-1155 and THEORY-1129, the composition limit of THEORY-1132, and a POT version requirement.

• CLAIM-496 is supported from three directions:

  • CycleGAN’s hidden channel is the converse of its collapse case: routes agree because everything travels, out of the receiver’s sight (THEORY-1143).
  • xCOMET’s score and spans agree with each other far more than with experts (THEORY-1134).
  • Goguen and Burstall’s Satisfaction Condition admits a translation that collapses every model, and only surjectivity on models rules it out (THEORY-1142).

• QUESTION-282 gains a datum: neural sheaf diffusion’s separating sheaves are built from the labels, so the “right” correspondence is fixed by the task (THEORY-1141).

• Nicholson’s reading corrected LIT-1821’s “Why this is here”. Weiss defines a system by the whole’s persistence while its parts vary; the mutually producing triplet is Nicholson’s further claim, and stronger than TERM-070’s closure.

Corrections to the exchange and to the LITs, found by reading.

• Søgaard et al. test the adversarial MUSE method, not GW.
• POT’s 2021 paper has neither fused GW nor co-optimal transport.
• PETra has about 3,000 pairs, not 2,900.
• Hashimoto et al.’s first page gives July 2016, so published: is 2016-07-01.
• COTA’s do-calculus term is constant wherever its transport constraints hold (THEORY-1123), so it does not do what the exchange said.
• Zeng et al.’s benchmarks are consistent by construction, so they cannot show the cost of imposing consistency that the exchange looked for.

Errors found in the papers are in each NOTE. The ones that touch results:

• the convergence step of Zeng et al.’s Proposition 3;
• Proposition 13 of neural sheaf diffusion, whose construction also exists at d = 8;
• COOT’s claim of strict positivity for unequal sizes;
• the non-submodular threshold cost of structured OT;
• the conformal factor in the hyperbolic matching paper.

Flags. Fifteen of the LITs carry anthology-candidate, last in their tags: those that propose or benchmark ML methods.

ADR-008 was broken three times. ADR-008 forbids sending any email address to an outside service; where an API asks for one, the field is left out or given noreply@anthropic.com. This filing broke it:

• the citation check of 07:32 sent the owner’s address to Unpaywall, because this filer’s instruction to that agent told it to;
• this filer’s own Unpaywall lookup for Nicholson 2026 sent it again;
• one reader sent it once, then switched to a placeholder, and said so.

The cause is that the reading brief written for this filing was written without consulting ADR-008, and the rule exists only in the ADR: no brief in the repository carries it. The requests cannot be recalled. Later lookups in this pull request use no address.

---

The 99 Deferred LITs searched for lawful copies: 51 read in full, 3 skimmed, 14 Unfetched, 31 Unavailable

2026-10-29 10:42:26

On 2026-10-29 the owner said: “we have a ton of deferred LITs. file readings for any you can find.” The record held 99 LITs at Deferred. Each was searched the same day for a lawful full text. The search covered arXiv, the publisher’s own free copy, OpenAlex’s open-access locations, PubMed Central and Europe PMC, institutional repositories, authors’ pages, SSRN, PhilArchive and HAL, Project Gutenberg, and official government, court and UN sites. Shadow libraries were not used, and neither were uploads of unknown provenance. No email address was sent to any service, so Unpaywall was not asked; OpenAlex reports the same locations. The work was split into ten batches of about ten works, read in parallel. Each work then got one of four outcomes:

• Read in full. A NOTE (Read) was filed, and the LIT moved to Active. Its status note names the copy, and its summary was checked against the reading. 49 of the 51 summaries were rewritten against it, five of them because they were wrong in substance.
• Read in part. A NOTE (Skimmed) was filed, and the LIT stays Deferred, as that status’s blurb allows (“reading stopped at … a skim”).
• A free copy was located, and this client was blocked from it. The LIT moved to Unfetched under ADR-053. Its status note gives the address and the obstacle.
• No lawful free copy was found, or only a paywalled one. The LIT moved to Unavailable under ADR-041. Its status note says where the search looked.

Every LIT changed got a version bump and a dated history item. The readings filed three THEORYs:

• THEORY-1163 (Active, re-derived). Krakauer et al.’s individuality measures cannot decrease as variables move from the environment into the candidate, so a boundary chosen by maximizing them needs a size cost. That cost is not in the measures.
• THEORY-1162 (Active, re-derived from Blumenthal et al.). Where the consumer–resource cavity fixed point loses stability.
• THEORY-1161 (Proposed). Under reflected appraisal across issues, power ends up in one leader with Friedkin–Johnsen anchoring and stays spread under DeGroot consensus. This was re-run on the same random networks, and the scripts are not in the record.

The 99

Active (51)

work	LIT	NOTE
Flack 2012, Multiple time-scales and the developmental dynamics of social systems	LIT-1122	NOTE-1351
Jansma 2025, Engineering Emergence	LIT-1123	NOTE-1359
Feldman 2003, Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change	LIT-1124	NOTE-1386
Shalizi 1999, Computational Mechanics: Pattern and Prediction, Structure and Simplicity	LIT-1126	NOTE-1372
Holme 2006, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions	LIT-1128	NOTE-1385
Zhang 2024, Dynamical Reversibility and A New Theory of Causal Emergence based on SVD	LIT-1129	NOTE-1399
Škorić 2014, Flow-based reputation with uncertainty: evidence-based subjective logic	LIT-1130	NOTE-1354
DeMarzo 2001, Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions	LIT-1134	NOTE-1392
Gioia 2000, Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive Instability	LIT-1135	NOTE-1389
Hoel 2025, Causal Emergence 2.0: Quantifying emergent complexity	LIT-1136	NOTE-1387
Krakauer 2014, The information theory of individuality	LIT-1137	NOTE-1400
Gross 2007, Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review	LIT-1139	NOTE-1394
Marquis 2013, Imprinting: Toward a Multilevel Theory	LIT-1144	NOTE-1373
Medrano 2023, Linking fast and slow: The case for generative models	LIT-1145	NOTE-1383
Hazen 2007, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity	LIT-1148	NOTE-1402
Kolchinsky 2018, Semantic information, autonomous agency and non-equilibrium statistical physics	LIT-1149	NOTE-1370
Désidéri 2009, Multiple-gradient descent algorithm (MGDA) for multiobjective optimization	LIT-1212	NOTE-1401
Halpern 1984, Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment	LIT-1213	NOTE-1381
Sengupta 2016, Towards a Neuronal Gauge Theory	LIT-1215	NOTE-1350
Castro 1999, Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance	LIT-1217	NOTE-1356
Guida 2026, Propagation, not aggregation: linking individual psychological flexibility to organizational functioning	LIT-1218	NOTE-1353
Lynch 2019, Refractory depression – mechanisms and efficacy of radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RefraMED): findings of a randomised trial on benefits and harms	LIT-1223	NOTE-1358
Cooper 2018, Division of labour and the evolution of extreme specialization	LIT-1225	NOTE-1369
Rose 2020, Zero Trust Architecture	LIT-1226	NOTE-1371
Marsland 2019, The Minimum Environmental Perturbation Principle: A New Perspective on Niche Theory	LIT-1230	NOTE-1352
Mehta 2018, Constrained optimization as ecological dynamics with applications to random quadratic programming in high dimensions	LIT-1231	NOTE-1395
Chizat 2018, On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over-parameterized Models using Optimal Transport	LIT-1232	NOTE-1367
Hofbauer 2022, Permanence via invasion graphs: incorporating community assembly into modern coexistence theory	LIT-1233	NOTE-1379
Bunin 2017, Ecological communities with Lotka-Volterra dynamics	LIT-1234	NOTE-1397
Power 2015, What can ecosystems learn? Expanding evolutionary ecology with learning theory	LIT-1235	NOTE-1368
Blumenthal 2023, Phase Transition to Chaos in Complex Ecosystems with Nonreciprocal Species-Resource Interactions	LIT-1236	NOTE-1366
Letten 2017, Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory	LIT-1237	NOTE-1377
Carstens 2009, Hyperstition: An Introduction	LIT-1396	NOTE-1378
Soros 2013, Fallibility, reflexivity, and the human uncertainty principle	LIT-1397	NOTE-1362
Franklin 1791, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin	LIT-1402	NOTE-1360
Friedkin 2011, A Formal Theory of Reflected Appraisals in the Evolution of Power	LIT-1404	NOTE-1374
Kalla 2020, Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments	LIT-1407	NOTE-1396
Li 2024, Theory on Mixture-of-Experts in Continual Learning	LIT-1411	NOTE-1380
Fedus 2021, Switch Transformers: Scaling to Trillion Parameter Models with Simple and Efficient Sparsity	LIT-1412	NOTE-1363
Wang 2024, Auxiliary-Loss-Free Load Balancing Strategy for Mixture-of-Experts	LIT-1414	NOTE-1388
Kleinman 2020, International Friends and Enemies	LIT-1416	NOTE-1403
Johansson 2005, Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task	LIT-1417	NOTE-1398
Paluck 2017, The Contact Hypothesis Re-evaluated	LIT-1420	NOTE-1393
International Court of Justice 2019, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965	LIT-1589	NOTE-1361
Human Rights Watch 2023, “That’s When the Nightmare Started”: UK and US Forced Displacement of the Chagossians and Ongoing Colonial Crimes	LIT-1593	NOTE-1365
Jasanoff 2003, Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science	LIT-1594	NOTE-1357
Fiss 1979, The Supreme Court, 1978 Term	LIT-1600	NOTE-1364
Cover 1986, Violence and the Word	LIT-1601	NOTE-1384
Scheppele 2018, Autocratic Legalism	LIT-1604	NOTE-1390
Supreme Court of the United States 2025, Noem v. Abrego Garcia	LIT-1606	NOTE-1376
European Court of Human Rights 2012, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	LIT-1619	NOTE-1391

Deferred (3)

work	LIT	NOTE
Joint Task Force 2020, Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations	LIT-1206	NOTE-1375 (Skimmed)
Software Engineering Institute 2022, Common Sense Guide to Mitigating Insider Threats, Seventh Edition	LIT-1216	NOTE-1355 (Skimmed)
Herd 2019, Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means	LIT-1609	NOTE-1382 (Skimmed)

Unfetched (14)

work	LIT	NOTE
Lynch 2015, Radically Open-Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Disorders of Over-Control: Signaling Matters	LIT-1205	—
Percy 2026, The phenomenal binding problem for neural networks	LIT-1211	—
Akkoyunlu 1975, Some constraints and tradeoffs in the design of network communications	LIT-1214	—
Hatoum 2024, Applications and efficacy of radically open dialectical behavior therapy (RO DBT): A systematic review of the literature	LIT-1224	—
Massimi 2022, Perspectival Realism	LIT-1228	—
Eminem 2000, The Way I Am	LIT-1394	—
Farrell 2019, Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion	LIT-1401	—
Nisbett 1977, Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes	LIT-1410	—
Barbieri 1996, Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?	LIT-1422	—
Sabel 2004, Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds	LIT-1587	—
Levinson 1999, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration	LIT-1592	—
Thompson 2014, Responsibility for Failures of Government	LIT-1599	—
Leveson 2012, Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety	LIT-1613	—
Nissenbaum 1996, Accountability in a computerized society	LIT-1618	—

Unavailable (31)

work	LIT	NOTE
Sánchez-Cañizares 2024, Irruption Theory in Phase Transitions: A Proof of Concept With the Haken-Kelso-Bunz Model	LIT-1132	—
Cloutier 2020, Identity Trajectories: Explaining Long-Term Patterns of Continuity and Change in Organizational Identities	LIT-1141	—
Giere 2006, Scientific Perspectivism	LIT-1207	—
Revonsuo 1999, Binding and the Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness	LIT-1208	—
Kahneman 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow	LIT-1209	—
Wong 2006, Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism	LIT-1210	—
Chesson 2000, Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity	LIT-1219	—
Edmondson 1999, Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams	LIT-1220	—
Linehan 1987, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy: A Cognitive Behavioral Approach to Parasuicide	LIT-1221	—
Arrow 1950, A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare	LIT-1222	—
Pradeu 2012, The Limits of the Self: Immunology and Biological Identity	LIT-1227	—
Mele 1995, Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy	LIT-1229	—
MacKenzie 2006, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets	LIT-1395	—
Merton 1948, The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy	LIT-1398	—
Lu 2011, Twenty-Five Years of Hidden Profiles in Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis	LIT-1399	—
McDonald 2004, Peace through Trade or Free Trade?	LIT-1400	—
Pettigrew 2008, How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Meta-Analytic Tests of Three Mediators	LIT-1405	—
Seeley 2011, Stop Signals Provide Cross Inhibition in Collective Decision-Making by Honeybee Swarms	LIT-1406	—
Pettigrew 1998, Intergroup Contact Theory	LIT-1408	—
Pettigrew 2006, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory	LIT-1413	—
Feng 2026, The “Peace Dividend” of International Trade: A New Empirical Approach	LIT-1415	—
Copeland 1996, Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations	LIT-1418	—
Jecker 1969, Liking a Person as a Function of Doing Him a Favour	LIT-1419	—
Oneal 2003, Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992	LIT-1421	—
Carver 2003, Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect	LIT-1445	—
Jeffery 2011, Chagos Islanders in Mauritius and the UK: Forced Displacement and Onward Migration	LIT-1598	—
Hillebrecht 2024, Compliance with Judicial Decisions	LIT-1607	—
Laycock 1991, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule	LIT-1610	—
Pettit 1999, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government	LIT-1614	—
Rosenberg 2023, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Third Edition	LIT-1615	—
Jeffery 2007, How a plantation became paradise: changing representations of the homeland among displaced Chagos islanders	LIT-1620	—

Judgement calls on copies

• Course pages. Readers were told to refuse uploads of unknown provenance. Two readings used copies of published versions that sit on university course or group pages:

  • LIT-1594, Jasanoff, from a University of Colorado science-policy course page;
  • LIT-1217, PBFT, from MIT PDOS’s 6.824 page. Liskov’s group is at MIT, and the authors’ own copy returned a 403.

  Other readers refused similar copies: an MIT course-readings copy of Edmondson (LIT-1220), and course-folder copies of Pettigrew & Tropp, Merton, Nisbett & Wilson and Akkoyunlu et al. So the standard was not applied uniformly. The owner may want to rule on whether such copies count. If they do not, LIT-1594 and LIT-1217 return to Unfetched, with the publishers’ addresses.

• A song. LIT-1394, “The Way I Am”, is a recording, and this client cannot hear audio. It is Unfetched at the official video (youtube.com/watch?v=mQvteoFiMlg), which is a minute’s work for the owner. Lyrics sites were not used.

• Versions. Several readings are of an accepted manuscript or an earlier version, each named in its NOTE:

  • Kalla & Broockman: the SocArXiv accepted manuscript;
  • DeMarzo et al.: the LSE copy of April 2003;
  • Kleinman et al.: the NBER revision of March 2023;
  • Cooper & West: the Oxford ORA accepted manuscript;
  • Soros: the author’s own reproduction;
  • Halpern & Moses: the authors’ arXiv deposit, which LIT-1213 now cites as arxiv:.

Errors found in the works

Numbers and derivations were checked where cheap. The checks’ scripts belong to the readers and are not part of the record. The substantive errors, one line each (typos are in the NOTEs):

• Zhang et al. (LIT-1129): Proposition 5 is false. The SVD lumping does not commute with the dynamics for every grouping, and a counter-example confirms it.
• Switch Transformers (LIT-1412): the auxiliary loss is not minimized by uniform routing (a two-expert counter-example gives 0.92 against 1). §5.6’s “by over 0.061” is 0.051 for Switch-C in Table 9.
• Hofbauer & Schreiber (LIT-1233): in §4.2 the invasion conditions for {1,2} and {2,3} are swapped.
• Sengupta et al. (LIT-1215): it claims every statistical manifold is negatively curved. The multinomial is positively curved.
• Krakauer et al. (LIT-1137): in the 2020 example, A = A* at γ = 0 holds only when self-coupling dominates.
• Kleinman et al. (LIT-1416): footnote 4 applies Perron–Frobenius to a matrix with negative entries. Table 2’s 0.26 SD is about 0.22 by its own R².
• RefraMED (LIT-1223): its “throughout” is false at 7 months for both secondary outcomes. Its Fisher P = 0.004 does not reproduce (it is at most 0.029).
• Kalla & Broockman (LIT-1407): two p-values are too small for their t-statistics.
• Flack (LIT-1122): the “165×” ratio does not follow from the counts given (about 128 to 150).
• Hazen et al. (LIT-1148): −log₂(1000/26¹⁰) is 37 bits, not “≈36”.
• Engineering Emergence (LIT-1123): Figure 2’s values give CP = 0.15, not 0.13. CE 2.0 (LIT-1136) prints the degeneracy with H(E|C) for H(E).
• Mehta et al. (LIT-1231), Power et al. (LIT-1235), Blumenthal et al. (LIT-1236), Désidéri (LIT-1212) and Kolchinsky & Wolpert (LIT-1149): equation slips, none of which changes a result. Each is listed in its NOTE.
• Johansson et al. (LIT-1417): 120 participants in the paper and 118 in the supplement.
• HRW 2023 (LIT-1593): internally inconsistent figures (the plantation buy-out, the cost of return, and the dates of the negotiations). It says the Human Rights Committee “recognized Chagossians as a people”, and the source it cites does not say so.
• Herd & Moynihan (LIT-1609): “$1.2billion,or1.2percentofGDP".1.2$230 billion.
• SEI guide (LIT-1216): it calls the GDPR a directive and counts the UK as an EU member. Its “3,000 cases” does not match its charts’ n.
• SP 800-53 (LIT-1206): AC-3(2) and AU-9(5) disagree on the safety exception to dual authorization.
• Loss-Free Balancing (LIT-1414): 300B tokens in the conclusion and 200B everywhere else.
• Friedkin (LIT-1404), PBFT (LIT-1217), Halpern & Moses (LIT-1213), Jasanoff (LIT-1594) and Scheppele (LIT-1604): wrong volumes, years or order numbers in references.
• Gross & Blasius (LIT-1139): it inverts Holme–Newman’s φ.
• OpenAlex lists arXiv 1705.06614 as a copy of LIT-1215. It is a different paper.

The record’s own errors, found the same way:

• CLAIM-279 quotes Cooper & West (A46) for a sentence that is not in LIT-1225.

• LIT-1396’s “Why this is here” says a hyperstition is “never false, only not yet true”. Land’s interview does not support this.

• Five summaries were wrong in substance:

  • LIT-1128, Holme & Newman;
  • LIT-1134, which weights consensus by both position and accuracy;
  • LIT-1223, RefraMED;
  • LIT-1594, Jasanoff, who argues that participation alone is not enough;
  • LIT-1619, El-Masri, where Macedonia’s Article 3 responsibility is for exposure to risk.

  Each was corrected, with a history note.

Bearing written into the record

Dated notes of 2026-10-29 went on 51 entries, each saying what the readings change and which earlier statement (“unread”, “not read”, “could not be identified”) no longer holds. No title, status, warrant or role changed. The entries:

• QUESTION-083, 045, 115, 117, 118, 130, 132, 135, 262, 277 and 279.
• CLAIM-148, 152, 164, 279, 282, 297, 327, 329, 331, 346, 349, 359, 366, 369, 403, 405, 426, 428, 430, 457, 462 and 464.
• CASE-092, 101, 102, 103, 108, 114, 117, 143, 147, 150, 169, 172, 175 and 176.
• THEORY-916, TERM-055 and TERM-064, and LIT-1592, which Fiss 1979 (LIT-1600) anticipates.

LIT-1134 now extends LIT-1527, since its dynamics are DeGroot’s. inactive-ok directives naming works now Active were removed, and directives were added for the works now Unavailable or Unfetched that the notes cite.

Four things are left open:

• CLAIM-369 cites Blumenthal, Rocks and Mehta as THEORY-634, but THEORY-634’s source is LIT-036, a different paper. Its note says so. The citation is left for a reader to correct.
• CLAIM-279 quotes A46’s attribution to Cooper & West, which the paper does not bear out. Its note says so, and the claim is unchanged.
• CLAIM-346 dates the coordinated attack problem to Akkoyunlu et al. 1975 (LIT-1214), now Unfetched. Halpern & Moses credit Gray 1978 instead. The note points the citation at Halpern & Moses’s Proposition 10 with Theorem 9, rather than Corollary 6.
• CLAIM-297. DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel’s companion paper of 2001 is the closest published statement of the claim’s loop. The note asks for it to be registered and read before the mechanism is called new.

Named by the readings, not registered

Grouped by line. Each NOTE gives the full citations.

• Emergence and coarse-graining:
  • Eberhardt & Lee 2022;
  • Comolatti & Hoel 2022/2025;
  • Klein & Hoel 2020;
  • Hoel 2017;
  • Yuan et al. 2024;
  • Jansma 2025, and Forré & Jansma 2025;
  • Bertschinger, Olbrich, Ay & Jost 2008, the source of Krakauer’s A;
  • Pfante et al. 2014;
  • Rauh et al. 2017;
  • Crutchfield & Young 1989;
  • Grassberger 1986.
• Adaptive networks:
  • Bornholdt & Rohlf 2000;
  • Ito & Kaneko 2002;
  • Gross, Dommar D’Lima & Blasius 2006;
  • Pacheco, Traulsen & Nowak 2006;
  • Zhou & Kurths 2006.
• Reputation:
  • Jøsang 2001;
  • Simone, Škorić & Zannone 2012;
  • Kamvar et al. 2003 (EigenTrust).
• Social systems and time-scales:
  • Flack & Krakauer 2006 and 2011;
  • Flack, Girvan, de Waal & Krakauer 2006;
  • Szostak 2003;
  • Carothers et al. 2004.
• Free energy:
  • Sengupta & Friston 2017 (arXiv 1705.06614);
  • Friston 2010;
  • Jafarian et al. 2021;
  • Rosch et al. 2018.
• Ecology and optimization:
  • MacArthur 1970;
  • Gatto 1990;
  • Chesson 1990 and 1994;
  • Advani, Bunin & Mehta 2018;
  • Bunin 2016 (arXiv 1607.04734);
  • Opper & Diederich 1992;
  • Kleinhesselink & Adler 2015;
  • Patel & Schreiber 2018;
  • Serván & Allesina 2021;
  • May & Leonard 1975;
  • Mei, Montanari & Nguyen 2018;
  • Rotskoff & Vanden-Eijnden 2018;
  • Sirignano & Spiliopoulos 2018;
  • Désidéri, INRIA RR-6953 (2009).
• Division of labour:
  • West & Cooper 2016;
  • Watson & Szathmáry 2016.
• Mixture-of-experts and continual learning:
  • GShard (Lepikhin et al. 2020);
  • Expert Choice (Zhou et al. 2022);
  • DeepSeekMoE (Dai et al. 2024);
  • Chen et al. 2022;
  • Lin et al. 2023;
  • Evron et al. 2022.
• Distributed systems:
  • Gray 1978, the original coordinated attack;
  • Yemini & Cohen 1979;
  • Castro & Liskov 1999 (TM-590) and 2002 (TOCS);
  • Lamport, Shostak & Pease 1982;
  • Oki & Liskov 1988;
  • Lamport, “The Part-Time Parliament”;
  • Bracha & Toueg 1985;
  • Moore et al. 2016 (SEI, positive incentives).
• Organizations:
  • Stinchcombe 1965;
  • Burton & Beckman 2007;
  • Tilcsik 2012;
  • Nelson & Winter 1982;
  • Pentland 2003;
  • Feldman 2000;
  • Albert & Whetten 1985;
  • Dutton & Dukerich 1991;
  • Bond 2018, “Organizational flexibility”;
  • Fleming 2024;
  • Atkins, Wilson & Hayes 2019.
• RO DBT:
  • Lynch 2018 (the manual);
  • the RefraMED protocol (BMJ Open 2015);
  • the NIHR EME monograph (2018);
  • Shearer et al. 2019;
  • Lynch et al. 2003 and 2007;
  • Linehan 1993.
• Influence and opinion:
  • DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel 2001, “Social Networks and Financial Markets”, the closest published statement of CLAIM-297’s loop;
  • their 1997 draft;
  • Friedkin & Johnsen 2011;
  • Mayhew & Levinger 1976;
  • Michels 1911;
  • Gecas & Schwalbe 1983;
  • Tärning et al. 2005 (unpublished).
• Reflexivity:
  • Beinhocker 2013, the reply that made Soros withdraw his split;
  • Soros 1987;
  • Knight 1921;
  • Merton 1949, which holds LIT-1398 as a chapter;
  • Popper 1957;
  • Ccru, Writings 1997–2003;
  • Avanessian & Hennig.
• Contact and trade:
  • Broockman & Kalla 2016;
  • Scacco & Warren 2018;
  • Enos 2014;
  • Lemmer & Wagner 2015;
  • Paluck & Green 2009;
  • Feyrer 2019;
  • Martin, Mayer & Thoenig 2008;
  • Barbieri 2002;
  • Thompson 2001, with Colaresi, Rasler & Thompson 2010.
• Courts and remedies:
  • Laycock 1990 (103 Harv. L. Rev. 687);
  • Chayes 1976;
  • Fuller 1978;
  • Cover 1983, “Nomos and Narrative”;
  • Landau 2013;
  • Corrales 2015;
  • Trump v. J.G.G. (2025);
  • the Abrego Garcia remand in D. Md.;
  • Babar Ahmad v. UK (2010);
  • Al Nashiri v. Poland and Husayn v. Poland (2014);
  • Agiza v. Sweden (CAT 2005) and Alzery v. Sweden (HRC 2006);
  • the Committee of Ministers’ file on El-Masri.
• Chagos:
  • Vine 2011;
  • Sands 2022;
  • Bancoult [2000] EWHC 413;
  • Chagos Islanders v AG [2003] EWHC 2222;
  • the Chagos MPA arbitration (2015);
  • the ICJ separate opinions;
  • Levinger 2021.
• Science policy:
  • Gibbons et al. 1994;
  • Jasanoff 1990.
• Possible stand-ins for Unavailable works:
  • Sánchez-Cañizares 2026, doi:10.1007/s11097-026-10164-0, listed as open access, for LIT-1132;
  • the Laycock article, for LIT-1610.

---

The copies the first deferred-LIT pass turned down: nine works read under ADR-064, one Unfetched

2026-10-29 12:02:33

The curation entry of 2026-10-29 10:42 set out how the first pass treated copies. It read Jasanoff (LIT-1594) and PBFT (LIT-1217) from copies on course or group pages. It turned down the same kind of copy for ten other works, as “of unknown provenance”. The owner replied: “let’s go find and read the stuff that they mistakenly turned down.”

ADR-064 records the ruling. A copy of a published article counts as a lawful copy when it sits on any of these:

• a university course or reading-list page;
• a faculty or research-group page;
• a scholarly third-party site;
• an author’s own upload.

Shadow libraries and uploads of whole in-copyright books still do not count. So the refusals of Kahneman (LIT-1209, Internet Archive uploads) and of Herd & Moynihan’s whole book (LIT-1609, a file host) stand. ADR-053 gets a dated note.

Three readers went back to the ten works the same day, on a fresh branch. Each copy was checked against its title, authors and pages before it was read.

work	LIT	before	now	NOTE	copy
Edmondson 1999, Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams	LIT-1220	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1404	MIT course readings (web.mit.edu/curhan), the JSTOR printing
Pettigrew & Tropp 2006, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory	LIT-1413	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1407	ideas.wharton.upenn.edu. A Masaryk course copy was bot-checked
Pettigrew & Tropp 2008, How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice?	LIT-1405	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1405	University of Washington course folder
Pettigrew 1998, Intergroup Contact Theory	LIT-1408	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1408	serendipstudio.org
Merton 1948, The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy	LIT-1398	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1409	a pbworks course wiki, the JSTOR download
Nisbett & Wilson 1977, Telling More Than We Can Know	LIT-1410	Unfetched	Active	NOTE-1412	MIT course readings. The Princeton copy’s text layer was too garbled to read
Akkoyunlu, Ekanadham & Huber 1975, Some constraints and tradeoffs…	LIT-1214	Unfetched	Active	NOTE-1410	TU Wien course page, a scan of the SOSP ‘75 pages
Seeley et al. 2012, Stop Signals Provide Cross Inhibition…	LIT-1406	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1411	rangevoting.org, the Science Express version
Revonsuo 1999, Binding and the Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness	LIT-1208	Unavailable	Active	NOTE-1406	hedweb.com, the publisher’s PDF
Carver 2003, Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else	LIT-1445	Unavailable	Unfetched	—	academia.edu item 3044771. Cloudflare blocked it, so it could not be checked

Every NOTE is Read. No THEORY was filed. The readers added lineage: LIT-1413 extends LIT-1408, and LIT-1405 extends LIT-1413.

What the readings settle

• The coordinated attack problem is Akkoyunlu et al.’s. It is in the appendix of their paper (pp. 73–74), told as gangsters and a mugged messenger. They prove that no finite exchange can give both parties mutual knowledge that the plan was delivered, even when no message is lost. That is three years before Gray (1978). Their goal is mutual knowledge of delivery. The step to coordinated action (“both act or neither”) is Halpern & Moses’s (LIT-1213). This corrects the first pass’s note on CLAIM-346, which said the 1975 attribution “rests on later usage”.
• Revonsuo draws the binding distinction himself. In his terms it is stimulus-related against consciousness-related binding, not “functional” against “phenomenal”, and he credits it to Smythies (1994). The issue introduction (Revonsuo & Newman) was not checked: the Santa Fe Institute wiki copy returned a 503.
• “Deprovincialization” is in Pettigrew 1998, once, on p. 72. Its evidence is one unpublished analysis and one laboratory study.

Errors found in the works

• Pettigrew & Tropp 2008:
  • Table 3’s Sobel statistic for empathy over all samples is printed as 4.38. Its own coefficients and standard errors give 12.43, the value in the text; this was recomputed.
  • Its “91 independent samples” adds the samples for each mediator. At least nine samples measured two mediators, so there are at most 82 distinct samples.
• Pettigrew & Tropp 2006: trim-and-fill is reported as raising the effect, and the paper does not explain why. “Z” means both the test statistic and Fisher’s z.
• Edmondson 1999:
  • The team-learning ICC is .33 in the text and .27 in Table 3.
  • Table 6 prints p = .21 for t = .78. A two-sided test gives about .44.
  • “Six of eight hypotheses” counts H6, which rests on a p = .06 coefficient.
• Nisbett & Wilson:
  • Storms & Nisbett 1970 is cited as volume 2 for volume 16.
  • Its awareness ratio can exceed 100% (the paper reports 244%), and the paper does not remark on it.
• Seeley et al.: none. The three χ² tests that can be rebuilt from the text reproduce.
• Akkoyunlu et al.: one step of the appendix proof is asserted, not argued. The conclusion stands.
• Summaries: three were wrong in substance and are corrected.
  • LIT-1408: Pettigrew keeps Allport’s four conditions as essential and adds a fifth.
  • LIT-1406: the swarm does not settle on “the best-represented site”.
  • LIT-1214: the problem is in an appendix to an interprocess communication paper.

Named by the readings, not registered

• Contact:
  • Allport 1954;
  • Pettigrew 1997 (PSPB) and 1997c (unpublished, the survey evidence for deprovincialization);
  • Wright et al. 1997;
  • Stephan & Stephan 1985;
  • Batson et al. 1997;
  • Cook 1984;
  • Hewstone & Brown 1986;
  • Brewer & Miller 1984;
  • Sherif 1966;
  • Pettigrew & Tropp 2000;
  • Voci & Hewstone 2003;
  • Paolini et al. 2004.
• Organizations:
  • Edmondson 1996;
  • Argyris & Schön 1978;
  • Hackman 1987;
  • Schein & Bennis 1965.
• Self-knowledge and expectation:
  • Merton 1936 and 1949;
  • Myrdal 1944;
  • MacIver 1948;
  • Bem 1967;
  • Bem & McConnell 1970;
  • Goethals & Reckman 1973;
  • Maier 1931;
  • Latané & Darley 1970;
  • Tversky & Kahneman 1974;
  • Polanyi 1964;
  • Nisbett & Wilson 1977, on the halo effect.
• Distributed systems:
  • Akkoyunlu’s working paper of March 1975, which holds the formal proof;
  • Gallager 1979.
• Binding and swarms:
  • Smythies 1994a and 1994b;
  • Revonsuo et al. 1997;
  • Engel et al. 1999;
  • Revonsuo & Newman 1999;
  • Marshall et al. 2009;
  • Usher & McClelland 2001;
  • Seeley 2010;
  • Seeley & Visscher 2004.

---

Triage of the 162 works the readings of 2026-10-29 named and did not register: 18 to file, 59 to consider, 85 to skip

2026-10-29 20:59:43

The two curation entries of 2026-10-29 (10:42 and 12:02) list the works the day’s readings named and did not register. On 2026-10-29 the owner asked for a triage: “just because something was referenced doesn’t mean it’s aligned with our project goals.” The owner added that “to better understand what the record is trying to answer, look at the QUESTION entries”.

How the works were judged

The test was what reading a work would change in the record’s own argument. Its QUESTIONs come first: 281 were Open on the day, across the nine lines in luria.yaml. Its CLAIMs, CASEs and THEORYs come next. Four readers each took some of the lists’ groups. For each work they checked three things:

• whether the record already holds it, by grepping literature.d for the surname, the title and the identifier;
• which NOTE or entry named it, and why;
• which Open QUESTION or open entry turns on it. They read that entry in full, including its answer criteria, promote_when and dated notes.

Three tiers:

• File: reading the work would settle, test or correct something the record holds open. That means it answers or tests a QUESTION, meets or defeats a promote_when, resolves a flag, an attribution or a “register and read” request, or is the primary source for something the record now states second-hand and leans on.
• Consider: it bears on a live line, but no open item turns on it.
• Skip: it is cited in passing, is ML practice (which belongs to the anthology under ADR-048), is not findable, or is already held.

“Named in a NOTE” was not a reason to file.

Reconciled. Two works were triaged twice.

• Laycock 1990 (103 Harv. L. Rev. 687) was rated File in one group and Consider in the other. It is Consider. Of the record’s entries, only CLAIM-464 names Laycock (LIT-1610), which is Proposed, and that claim makes one passing contrast. The other group wrote that CASE-176 and CASE-170 rest on the book, but neither cites it.
• Merton 1949 appeared in both lists. It is counted once, as Skip: the chapter that bears on the record is LIT-1398, which is held and read.

Not every work had a NOTE or entry that named it, and these could not be traced: Yuan et al. 2024, Jafarian et al. 2021, Patel & Schreiber 2018 and Evron et al. 2022. All four are Skip.

File (18)

work	bears on	what turns on it
Comolatti & Hoel 2022, “Causal emergence is widespread across measures of causation”	QUESTION-204 (Open); THEORY-787 (Proposed) promote_when	THEORY-787 is promoted by a result that the macro advantage survives non-uniform intervention distributions. This is the paper Hoel offers as that result, so reading it either meets the promote_when or shows it to be “more toy systems”, which the promote_when says cannot settle it.
Eberhardt & Lee 2022, “Causal emergence: when distortions in a map obscure the territory”	QUESTION-204; THEORY-787 (“in trouble if” clause); QUESTION-115 (A21’s admissible macro-interventions)	It is the published case that the EI advantage is an artefact of the uniform-intervention choice, with ambiguity and non-commutativity on top. That is THEORY-787’s defeating branch, and the record holds only the defenders’ replies to it.
Pfante, Bertschinger, Olbrich, Ay & Jost 2014, “Comparison between different methods of level identification”	QUESTION-252 (Open); THEORY-820, THEORY-822, CLAIM-409	QUESTION-252 asks which conditions on an effective description entail or are parameters of the others. This paper proves the implications among informational closure, commutativity/lumpability and Markovianity, which the record cites second-hand through two readings.
Ito & Kaneko 2002, “Spontaneous structure formation in a network of chaotic units with variable connection strengths”	QUESTION-117 (Open); QUESTION-083, QUESTION-132; NOTE-1394’s open question	QUESTION-117’s note names “like-and-like reinforcement producing persistent leader and follower classes” as the predecessor to beat. This is that model, and the review’s only weighted, directed one: identical units split into persistent classes while links turn over.
Flack & Krakauer 2006, “Encoding power in communication networks”	CLAIM-327 (Proposed), stage 2; CLAIM-331	CLAIM-327’s note of 2026-10-29 finds Flack 2012 only asserts member accessibility, “argued from earlier studies”. This is one of them, so whether stage 2 has evidence turns on it.
Flack, Girvan, de Waal & Krakauer 2006, “Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates”	CLAIM-327 (Proposed): its intervention test and defeated_if	It is the one intervention in this literature: removing policers destabilized the networks. CLAIM-327’s tests ask for “causal uptake under intervention”, and its defeated_if names interventions that leave behaviour unchanged.
Chesson 1990, “MacArthur’s consumer-resource model”	QUESTION-083, QUESTION-132, CLAIM-279, CASE-118	QUESTION-083 asks for Chesson to be read before any negative-frequency-dependence criterion gets stronger standing, and that request is unmet because LIT-1219 is Unavailable. This paper is a reachable primary source for niche overlap ρ in the record’s own model class. It would also test whether CASE-118’s 1 − ρ (= λ_min of the Gram matrix) is Chesson’s ρ.
Chesson 1994, “Multispecies competition in variable environments”	QUESTION-132, QUESTION-083	QUESTION-132’s first outcome (“stabilizing coexistence”) is named for Chesson and cited as unread, and NOTE-1379 says Hofbauer and Schreiber make this paper’s “−i community” rigorous. It is the primary source for the multispecies recovery-when-rare criterion the question should carry, so it stands in for Chesson 2000.
Serván & Allesina 2021, “Tractable models of ecological assembly”	CLAIM-369 (note of 2026-10-29), QUESTION-132, QUESTION-083	CLAIM-369 leaves open, unproved, whether its symmetric class rules out cyclic invasion graphs. This paper’s assembly graph for symmetric competitive Lotka–Volterra is the direct test: it reportedly shows that bottom-up and top-down endpoints coincide (verify on reading). It would also bound QUESTION-083’s “entrenchment by order of arrival” in the potential case.
Revonsuo & Newman 1999, “Binding and consciousness” (issue introduction)	CLAIM-355, NOTE-1406’s open questions	NOTE-1406 shows that A27’s “functional/phenomenal” terms and five-binding scheme are not in Revonsuo’s paper. It leaves open, because the copy failed to fetch, whether this introduction draws the distinction in those words. A copy exists (Santa Fe Institute wiki). Reading it would settle the attribution CLAIM-355 quotes.
Bond 2018, “Organizational flexibility: creating a mindful and purpose-driven organization” (in Wilson, Hayes & Biglan eds.)	CLAIM-349	CLAIM-349 “Where it stands”: A42 said to add it “before claiming novelty”. It is now identified, and the verdict that it is “not a prior statement of the three-way split” comes second-hand from Guida et al.
NIHR EME monograph 2018, “RO DBT for refractory depression: the RefraMED RCT”	QUESTION-045, QUESTION-292, LIT-1223/NOTE-1358	QUESTION-045’s 10-29 note: the BJP paper “promises mechanisms” but reports no mediation. The EME report states causal mechanism analyses (abstract), the kind of evidence QUESTION-292/THEORY-053 ask for. The BJP paper also defers to the report on adverse events (NOTE-1358 could not reproduce its P = 0.004). Open access (NIHR Journals Library).
DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel 2001, “Social Networks and Financial Markets”	CLAIM-297, QUESTION-117	CLAIM-297 says it is “the closest published statement of this claim’s loop” and “should be read before the loop is called new”. It may also meet QUESTION-117’s call for an established model that already gives the coupled outcome.
Edmondson 1996, “Learning from mistakes is easier said than done” (hospital drug errors)	CLAIM-359, CLAIM-349	CLAIM-359’s 10-29 note says that controls which treat dissent as suspect cut learning is “the claim’s inference … not something the paper [1999] tests”. Edmondson 1996 is her own finding that units with punitive climates report fewer errors, the nearest observation of control suppressing disclosure (CLAIM-349’s “less disclosure of near misses”).
Scacco & Warren 2018, Can social contact reduce prejudice and discrimination? (APSR, Nigeria)	QUESTION-262, CLAIM-430, CLAIM-275	QUESTION-262 asks for conduct measured “not only self-report”, toward unfamiliar outgroup members. This pre-registered field trial measured behaviour and attitudes separately and found conduct changed while stated prejudice did not. That is a test of the question’s measurement contrast and of CLAIM-430’s order (taking part before the reinterpretation). It is also one of the three pre-registered studies behind the “near zero” in QUESTION-262’s note
Lemmer & Wagner 2015, Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions (EJSP)	CLAIM-430 (second defeater), QUESTION-262 (information vs cooperation)	CLAIM-430’s note says its defeater “has no test in the randomized contact literature, which compares contact with no contact”. This meta-analysis pools indirect (extended or vicarious) contact interventions, which involve no taking part, separately from direct ones. It is the nearest existing evidence on that defeater, and it would correct the note’s “no test”
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, remand proceedings, D. Md. No. 8:25-cv-00951 (2025)	QUESTION-279, CLAIM-457, CASE-175	QUESTION-279 asks what licenses a party’s “we cannot” and whether a court must accept it. On remand the district court demanded sworn declarations of the steps taken and ordered discovery into the claimed inability. That is the question’s test case, and NOTE-1376’s open question says the remand “would answer it”. It would also show what “facilitate” required of a two-state coalition (CLAIM-457)
R (Bancoult) v FCO [2000] EWHC 413 (Admin) (Bancoult No 1)	CASE-169 (“classification that changes its referent”), CLAIM-115	CASE-169’s “no permanent population” particular, which extends CLAIM-115, is documented only “as quoted in UK judgments” by HRW. This judgment is the primary for those archival quotations. It is short and on BAILII

Owner calls

• Abrego Garcia remand, D. Md. No. 8:25-cv-00951. It is a docket, not one work, so a filing has to name which order or transcript to read. NOTE-1376 says the remand would answer its open question, and it bears on QUESTION-279.
• Chesson 1990 and Chesson 1994. Either may be enough on its own. 1994 fits QUESTION-132, and 1990 fits CLAIM-369 and CASE-118.
• Serván & Allesina 2021. Its File tier rests on a web summary saying that assembly under symmetric competition ends in the same communities whatever the order. If the paper does not show that the invasion graph is acyclic, it drops to Consider.
• Bancoult No 1. It is borderline, since HRW’s quotations (LIT-1593) already document the point it would source.
• Bond 2018. It is a book chapter, and it may be Unavailable.
• Flack, de Waal & Krakauer 2005. It is missing from the lists, but it is one of the studies Flack 2012 rests on. If the two Flack papers of 2006 are filed, it goes with them.
• To promote if the owner wants the line deepened:
  • Nelson & Winter 1982, on CLAIM-329’s “remains the record’s own”;
  • West & Cooper 2016, to trace CLAIM-279’s misattributed sentence;
  • Wright et al. 1997, if Lemmer & Wagner do not report direct and indirect contact separately;
  • Sengupta & Friston 2017, the one remaining gauge-theory candidate for QUESTION-130;
  • Trump v. J.G.G., for CLAIM-464. It is unchecked: its notice language was recalled, not read.
• Lynch’s RO DBT manual of 2018 may be unnecessary if LIT-1205 (Lynch 2015, Unfetched) is supplied.

Consider (59)

work	bears on	why not File
Klein & Hoel 2020, “The emergence of informative higher scales in complex networks”	QUESTION-204; THEORY-787	It applies CE to real networks, but with uniform interventions and a best-of-many search. That is the kind of evidence THEORY-787’s promote_when says “cannot settle it”.
Hoel 2017, “When the map is better than the territory”	THEORY-787; THEORY-222	It gives the channel-capacity argument for CE that 2013 (LIT-1038) only sketches. It does not test the intervention distribution, so no open item turns on it.
Jansma 2025, Möbius-inversion mereology of higher-order structure	QUESTION-218 (unit as a subset vs a function of the whole state), loosely	Mereology of interactions is a live distributed-agency theme, but NOTE-1359 names it only as a way to conserve CP. No entry asks for it.
Bertschinger, Olbrich, Ay & Jost 2008, “Autonomy: an information theoretic perspective”	QUESTION-115 boundary leg; THEORY-1163	It is the primary source of A, but THEORY-1163 is re-derived from Krakauer’s own definitions, so nothing open turns on reading the original.
Rauh et al. 2017, “Coarse-graining and the Blackwell order”	CLAIM-409 (Active)	It is a published statement of CLAIM-409’s mechanism, that changing the target breaks Blackwell ordering under coarse-graining. The claim is already demonstrated, so it would add a citation, not a test.
Gross, Dommar D’Lima & Blasius 2006, adaptive SIS epidemic	QUESTION-117 (“as economically”)	Its three-variable moment closure is the economical-reduction yardstick QUESTION-117’s note points to. It is a method, though, and nothing has to be decided on it.
Simone, Škorić & Zannone 2012, “Flow-based reputation: more than just ranking”	CLAIM-282 (Active)	It is the recursive metric EBSL extends. It would be another instance of CLAIM-282’s recycling, but the claim is demonstrated and nothing is open.
Kamvar, Schlosser & Garcia-Molina 2003, EigenTrust	CLAIM-282; QUESTION-271	It is the canonical recursive-reputation fixed point, and its pre-trusted peers are a deployed counter to the collusion CLAIM-282 proves. That bears on QUESTION-271’s capture problem, but no item turns on it.
Flack & Krakauer 2011, “Challenges for complexity measures” (Chaos)	CLAIM-331 (Active); THEORY-1061	The record already has the slow-variable notion from Flack 2012 and 2017 (LIT-1122, LIT-1630). This earlier statement would add provenance, not a test.
Sengupta & Friston 2017, “Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory” (arXiv 1705.06614)	QUESTION-130 (Open); CLAIM-148	It continues LIT-1215, which gave a Fisher-metric connection “of the wrong kind” for QUESTION-130. The sequel is likely the same kind, but it is the only candidate that might construct the between-model symmetry LIT-1215 left unconstructed.
West & Cooper 2016, “Division of labour in microorganisms: an evolutionary perspective”	CLAIM-279 (left-open attribution); QUESTION-277, QUESTION-083	It might be where A46’s misattributed sentence came from, and it might argue the “driver of transitions” route QUESTION-277 calls asserted. But CLAIM-279’s note already settles the sentence as A46’s inference.
Watson & Szathmáry 2016, “How can evolution learn?”	QUESTION-083, QUESTION-132; CLAIM-369	It is the programme Power et al. (LIT-1235) instantiate, and the record already holds instances and relatives (LIT-1235, LIT-990). A programmatic opinion piece, so no item turns on it.
MacArthur 1970, species packing and competitive equilibrium	CLAIM-369	The original minimization principle behind CLAIM-369’s objective. The claim is demonstrated and proved on its own, and LIT-1230 already supplies the duality and the piecewise-Q correction, so nothing open turns on it.
Advani, Bunin & Mehta 2018, cavity solution to MacArthur’s consumer-resource model	QUESTION-135	The source of the species-packing result that QUESTION-135’s 2026-10-29 note uses through LIT-1231. It has no recovery dynamics, so by the question’s own “would not answer” clause it cannot answer it.
May & Leonard 1975, rock–paper–scissors competition	QUESTION-132	The canonical cyclic case behind QUESTION-132’s “signs decide only if acyclic” condition. The record already has the point from LIT-1233, so reading this adds only the textbook example.
Mei, Montanari & Nguyen 2018, mean-field landscape of two-layer nets	QUESTION-132 (Chizat–Bach precondition)	The standard independent mean-field result. LIT-1232 already supplies the mass-transport precondition QUESTION-132 cites, so no open item turns on this.
Expert Choice, Zhou et al. 2022	CASE-117	A distinct imposed-balance regime (experts pick tokens, capacity fixed) that CASE-117’s regime comparison could list. No open item turns on it, and QUESTION-132 rules out MoE specialization as an answer.
DeepSeekMoE, Dai et al. 2024	CASE-117	Unlike Switch, it measures expert specialization and redundancy, which CASE-117’s note says none of its three MoE readings did. That is useful for the baseline only, since QUESTION-132 and QUESTION-083 say MoE specialization does not answer them.
Chen et al. 2022, “Towards understanding MoE in deep learning”	QUESTION-132, CASE-117	A proof that the router learns cluster structure from symmetric starts, which is LIT-1411’s basis. Like LIT-1411, it carries a separable signal, so it does not meet QUESTION-132’s “would not answer” bar.
Castro & Liskov 2002, TOCS (PBFT with proactive recovery)	CLAIM-359 (Proposed), CASE-108	Proactive recovery is the protocol-level form of CLAIM-359’s “processes that revise authority”. NOTE-1356 lists the absence of repair as a limit of LIT-1217, but nothing in the claim turns on it.
Moore et al. 2016 (SEI), the critical role of positive incentives	CLAIM-359 (Proposed)	The primary report behind the guide’s Best Practice 21 (the 23-organization survey) that CLAIM-359’s note uses as the practitioners’ version of the cost side. But it studies incentives against misbehaviour, not the cost of safeguards to dissent, so it would not move the claim.
Jasanoff 1990, The Fifth Branch	THEORY-151 (Proposed)	NOTE-1357 says her claim (regulatory science’s credibility rests on accountability, not peer quality) is where she and Longino could be compared. It meets neither half of THEORY-151’s promote_when.
Laycock 1990, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 687 (stand-in for LIT-1610)	CLAIM-464 (Proposed)	LIT-1610’s summary is unchecked (“a reading should check it first”), but CLAIM-464 uses it in one “What it does not say” bullet, for a standard distinction. Worth it only if a lawful copy turns up. It overlaps the Courts and remedies group.
Smythies 1994a, origin of the BP1/BP2 binding split	CLAIM-355 (Proposed)	CLAIM-355’s note credits the stimulus/consciousness binding split to Smythies second-hand, through Revonsuo. The claim’s separation does not depend on who drew it first.
Smythies 1994b	CLAIM-355	The same as 1994a. One of the two would do.
Engel, Fries, König, Brecht & Singer 1999, temporal binding and consciousness	QUESTION-255, CLAIM-355	The synchrony thesis Revonsuo tests. It bears on the phenomenal-unity line, but no open item names it.
Marshall et al. 2009, optimal decision-making in social insects and brains	QUESTION-062, CASE-145	It links swarm cross-inhibition to drift-diffusion and LCA models (LIT-565, LIT-569 held). It does not meet QUESTION-062’s answer (a goal manipulated with the evidence held fixed).
Burton & Beckman 2007, “Leaving a legacy: position imprints”	QUESTION-118, CLAIM-329	A feature that persists across total turnover in one position. But the firm’s identity is fixed from outside, so it cannot separate continuation from reconstitution, which is what QUESTION-118’s 10-29 note says is missing.
Tilcsik 2012 (secondhand imprinting)	CLAIM-329	Transmission by emulation, as against shared resemblance, is CLAIM-329’s distinction at feature level. Possibly a working paper (see Owner calls).
Nelson & Winter 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change	CLAIM-329	NOTE-1386 concludes that the claim’s continuation/kind distinction “remains the record’s own”. N&W’s replication-vs-imitation of routines is the obvious prior statement to check before saying so. Nobody asked for it.
Dutton & Dukerich 1991, “Keeping an eye on the mirror”	CASE-103	The empirical case behind the identity–image discrepancy that NOTE-1389 maps onto CASE-103’s P1–P3. CASE-103 is Active, and nothing open turns on it.
Lynch 2018, the RO DBT manual	CLAIM-349, QUESTION-045	The primary source for “overcontrol”, which CLAIM-349 holds through A42’s table. LIT-1205 is already registered and shorter, so fetch that first.
Friedkin & Johnsen 2011, Social Influence Network Theory	THEORY-1161, CASE-092	The primary source for the anchored step that THEORY-1161 turns on, which the record takes from LIT-1404. THEORY-1161’s promote_when asks for a fixed-point analysis or an outside simulation, and the book is not known to give either.
Beinhocker 2013, “Reflexivity, complexity, and the nature of social science”	CLAIM-426 (loosely)	The reply that made Soros withdraw his social/natural demarcation. No record entry rests on that demarcation.
Ccru, Writings 1997–2003	CLAIM-426	CLAIM-426 attributes “hyperstition” to the CCRU second-hand. The definition it uses is held in Land’s words (LIT-1396), and the “never false of the present” point is already corrected as the record’s own.
Merton 1936, “The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action”	CLAIM-426	Merton’s statement of the self-defeating direction, which NOTE-1409 says his 1948 essay “named, not treated”. CLAIM-426 now takes the loop “in either direction” from Soros and MacKenzie, both read.
Bem 1967, “Self-perception”	CASE-114	The theory behind CASE-114’s premise that self-reports are constructed from a theory. That premise is already supported by LIT-1410 and LIT-1417, and the case’s thesis is not touched.
Broockman & Kalla 2016, Durably reducing transphobia (Science)	CASE-147, CLAIM-430	The original deep canvass. LIT-1407 (read) already reinterprets it, and no open item turns on the 2016 arms themselves
Enos 2014, Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes (PNAS)	CLAIM-430 (“Not that invitations work”), QUESTION-262	Randomized proximity without interaction raised exclusion. A useful foil, but it compares presence with absence, not taking part with information, so no contrast of QUESTION-262 turns on it
Paluck & Green 2009, Prejudice reduction: what works? (Annu. Rev. Psychol.)	QUESTION-262	A general review and a source of LIT-1420’s studies. LIT-1420, which is read, supersedes it for the experimental evidence
Martin, Mayer & Thoenig 2008, Make trade not war? (REStud)	CLAIM-428 (defeater)	A payoff-only model in which bilateral trade lowers conflict and multilateral openness raises it. It bears on whether payoffs “fully predict” conflict, but it is a model fit, not the residual comparison CLAIM-428’s defeater names
Chayes 1976, The role of the judge in public law litigation	CASE-176, CASE-172, CLAIM-457	The origin of the public-law litigation model that Fiss (LIT-1600, read) answers. The record’s use of the “Reversal ≠ Repair ≠ Structural reform” distinction is served by Fiss
Cover 1983, Nomos and Narrative	CLAIM-462, TERM-064	The earlier Cover (jurispathic courts), revised by LIT-1601, which is read. It could deepen the legibility and uptake line, but nothing turns on it
Landau 2013, Abusive constitutionalism	CLAIM-464 (strategic rival)	Scheppele (LIT-1604, read) already gives the strategic rival and how it differs. Landau would add a second statement of that rival, not a test
Trump v. J.G.G. (2025), US Supreme Court	CLAIM-464, CASE-175	The per curiam reportedly requires notice “in time to seek habeas relief before removal”, a court-built guard against acting before review. That bears on CLAIM-464’s jurisdictional-displacement mechanism. CLAIM-464 has no promote_when, and CASE-175 uses J.G.G. only as context
Al Nashiri v. Poland; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (ECtHR 2014)	CLAIM-405, CASE-175	NOTE-1391’s open question (a host state, not a sending state). CLAIM-405 is Active, and CASE-175’s new part, undoing a transfer while the person is still held, does not arise there either
Committee of Ministers’ execution file on El-Masri	QUESTION-278, CLAIM-462	It would show whether the correction the Court ordered (an investigation) was carried out by another institution. That is a live line, but no open item names it, and it is a docket, not a work
Vine 2011, Island of Shame	CASE-169	A secondary history that HRW (LIT-1593, read) draws on. It could replace particulars that CASE-169 still keeps as the exchange’s, but none of them carries a claim
Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB)	CASE-169, CLAIM-361	The other source of HRW’s archival quotations, and long. It is worth reading only after Bancoult No 1, if that leaves a quotation unconfirmed
ICJ Chagos advisory opinion: dissent and separate opinions (2019)	CASE-169, CLAIM-361	NOTE-1361 says they would “close what this note leaves as the Court’s majority view”. Cançado Trindade on reparations touches CASE-169’s restoration line. No Proposed item depends on them
Levinger 2021 (Tomer Levinger), denied return as a continuing crime	CASE-169 (“restoration is not the inverse”), CLAIM-361	HRW’s legal frame for a wrong maintained by the bar on return. It is a legal argument near the record’s line, and it tests nothing
Allport 1954, The Nature of Prejudice	QUESTION-262, CLAIM-430	The primary for “Allport’s conditions” and for “the more contact the more trouble”. The record uses them only through the read reviews, and no entry turns on Allport’s wording
Pettigrew 1997 (PSPB), Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice	QUESTION-262 (local vs general), CASE-146	The primary for the “uninvolved outgroups” result that NOTE-1408 reports. It is cross-sectional survey work, so it cannot supply the question’s controlled contrast
Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp 1997, The extended contact effect (JPSP)	CLAIM-430 (second defeater), QUESTION-262	Its laboratory study induces bias reduction by observation alone, with no taking part. That is the same arm as Lemmer & Wagner, in one study. File it if Lemmer & Wagner does not separate the arms
Batson et al. 1997, Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? (JPSP 72)	QUESTION-262 (local vs general), CLAIM-430	Experimental: a recorded interview, received without taking part, generalizes from one member to the group. It bears on both the information arm and the generalization contrast, but it compares empathy instructions, not taking part with being told
Cook 1984, cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts	CLAIM-275	Laboratory cooperation studies behind “behaviour change is often the precursor of attitude change”, which NOTE-1408 says is “argued, not tested”. It might test that, but CLAIM-275 is Active and nothing is pending on it
Hewstone & Brown 1986, Contact is not enough (intergroup perspective)	CASE-146	The theoretical primary for contact failing to generalize when the friend is an atypical exception. That is CASE-146’s first friendship. CASE-146 is a stipulated thought-experiment and needs no source
Brewer & Miller 1984, decategorization	CASE-146	The counterpart model to Hewstone & Brown. The same reasoning applies
Sherif 1966, In Common Predicament (Robbers Cave, superordinate goals)	QUESTION-262, CLAIM-430	Mere contact failed where cooperation on superordinate goals succeeded: the classic contact-vs-cooperation contrast. It is a field study without controls and does not hold information fixed

Skip (85)

work	why
Yuan et al. 2024, causal-emergence survey (Entropy)	A general survey, and no reading or entry rests on it.
Forré & Jansma 2025, Shapley-value apportioning	A technical aside on CE 2.0’s apportioning schema, and nothing in the record uses that schema.
Crutchfield & Young 1989, “Inferring statistical complexity”	LIT-1126 (Shalizi & Crutchfield) holds the formal statement and theorems the record actually uses.
Grassberger 1986, “Toward a quantitative theory of self-generated complexity”	LIT-1126 formalizes this measure, and no entry leans on the original.
Bornholdt & Rohlf 2000, topological evolution of threshold networks	It shows self-organized criticality without authority, weights or roles. NOTE-1394 found the review’s account of it inconsistent, but no entry turns on it.
Pacheco, Traulsen & Nowak 2006, coevolution of strategy and structure with dynamical linking	A cooperation-game result, rewiring maps to a coordination game, with no authority or role variable. No entry asks for it.
Zhou & Kurths 2006, adaptive synchronization	A coupled-oscillator synchronization rule, noted only for an exponent sign.
Jøsang 2001, “A logic for uncertain probabilities”	It is the base algebra of EBSL (LIT-1130), which the record reads. The referral/functional split CLAIM-281 notes is in Jøsang’s later trust-network work, not this paper.
Szostak 2003, “Functional information: molecular messages”	A one-page concept piece whose definition Hazen et al. (LIT-1148) restates in full. NOTE-1402 shows the measure leaves CASE-102’s mechanism untouched.
Carothers et al. 2004, aptamer informational complexity (JACS)	The aptamer data behind one section of LIT-1148. It bears on nothing in the record’s argument.
Friston 2010, “The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?”	Background. The record holds several FEP works (LIT-1181, LIT-526, LIT-1262), and no entry rests on this review.
Jafarian et al. 2021 (adiabatic DCM, presumably)	No reading names it, so the citation is unconfirmed, and it is a modelling method in any case.
Rosch et al. 2018, windowed DCM of seizures in mice	A neuroscience application used as an illustration in a review. It bears on no entry.
Gatto 1990 (and 1982), KKT for MacArthur’s model	Named as a precursor that LIT-1230 generalizes. LIT-1230 is read and covers it.
Bunin 2016, arXiv 1607.04734 (assembled interaction networks)	A companion paper on the same model, named in Connections only. LIT-1234 already carries the phase result QUESTION-083 uses.
Opper & Diederich 1992, random replicator model	Named as the formal antecedent of Bunin’s transition. Nothing in the record rests on it.
Kleinhesselink & Adler 2015, Chesson’s terms for Tilman’s model	A second two-by-two translation. LIT-1237 already gives the bridge, and its limit (two species) is exactly what this paper shares.
Patel & Schreiber 2018 (robust permanence)	Listed in the curation only. No sentence in the record names it or leans on it.
Rotskoff & Vanden-Eijnden 2018, interacting-particle view of nets	Named with Mei et al. as parallel work. Redundant with LIT-1232 for the record’s purposes.
Sirignano & Spiliopoulos 2018, mean-field analysis	The same as above, and the least connected of the three.
Désidéri, INRIA RR-6953 (2009), MGDA report	CLAIM-366’s note says the converse half “needs no source”, and the constructive half is sourced in LIT-1212. RR-6953 is only where Theorem 2.3’s coercivity assumption is spelled out, and the record does not use that theorem.
GShard, Lepikhin et al. 2020	The origin of the auxiliary loss. Switch (LIT-1412) is read for the same imposed-balance point, and the rest is ML practice.
Lin, Ju, Liang & Shroff 2023, theory of forgetting in continual learning	LIT-1411’s single-expert baseline. Nothing in the record turns on forgetting rates.
Evron et al. 2022, catastrophic forgetting in linear regression	Listed in the curation only. Probably from LIT-1411’s references, and no sentence in the record leans on it.
Gray 1978, the original coordinated attack (“Notes on data base operating systems”)	Priority was settled on 2026-10-29 in CLAIM-346’s note from LIT-1214, which predates Gray. NOTE-1410’s “is Gray aware of it?” is curiosity, not an open item.
Yemini & Cohen 1979	Cited for a proof. CLAIM-346 gives its own proof and cites LIT-1213 for the action form.
Castro & Liskov 1999, MIT TM-590 (full PBFT proof)	The record uses PBFT’s stated bound and its design remarks, not its correctness proof.
Lamport, Shostak & Pease 1982, Byzantine generals	Background ancestor. The n = 3f + 1 bound CASE-108 can report against is already stated in LIT-1217.
Oki & Liskov 1988, Viewstamped Replication	Named as PBFT’s lineage for benign faults, with no bearing.
Lamport, “The Part-Time Parliament” (Paxos)	The same: lineage only.
Bracha & Toueg 1985, asynchronous consensus	Named only for a date slip in PBFT’s references.
Akkoyunlu, working paper of March 1975, “On the limitations of acknowledgement messages”	Unpublished and probably not findable. CLAIM-346 already credits the step to coordinated action to Halpern and Moses (LIT-1213), so NOTE-1410’s open question changes nothing in the claim.
Gallager 1979	Cited for a proof, as with Yemini & Cohen. Priority and proof are both settled in CLAIM-346.
Gibbons et al. 1994, The New Production of Knowledge	An assumption of the Jasanoff essay (LIT-1594). Nothing in the record argues from Mode 2.
Sánchez-Cañizares 2026, doi:10.1007/s11097-026-10164-0 (stand-in for LIT-1132)	No entry leans on LIT-1132, which was itself filed as a weak candidate for A8’s “2024” paper. CLAIM-331’s note now names LIT-1145 as the likeliest candidate.
Revonsuo et al. 1997, EEG with autostereograms	Revonsuo’s own experiment, summarized in LIT-1208. Nothing in the record rests on the EEG result.
Usher & McClelland 2001, leaky competing accumulator	Already held.
Seeley 2010, Honeybee Democracy	A popular monograph. CASE-145 cites only “no central controller”, which LIT-1406 already supports.
Seeley & Visscher 2004, quorum sensing in nest-site choice	The quorum mechanism of the implementation phase. No entry leans on it, and CASE-145’s A5 caution (decision is not interpretation) is untouched by it.
Stinchcombe 1965, “Social structure and organizations”	Where the term imprinting comes from. The review LIT-1144 already covers it, and nothing open rests on the original.
Pentland 2003 (variety in work processes)	A measurement study cited for routine variation. Nothing open turns on it.
Feldman 2000, “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”	Field evidence for endogenous change, which no entry disputes. It does not address total turnover of performers (NOTE-1386’s open question).
Albert & Whetten 1985, “Organizational identity”	The definition that Gioia et al. (read, LIT-1135) argue against. Background.
Fleming 2024 (individual wellbeing interventions, UK cross-section)	Guida et al.’s “direct evidence”. NOTE-1353 already flags it as overstated, and no record entry leans on it.
Atkins, Wilson & Hayes 2019, Prosocial	A background practitioner framework. Nothing turns on it.
RefraMED protocol, BMJ Open 2015	A protocol. The monograph reports what it planned.
Shearer et al. 2019, cost-effectiveness of RO DBT	Economics. CLAIM-349 only repeats A42’s “less conclusive”, and nothing rests on it.
Lynch et al. 2003 and 2007 (older-adult pilots)	Pilot effect sizes behind a power calculation. No bearing.
Linehan 1993, DBT skills training manual	The later edition is held.
DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel 1997 draft, “A Model of Persuasion”	An earlier version of a held, read paper.
Mayhew & Levinger 1976 (size and oligarchy)	Cited by Friedkin for oligarchy. Passing.
Michels 1911, Political Parties	The phenomenon that the held models claim to explain. Open items concern those models’ dynamics, not Michels’s cases.
Gecas & Schwalbe 1983, “Beyond the looking-glass self”	Reflected-appraisal background.
Tärning, Hall, Johansson, Sikström & Olsson 2005	Unpublished, so not findable. The published line is choice-induced preference change.
Soros 1987, The Alchemy of Finance	His 2013 restatement is held and read (LIT-1397).
Knight 1921, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit	Background term.
Merton 1949, Social Theory and Social Structure	The chapter that bears is held and read.
Popper 1957, The Poverty of Historicism	A forerunner (the Oedipus effect), named in passing.
Avanessian & Hennig, “Who’s Afraid of (Left) Hyperstitions?”	A Wikipedia attribution route, secondary.
Argyris & Schön 1978, Organizational Learning	THEORY-145’s promote_when needs independent tests, which the authors’ own book cannot supply. Its statement is held.
Hackman 1987, “The design of work teams”	Background.
Schein & Bennis 1965	The origin of the term “psychological safety”. Passing.
Myrdal 1944, An American Dilemma	The empirical ground for Merton’s essay. No bearing on an open entry.
MacIver 1948, The More Perfect Union	Merton’s source of examples.
Bem & McConnell 1970	One study inside the held review.
Goethals & Reckman 1973	One study inside the held review.
Maier 1931 (two-cord problem)	One study inside the held review.
Latané & Darley 1970, The Unresponsive Bystander	One study inside the held review.
Tversky & Kahneman 1974, “Judgment under uncertainty”	A textbook classic, cited for heuristics.
Polanyi 1964, Personal Knowledge	A phrase quoted in passing.
Nisbett & Wilson 1977, “The halo effect”	One of the authors’ own studies, reported in the held, read LIT-1410.
Feyrer 2019, air-travel trade instrument (AEJ: Applied)	A method (an instrument) used by LIT-1416. NOTE-1403 already states and criticizes the exclusion restriction
Barbieri 2002, The Liberal Illusion (book)	CLAIM-428 cites the 1996 article for the same point. Read LIT-1422 first. The book adds nothing that any entry turns on
Thompson 2001, Identifying rivals, with Colaresi, Rasler & Thompson 2010, Strategic Rivalries	Data sources for LIT-1416’s rivalry coding. Background
Fuller 1978, The forms and limits of adjudication	Cited by Fiss for polycentricity. No entry uses it
Corrales 2015, autocratic legalism in Venezuela	The source of Scheppele’s term. NOTE-1390 already records the difference
Babar Ahmad v. UK (ECtHR 2010)	Cited in El-Masri only for the definition of extraordinary rendition
Agiza v. Sweden (CAT 2005); Alzery v. Sweden (HRC 2006)	Quoted in El-Masri on diplomatic assurances. No entry turns on assurances
Sands 2022, The Last Colony	A trade-book narrative. The ICJ opinion (LIT-1589) and HRW (LIT-1593), both read, are the stronger sources
Chagos MPA arbitration (Mauritius v UK, PCA 2015)	It holds the UK’s undertaking to return the islands to Mauritius binding. That is a state-to-state matter, and no entry turns on it
Pettigrew 1997c, unpublished manuscript (deprovincialization evidence)	Not a findable work
Stephan & Stephan 1985, Intergroup anxiety	The source of a mediator construct. LIT-1405, which is read, carries the result
Pettigrew & Tropp 2000, preliminary meta-analysis	Superseded by LIT-1413 (2006)
Voci & Hewstone 2003, anxiety as mediator (Italy)	One mediation study. LIT-1405 pools the mediator evidence
Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci 2004, direct and indirect friendship in Northern Ireland (PSPB)	Cross-sectional indirect friendship. Lemmer & Wagner and Wright 1997 cover the same arm with designed comparisons

---

The triage’s File tier registered and read: 8 of 18 reached, 2 THEORYs, THEORY-787’s defeater met for effective information

2026-10-29 22:38:17

The triage of 2026-10-29 20:59 put 18 works in its File tier. The owner said to “get started on the priority items”. On the remand, the owner said “you don’t need to read a whole court docket”. All 18 were registered the same day, and four readers then sought lawful copies under brief.md and ADR-064:

• each citation was pinned against Crossref (with no mailto, ADR-008), arXiv or the publisher;
• each published: was dated under ADR-002.

None of the works was already held. The Abrego Garcia remand was read as one order, ECF 79, not the docket. Both Chesson papers were taken, because the owner did not choose between them.

The eighteen

work	LIT	outcome	NOTE / THEORY	copy
Eberhardt & Lee 2022, Causal emergence: when distortions in a map obscure the territory	LIT-1839	Active	NOTE-1413	Caltech repository, publisher PDF (CC BY)
Comolatti & Hoel 2022, Causal emergence is widespread across measures of causation	LIT-1843	Active	NOTE-1416; THEORY-1167 (Active)	arXiv v1, with the authors’ code (read, not run)
Pfante et al. 2014, Comparison between different methods of level identification	LIT-1837	Unavailable	—	closed; SFI working paper 13-11-035 may be a preprint, not found
Ito & Kaneko 2002, Spontaneous structure formation in a network of chaotic units with variable connection strengths	LIT-1842	Active	NOTE-1414	arXiv cond-mat/0108408
Flack & Krakauer 2006, Encoding Power in Communication Networks	LIT-1840	Unavailable	—	closed; Flack’s SFI site gone
Flack, Girvan, de Waal & Krakauer 2006, Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates	LIT-1828	Unavailable	—	the Emory copy search engines index now returns 404
Chesson 1990, MacArthur’s consumer-resource model	LIT-1826	Unfetched	—	the author’s reprint at eebweb.arizona.edu (503 or reset)
Chesson 1994, Multispecies Competition in Variable Environments	LIT-1827	Unavailable	—	closed; no address found
Serván & Allesina 2021, Tractable models of ecological assembly	LIT-1824	Active	NOTE-1422; THEORY-1168 (Active)	chapter 3 of Serván’s dissertation, UChicago Knowledge (doi:10.6082/uchicago.2656)
Revonsuo & Newman 1999, Binding and consciousness	LIT-1835	Unfetched	—	the SFI wiki PDF; the host reset every connection
Bond 2018, Organizational flexibility (chapter)	LIT-1830	Unavailable	—	no DOI, no deposit
Lynch et al. 2018, the RefraMED EME monograph	LIT-1838	Active	NOTE-1421	NIHR Journals Library
DeMarzo, Vayanos & Zwiebel 2001, Social Networks and Financial Markets	LIT-1825	Unavailable	—	an unpublished working paper, listed without a link
Edmondson 1996, Learning from mistakes is easier said than done	LIT-1823	Unfetched	—	the upload linked from the author’s ResearchGate profile (403)
Scacco & Warren 2018, Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination?	LIT-1831	Active	NOTE-1418	EconStor (WZB deposit)
Lemmer & Wagner 2015, Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab?	LIT-1836	Active	NOTE-1419	the authors’ accepted manuscript on a scholarly third-party site (ADR-064)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, D. Md., ECF 79, Order Granting Expedited Discovery (15 April 2025)	LIT-1841	Active	NOTE-1417	CourtListener RECAP
R (Bancoult) v FCO [2000] EWHC 413 (Admin)	LIT-1832	Unfetched	—	BAILII (bot check)

That is eight read (Active), four Unfetched and six Unavailable. Every NOTE is Read. Two THEORYs were filed, both listed above and both Active and re-derived. On copies:

• Blocked hosts. web.archive.org reset every connection, so no Wayback capture could be checked. c4.santafe.edu is outside the session’s network policy. bioRxiv rate-limited the client.
• Refused workarounds. Retries with a changed user agent, and a hunt for other BAILII addresses, were refused as getting round a bot check. The readers stopped there.
• The owner’s queue. The four Unfetched works are on the Unfetched status page, each with its address.

What the readings settle

• THEORY-787’s defeater is met for effective information. Its promote_when says it is “in trouble if the macro advantage disappears whenever the same intervention distribution over micro states is used at both levels”.
  • The bound. Under any one distribution, macro EI is I(f(X); f(Y)), which by data processing is at most I(X; Y): the macro can at most tie (THEORY-1167, re-derived and checked numerically).
  • Where the gain comes from. Hoel’s positive causal emergence is the micro chain’s gain from switching to a different distribution, minus a loss that is never negative.
  • The other side. Comolatti & Hoel concede the stationary case. Their remaining evidence is per-transition and normalized measures on a bipartite chain built to have a deterministic macro, which is the hand-built toy the promote_when says cannot settle the question.
  • Status. A move to Rejected, or a narrowing to measures that data processing does not bound, is put to the owner in the entry’s note. The status is not changed here.
  • QUESTION-204. Its first half is answered no. Its second half, which asks for agreement with an independent interventionist test, stays open.
• Symmetric assembly is acyclic (CLAIM-369). Serván & Allesina show that MacArthur’s function orders the sub-communities, so the assembly graph has no cycles. THEORY-1168 carries the step to Hofbauer & Schreiber’s invasion graph, which the chapter asserts and never writes out. It was checked numerically on 3,274 equilibria and 14,266 edges. Assembly ends in the same community whatever the order only when the matrix is positive definite. A Gram matrix of independent features always is, so the claim’s class meets LIT-1233’s acyclicity hypothesis. That settles the point the claim’s note left open.
• CASE-118’s 1 − ρ is Chesson’s niche difference, not his overlap. This comes through Letten et al. (NOTE-1377), since Chesson 1990 itself was not reached. The case’s coexistence bound is exactly Chesson’s ρ < f₂/f₁ < 1/ρ.
• Ito & Kaneko is the like-and-like predecessor (QUESTION-117). Identical units with normalized incoming weights form a persistent core and periphery. An ablation shows the state–weight coupling is needed for it. An answer offering persistent authority classes as new is matched by this paper.
• The RefraMED mechanism analysis identifies nothing (QUESTION-045, QUESTION-292).
  • Weak instruments. The instrumental-variable mediation failed: the instruments were too weak (Cragg–Donald ≤ 1).
  • The wrong mediators. They were sessions attended, alliance and skills, not flexibility or emotional coping, and they were measured at the same time as the outcome.
  • Adverse events. The monograph’s p < 0.01 does not reproduce either, and it gives 25 participants with SAEs where its own breakdown gives 24.
  • Intervals. For the same differences, its intervals are about 1.8 times narrower than the journal paper’s, which is unexplained. That makes the abstract’s “throughout” true of the monograph’s analysis and not of the paper’s own table.
• Contact.
  • Lemmer & Wagner report extended contact separately: 0.42 (k = 8), against 0.25–0.31 for direct contact. The comparison is between studies and rests on immediate self-reports only. So CLAIM-430’s “no test” becomes “no within-study test”.
  • Scacco & Warren measure conduct apart from stated prejudice, and conduct moved where stated prejudice did not. Most of the contrast is the single-religion classes becoming more discriminatory. The effect toward strangers holds only for Christians, and the registration is dated after the endline.
• The remand (QUESTION-279).
  • What the court required. It did not ask for a certificate of inability. It required a sworn account of the steps taken, and it read “facilitate” against the government’s own record of returns.
  • What it opened. Discovery, including into who authorized the detention.
  • What it leaves open. It decides nothing about whether return was possible.
• The record’s citation of Bond is wrong. The chapter is pp. 185–199, in Wilson & Hayes (eds.); Biglan wrote the foreword. The correction is in a dated note on LIT-1218.

Errors found in the works

• Comolatti & Hoel:
  • a sign slip in §3.1;
  • P(e|c) written where P(e|C) is meant, and deg(c) where deg(e) is meant;
  • a normalization in §7.1 that the code does differently;
  • “only the observational EI failed” cannot hold for system-level EI in their own symmetric model.
• Eberhardt & Lee:
  • (11)‘s micro EI is 0.544, not 0.55;
  • their ambiguity example (13) is strongly lumpable, so the charge rests on (14);
  • in (17) the coarse-graining commutes with time, and only the EI choice of partition changes.
• Ito & Kaneko: Table I gives a core of 16 where the text says “typically 14”.
• Serván & Allesina (dissertation chapter): the step from the Lyapunov function to acyclicity is asserted, not proved; there are index slips.
• The RefraMED monograph:
  • the SAE count (25 against 24);
  • the unrelated-SAE count (13 against 12);
  • an interval sign in the summary;
  • £7048 given “per unit” where it is the cost difference;
  • “nearly significant” said of p = 0.036.
• Lemmer & Wagner (manuscript):
  • 16/79 printed as 22.3%;
  • Table 2’s significance stars disagree with the text;
  • duplicated references.
• Scacco & Warren: “₦4” is ₦4.7; the registration (720 subjects, five outcome families) differs from the paper (849, two).

Named by the readings, not registered

• Causal emergence:
  • Chalupka, Perona & Eberhardt 2015–17, causal feature learning, a candidate interventionist test for QUESTION-204’s second half;
  • Spirtes & Scheines 2004;
  • Dewhurst 2021;
  • Comolatti & Hoel 2025, the published version;
  • Fitelson & Hitchcock 2010.
• Assembly:
  • MacArthur 1970, the source of the Lyapunov function;
  • Law & Morton 1993;
  • Flack, de Waal & Krakauer 2005;
  • Flack, Krakauer & de Waal 2005.
• Mediation: Emsley, Dunn & White 2010, the framework behind RefraMED’s design.
• Contact:
  • Cernat 2011, an exposure-against-interaction contrast within a study, possibly the nearest test of CLAIM-430’s defeater;
  • Cameron et al. 2006;
  • Paluck 2009.
• Remand: the later remand filings, and National Immigration Project v. DHS (2014).

These were not triaged. Cernat 2011 and causal feature learning are the two that look like File.

---

The two candidate readings: causal feature learning read, with a THEORY joining it to effective information; Cernat 2011 is not the test it was named for

2026-10-29 23:18:31

The curation entry of 2026-10-29 22:38 named two works that looked like File: Cernat 2011, for CLAIM-430, and Chalupka, Perona & Eberhardt’s causal feature learning, for the second half of QUESTION-204. The owner said: “find those new candidate readings.” Both were registered the same day under the third pass’s brief.

work	LIT	outcome	NOTE / THEORY	copy
Chalupka, Perona & Eberhardt 2016, Multi-Level Cause-Effect Systems (AISTATS)	LIT-1833	Active	NOTE-1420; THEORY-1169 (Active)	arXiv 1512.07942 v1 with its supplement
Chalupka, Eberhardt & Perona 2017, Causal feature learning: an overview (Behaviormetrika 44:137–164)	LIT-1834	Active	NOTE-1415	the publisher’s PDF on Eberhardt’s Caltech page (ADR-064)
Cernat 2011, Extended contact effects… (J. Soc. Psychol. 151(6):737–753)	LIT-1829	Unfetched	—	the ResearchGate upload returned 403. The publisher is subscription only

Why the AISTATS paper. The 2016 AISTATS paper was read in place of UAI 2015. It holds the two-sided “fundamental causal coarsening theorem”, which partitions effects as well as causes, as Hoel’s coarse-grainings do. UAI 2015’s theorem covers only the causes of a fixed target.

What the readings settle

• QUESTION-204’s second half has its test. Causal feature learning puts two micro states in one macro state exactly when manipulating to either gives the same distribution of effects. It needs no intervention distribution. THEORY-1169 derives the link to effective information, checked numerically on 245,394 cases.
  • The derivation. Under one full-support distribution used at both levels, a coarse-graining keeps all the micro EI exactly when it merges only causes with identical rows and only effects with proportional columns. Those are causal feature learning’s partitions and their refinements, whatever the distribution.
  • Where the two agree and part. On which coarse-grainings lose nothing, the causal criterion and the test agree. Hoel’s uniform-per-level EI does not: Eberhardt & Lee’s (13) and (14) merge causes with different rows.
  • What stays open. Whether a graded criterion can rank lossy coarse-grainings without bringing a distribution back.
• The test cannot show emergence. Its verdict is the coarsest partition with unambiguous manipulations, and the micro never loses. So it can confirm that a macro is proportionate, as on Hoel’s (11), but never that causation emerges there. This adds to the finding of THEORY-1167 against THEORY-787. Whether THEORY-787 is Rejected is still the owner’s call.
• Cernat 2011 is not a test of CLAIM-430’s defeater. This rests on the abstract and the method text quoted in search results; the paper was not read. All three arms read a friendship story. What varies is whether the Roma character’s friend is from the reader’s own group, not whether the participant takes part. The defeater still has no within-study test in the record.

Errors found

• Chalupka et al. 2016, Theorems 5 and 12: the effect partition by equal columns is called minimal sufficient. It is not, because effects with proportional columns merge with no loss. Rows (0.2, 0.4, 0.4) and (0.1, 0.2, 0.7) are a counter-example, checked here. The overview’s normalization is the correct criterion, but it applies it to clusters only.
• The overview:
  • eqs. (5)–(6) drop Bayes’s 1/P(h);
  • eq. (1) has a label slip, and Lemma 8 an index slip.
• Lemmer & Wagner’s reference for Cernat carries Ertmer et al.’s venue (Internet and Higher Education 14:251–261). This settles which of the two references NOTE-1419 found wrong.

Named by the readings, not registered

• Chalupka et al. 2015 (UAI), the one-sided theorem;
• Chalupka et al. 2016, on El Niño;
• Shalizi & Moore 2003, “What is a macrostate?”;
• Spirtes & Scheines 2004;
• Meek 1995 and Okamoto 1973, two lemmas the proofs use.

None was triaged.

---

Twenty-one works registered unread from the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts”: SGD as approximate Bayesian inference and its SLT neighbours, open reaction-network and stochastic thermodynamics, self-distillation, safe control, and organization as a principle; every identifier checked, one work added by the filer

2026-10-31 08:48:33

The owner asked for the record to account for the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae5a562-31f8-83e9-a308-21ff4ea40e5c; U1–U29, 2026-10-30 22:12 to 2026-10-31 08:09 UTC). Its argument is filed by the workbench entry of 08:48. Twenty-one works are registered here, all Deferred and unread. Each names its source and says what it bears on.

for	works
SGD and the Bayesian posterior (U4, A3, A14)	Mandt, Hoffman & Blei 2017 (LIT-1898), the paper the owner recalled, and 2016 (LIT-1899); Hennick & De Baerdemacker (LIT-1879); Chen et al. 2023 (LIT-1894)
open reaction networks and dissipative maintenance (A13)	Rao & Esposito 2016 (LIT-1889); Dal Cengio, Lecomte & Polettini (LIT-1897); Liang, De Los Rios & Busiello (LIT-1886); Remlein, Esposito & Avanzini (LIT-1887); Vellela & Qian (LIT-1890); Barato & Seifert’s uncertainty relation (LIT-1885)
thermodynamics and inference (A14)	LaMont & Wiggins (LIT-1882); Falasco & Esposito (LIT-1892); Santolin et al. (LIT-1881)
self-distillation (U15, A15, A16)	Teoh 2026 (LIT-1896), the owner’s link; Hossain, Kousar & Tourni (LIT-1883); Mobahi, Farajtabar & Bartlett (LIT-1895); Wu, Yang & Sun (LIT-1884)
control and adaptation (A17, A20)	Kolathaya & Ames (LIT-1893); Saligrama 2026 (LIT-1880)
organization as a principle (A9)	Mossio, Montévil & Longo 2016 (LIT-1888)
against the owner’s U20 thesis (the filer)	Richens, Abel, Bellot & Everitt 2025 (LIT-1891)

Lookups. Every arXiv identifier was resolved on the arXiv API, and every DOI on Crossref, on 2026-10-31, with no email address sent (ADR-008).

• Searches. literature.d was searched by identifier, first author and title words. None was held. Per ADR-048, no anthology check was made.

• Dates. published: follows ADR-002. For the six works the replies gave only by DOI, an arXiv version was found by title and its v1 date taken: Dal Cengio et al., LaMont & Wiggins, Falasco & Esposito, Santolin et al., Barato & Seifert, and Kolathaya & Ames.

• Recent works. These exist as the replies described:

  • Teoh, 28 October 2026;
  • Hossain et al., September 2026;
  • Saligrama, July 2026;
  • Remlein et al., April 2026;
  • Wu, Yang & Sun, February 2026.

  Their summaries come from their abstracts and are marked so.

Corrections the lookups made.

• Hennick & De Baerdemacker. A4 gave the ICLR 2026 title, “Almost Bayesian: Dynamics of SGD Through Singular Learning Theory”. The arXiv record carries “Almost Bayesian: The Fractal Dynamics of Stochastic Gradient Descent” (28 March 2025). The arXiv title and date are used, and the venue title is in the citation.
• Chen et al. A3 placed it at ICLR 2024; no venue could be confirmed. A3 also cited it for a separation of Bayesian and dynamical transitions without reporting its own conjecture that the two follow one course.
• Rao & Esposito and Vellela & Qian. A13 gave shortened titles. Remlein et al. it gave without authors.
• Mobahi et al. and Wu, Yang & Sun. A16 named these without identifiers. They were found by title.
• Mossio, Montévil & Longo. A9 named “Montévil, Mossio, and Longo” without a title. The identification with Theoretical principles for biology: Organization is the filer’s.
• Barato & Seifert. A13 stated the relation through a citation marker that did not render. The 2015 paper that introduced it is registered.

Already held, and named by the exchange.

• Elhage et al.’s toy model of superposition (LIT-323).
• Wang et al.’s refined local learning coefficient (LIT-1535).
• Bodnar et al.’s neural sheaf diffusion (LIT-1811).
• Watanabe (LIT-354, Unavailable; LIT-616).
• Smith et al.’s active-inference structure learning (LIT-615, read). A8 presented it as new.
• Montévil & Mossio 2015 (LIT-582, read).
• Gross & Blasius (LIT-1139).
• Aubin (LIT-738, Unavailable).
• Brooks (LIT-436).
• Lieder & Griffiths (LIT-1071).
• Frankfurt (LIT-692), Velleman (LIT-295) and Sen (LIT-285).
• Canguilhem (LIT-817, Unavailable).
• Bennett on Landauer (LIT-360).
• Simondon (LIT-1648, Unavailable).
• The mode-connectivity papers behind the owner’s U17 guess:
  • Garipov et al. (LIT-673) and Draxler et al. (LIT-653);
  • Kuditipudi et al. (LIT-671);
  • Ferbach et al. (LIT-680);
  • Lubana et al.’s mechanistic mode connectivity (LIT-669).

Held, bearing directly, and not named.

• Block’s “Psychologism and Behaviorism” (LIT-642). This is the lookup-table argument behind the U20 world-model construction.
• Seifert’s review (LIT-523) and Goldt & Seifert (LIT-308), for A13’s stochastic thermodynamics.
• Langer 1969 (LIT-1664, Unavailable), for metastable decay.
• England on self-replication (LIT-515).

Added by the filer. Richens et al. (LIT-1891) was not named in the exchange. It is registered because it is the published argument against the owner’s U20 thesis that a world model is an explanatory attribution, and the thesis names it in defeated_if.

Not registered, and why.

• Named without a work. Hordijk and Steel’s autocatalytic-set theory; “recent work on incremental ISS of interconnected systems and small-gain”; CBF–QP feasibility.
• Unrendered citation markers. Temporal logic and dynamic deontic logic (A27); A18’s three control references; the critiques of free-energy inferences beyond Bruineberg et al. (LIT-603).
• Named only in passing. Predictive state representations (Littman, Sutton and Singh 2001); the Daodejing; and a Stanford Encyclopedia entry on wu-wei.
• Shared code. A’s sandbox files for A10, A17, A18 and A21. The exchange linked them, and they are not available.

---

The twenty-one works from the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” read: nineteen in full and two skimmed in part, with twenty-one NOTEs and twenty-eight THEORYs, twenty-one Active; what the readings corrected in the exchange and in the registration

2026-10-31 15:27:47

At the owner’s request (“get started on those readings”), every work registered from the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (curation entry of 08:48) was read the same day by five parallel readers, one per cluster. Each work has a NOTE, and each LIT went from Deferred to Active. Every copy was lawful:

• arXiv for nineteen works;
• PubMed Central’s HTML of the version of record for Vellela and Qian;
• the authors’ HAL deposit for Mossio, Montévil and Longo.

No email address was sent to any service (ADR-008).

cluster	works and readings	THEORYs
SGD and the posterior	Mandt et al. 2017 (NOTE-1475) and 2016 (NOTE-1473); Hennick & De Baerdemacker (NOTE-1467); Chen et al. (NOTE-1462, Skimmed: derivation appendices G–J for their statements only)	THEORY-1255, THEORY-1257, THEORY-1258 Active; THEORY-1272, THEORY-1275 Proposed
self-distillation	Teoh (NOTE-1470); Hossain et al. (NOTE-1479); Mobahi et al. (NOTE-1478); Wu et al. (NOTE-1471)	THEORY-1274, THEORY-1259, THEORY-1252, THEORY-1269 Active; THEORY-1262, THEORY-1263 Proposed
reaction networks	Rao & Esposito (NOTE-1464); Dal Cengio et al. (NOTE-1476); Liang et al. (NOTE-1463); Remlein et al. (NOTE-1468)	THEORY-1266, THEORY-1248, THEORY-1261, THEORY-1250 Active
stochastic thermodynamics	Vellela & Qian (NOTE-1474); LaMont & Wiggins (NOTE-1481); Falasco & Esposito (NOTE-1472, Skimmed: §V, §§VII.A.2–C and appendix B not read); Santolin et al. (NOTE-1465); Barato & Seifert (NOTE-1480)	THEORY-1273, THEORY-1270, THEORY-1264, THEORY-1265, THEORY-1268, THEORY-1253 Active
agency, control, organization	Richens et al. (NOTE-1469); Saligrama (NOTE-1466); Kolathaya & Ames (NOTE-1477); Mossio, Montévil & Longo (NOTE-1461)	THEORY-1249, THEORY-1260, THEORY-1254, THEORY-1256, THEORY-1267 Active; THEORY-1251, THEORY-1271 Proposed

Status follows the readers’ checks. A THEORY is Active where the paper establishes it and the reader checked it, by re-derivation, numerical reproduction or an independent script. It is Proposed where the evidence is single runs, a circular fit, or argument without a model.

What the readings corrected in the exchange.

• Teoh. A15 and A16 read its student as seeing less context than its teacher. In the paper’s main heads both see the same prefix and differ in depth of computation. The conditional-projection limit A15 derived is Hossain et al.’s Proposition 1.
• Chen et al. They do not conjecture that SGD’s order and the posterior’s coincide. Their §5.1 denies “a necessary relation”, and their hypothesis runs one way. This entry’s predecessor of 08:48 and the workbench entry of 08:48 overstated it. A3’s use of the paper for a separation was not wrong.
• Barato and Seifert. A13 read them as tying the resource cost to the precision of maintenance. The relation bounds the precision of currents only. It excludes occupation observables and does not price how long a maintained state lasts. It is proved in linear response and for single-cycle networks, and conjectured beyond.
• Hennick and De Baerdemacker. Their tempered posterior holds within a region of constant diffusion. The “accessibility” between regions is not derived.

What the readings corrected in the registration.

• Liang et al. The finite-lifetime point was credited to them. It is Remlein et al.’s.
• Kolathaya and Ames. The safe set’s enlargement is a class-K function of the disturbance bound, not proportional to it.
• Mossio, Montévil and Longo.
  • They propose two principles, not three.
  • published: moves to the manuscript’s online date, 10 August 2016.
  • A HAL url: is added.
• Hennick and De Baerdemacker. The v2 PDF carries the ICLR title; only the arXiv metadata keep the older one. “(if it exists)” qualifies §3.4, not the abstract.
• Mandt et al. 2017. The JMLR article number is not in the PDF.

Errors found in the papers.

• Vellela and Qian:
  • a spurious 1/V in their large-volume rate formulas;
  • a flipped sign in (3.37)–(3.38);
  • the volume-driven exchange of stability is captured by the asymptotics they say fail, once the O(1) prefactor is kept.
• Mobahi et al.:
  • the caption’s ε = 0.04 is infeasible (their code uses 0.045);
  • their example’s Gram matrix is singular.
• LaMont and Wiggins. Their table drops Watanabe’s log log n term, so with multiplicity m > 1 the learning capacity approaches λ only as λ − (m − 1)/log n. It is 0.40 at n = 10⁴ on CASE-152’s model.
• Richens et al. Algorithm 1 as printed can miss its bound by up to 1/(2n).

Tags. The two control works and their THEORYs take control-theory first (ADR-066). LaMont and Wiggins is retagged mathematical-statistics and model-comparison first, and carries anthology-candidate for its recommended prior.

---

Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy 2024, “Agency Without Agents”, filed and read from the owner’s copy after every open copy was refused to this client; and Chen et al. 2023 found already held

2026-10-31 20:59:13

The owner asked for Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy (2024), Organization Studies 45(9), doi 10.1177/01708406241266310, to be read and filed. It was not held: literature.d was searched by DOI, authors and title.

Finding a copy. The article is open access under CC BY-NC 4.0, from Crossref, OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar, so lawful copies exist. None could be fetched by this client:

• The publisher’s PDF and full-text pages at journals.sagepub.com: served a bot-check page, or 403 to WebFetch.
• The R-libre (TÉLUQ) deposit at r-libre.teluq.ca/3348/: every connection was reset, over HTTPS and HTTP.
• CORE’s mirror, core.ac.uk/download/618447888.pdf: served the same bot check, and CORE’s API withholds full text from public users.

A headless browser was not used to get past the bot checks. The owner then supplied the publisher’s PDF, which was read. Under ADR-053 the work would have been Unfetched; with the owner’s copy it is read and Active.

Filed.

• LIT-1902, Active.
• NOTE-1484, Read. The body was read in full, and the transcript was read from the page images.
• Two Proposed THEORYs. THEORY-1280 is the paper’s definition of agency without agents. THEORY-1278 is its account of communication as transduction.

The reading’s verdict: a vocabulary for redescribing agency in Simondon’s and Massumi’s terms. It has no criterion by which an observation could count against it, and its one illustration is a reanalysis. It bears on CLAIM-355, CLAIM-418, CLAIM-405, CLAIM-430, CLAIM-515 and CLAIM-523, each recorded in the NOTE. No claim was filed: the paper’s thesis is the record’s CLAIM-355 in a stronger and less discriminating form.

Also asked. Chen, Lau, Mendel, Wei and Murfet 2023 (arXiv 2310.06301) is already held as LIT-1894. It was read on 2026-10-31 in NOTE-1462, with its derivation appendices G–J skimmed for their statements. It was not read again.

Not registered. The paper leans on works the record does not hold:

• Hernes 2014, A Process Theory of Organization, and his 2016 paper;
• Massumi 2002, 2015 and 2017;
• Simondon’s L’individuation psychique et collective, 1989;
• Cooren 2018, the source of the reanalysed excerpt;
• Chia 1995, 1996, 2010 and 2017;
• Lapoujade 2021, The Lesser Existences.

They are named here in case the owner wants any of them. Simondon 2020, the English translation, is LIT-1648, Unavailable.

---

The works Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy 2024 lean on: twenty-three registered, seven read and fifteen Unavailable, every lawful route recorded; what the sources show about the paper’s use of them

2026-10-31 21:47:58

The owner asked: “find and read the works it leans on”. “Leans on” was taken to mean the works the paper’s argument rests on, not every citation. That is twenty-three works in four clusters, given to four parallel readers. Each verified the citation against Crossref, Open Library, the publisher’s page or OpenAlex, sending no email address (ADR-008). Each looked for a lawful full text, used no shadow libraries, and got past no bot check or paywall.

cluster	read (Active)	not read
Simondon and his readers	Iliadis 2013 (LIT-1911, NOTE-1485); Bencherki & Iliadis 2021, authors’ manuscript (LIT-1922, NOTE-1483); Bencherki 2017, the paper’s direct ancestor (LIT-1901, NOTE-1482)	Simondon 1989 (LIT-1900) and 2010 (LIT-1920), Letiche & Moriceau 2017 (LIT-1915, abstract only), Styhre 2010 (LIT-1903), all Unavailable; Simondon 2020 (LIT-1648) retried, still Unavailable
Massumi and Manning	Massumi & McKim 2009, the open interview that became the chapter holding the paper’s definition of affect, added by the reader (LIT-1905, NOTE-1488); The Principle of Unrest (LIT-1910, NOTE-1486, Skimmed in part)	Massumi 1995 (LIT-1919) Unfetched; Massumi 2002 (LIT-1918), 2011 (LIT-1909), 2015 (LIT-1907, publisher’s sample read) and Manning 2013 (LIT-1908) Unavailable
process organization	Tsoukas & Chia 2002, author’s copy (LIT-1913, NOTE-1489)	Hernes 2014 (LIT-1916) and 2016 (LIT-1906), Chia 1995 (LIT-1921, abstract only), Lapoujade 2021 (LIT-1904), all Unavailable
CCO and agency	Wilhoit 2016 (LIT-1923, NOTE-1487)	Cooren 2018, the source of the reanalysed excerpt (LIT-1914); Cooren & Fairhurst 2009 (LIT-1912); Bencherki & Cooren 2011 (LIT-1917); all Unavailable

Nine THEORYs were filed, all Proposed: THEORY-1276, THEORY-1285, THEORY-1277, THEORY-1282, THEORY-1286, THEORY-1283, THEORY-1284, THEORY-1279 and THEORY-1281. Each work argues and illustrates but does not test, so none was made Active.

What the sources show about the paper. Its quotations are exact where they could be checked, but several are used for more than they say.

• Massumi. The paper’s definition is the Spinozan formula, offered as a proposition and running both ways. Massumi denies that affect is transmitted.
• Hernes. “Agency without agents” is an objection he anticipates, not his thesis.
• Tsoukas & Chia. Their organizational becoming is carried by reflexive actors.
• Wilhoit. She does not say that Cooren’s analyses entify agents.
• Other citations.
  • Iliadis is cited for “organizational realities” he does not discuss.
  • “Disindividuation (Simondon, 1989)” is, in Bencherki 2017, Barthélémy’s gloss.
  • Letiche & Moriceau’s doubt about transduction is omitted.

NOTE-1484 records each of these in its section “The sources, read”.

Page numbers corrected. For Tsoukas & Chia, the body ends and the reference list begins on p. 579, by the page headers. Every citation of “p. 580” in the entries filed this round is corrected to p. 579.

Lawful routes that failed, for the next attempt.

• SAGE, Taylor & Francis and CORE served bot checks.
• The TÉLUQ and ephemera hosts reset connections; the reader fetched those PDFs through WebFetch instead.
• OpenAlex was over its daily budget. Semantic Scholar returned 429.
• A faculty-site copy of Massumi 1995 was located, at davidbardschwarz.com/pdf/massumi.pdf, but this session’s permission system refused the download; the work is Unfetched (ADR-053).
• A whole-book PDF of Semblance and Event on a third-party host was not used, since its lawfulness could not be established.

---

The pilot ADR-056 asked for: sixteen TERMs classified by the kind of job their definition does; eleven sort cleanly, five force an arbitrary choice at the boundary where the field would matter, and the field is not added

2026-10-31 22:44:35

ADR-056 proposed a kind field for TERM, with four kinds:

• disambiguation: separates senses that must not be conflated;
• construct: introduces a defined theoretical object;
• criterion: states when a concept applies, with a way to assess it;
• position: names an articulated position without adopting it.

It made adding the field wait on a pilot. The pilot classifies a mixed sample: the nine terms A12 named, the six filed with the decision, and TERM-098, filed since. It reports where the kinds force an arbitrary choice. The field was to be added only if the kinds “sort the record without arbitrary choices and give a view or a review decision the record lacks”. The owner asked on 2026-10-31 for the pilot to be run. Each term’s definition was read, not only its title.

term	kind	clean?	why
TERM-045 self	disambiguation	yes	six senses, “a claim should say which”
TERM-071 persistence	disambiguation	yes	five senses in the title
TERM-074 organization	disambiguation	yes	four senses in the title
TERM-082 consciousness	disambiguation	yes	four senses
TERM-080 collective intention	disambiguation	yes	three senses
TERM-081 moral worth	disambiguation	yes	three senses
TERM-023 will-organization	construct	yes	a defined theoretical object
TERM-098 concept	construct	yes	defines conceptual organization; its separations are the usual “what it is not”
TERM-044 agent	criterion	yes	three tests at a level of description
TERM-069 observational equivalence	criterion	yes	when two objects count as equivalent, assessed formally
TERM-059 relational normative realism	position	yes	named, explicitly not held in full
TERM-072 perspective	disambiguation and construct	no	a map of three senses and a substantive definition of the first; the stress test ADR-056 itself predicted
TERM-086 organizational achievement	criterion, construct or disambiguation	no	a criterion only while its comparison requirement stands (ADR-056’s own caveat), and also three modes (episode, capacity, reproduction)
TERM-055 operational availability	construct or criterion	no	it defines a probability; read as a quantity it is a construct, read as the condition for “available” a criterion
TERM-085 correctability	construct or criterion	no	the same: a defined chance, which A12 called a criterion
TERM-083 moral standing	criterion with no criterion	no	it names what a claim of standing must specify, and leaves the ground “for ethical argument”, so the application contract has nothing in its criterion slot

Sorting. Eleven of sixteen sort cleanly. The five that do not fall in two places:

• A sense map that also defines one sense (TERM-072, TERM-086).
• The boundary between construct and criterion (TERM-055, TERM-085, TERM-083). That boundary is where the field was meant to work: the application contract applies to criterion terms. A field that cannot say which terms owe the contract does not give the review decision it was for.

Benefit. The six clean disambiguations already announce themselves: four carry ”, and which sense” in their titles, and the other two say so in their first line. A stored field would duplicate what the titles derive (DP-2). Of the other kinds, the sample has one position and two constructs, too few to show a view the record lacks.

Verdict, on ADR-056’s own test. The kinds do not sort the record without arbitrary choices. Where they would matter, at criterion against construct, they are least reliable. The field is not added, and ADR-056 is set Rejected.

Two parts of the decision are independent of the field and were judged sound:

• the application contract for a TERM that states when a concept applies (bearer, target, conditions, criterion, discrimination, evidence, non-entailments);
• the distinction between a criterion and an indicator.

They stand in ADR-056’s text as advice. They bind nothing unless a later decision adopts them. TERM-083’s empty criterion slot, found here, is the kind of gap the contract would catch.