Lines of inquiry — A named line of the record’s own argument, so that a line can be set aside as a whole and what depends on it can be found. Retracting a line is a status change on its members, never a deletion (ADR-032).
Organizational affect — affective states as properties of organized systems, read through Frijda — the line the will paper grew out of.
9 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-019 | What is it like to be Microsoft? | The owner’s first framing (U9): what, if anything, an organized whole such as a corporation is like from the inside, and in what sense its states are its own. Reframed by QUESTION-015 once the work narrowed from what a collective is to what organizes its action. | Superseded — by QUESTION-015 |
| QUESTION-044 v2 | When an organization is said to be angry or afraid, is the emotion fixed by a mode of action readiness the organization has, or by the attributor’s emotion concept grouping variable states? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-039 and QUESTION-053. THEORY-057 and THEORY-055 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line on filing; Open since the owner reopened the line on 2026-10-23. | Open |
| QUESTION-053 | Does organizational affect need a group subject, a state of the group not reducible to its members’ states, or only the synchronized convergence of members’ affect? | An unmarked tension between two THEORYs the record holds, raised by the synthesis review of 2026-10-11. THEORY-125 (Huebner) allows a group to be in an emotional state that is not its members’ states in aggregation. THEORY-126 (von Scheve and Ismer) makes collective emotion synchronous convergence with no group subject. The organizational-affect line (CLAIM-039, Deferred) needs to know which it is claiming. | Open |
| QUESTION-059 v2 | Does a state that meets a functional characterization of affect thereby have to be felt, or does feeling need a mechanism, such as a body acting on the neurons that map it, that an organization lacks? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-039 and QUESTION-053. THEORY-101, THEORY-045, THEORY-090, THEORY-093 and THEORY-095 bear on it; none answers it as posed, and the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-061 v3 | In a brain, is conscious access one exclusive broadcast that reaches every specialised processor at once, or can a content be accessed by some consumers and not others? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-003. THEORY-096, the global workspace account, offers the uniform answer. THEORY-098, THEORY-102, THEORY-103 and THEORY-245 bear on it without settling a part, and the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-266 | Can felt valence be operationalized, for systems that report and systems that cannot, by three layers measured independently, an ordering serving as the negotiation’s potential in the system’s conflicts, a hedonic marker that does not depend on choice, and the system’s own model of its potential, and do the layers dissociate where the potential account and its rivals say they should? | Filed at the owner’s direction, 2026-10-23, after a survey of work near the record’s account of valence as ordering-potential (CLAIM-440) for ways to operationalize felt states. Three layers, each with existing measures: potential (a conflict record, estimated arbitration weights); a hedonic marker independent of choice (taste reactivity, judgement bias, reports of experienced utility); and the system’s model of its own potential (confidence and metacognition paradigms). The claims are tested where the layers come apart. | Open |
| QUESTION-267 | When the ordering that prevails a system’s negotiation ranks its states by a proxy for its maintenance rather than by its maintenance, as a firm’s potential metric may, is that valence, and is it the form that metric fixation in organizations and addiction in persons share? | TERM-076 restricts valence to an ordering serving as the negotiation’s potential of the system’s own states by their bearing on its maintenance. A potential ordering can instead rank them by a proxy that has come apart from maintenance. Wells Fargo’s cross-sell metric (CASE-151) is a candidate: treated as the firm’s standing, it was not its viability. The question is whether such potential is valence, and whether it is a common form of organizational metric fixation and of addiction. | Open |
| QUESTION-268 | What record of an organization’s or an animal’s conduct shows that one ordering prevails in the negotiation among its perspectives, which conflicts it wins, for how long, and whether it returns after interruption, and does potential measured on conflicts actually won give the same verdicts as potential read as a disposition? | TERM-076 defines potential by Frijda’s three marks of control precedence: priority in conflicts, persistence and resumption after interruption. CLAIM-440 rests its consequences on potential, and each of its defeaters needs potential measured. This asks how, and whether the measured (actual) and the dispositional readings agree, which bears on the counterfactual eraser (THEORY-252). | Open |
| QUESTION-269 | Does the potential account of valence need the will-organization’s other relations, accessibility, jurisdiction, suspension and transformation, beside the priority, persistence and resumption it reads off which side wins, and does a system’s valence change when one of them changes and the record of wins does not? | From the comparison of the record’s will and affect lines of 2026-10-23, filed at the owner’s direction. Will-organization (TERM-023) has six relations, and CLAIM-057 shows three of them vary independently. The potential account (TERM-076, TERM-078) reads valence from wins alone, through Frijda’s three marks. That is the reduction to “who won” that CLAIM-027 resists for will. The question is whether the other relations make a difference to valence that the record of wins cannot see. | Open |