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).
Contextual pragmatic information transport — what survives when an utterance is translated, retold or rendered in another medium — communicative identity as relationally organized observables, and fidelity as directed, task-relative transport between observational systems.
72 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-001 | To what extent can an utterance’s pragmatic identity be reconstructed from a globally consistent collection of context-relative judgements, and what fails when it cannot? | A24’s refinement of QUESTION-021, once the underlying act was replaced by context-indexed judgements. It folds in A21’s question whether pragmatic dimensions show “an empirically identifiable incompatibility structure”. | Open |
| QUESTION-002 | What survives when an utterance is translated, retold or rendered in another medium? | The manuscript’s title question. An answer has to say what is held fixed across the transformation — wording, proposition, or something relational — and how preservation can be measured rather than asserted. | Open |
| QUESTION-003 | For a family of communicative decisions, what is the minimum information rate at which a translation preserves decision performance within a tolerance? | The second of the five central questions (A110 §IX), “a context- indexed pragmatic rate–distortion problem”, and A86’s target result (a). The manuscript §5 sets up the problem and does not state it. | Open |
| QUESTION-004 | Does pragmatic drift under repeated reconstruction systematically increase or reduce measured contextual dependence? | A52 §12.4, new in outline v4, joining the transmission line to the contextuality line. Not carried into the manuscript, whose Case II only asks that context effects be reported separately from possible contextuality. | Open |
| QUESTION-005 | How can corresponding communicative environments and responses be operationalized without building the preferred notion of fidelity into the measurement procedure? | A48’s closing, “The main unresolved issue”. Partly met by admissible correspondences (A49) and by the manuscript’s preregistered measurement cover (§10), neither of which says who fixes the correspondence of contexts. | Open |
| QUESTION-006 | Which pragmatic observables are conserved, exactly or within a bounded defect, by actual reconstruction kernels, and how does that depend on frame, genre and adaptation? | The third of the five central questions (A110 §IX), with the crystallized argument’s boxed question “Which observables are invariant under which communicative transformations?” The manuscript keeps the criterion (§4) and one sub-question, at what stage an invariant stops being conserved. | Open |
| QUESTION-008 | Is pragmatic fidelity a form of approximate bisimulation between communicative systems, and which parts of their update structure must it preserve? | Opened at A35 §10, made a formal layer of the outline at A38 §VI, and demoted deliberately at A39–A40 to an “optional refinement” whose usefulness “must be justified”. Absent from the manuscript. Set aside, not answered. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-010 v2 | Can a reconstruction chain preserve information sufficient for one family of pragmatic tasks while progressively destroying the relations needed to support another? | A100, Chapter 9: “The new question introduced by the sheaf-information synthesis.” Gestured at in the manuscript (§8, §11), not posed. Its one-step form for one categorical concept is QUESTION-249, Answered by THEORY-281. Chains, and relations, are open. | Open |
| QUESTION-012 | When does reconstruction through an intermediate image preserve or degrade observational structure relative to direct text-to-text reconstruction? | Proposal v6’s Result 5 (A100), “especially interesting as a proposition that connects the formal theory to a novel empirical setting”. Dropped from the manuscript, which keeps the text→image→caption chain as Case III but states no result about composition through a medium. | Open |
| QUESTION-013 | Under iterated transport, when do observational, structural and decision distortion converge together, diverge, or evolve independently? | The fifth of the five central questions (A110 §IX): the joint trajectory of (D_obs(n), D_struct(n), D_dec(n)), “including the possibility that a chain becomes conventionally interpretable while losing ancestral pragmatic structure”. The manuscript says only that the trajectories “need not coincide” (§8). | Open |
| QUESTION-014 | Does a stable speaker footing measurably reduce pragmatic drift relative to shifting frames, even when both drift lexically? | A67, after the inference harness could not be run: “The next result worth obtaining”. The manuscript’s Case II (stable complicit, stable admonitory, alternating and random frames) would answer it; no data exists. | Open |
| QUESTION-016 | Under what conditions does iterated reconstruction preserve, or progressively destroy, task-relative sufficiency? | A86 §10, the second of three “target results”. Neither it nor the other two was proved or stated in C6 or the manuscript, which has the data-processing inequality for a fixed Markov chain and a drift bound, not a sufficiency result. | Open |
| QUESTION-017 v2 | Where the additive bound fails, what bound on accumulated drift holds when distortion is directed and need not satisfy the triangle inequality? | A50 derived drift bounds assuming a metric, and in the same reply dropped symmetry and the triangle inequality for distortion. The tension was never resolved; the manuscript states its recursion “in the chosen metric”. | Open |
| QUESTION-018 | When a generator receives several conditions, what determines whether it preserves their conjunction and relational bindings? | The fourth of the five central questions (A110 §IX). The manuscript states the failure (§7) and its benchmarks (§10) but not the question. | Open |
| QUESTION-020 | Can improving the interpreter substitute for information transmitted in the utterance, and at what rate–distortion trade-off? | A86 §6, “an experimental question we have not yet investigated”. The manuscript narrows it to a distinction, improving the signal versus improving the interpreter (§5), and an implication (§11); the trade- off itself was dropped without critique. | Open |
| QUESTION-021 | Is there a frame-independent communicative act that translations approximate, or is the act’s identity constituted by a family of frame-relative realizations? | Opened at A18 as “the deepest question in your line of thought”. The manuscript takes the second horn in practice (CLAIM-115) but never argues against the first. | Open |
| QUESTION-022 v2 | Beyond restriction-compatible kernels and kernels induced by one global kernel, which stochastic transports carry compatible empirical models to compatible ones and preserve global extendability: which conditions are necessary, and what does a transport that changes the cover do? | The first of the crystallized argument’s five central mathematical questions (A110 §IX). Propositions 1 and 2 give sufficient conditions, and that part is QUESTION-240, Answered. Necessary conditions, and transports that change the cover, are open. | Open |
| QUESTION-023 | Can the opacity of insider vocabulary be a preservation target in its own right? | Raised twice by the assistant in the Henley workshop (A6, A9) and never answered. The manuscript treats opacity only as a loss to an audience lacking knowledge (§5), not as something a rendering might owe its reader. | Open |
| QUESTION-024 | Can a pragmatic frame be induced from examples of communicative behaviour, and does the induced frame transfer across different wordings? | Opened at A44 §3C from Min et al.: a prompt can establish a convention without stating accurate propositions, which “resembles what we’ve been calling a delivery frame”. Kept as “convention induction” in outlines v3 and v4; absent from the manuscript. | Open |
| QUESTION-025 | Do correlated or hierarchical attributes in co-occurrence statistics still give linear attribute directions in an embedding, and with them a concept lattice that is not Boolean? | THEORY-185 derives linear directions for binary attributes from co-occurrence, but only for independent attributes, which make every combination possible and the concept lattice Boolean. The Lattice Representation Hypothesis (LIT-267) and CLAIM-119 need the opposite: attributes that imply or exclude each other. Whether the linear directions survive that structure is not answered by anything the record holds. | Open |
| QUESTION-026 | Does categorical compositional semantics constrain transport between context-indexed empirical models, so that how a whole utterance’s observables are carried is fixed by how its parts’ are, and does the constraint reach past propositional content? | Raised in a review of the record that the owner relayed on 2026-10-09, which asked for a direct comparison between DisCoCat (LIT-273, LIT-272) and the manuscript’s transport. The record already holds the meeting point the review did not mention: Abramsky and Sadrzadeh’s Semantic Unification (LIT-841). The sharp edge is the manuscript’s own: what DisCoCat composes is propositional and distributional meaning, which CLAIM-061 says is not enough to preserve the act. | Open |
| QUESTION-027 v3 | Is there a relational signature of a communicative kind that is stable under admissible transformations, sufficient for a family of decisions and discriminating on designated contrasts, and can it be identified from the available probes, for decisions outside them, when the full latent model cannot? | The assistant’s “central construction problem” (A203 §36) joined to its question of sufficiency without full identification (A214 §7, A218 RQ3 and Part III). The exchange calls it the central unresolved problem twice. Its unrestricted form is answered by standard results, so it is filed narrowed: it has content only for decisions about unobserved probes, interventions and transported targets. As A203 states it, it is not well posed. | Open |
| QUESTION-028 v2 | When does independently generalizable, intervention-relevant relational structure warrant treating a communicative category as a real effective kind rather than an arbitrary taxonomy? | A218’s RQ7, in these words, after A187 §8, A191 §7, A203 §X and A214 §13. It asks what evidence licenses the step from a useful category to a real one. The record’s reading of real patterns (THEORY-036) says compressibility alone admits almost every non-random pattern, so the work falls on the question’s own qualifiers. No criterion has been given. | Open |
| QUESTION-029 v2 | What constitutes the identity of a relationally organized communicative act, how can it be recognized apart from any one representation, and under which transformations does it persist? | The question the assistant put in place of “what does a translation preserve?” at A203 X (U56), and restated as the closing question of the October proposal (A218, U60). Filed so that the October thesis (CLAIM-139) has a question to answer while CLAIM-115 goes on answering QUESTION-002. Scoped to communicative acts; the exchange states it about “objects” and never argues the general version. | Open |
| QUESTION-030 v2 | Which interventions tell the relations that constitute a communicative act from those that only accompany or diagnose it? | Proposed as a QUESTION in these words at A191 §13, and asked again as A218’s RQ5 and in its Chapter 10. It has an empirical half, which relations predict responses to independently specified interventions, and a conceptual half, which of those are constitutive. A218 concedes that causal tests do not settle the second. | Open |
| QUESTION-031 v5 | When does a chosen family of observational probes separate the communicative realizations a task needs told apart, and when does it collapse distinct ones, beyond the cases in which the task’s target and the probes’ outcome laws are linear in one state? | A173’s secondary question (“When do restricted probes separate communicative realizations?”), v7’s RQ3 (A178) and A214 §3. It is the open half of CLAIM-142: observational equivalence is relative to the probes, so how rich must the probes be? The discrete case has exact answers, and so does a metric-enriched one. The stochastic, decision-relative version is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-036 | Can the admissible symmetries of a communicative kind be reconstructed from a sufficiently rich family of its observable realizations and transformations? | A198’s question (U55), put with Tannaka reconstruction as its model and labelled “an inspiration rather than an applicable theorem”. It was recorded on the workbench and not coded, and the next turn’s crystallized argument (A203, U56) left it out with no decision either way. Filed on 2026-10-11, when it came up a second time. An answer says what “sufficiently rich” means and what plays the role of the fibre functor, or shows that no such reconstruction can hold. | Open |
| QUESTION-050 | Does a communicative act’s identity split into a factor internal to the interpreter and a relational factor fixed by world and community, and which of the two must a translation preserve? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-151, CLAIM-115, CLAIM-118, CLAIM-046 and QUESTION-029. THEORY-089 answers it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-052 v2 | Beyond linear decisions at the population level, if a kind’s admissible transformations are given as a distribution over pairs of its realizations, is the top eigenspace of the pair operator, or the top left singular space when the transformations are directed, its stable, decision-sufficient signature, and what makes one span the signature when other spans tie? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-027, CLAIM-098, CLAIM-193, CLAIM-164 and CLAIM-043. For linear decisions at the population level it is answered, for symmetric and directed pairs, and that part is QUESTION-245. Open here: nonlinear decisions, and what makes one span the signature when other spans tie. The body gives each reading’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-055 v4 | If communicative categories form a non-Boolean lattice, and the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts, over which base category is it one, and does some probe family split it into sectors that no probe connects? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-119, CLAIM-038, CLAIM-044, QUESTION-025 and QUESTION-031. Given a presheaf over contexts, the negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement, and that part is QUESTION-247, Answered. That the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, is open. THEORY-041 and THEORY-042 bear on it; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-067 v4 | For a test of pragmatic judgements, under what probe families do renderings count as operationally equivalent, so that a test of Spekkens’s generalized noncontextuality applies and not only one of the sheaf or Kochen–Specker kind? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-009, CLAIM-037, CLAIM-044, CLAIM-046, CLAIM-142 and QUESTION-001. What each kind of noncontextuality failure refutes, and that the generalized kind is broader, is QUESTION-246, Answered. Whether a pragmatic test’s probes make renderings operationally equivalent, so that the generalized kind applies, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-073 | Are teasing and reproach individuated by the speaker’s communicative intention, or partly by a frame the parties sustain together and by their standing? | Raised by CLAIM-221 and CLAIM-224 on 2026-10-10. Intention-based accounts of illocution (Grice; Strawson 1964; Bach and Harnish 1979) plausibly individuate teasing by the speaker’s intention. Goffman’s account of keying a play frame and Austin’s securing of uptake (LIT-785, unread) are the tradition’s replies. None of these is read here. An answer would read them and find a case in which the speaker’s intention is held fixed and the act verdicts of informed participants change with the parties’ standing or uptake. | Open |
| QUESTION-074 | Can the transport structure fitted to single transformations predict what receivers recover under a composition of transformations no data were fitted on, within the conditions under which approximate transports compose? | From the interlocutor’s reading of PR #121 and its reconciliation, relayed by the owner on 2026-10-12. It names the test the reading takes to separate a structural formalism from a richer feature set. Its scope is set by CLAIM-260: approximate transports compose only under conditions. | Open |
| QUESTION-075 | Which tasks and which receivers fix the human criterion against which a measure of communicative fidelity is validated? | Raised by CLAIM-244 and CLAIM-226 on 2026-10-10. Every central defeat condition used a task-free judgement by unnamed judges. An answer names a task family and a receiver population for each claim, and says how fidelity for one population bears on another (CLAIM-074). | Open |
| QUESTION-076 | Can readers judge footing and stance reliably and validly in the categories the designs use? | Raised by CLAIM-227 on 2026-10-10. The only footing judgement the record has made twice of the same texts, the analyst’s own labelling of four refrains, changed between A38 and A39 (CASE-012). An answer reports reliability between judges and between passes against a target fixed in advance, and validity on renderings built to differ only in the attributed speaker. Stage 0 of CASE-055 is the design. Goffman’s “Footing” (in LIT-780) is the construct’s source and is unread here. | Open |
| QUESTION-096 | When does a communicative cue change what an interpreter can recover from an unchanged internal state, and how can such an addressing effect be told apart from new information, added computation or a changed policy? | A19’s question, after the owner tied the represented / recoverable / actionable distinction to QKV attention and Kanerva’s sparse distributed memory at U19. The record already holds that attention approximates SDM (LIT-269). | Open |
| QUESTION-102 | Can a family of interpretations each feasible in its own context fail to admit a feasible global integration when a compatible global interpretation exists? | A15 §6. A computational analogue of the gluing question QUESTION-001 asks, kept apart from it. Failure to compute a global section is not the absence of one. | Open |
| QUESTION-106 | Can a textual instruction, a retrieved structured record and an activation intervention preserve the same pragmatic obligations across context shifts, judged on the decisions that matter and not on outputs or embeddings? | A3’s question C. It asks CLAIM-050’s question of three conditioning mechanisms instead of two renderings. Its example obligation is the record’s own: describing a rejected claim without endorsing it. | Open |
| QUESTION-111 | Which communicative distinctions remain recoverable by a bounded interpreter after a rendering, and how does the cost of recovering them change under framing? | A15 §8’s fifth recommendation, with A14 §1’s three failure modes: information loss, computational inaccessibility, representational mismatch. CLAIM-199 separates Blackwell’s ceiling from a receiver’s usable information. This asks how a budget, rather than a fixed rule class, moves that line. | Open |
| QUESTION-130 v3 | Does transport of evaluative representations between contexts, with the evaluated situation held fixed, admit a connection fixed by independently established relations rather than chosen, and is its holonomy around a loop of contexts ever nontrivial? | The owner’s, U19 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, self-hedged: “this might be a stretch, but given our framework already leverages fields and flows, are we perhaps moving towards a gauge theoretic account of something here?” A19 separated representational gauge freedom, which the record holds (CLAIM-148), from a connection between contexts and from nontrivial curvature, and kept the last speculative. The first objection is the record’s own: it rejected LIT-038, whose path-dependent transport across a network of causal models comes from arbitrary maps (NOTE-050). The first target is flat holonomy. An answer derives transport from shared commitments, causal effects or roles in a finite model and reports whether a loop’s holonomy is trivial. | Open |
| QUESTION-137 | Do human transmission chains converge to the learners’ independently measured prior where their responses behave as posterior samples, and depart from it as the MAP analysis predicts where they behave as maximizers? | The empirical half of what THEORY-155’s promotion condition asked for until 2026-10-19. The theorem, that an ergodic chain of posterior- sampling Bayesian learners with a shared prior and matched production converges to that prior, is proved and Active. Whether human chains behave so is a separate question, and only a chain whose learners’ prior is measured or set apart from the chain can answer it. | Open |
| QUESTION-141 | For an asymmetric self-supervised objective, such as BYOL or SimSiam with a predictor and stop-gradient, does the eigenfunction characterization of spectral methods fail, or is it replaced by the singular functions of a non-self-adjoint operator? | The open clause of THEORY-009’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-009 was narrowed to its reading of the positive-pair papers, where self-adjointness comes from the symmetry of the positive-pair distribution, and promoted. What replaces eigenfunctions when the objective is asymmetric was never part of that reading. No published analysis held by the record answers it. The near misses are LIT-228, LIT-242 and LIT-975. | Open |
| QUESTION-167 | Do word learners reason about an informative speaker, or only apply the size principle, when displays are built so that the two predict different bets? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 025, ADR-047 v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-472 to its derivation and to what Frank, Goodman, Lai and Tenenbaum measured. In their displays the informative-speaker learner and a plain size-principle learner coincide by construction, so the bets (r = .93) fit both. THEORY-472’s former promote_when, which asks for a discriminating experiment, moves here unchanged. It bears on THEORY-172, the listener-side account that extends THEORY-472. | Open |
| QUESTION-177 | Do the semantic rate–distortion frameworks beyond Zhao et al. and Chai et al., Liu, Zhang and Poor’s among them, also treat meaning as a latent variable with a known joint law with the observation, or does any limit depend on a property of meaning beyond that law? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 037) narrowed and promoted THEORY-161 to the two semantic rate–distortion frameworks the record has read in full, Zhao et al. (2025) and Chai et al. (2023), with its two identities re-derived. The former title spoke of the frameworks of 2021–2025 as a class, and the former promote_when asked for Liu, Zhang and Poor’s framework and one further framework to be read directly. This question holds that wider reading. | Open |
| QUESTION-178 | Is word co-occurrence close to independent, multiplicative binary attributes in the analogy families where spectral embeddings complete parallelograms, and does adding an interaction between two attributes break their parallelogram? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 037, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-185, Korchinski et al.’s conditional theorem: under independent, multiplicative binary attributes the PMI is affine in the attributes and its spectral embedding gives exact parallelograms. The theorem is conditional on that premise. Its former promote_when asked for the premise to be measured on real text, and this question holds that request. | Open |
| QUESTION-182 | Does the landmark readout of a learned contrastive density ratio keep its 1/m rate under a finite second moment of the ratio alone, without a uniform bound on it? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 037, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-319 to Tosh, Krishnamurthy and Hsu’s redundancy and landmark bounds for the exact density ratio, re-derived step by step. Its former promote_when also asked whether a learned ratio keeps the rate without the uniform bound Theorems 10–11 assume. This question holds that clause. | Open |
| QUESTION-183 | Does the spectral contrastive guarantee hold off a finite augmentation space, and is it non-vacuous on a real augmentation graph? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 037, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-228 to HaoChen et al.’s guarantee on a finite augmentation space, re-derived step by step. Its former promote_when asked for two further results, and this question holds both: a proof off a finite space, and a measurement showing the bound is non-vacuous. | Open |
| QUESTION-189 | Does keeping every earlier round’s data bound the error of a model refit on its own outputs beyond least squares with reused Gaussian covariates, when covariates are regenerated or the model class is nonlinear or over-parameterised? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 042, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-289. The closed form of Gerstgrasser et al. (LIT-971) was re-derived for ordinary least squares on reused isotropic Gaussian covariates. Its extension to other settings was the former promote_when, and this question holds it. | Open |
| QUESTION-190 | Is the ε⁻² sample complexity of estimating the bisimulation metric between finite Markov chains from occupancy samples optimal, and does an estimator keep a polynomial guarantee on samples from one running trajectory? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 042, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-280. Theorem 1 of Calo et al. (LIT-948) was re-checked: an ε-accurate estimate from O((|X||Y|(|X|+|Y|) + (|X|+|Y|)log(1/δ))/((1−γ)²ε²)) independent occupancy samples per chain. That the ε⁻² rate is optimal was part of the former promote_when, and this question holds it, with the single-stream case the authors expect but do not test. | Open |
| QUESTION-195 | Does prior-scored translation without parallel data keep an error bound that falls in the common ground and the size of the source language when the languages are not uniform or the translators are lossy? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 044, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-270 to Goldwasser and co-authors’ common-nonsense theorem, re-derived from its appendix. The former promote_when, a bound outside the uniform, lossless models, is held here. | Open |
| QUESTION-200 | Is the subspace-patching effect measured in GPT-2 Small’s layer-8 MLP an instance of the dormant-direction construction, rather than two cancelling subspaces in that component, and does its dependence on the disconnected component replicate in a second model family? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-282. THEORY-282 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) for what its construction proves: a subspace patch can reproduce a variable’s output effect without localizing it. Whether the measured cases are such patches, rather than two cancelling subspaces in the patched component, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-209 | Do listeners in reference and signalling games invert an informative speaker when alternatives and costs are manipulated with the uttered form held fixed, the model’s parameters are set in advance, and its predictions are tested on trial-level data against a literal listener and a likelihood-only model? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-172. THEORY-172 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3) on what was measured: in Frank and Goodman’s reference games listeners’ mean bets matched a parameter-free inverted informative speaker with a measured salience prior, and in Bergen, Goodman and Levy’s signalling games listeners read a novel signal by its alternative. The evidence is a fit of condition means with no rival model fitted. | Open |
| QUESTION-210 | Does the QQ equality of survey question-order data hold in question pairs chosen in advance by investigators other than its proposers, and does a classical model with memory, constrained to satisfy it, fit the per-pair tables as well as the projection model? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-166. THEORY-166 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3) on what Wang, Solloway, Shiffrin and Busemeyer measured: across the 66 Pew surveys of 2001-2011 that varied the order of two back-to-back questions, order changed the answers but not the probability of agreeing answers. The pairs were chosen by the equality’s proposers’ team from one organisation’s archive, and no constrained classical rival was fitted. | Open |
| QUESTION-211 | How far are independently trained latent spaces from a cosine-preserving map: is the held-out residual of the best orthogonal-times-scalar map close to that of the best linear map where anchor-based stitching works, and does the gap grow where it fails? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-175. THEORY-175 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3) on its invariance, re-derived, and on what Moschella et al. measured: independently trained encoders agree in their cosine profiles to matched anchors only approximately, enough for untrained decoder transfer with loss, while their nearest neighbours mostly differ. The source never fits a map between two spaces. | Open |
| QUESTION-214 | Do colour-naming systems stay near the information-bottleneck bound when the need distribution is measured independently of the naming data, and do lexicons in a second semantic domain? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-163. THEORY-163 was narrowed to what Zaslavsky, Kemp, Regier and Tishby measured and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3): the World Color Survey languages and English lie near the information-bottleneck curve at a trade-off parameter just above 1, nearer than hue-rotated variants of themselves, with a need distribution estimated from the naming data. A test with an independently measured source, or in a second domain, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-216 | Does the output Fisher–Rao geometry agreement across language models replicate with released code, and does it fall when models are fitted to different laws while their activation geometry stays as it was, with only a small part of the shared eigenvector structure exceeding a fair law-matched null? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-230. THEORY-230 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2 and v3). Its identification is re-derived: the Fisher–Rao geometry of next-token laws is a function of the laws. Its measurement is one study read in full: mean rank agreement 0.88 against 0.62 in Picozzi’s ten models, and about 9% of the top eigenvector overlap beyond a displacement-matched null. Replication, and a test that varies the law, are open. | Open |
| QUESTION-226 | Does Pearl’s Causality define intervention as surgery on autonomous equations throughout, in the chapters on identification and the do-calculus, on structural counterfactuals, and on whether do(x) is universal, and what conditions does it put on the surgery there? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-419. THEORY-419 was narrowed to the do-operator as Pearl defines it in the pages of Causality that NOTE-696 read, and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2). Whether the book defines intervention the same way in the chapters not read is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-240 | Does a transport whose local kernels commute with restriction preserve overlap consistency, and does a transport induced by one global stochastic kernel preserve global extendability? | The part of QUESTION-022 the manuscript’s Propositions 1 and 2 settle, split off under ADR-049. Yes to both, for finite scenarios: CLAIM-121 for overlap consistency and CLAIM-070 for global extendability. Both are sufficient conditions. Whether they are necessary, and what transports that change the cover do, stays with QUESTION-022. | Answered |
| QUESTION-245 | For linear decisions at the population level, if a kind’s admissible transformations are given as a distribution over pairs of its realizations, is the top eigenspace of the pair operator a stable, decision-sufficient span, and what span takes that role when the pairs are directed? | The linear part of QUESTION-052, split off under ADR-049. For symmetric pairs, yes: the top eigenfunctions are the most view-invariant directions, and their span is minimax-optimal for linear prediction of approximately view-invariant targets (THEORY-007) and bounds linear-probe error by leakage over conductance (THEORY-228). For directed pairs, the top left singular functions of the conditional-expectation operator take that role (THEORY-239), and a linear readout of the full density ratio suffices for redundant labels (THEORY-319). Other spans can tie. Nonlinear decisions, and what picks one signature out, stay with QUESTION-052. | Answered |
| QUESTION-246 | In quantum theory, what does a failure of Kochen–Specker noncontextuality refute, as against a failure of Spekkens’s generalized noncontextuality, and which of the two notions is broader? | The conceptual part of QUESTION-067, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-011, THEORY-015, THEORY-016, THEORY-231 and THEORY-559. A Kochen–Specker proof refutes measurement noncontextuality together with outcome determinism, and so universal generalized noncontextuality. A generalized no-go refutes a positive quasiprobability representation, and Leibnizian representations within classical realism. The generalized notion is strictly broader. Which notion a test of pragmatic judgements can reach stays with QUESTION-067. | Answered |
| QUESTION-247 v2 | If the communicative object is a presheaf of propositions over a category of contexts, is the negation its topos logic gives an orthocomplement or a Heyting pseudo-complement, and what fixes it? | The conditional part of QUESTION-055, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-516 and THEORY-037. Over a presheaf of contexts the truth values are sieves, and negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement that the base category fixes, not an orthocomplement. That the communicative object is such a presheaf is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, stays with QUESTION-055. | Answered |
| QUESTION-249 | If a map of a representation X of finite support keeps no information about a categorical concept A, how much information about X can it keep, and when does it keep that much? | The one-step, information-theoretic part of QUESTION-010, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-281. The map can keep at most H(X|A), and it keeps that much exactly when X is a function of the output and A. A deterministic map gets there only when the concept groups’ distributions are permutations of one another. Chains, and relations as against a categorical label, stay with QUESTION-010. | Answered |
| QUESTION-272 v2 | When the task’s target and the probes’ outcome laws are both linear in one unknown state, as for the pairwise comparisons of actions under partial monitoring and for the authority shares of a mixture of known response profiles, when does a family of probes separate what the task needs told apart? | The part of QUESTION-031 that the readings of 2026-10-25 settle, split off under ADR-049. Both answers are linear: a probe family separates what the task needs exactly when the task’s target lies in the span of what the probes reveal. For pairwise comparisons of actions under partial monitoring, that is the loss difference lying in the probes’ combined signal row space (THEORY-962). For the authority shares of a mixture of known profiles, it is the profiles over the probe contexts being affinely independent (CLAIM-452). The general stochastic, decision-relative case, where the target or the outcome laws are not linear in a common state, stays with QUESTION-031. | Answered |
| QUESTION-293 | Is the distortion of a composite of approximate transports bounded by the sum of its parts’ distortions, and does that additive bound survive when the distortion lacks a triangle inequality or a later kernel stretches distances? | The additive part of QUESTION-017, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because CLAIM-260 (Active) settles it in full. The composite of an ε₁-transport and an ε₂-transport is an (Lε₁ + ε₂)-transport when the distortion obeys a triangle inequality, with L the later kernel’s stretch, so additive when that kernel is nonexpansive, as every Markov kernel is in total variation. Without a triangle inequality, or with an expansive kernel, the additive bound fails. | Answered |
| QUESTION-296 | Can an intervention on what an interpreter is told about a communicative situation tell the relations that constitute the act from those that only accompany it? | The part of QUESTION-030’s empirical half that CLAIM-130 settles, split off by the status review of 2026-10-28 under ADR-049. No: telling an interpreter about the situation, do(I), acts on a different variable from changing the situation, do(S). Its effect is evidence about interpretation under instruction, and bears on constitution only through a do(S). | Answered |
| QUESTION-321 | For finitely many states, does “at least as informative in every bounded decision problem” imply simulation by a Markov kernel when the simulated experiment’s outcome space is not standard Borel? | The part of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-156 that the twelfth status review’s re-derivation does not reach. Blackwell (1953), LIT-781, claims the equivalence for arbitrary outcome spaces through its Theorem 2, quoted from Blackwell (1951), which the record has not read. The record’s proof needs a regular conditional distribution of the simulated experiment’s outcome given its posterior, so THEORY-156 was narrowed to standard Borel spaces and promoted. | Open |
| QUESTION-323 | After an anchoring comparison, is anchor-consistent knowledge more accessible on a measure first shown sensitive to direct priming, and does the difference go with the size of the estimate shift? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-335, moved here when the twelfth status review promoted it on a title that claims only the moderations and the failed test, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the accessibility step is real is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-332 | Is the communicative object a presheaf over contexts? | The first remaining part of QUESTION-055, split off by the fourteenth status review under ADR-049 because CLAIM-038 (Active since 2026-10-29) settles it: a communicative object is a context-indexed system of empirical constraints over a cover of contexts, supports or distributions with their restrictions (TERM-042), which is a presheaf over contexts. Which base category it has, and whether some probe family splits it into sectors, stays QUESTION-055’s. | Answered |
| QUESTION-336 | Do the founding texts of non-eliminative ontic structural realism (Ladyman 1998, French and Ladyman 2003, Every Thing Must Go) keep relata while denying them every intrinsic identity-fixing feature, and so fall within Chakravartty’s dilemma? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-034, moved here when the fifteenth status review narrowed THEORY-034’s census to the seven texts it places and promoted it, as THEORY-140’s moved to QUESTION-334. The founding texts were never placed, so whether they are of the target kind is open scope, and it is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-339 | In a random sample of English-source human translations drawn without a named-entity or alignment filter, annotated by at least two annotators with agreement per category reported, how often per sentence does each language’s translation add material for the target audience, and are measurement and entity explicitations the most frequent types? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1153, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. PETra’s counts are within a filtered, mostly classifier-found pool labelled by one annotator; this asks for the base rate. | Open |
| QUESTION-345 | Does a learned translation metric trained on synthetic hallucinations and perturbations detect errors and hallucinations from real systems, in pairs and kinds its training did not synthesise, as well as its synthetic tests report? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1151, moved here when the twenty-second status review promoted that reading of xCOMET’s §7 (ADR-065). The paper measured detection on synthetic perturbations and one benchmark; whether its robustness generalises past what its training synthesised is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-355 | Measured against the agreement between two or more native raters scoring the same translations, how close does a reference-based metric such as COMET come to that ceiling in scoring the pragmatic adequacy of LLM translations of culturally loaded utterances into English, per pragmatic phenomenon, on items chosen in advance? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1120, moved here when the twenty-fourth status review narrowed and promoted it (ADR-065 §3). With one rater per language, r = 0.81 has no ceiling to be read against. | Open |