One entry per document, generated from frontmatter — edit the fragments in
this directory, then run luria index.
Distributed agency (129) — what an organized whole is, and how its operative direction relates to its members’ — where the essay started: 009 · 032 · 033 · 035 · 040 · 041 · 042 · 043 · 047 · 049 · 063 · 065 · 070 · 082 · 083 · 084 · 085 · 086 · 087 · 088 · 089 · 090 · 091 · 092 · 093 · 094 · 095 · 097 · 100 · 101 · 104 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 121 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 147 · 151 · 152 · 154 · 169 · 170 · 173 · 184 · 186 · 187 · 194 · 196 · 204 · 212 · 213 · 218 · 219 · 221 · 222 · 224 · 227 · 228 · 230 · 235 · 238 · 239 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 248 · 250 · 253 · 257 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 271 · 273 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 287 · 290 · 295 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 306 · 315 · 319 · 320 · 322 · 337 · 338 · 340 · 341 · 342 · 347 · 348 · 349 · 352 · 353 · 356 · 361 · 362 · 365 · 369 · 371
Will-organization (37) — what organizes practical efficacy in an agent, and how that organization becomes precarious: 015 · 034 · 045 · 054 · 056 · 062 · 066 · 071 · 077 · 078 · 079 · 128 · 129 · 256 · 270 · 292 · 303 · 304 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 313 · 314 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 333 · 334 · 364 · 365 · 367
Organizational affect (9) — affective states as properties of organized systems, read through Frijda — the line the will paper grew out of: 019 · 044 · 053 · 059 · 061 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269
Authenticity and concordance (4) — what makes a will-organization the agent’s own, and normativity across the scales an agent spans. Set aside on 2026-10-05 as future work: 007 · 011 · 057 · 068
Contextual pragmatic information transport (72) — 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: 001 · 002 · 003 · 004 · 005 · 006 · 008 · 010 · 012 · 013 · 014 · 016 · 017 · 018 · 020 · 021 · 022 · 023 · 024 · 025 · 026 · 027 · 028 · 029 · 030 · 031 · 036 · 050 · 052 · 055 · 067 · 073 · 074 · 075 · 076 · 096 · 102 · 106 · 111 · 130 · 137 · 141 · 167 · 177 · 178 · 182 · 183 · 189 · 190 · 195 · 200 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 214 · 216 · 226 · 240 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 249 · 272 · 293 · 296 · 321 · 323 · 332 · 336 · 339 · 345 · 355
Nucleating an argument (21) — how an argument developed across stateless sessions settles into stable, addressable structure, and what a project memory contributes — the record itself as the case: 037 · 038 · 064 · 072 · 098 · 099 · 105 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 112 · 172 · 188 · 201 · 225 · 229 · 237 · 258 · 288 · 289 · 366
Evidence for experience (7) — what could show that a system, organized, non-biological or without a cortex, has experience and not only access or function, and what each kind of evidence (report, deficit, architecture, behaviour) can and cannot establish: 046 · 048 · 254 · 255 · 350 · 351 · 368
How training finds structure (58) — why trained networks come to have the structure they have, which features, symmetries and connected solution sets training reaches and why — understanding, not instruction for practice, which belongs to the anthology: 039 · 051 · 058 · 060 · 069 · 080 · 081 · 122 · 127 · 145 · 149 · 150 · 153 · 155 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 171 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 192 · 193 · 199 · 202 · 206 · 207 · 217 · 220 · 233 · 234 · 236 · 244 · 274 · 275 · 286 · 291 · 294 · 305 · 312 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 344 · 357 · 360 · 363 · 370
Formal apparatus (35) — results that hold whatever any substantive line concludes — gluing and contextuality, comparison of experiments and probes, identifiability, conservation, and thresholds for naming a unit; held as a second line by the general results other lines borrow, so that setting a substantive line aside does not retire them (ADR-040): 103 · 110 · 113 · 120 · 136 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 146 · 148 · 156 · 168 · 185 · 191 · 197 · 198 · 203 · 205 · 208 · 215 · 223 · 231 · 232 · 251 · 252 · 324 · 335 · 343 · 346 · 354 · 358 · 359
By status: Open (330) · Answered (32) · Dissolved (0) · Set aside (8) · Reframed (1)
By tags: Quantum foundations (9) · Contextuality (10) · Mathematics (60) · Game theory (3) · Network science (14) · Complex systems (52) · Probabilistic modeling (18) · Neuroscience (15) · Natural sciences (18) · Ecology (5) · Endosymbiosis and reductive evolution (2) · Thermodynamics (4) · Operations research (6) · Society and governance (10) · Information theory (49) · Representation learning (59) · Learning theory (51) · Compositionality (9) · Mathematical statistics (11) · Information retrieval (7) · Databases and data structures (12) · Design rationale (8) · Social science (19) · Causality (16) · Pragmatics (10) · Myth and folklore (0) · Translation (5) · Linguistics (8) · Metaphysics (8) · Mereology (2) · Agency (37) · Individuation (33) · Self (7) · Personhood (3) · Behavioral integration (15) · Phenomenal unity (3) · Narrative unity (1) · Self-governance (36) · Phenomenology (0) · Social ontology (26) · Social identity (2) · Altruism and self-interest (3) · Future generations (2) · Moral psychology (2) · Psychopathology and treatment (14) · Motivation (11) · Well-being (1) · Learning and conditioning (11) · Psychometrics (6) · Philosophy of biology (4) · Embodied cognition (4) · Free will (2) · Model comparison (2) · Information geometry (5) · Loss landscapes (13) · Control theory (0) · Ethics (14) · Consciousness (11) · Cognition (29) · Emotion and affect (12) · Philosophy of science (20) · Epistemology (28) · Logic (8) · Philosophy of mathematics (0) · Philosophy of language (22) · Religion (0) · Anthology candidate (1)
What the status column means in this scheme — the words are luria’s, the meanings are this project’s.
| Status | Means | |
|---|---|---|
Open | Open | Being worked on |
Answered | Answered | The record holds an Active CLAIM or THEORY, or several together, that answer it as posed and in full scope. A question answered only in part is split, and the answered part becomes a child question (ADR-049) |
Dissolved | Dissolved | The question rested on a mistake, and the body says which |
Deferred | Set aside | Real, and left for future work |
Superseded | Reframed | Replaced by a better-framed question, named in superseded_by |
| # | 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-007 v2 | What grounds normativity across agents that share an environment and a level of organization? | The owner’s question at U75: authenticity, if it gives normativity at all, gives it downward from an agent to its constituents, and not sideways between peers. Set aside with the authenticity line. | Deferred |
| 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-009 v4 | When does a pattern of coordination constitute an additional agent? | Asked from the first day (A8, A11) and never answered. The will paper sets it aside by supposing its agent (CLAIM-080), which is what made the paper writable. | 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-011 v2 | What makes a will-organization the agent’s own, rather than merely effective within it? | The ownership question. The authenticity line was built to answer it and was set aside with it at the audit of 2026-10-05; the paper now disclaims it (CLAIM-022). | Deferred |
| 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-015 v2 | Given an independently warranted agent with several available action-generating regimes, what maintained relations govern which of them becomes practically effective? | The question the will paper answers, in its own words (Section 2). Answered by CLAIM-027, Active since 2026-10-28: accessibility, precedence, persistence, jurisdiction, suspension and transformation. The intervention test that would show it across realizers is CLAIM-027’s defeated_if, not yet run. | Answered |
| 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-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-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-032 v4 | Relative to a level of description and a target, what makes a factor of a system an agent, and what further makes it a willed agent? | The step after the threshold criterion and the drive profile. Once a system’s blocks are settled (QUESTION-035) and its drive is apportioned (QUESTION-033), which blocks are agents? It sharpens QUESTION-009 by making the answer relative to a level and a target, as the owner proposed on 2026-10-11, and asks for a test that can fail. | Open |
| QUESTION-033 v2 | In a system described at more than one level, does “who drives?” have an answer at a given level, and what kinds of answer are there? | The owner’s agency question of 2026-10-11, which follows from the threshold criterion (QUESTION-035): once a combined form is one system, which part or level, if any, drives it? The owner proposes a spectrum of kinds (top-down, bidirectional, emergent) and holds that the answer changes over time. It sharpens QUESTION-009 by asking about drive before asking about agency. | Open |
| QUESTION-034 | If an agent is a population of interests, what makes it act as one: bargaining among the interests, a change in which of them may act, or agreement among them? | The owner’s prompt of 2026-10-11: the self as a multi-agent system, connected to synchronization through temporal discounting, mindfulness and flow. It sharpens QUESTION-015 for the case the record already reads as a population (THEORY-067) and asks whether the three are three routes to integration, distinguished by what each does to the crossing of the interests’ valuations. Open: every answer filed is Proposed. | Open |
| QUESTION-035 v3 | Relative to a stated target, when is a combined form one system, where does its boundary lie, and how long does it last? | The question the dancing couple, the person and notebook, and the firm at its all-hands have each raised on 2026-10-11, now given a code at its third appearance. It sharpens QUESTION-009 (when does coordination constitute an additional agent) to the prior question of when it constitutes one system, and makes the target explicit, as CLAIM-152 requires. | 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-037 | When an argument is developed across sessions with collaborators who keep no memory, what makes it settle into a stable structure, and what can a project memory contribute? | The question of the owner’s manuscript “luria: nucleating an argument”, proposed on 2026-10-11 as a title. The reading of the title is the assistant’s, assembled from observations this record and luria’s had already made in separate places (workbench 2026/10/11). An answer has to say what stops an argument from settling, what the record adds that a draft does not, and what that addition costs. | Open |
| QUESTION-038 v2 | What turns a structure that persists into an anchor that later structure can be built on? | Raised by the owner’s reframing (CLAIM-185), which joins two conditions: a structure must persist, and it must be available to serve as an anchor. The first is not enough for the second. An answer names what availability takes, and how a record could tell an anchor from a structure that merely persists. | Open |
| QUESTION-039 v2 | What sets the order and the moment, in training time or in examples, at which a network acquires a structure, and is acquisition one kind of event or several? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-164. THEORY-086, THEORY-187, THEORY-200, THEORY-204 and THEORY-039 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-040 v4 | When the reification rule prices a candidate found in the same data, among many directions the data only partly determine, what must its Occam term count, and how far does the search inflate the candidate’s d’? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-154, CLAIM-188, CLAIM-152 and CLAIM-164. THEORY-080 and THEORY-028 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-041 v2 | When an organized whole’s operative course moves apart from what its members intend, what channels from the members keep that course correctable, and is losing them the loss of the whole’s capacity to transform its own organization? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-030, CLAIM-025 and CLAIM-099. THEORY-149, THEORY-152 and THEORY-207 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-042 | In a recorded brain, where anatomy fixes the candidate units independently, do the blocks that clear an Occam-priced test fall at the anatomical boundaries, at which scale, and how long do short-range and long-range blocks last? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-157, CLAIM-154 and CLAIM-164. THEORY-124, THEORY-097 and THEORY-088 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-043 | For a person, what coherence measure is conserved along the trajectory when the person persists as the same self, and is a life story, whose content is known to change, a candidate for it? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-161 and CLAIM-152. THEORY-060 answers it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| 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-045 v4 | Is a mental disorder that outlasts its trigger a protective lock-in at the individual scale, a regime kept stable by behaviour that blocks its own disconfirmation while the capacity to leave it degrades, and does cutting the maintaining link, with the regime’s content held fixed, produce lasting change? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-079, CLAIM-025, CLAIM-099 and CLAIM-018. THEORY-058, THEORY-050, THEORY-052 and THEORY-053 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-046 v2 | What criterion, applied the same way to a modular mind and to an organized group, would say whether an organized whole is a subject of experience and not only an agent? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-165, CLAIM-155, CLAIM-003 and QUESTION-032. THEORY-043 and THEORY-063 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-047 v2 | Can a community of individually sound inquirers settle on a belief none of them reasoned their way to, as an organized whole can settle on a course none of its members intends, and which community-level mechanisms set it? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-030, CLAIM-060, CLAIM-192 and QUESTION-049. THEORY-143, THEORY-148, THEORY-146 and THEORY-151 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-048 v3 | What can report, no-report, deficit and architectural evidence each establish about experience as opposed to access, and does any of it survive in a system that lacks cortex or biology? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-039 and CLAIM-003. THEORY-091, THEORY-094, THEORY-100 and THEORY-023 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-049 | When a corporation is said to know or intend something no member does, is the attribution tracking a mind the corporation has, or shaping the corporation to meet it? | An unmarked tension between two THEORYs the record holds, raised by the synthesis review of 2026-10-11. THEORY-139 (Pettit) says a corporation that forms its judgments through authorized avowal has a mind of its own. THEORY-137 (Tollefsen) says such attributions work largely by shaping the institution, whether or not it has a mind. It bears on whether a pattern of coordination is an additional agent (QUESTION-009). | 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-051 v2 | What structure does training for one classification task leave in a network’s last layers, and what does that structure cost for decisions and distributions the network was not trained on? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-010 and CLAIM-164. THEORY-083, THEORY-104 and THEORY-085 answer 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-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-054 | Is there a governing level among an agent’s regimes, a system that specifies control apart from the systems that carry it out, or is governance the interaction of the regimes themselves? | An unmarked tension among THEORYs the record holds, raised by the synthesis review of 2026-10-11. THEORY-056 (emotion regulation is one motive state checking another) and THEORY-062 (control follows relative reliability, not a supervisor) deny a separate regulator. THEORY-070 (the expected value of control is computed in a distinct specification system) asserts one. CLAIM-025 and CLAIM-099 speak of a governing organization among regimes, so the answer matters to this line. | 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-056 | When the mechanisms composing a will-organization are described by control theory and executive-control research, does that description implement the will-organization account or replace it, and what result would show the agent-level description had become idle? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-024, CLAIM-021, CLAIM-122 and CLAIM-174. THEORY-048 answers it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-057 | Can the integration that marks a will-organization as the agent’s own be detected apart from the agent’s own avowal that her commitments are hers? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-016 and QUESTION-011. THEORY-074 answers it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-058 | When a trained network’s representation carries a group’s structure, how much of it comes from the task, the architecture, the training set’s relations and the symmetry of the update, and how much can be read off the network without supplying the group? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-036, CLAIM-137, CLAIM-132, CLAIM-148, CLAIM-135 and CLAIM-193. THEORY-022, THEORY-181, THEORY-021 and THEORY-184 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | 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-060 v2 | When a network is trained on data from a structured system, are the variables it comes to represent fixed by its training objective or by what its architecture can represent cheaply, and since an architecture that can represent the system’s coarse-graining need not learn it, when do they coincide with the system’s own relevant variables? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-152 and QUESTION-025. THEORY-197 and THEORY-206 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| 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-062 | Within a single decision, does a goal govern which response becomes effective by setting the terms of the competition among responses (threshold, starting point, inhibition) rather than by selecting one? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-027, CLAIM-122 and QUESTION-054. THEORY-061, THEORY-068 and THEORY-059 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-063 v4 | When a collective outcome such as synchrony, or the fall of a regulated quantity, can come from a shared external drive, from coupling among the members or from different internal routes, what measurement or intervention tells which architecture produced it, given that directional information measures under a recorded one-sided drive need not follow the coupling? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-035, QUESTION-033, CLAIM-172, CLAIM-167 and CLAIM-158. THEORY-129 and THEORY-130 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-064 | Does an anchor need endorsement as well as addressability, stable identity and discoverability: are entries the record has not accepted built on less than entries it has? | QUESTION-038 lists three candidates for what turns a persistent structure into an anchor. Clark and Chalmers’ criteria for an external resource that counts as part of a mind (LIT-097, read in NOTE-180) include endorsement, which QUESTION-038 lacks. The record has its own form of endorsement, Proposed against Active, so the question can be tested on the record’s citation graph. | Open |
| QUESTION-065 | Can the target that a sufficiency-based boundary is relative to be supplied by the system’s own locality, as informativeness about its far environment across a buffer, so that the coarse variables kept no longer depend on the analyst, and is the partition that wins for a given target unique? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-152, CLAIM-154, CLAIM-157, CLAIM-164 and QUESTION-035. THEORY-198, THEORY-205 and THEORY-157 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-066 | Does the way a course of action is held, under felt external control or for the agent’s own reasons, set how long it persists once outside support is removed, with the agent’s valuation of the activity held fixed? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-027, CLAIM-122 and CLAIM-089. THEORY-046, THEORY-049, THEORY-154 and THEORY-077 answer it in part; 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-068 | Would settling whose a will-organization is settle the agent’s accountability for what it does, or does accountability need conditions, such as normative competence and avoidability, that ownership does not supply? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-011, CLAIM-022 and CLAIM-016. THEORY-118, THEORY-119, THEORY-122 and THEORY-147 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-069 | Is the connectedness of trained solutions a property of the solutions, or of the path family searched, the shared history that produced them and the regime they were trained in? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-187 and CLAIM-142. THEORY-105, THEORY-107, THEORY-108, THEORY-109, THEORY-110 and THEORY-114 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-070 v5 | When an organized whole manipulates, as a learning system exploiting documented biases or a network of state channels does, is it the same wrong when no member intends to manipulate, and whose agency does the wrong run through? | Most definitions of manipulation now filed build in a manipulator’s intent, though Noggle’s survey treats that requirement as contested and asks this question’s first part of a selecting algorithm. The record holds two read cases in which the influencer is an organized system: an AI agent that learned to exploit biases (LIT-179) and a state’s tiered network of information channels (LIT-084). CLAIM-030 says an organized whole’s operative intention is not its members’ intentions. The question asks whether manipulation can then belong to the whole, with no manipulative intent in any member. | Open |
| QUESTION-071 v6 | Can a will-organization be manipulated without anything in its present structure showing it, and if so, what in its history would have to be recorded to tell a manipulated will from one that is merely effective? | CLAIM-022 says explaining practical efficacy does not settle whose the will is. THEORY-040 says any condition stated in present psychological structure is met by a manipulated agent. Together they ask whether the will line’s account, which describes organization as it now is, can tell manipulation at all. Asked on the will line so that the question can be worked on without reopening the set-aside authenticity line, where CLAIM-016’s manipulation defeater sits. | Open |
| QUESTION-072 v4 | Does a project memory distribute credibility among an argument’s contributors, by making some contributors’ moves addressable and leaving others’ as unfiled turns, so that what gets a code gets cited and what does not is re-derived or lost? | Filed at the owner’s request, ahead of its readings: Fricker’s account of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice (LIT-1004) is registered unread in the same contribution. CLAIM-182 says addressability is what makes an anchor, and CLAIM-181 says the record’s grammar decides what can be filed. Together they imply that a contributor whose moves are filed gains standing in the argument that one whose moves are not does not. The question asks whether that happens, and whether it is a wrong in Fricker’s sense or only a bias in what persists. | 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-077 | Is agreement among an agent’s interests produced by coupling, as when each sees and follows the current majority, a different kind of integration from agreement because their valuations coincide? | Drawn by the assistant from CASE-074 and filed at the owner’s request. A crowd that can see its running vote tally comes to agree by herding, and its members’ preferences need not change. CLAIM-162 defines synchronization as valuations that coincide. The question is whether agreement by coupling is a third route to acting as one, beside agreement by coinciding valuation (flow) and a change in which interest may act (CLAIM-156). | Open |
| QUESTION-078 v2 | If an agent’s interests need not synchronize to act as one, can differentiated interests keep distinct roles, boundaries and pathways of influence within a stable or metastable pattern of coordination, and what collective variable would show it? | From an interlocutor’s reading of LIT-638 against CLAIM-163, relayed by the owner on 2026-10-12: whether integration of an agent’s interests is synchronization or coordination of differentiated parts. It refines QUESTION-034 and bears on CLAIM-162 and CLAIM-163. Filed as advice. | Open |
| QUESTION-079 | Is the coordination among an agent’s regimes better described by discrete switches between metastable states or by continuous reorganization, and does the answer change what would count as a transition in the test of the synchronization objection? | From an interlocutor’s reading of LIT-638 against CLAIM-163, relayed by the owner on 2026-10-12: whether coordination is discrete switching or continuous reorganization, which decides what CLAIM-163’s transition test should look for. LIT-638 and LIT-080 are rivals on it. Filed as advice. | Open |
| QUESTION-080 | When a trained network’s parameters keep moving after its loss has converged, what about the network stays fixed, and is the last-layer geometry of neural collapse among the things that do? | The record holds two pictures of the end of training. In one, the last layer converges to a fixed geometry through the terminal phase (THEORY-083, neural collapse). In the other, the parameters never stop: they sample a stationary distribution at constant speed (THEORY-209). The two may describe different regimes. The terminal phase of neural collapse is cross-entropy training past zero error, with no finite minimum, while the limiting dynamics assume a quadratic minimum. Nothing in the record relates them. Drawn by the assistant from the reading of Kunin et al., and filed at the owner’s request. | Open |
| QUESTION-081 | When the relative scale of a network’s layers sets its learning regime under gradient flow, does that regime survive SGD, whose minibatch noise drives the relative scale toward balance, and on what timescale compared with learning? | Two readings meet here. Under gradient flow, the relative scale of adjacent layers is conserved and sets whether learning is rich or lazy (THEORY-212, Dominé et al.). Under SGD, that scale is not conserved: minibatch noise drives it toward the point where the layers’ gradient noise balances, at a rate set by η/S (THEORY-211, Ziyin et al.). If the drift is fast compared with learning, an unbalanced start chosen to be lazy would drift toward balance and richness. If it is slow, the regime set at initialization stands. Neither paper addresses the other. Drawn by the assistant from reading both, and filed at the owner’s request. | Open |
| QUESTION-082 | When a polity is steered by polling, whose reasons do its decisions carry: its members’, its own, or none? | Raised by the owner on 2026-10-13, in conversation, as an implication of CLAIM-030 for “how modern politics leans so heavily on polling data”, and sharpened by the owner from a whole’s good to a whole’s reasons. A poll aggregates members’ conclusions one question at a time. On THEORY-127 that cannot in general yield a collective whose verdicts its own reasons support, and on THEORY-131 and THEORY-139 a collective’s reasons are made by its procedures, not sampled from its members. What would count as an answer is in the body. | Open |
| QUESTION-083 v4 | Beyond stable, differentiated authority, which one update rule can produce, can processes that share it come to hold mutually regulated authority with specialized niches, without any governance role being coded in, when some competences show only in rare contexts? | A10’s first decisive question, and the experiment A7 called the ideal first result. Two Proposed claims answer it in advance: trust emerges as a regularity of endorsement (CLAIM-277), and roles are regimes, not kinds (CLAIM-279). Nothing has been run. An answer is a population model with no role primitives, and whether durable differentiated authority forms. | Open |
| QUESTION-084 | Can endorsement between processes be inferred from their behaviour, or does telling authorization from incidental coupling and common cause need a record of the coordination itself? | A methodological problem the exchange raised twice and the record had not asked. A7 §14: inferring endorsement from causal facilitation “may conflate authorization, incidental coupling, and common-cause effects”. A8 on r/place: from placements alone “endorsement remains a latent explanatory hypothesis”. It refines QUESTION-063, which asks the same about drive, coupling and internal routes for collective outcomes. | Open |
| QUESTION-085 | Does a maintained r/place artwork feed back into the flow of repair that keeps it, so that it is self-maintaining like a candle flame, or is its defence supplied from outside like the heat under a convection cell, and does the answer change when its coalition starts switching strategies? | The question CLAIM-273 leaves open, set on the ladder the record’s readings already hold. An inert pattern needs no flow. A dissipative structure is held by a flow supplied from outside. A self-maintaining one, Bickhard’s and Mossio et al.’s candle flame, contributes to the flow that keeps it. A recursively self-maintaining one switches among ways of keeping itself going. An answer says which rung an artwork reaches, by a test that could fail on the placement and forum records. | Open |
| QUESTION-086 v3 | Can two systems with matching behaviour and persistence be told apart by whether their own processes generate and revise the constraints that keep them going, and by what intervention? | A11’s Q4, which it asked be kept apart from whether endogenous governance is constitutive at all. A10 §3.3 gave the paired design: one system keeps a pattern by its own responses, the other by an external controller, and only removing the controller tells them apart. CLAIM-194 already says a coupling criterion alone cannot tell a self-made boundary from an imposed one. An answer is an intervention, with its conditions, that separates the pair, or an argument that none can short of the removal. | Open |
| QUESTION-087 | Can an authority structure that reproduces itself be pathological by a standard grounded in the organization’s own organization, and not in goals assigned to it from outside? | A11’s Q2. The record has the phenomenon, protective lock-in (TERM-020): a regime that generates the conditions that justify its continuation. And it has a disclaimer: viability does not establish what ought to persist (CLAIM-075). It does not have the question of whether a standard intrinsic to the organization could tell entrenched authority from merited trust. Organizational accounts of malfunction are the nearest literature. | Open |
| QUESTION-088 v3 | Does modelling psychological organization as processes that allocate influence to one another predict habit, rumination, rigidity, akrasia and insight better, with one shared set of organizational variables, than models built for each phenomenon or around a central executive? | The owner’s standalone question at U5: “do we gain something just by framing a ‘self’ this way?” A5 and A10 (its Q5) made it a test of explanatory compression. It refines QUESTION-056, which asks whether such a description implements the will-organization account or replaces it. This asks whether it predicts anything. CLAIM-024’s objection, that every mechanism has its own literature, applies here too. | Open |
| QUESTION-089 v2 | When does a process that destabilizes a whole’s prevailing pattern improve the organization rather than only disrupt it, and does that depend on others able to build on what it opens and on authority that can move to them? | A4’s research direction B, “When does dissent improve the organization rather than merely destabilize it?”, with its proposed answer. A3’s case: a dissenter that cannot overturn a consensus endorses a process that can generate alternatives. It refines QUESTION-041, which asks what channels keep a whole’s course correctable. This asks when using such a channel helps. | Open |
| QUESTION-090 | Under what conditions does a population of heterogeneous processes develop a self-maintaining, internally differentiated governance structure that acts coherently without suppressing the plurality of processes it emerges from? | A4’s closing question, which the owner at U5 called “a great formulation of the question”. It is QUESTION-034 asked of a population whose members allocate authority to one another, and it adds two conditions 034 leaves implicit: that the governance maintain itself, and that coherence not be bought by eliminating the members’ disagreement. An answer names conditions under which both hold and conditions under which one fails. | Open |
| QUESTION-091 | Does the allocation of influence among an organization’s processes regulate how far cascades of activity propagate, holding different subsystems at different distances from criticality, as a branching ratio would show? | The owner proposed Hawkes processes at U6. A6 turned them into a hypothesis: “the influence canvas dynamically regulates the branching structure”. The record had no point-process material. Of the three sources registered, only Brémaud and Massoulié could be read. A Hawkes network supplies a coupling, its kernels, which CLAIM-163 found missing from talk of “synchronization”. Its spectral radius is a control parameter and, outside the linear excitatory case, only a sufficient bound, not an order parameter (see the note of 2026-10-13). | Open |
| QUESTION-092 v2 | Is endogenous governance part of what makes a system self-governing: can an organization that allocates authority among its own processes be self-governing in a stronger sense than a behaviourally equivalent one whose allocation an external scheduler sets? | A11’s Q1, which it asked be kept apart from Q4 (QUESTION-086). Q4 asks whether the difference can be detected. This asks whether there is a difference that matters to self-governance at all. The record’s thesis answers yes (CLAIM-284), and CLAIM-116 warns that regulation, even of regulation, does not establish a will. | Answered |
| QUESTION-093 v3 | Which of predictive autonomy, interventional autonomy, organizational closure and self-individuation must a coalition of processes have before it is a higher-level agent and not a convenient aggregate, and, beyond an effective-information advantage without closure or self-individuation, which of them can it have without the others? | A11’s Q3 with A10 §4.1’s three criteria, sharpening QUESTION-009 (Deferred) into separable conditions. The record’s reification rule (CLAIM-154) prices the first. CLAIM-170 makes agents a factorization relative to a level. An effective-information advantage without closure or self-individuation is QUESTION-250, Answered. Which criteria are necessary, and whether the others come apart, is open, and r/place (CASE-079) offers coalitions on which to test it. | Open |
| QUESTION-094 | When an organization allocates authority over related propositions to different processes by endorsement, what keeps its collective judgments consistent, and must that be a separate integration step as in judgment aggregation? | A4’s List and Pettit connection, which it put as “Authority aggregation ≠ judgment aggregation ≠ collective rationality”. Endorsement settles who decides each matter. It does not make the decisions cohere when the matters are linked as premises and conclusion. The record holds the impossibility side (THEORY-127, CLAIM-030, CLAIM-271) for aggregating judgments, not for allocating jurisdiction. | Open |
| QUESTION-095 | Is leaving the result of a computation where it can be cheaply retrieved the same trade as amortizing the computation, and does one account of when it pays cover a crew’s speed bugs, a record’s filed arguments and a reasoner’s reused inferences? | The owner, after reading Hutchins’s cockpit paper: “amortized retrieval is actually a kind of amortized computation”. The speed bugs are computed once at low load and read back as a judgement of spatial adjacency. CLAIM-303 said filing moves work across time; TERM-055’s note said retrieval can be done before the request. This asks whether those are one trade, and which literature has formalized it. | 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-097 | When does a distinction an organized agent can observe correspond to an intervention it can perform, and when do the two come apart? | A18’s eighth candidate. The exchange had been saying “observable” where the issue was sometimes action. Observational and action-relative equivalence need not coincide. | Open |
| QUESTION-098 | When is an inferential structure worth filing: when does the reconstruction it is expected to save outweigh the cost of filing it, keeping it current and the risk of reusing it after it has gone stale? | The owner at U11: “the record could probably benefit from some content to the effect of computation-storage tradeoffs”. A11 posed filing as a decision under uncertainty about future use. QUESTION-038 asks how an anchor works. This asks when one is worth making. | Open |
| QUESTION-099 | Can a sequence of restatements keep an argument’s history recoverable in principle while making it infeasible to reconstruct? | A14 §2. CLAIM-191 reads drift across sessions as iterated transport with a weak return channel. This asks whether continuity can be lost with nothing deleted, because reconstructing it costs too much. | Open |
| QUESTION-100 v3 | Beyond the linearization at symmetry, when does coupling interpretation-dependent retrieval to performance-dependent endorsement produce stable expertise, and when does it produce self-reinforcing interpretive capture? | A22 §8’s question, from the owner’s U22: connect retrieval-mediated anchoring to the record’s formulation of a distributed agent as two dual canvases, meaning and influence (CLAIM-285, TERM-053). QUESTION-087 asks whether self-reproducing authority can be pathological by the organization’s own standard. This names one mechanism by which it could become so. | Open |
| QUESTION-101 | When does whether a resource is available for an action depend on the organization of an agent–environment system rather than on what any one member knows or can do? | A17 §9, from the owner’s EMT case (CASE-085). The team knew the drug was stocked, the box encoded where, and neither got it to the medic in time. Hutchins’s distributed cognition (LIT-1060, unread) is the tradition that asks this. | 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-103 | Is computational indistinguishability the bounded-observer form of signal detection’s chance ROC, and is ideal-observer efficiency its empirical measure, so that the record’s formal results on bounded observers can be tested on real ones? | The owner asked whether material downstream of computational indistinguishability, or the signal detection literature, would help. A test’s distinguishing advantage is its hit rate minus its false-alarm rate, a point on its ROC; the best over all tests is total variation, reached by the likelihood-ratio detector (THEORY-031). Computational indistinguishability says every efficient observer’s ROC stays near the chance diagonal. Ideal-observer analysis measures how far real observers fall short of the ideal. This asks whether the two are one framework. | Open |
| QUESTION-104 | Which partitions of a system remain sufficient, exactly or approximately, when prediction is restricted to a computational budget, and does the budget change which units are worth naming? | A14 §3 and A15 §8, after the owner’s correction at U14. CLAIM-152 says sufficiency-based individuation is relative to its target. This asks whether it is also relative to the observer’s resources. | Open |
| QUESTION-105 v2 | What is the least an evolving inquiry must retain, beyond its current conclusions and a closed belief set, which do not fix its revisions, to support a stated family of future revisions, and does the optimal retained state look like provenance, dependencies and defeated alternatives, or like something else? | A5’s first question, A2’s closing question (“the minimal persistent representation that preserves an agent’s epistemic competence”) and A4’s rate-distortion form, from the exchange of 2026-10-14. QUESTION-003 asks the same thing of a translation and a fixed family of communicative decisions. This asks it of an inquiry whose decisions are revisions. | 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-107 | When does iterative query reformulation improve access to relevant evidence, and when does it entrench an initial interpretation by narrowing what is encountered next? | A21’s question. The owner suspected at U21 that agent harnesses rediscover old information retrieval: query expansion, relevance feedback, intent classification and slot filling. Classical IR named query drift (LIT-1079, unread). An agent that rewrites its own task adds TERM-056. | Open |
| QUESTION-108 | When a structured record does better than a summary, a transcript or a posterior on revision tasks, is it because it retains more, because what it retains is easier to reach, or because the operations a reviser needs are easier to perform on it? | A5’s second question, with A3’s question B and A4 §4’s decomposition: information retained, information accessible, information used correctly. The three are different findings, and a comparison that does not separate them cannot say which one CLAIM-295 rests on. | Open |
| QUESTION-109 | When does cue-dependent retrieval make bounded reasoning better, and when does it produce anchoring, path dependence or entrenchment? | A20’s question, after the owner tied addressing to anchoring bias at U20. The same selectivity that makes retrieval cheap can make the evidence a judgement sees depend on where it started. | Open |
| QUESTION-110 v2 | How should the cost of recovering a distinction from a representation be defined, relative to an encoding, a class of procedures and a success criterion? | A18’s sixth candidate, “recovery complexity”, filed as a question at A18’s own suggestion rather than as a term. The exchange used the idea under five names and never fixed one. | 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-112 v3 | How should the sufficiency of a retained state be judged when the family of future decisions can itself change in response to what the inquiry finds? | The owner asked at U10 to “double click” on A8’s closing question: when does justificatory history add value beyond a sufficient current state? A10 answered that, so posed, it never does (CLAIM-300). What is left is this question. Sufficiency is relative to a decision family, and inquiry changes its own family. | Open |
| QUESTION-113 | When a system names a category, which criterion is it meeting: that the data supports the distinction, that a deadline forces it, or that it survives refinement and compression, and do the three ever pick the same categories? | The record now holds three criteria for when a distinction earns a name. CLAIM-154 says when the data supports it, and CLAIM-307 when a deadline forces it, the two moving opposite ways with copy count. The third is from Part III of the owner’s LEGO monograph: a category is worth keeping when it persists as refinement adds distinctions and compression prunes them. MOM-CLM-138 rejected the metaphysics built on it and kept the observation as measurable, and CLAIM-164 says what a persistent spectral mode picks out. This asks how the three relate. | Open |
| QUESTION-114 | Is sorting a collection amortized search, and does physical database design, where a table is stored in one order and every further index is paid for in space and upkeep, give the joint cost model that the question on amortized retrieval lacks? | The LEGO parable (CASE-094) is QUESTION-095’s trade in its plainest form. Sorting spends search once, against retrievals later, and leaves the result in the world, as the cockpit’s speed bugs do. CLAIM-310 adds that one set of bins realizes one partition, chosen against a query mix. A database table is stored in one physical order, and every further index costs space and work on every insert. Choosing indexes for a workload is a studied problem with explicit cost models. This asks whether that model is the one QUESTION-095 is looking for. | Open |
| QUESTION-115 v7 | Beyond what retention, dynamical independence and Ψ are known to track, can a collective’s boundary, its temporal resolution and its macrostate be found together, by temporal information retention, dynamical independence, effective information and an Occam price on the candidate, and where these criteria disagree on one system, which level does each pick? | A11–A13 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. Krakauer et al.’s individuality measures do not fall when a candidate is enlarged, so maximizing them favours swallowing the environment; the paper says a size cost is needed. A12 proposed letting information find candidates and the record’s priced individuation decide, reported as a profile across criteria rather than one score. The record already holds the interventional critique of those measures (LIT-005), which the exchange did not cite. What retention, Ψ and dynamical independence track is QUESTION-243, Answered. An answer here recovers known boundaries and timescales in controlled models and reports where the criteria part. | Open |
| QUESTION-116 | What is the time-lagged form of the block criterion, for a collective whose members are weakly coupled at every instant but strongly connected through time-respecting paths of transmission, across generations and through stored artifacts? | CLAIM-157 already says its block test on synchronous dynamics will not see Otto’s notebook, whose coupling “is a write and a later read”, and that a time-lagged version “is not built”. A9 §2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16 met the same gap from the other side: “A collective can be weakly connected synchronically but strongly connected diachronically.” The second time it turns up. An answer is a criterion on temporal networks or lagged dynamics that finds such a collective and still rejects mere common input. | Open |
| QUESTION-117 v6 | Does coupling the construction of meaning to the allocation of interpretive authority produce modes, attractors or transitions that established models of opinion dynamics with evolving influence (reflected appraisal, adaptive networks, persuasion bias) cannot reproduce as economically? | A15 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. The DeGroot–Friedkin model couples opinion formation on each issue to the evolution of social power across issues by reflected appraisal, and may be the closest predecessor of CLAIM-297’s circuit. Adaptive networks (Holme and Newman; Gross and Blasius) and persuasion bias (DeMarzo, Vayanos and Zwiebel) may explain capture more simply. All registered unread: LIT-1146, LIT-1128, LIT-1139, LIT-1134. An answer derives CASE-092, or a reduction of it, inside one of these models, or names the outcome they forbid and it allows. | Open |
| QUESTION-118 v5 | When a collective reproduces its organization through the replacement of all its members, what must stay causally continuous for the later organization to be the earlier one persisting, and not a similar one produced anew, and when several later collectives each continue it in a different respect, which successor relation, if any, is its persistence? | A5 §7 of the exchange of 2026-10-16, with the branching part from A2 and A4. CLAIM-329 says persistence through turnover is causal transmission, not resemblance; this asks what has to be transmitted, since “any causal descendant” is too much. An answer gives a criterion that separates continuation, branching descent and independent reconstitution, and returns verdicts on the Senators lineages. | Open |
| QUESTION-119 | When a diffusely organized population with no procedure for collective judgment is credited with a stance, or with an effect on an outside institution, when is the credit due to the population as organized, and when is it a biased sample of what some members said or did? | A5 §3 and A7 of the exchange of 2026-10-16, on a fanbase that “hates” its owner and on the Juggernaut line. CLAIM-030 and CLAIM-271 say a collective’s intention or reasons can differ from its members’; both assume an organization that forms them. A fanbase has none, yet it can show a public stance, and fan activity changed a film. An answer says what separates a collective-level stance or effect from amplification by an unrepresentative few, and whether “publicly attributable orientation” is weaker than CLAIM-030’s operative intention. | Open |
| QUESTION-120 v5 | Beyond distances and sparse recovery, whose thresholds share a sufficiency proof and not a necessity proof, when the record meets a random linear map that keeps what a later stage needs, in random features for kernels, the superposition toy model’s bound and phase changes, and the expand-and-threshold codes of sparse distributed memory and the fly, is it one concentration-of-measure fact applied to different families, and does each threshold count the same thing? | Filed when a survey of the record found random projections in three places and the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma in none. The three uses carry three thresholds: ε⁻² log n for distances, k log(n/k) for sparse recovery, and 2N = n for random-features regression. The question is whether these are one union bound over different families or different phenomena that share a tool. Six anchor works are now read. They show the distance and sparse-recovery thresholds share a sufficiency proof, but not a necessity proof, and that part is QUESTION-251, Answered. They give nothing that reaches random features or expand-and-threshold. For SDM and the fly, the record’s SDM recall account and its LSH account offer candidate thresholds of a different shape. | Open |
| QUESTION-121 v2 | Within a single mind, what plays the part of the operator model’s independent scoring: what evidence reaches a judgement–observation loop, or what scores it, without passing through the interpretation it tests, and does any of it survive the loss of all action? | Left open by CLAIM-342, which says what anchors a judgement–observation loop is evidence whose arrival or scoring does not pass through the interpretation it tests, as Regime B’s independent scoring does in CLAIM-330. In a population of operators that scoring can be supplied from outside. In one mind it has to come from somewhere, and if it needs action, CLAIM-339 wins. Filed with five candidates from the record. It separates two things the locked-in case runs together: evidence the loop did not select, which a paralysed person still receives, and contingency between intention and outcome, which they lose. | Open |
| QUESTION-122 | Can a deep network during training have meaningful affect-like states, such as frustration of its demands, and to which unit, the network, the network–optimizer pair or the training process, would they belong? | The owner’s, U30 of the exchange of 2026-10-17: “the possibility of meaningful affective states attributable to a deep neural network specifically during training”. A30: the framework supports “a meaningful, qualified notion of training-time affective organization” and not “the conclusion that a neural network feels distress”. U31 added the bearer half, and CLAIM-367 answers it for conventional training, in part. U33 moved the primitive from distress to frustration (CLAIM-368). An answer says what training-time condition, if any, is affect-like, and whose. Organizational-affect is the natural line, set aside; whether it reopens is the owner’s decision, not made here. | Open |
| QUESTION-123 | How should an organization’s demands be tracked across differentiation, branching, merging and changes of organizational identity, when no one-to-one correspondence between earlier and later demands exists? | A39’s, from the exchange of 2026-10-17: “How should demands be tracked across differentiation, branching, merging, and changes of organizational identity?” CLAIM-361 judges relief against a fixed reference set of demands under an explicit correspondence between earlier and later demands. When the processes that bear the demands split or merge, that correspondence may not be a bijection, and CLAIM-287 says the continuity it would follow can branch and is not an identity relation. An answer says what structure the correspondence has, and how relief is judged through it. | Open |
| QUESTION-124 | When do endorsement dynamics turn a transient conflict among an organization’s demands into a persistent regime of frustration, and can the condition be stated in an architecture-sensitive update geometry such as modular duality’s? | A33’s proposed next result, U33 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, after the owner asked whether “the modular duality program might be useful to us here”: “characterize frustration in a modular update geometry, then ask when the dynamics of endorsement convert a temporary optimization conflict into a persistent organizational regime.” The record has the static parts, the residual and its certificate (CLAIM-365) and the structural/governance split (CLAIM-357), and a linear capture threshold (CLAIM-330). It has no dynamics joining them. An answer gives a condition on the coupling of endorsement to demands under which governance-induced frustration persists after the conflict that started it is gone, and says whether the update geometry enters it. | Open |
| QUESTION-125 | When a candidate block gains or loses the gap that isolates it as a parameter varies, does the change in its identifiable boundary coincide with a bifurcation of its dynamics, and what does each way of their coming apart show? | A6 §2 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, which the owner took up with “flesh this out further”. The record identifies a unit by a gap in its interaction structure (CLAIM-157, CLAIM-164) and finds regime changes by stability (CLAIM-330). Both are spectral facts about a parameter-dependent system, but they are different facts, and nothing in the record pairs them. A6: “Their divergence may be just as revealing as their coincidence.” An answer is a construction or a system in which the two transitions coincide, one in which the regime changes with the block unchanged, and one in which the block changes with the behaviour unchanged, with what each shows about regime, individual and function. | Open |
| QUESTION-126 | Does an organization’s actual allocation of authority track the demands that bind its feasible adaptation, or does it systematically privilege something else? | A35 §3.2 of the exchange of 2026-10-17, worded there: “Does the organization’s actual allocation of authority track the demands that constrain its feasible adaptation, or does it systematically privilege something else?” The dual of the frustration residual (CLAIM-365) picks out, by its multipliers λ, the combination of demands that binds; the operator model’s weights w are the influence governance actually grants (TERM-053). A35: “these dual multipliers are not endorsement weights.” An answer measures both in one organization and says whether w follows λ, and if not what it follows instead. | Open |
| QUESTION-127 v2 | Which diagnoses of frustration among a learner’s demands survive quotienting by function-preserving symmetries, which belong only to an update geometry, and which only to a particular training organization with its optimizer? | A34 §6G of the exchange of 2026-10-17: “When do two functionally equivalent parameterizations yield equivalent frustration diagnoses?” The owner, at U35: “interesting question, double click on this.” A35 answered the first-order coordinate case, filed as CLAIM-366: the common-descent test is chart-invariant, gradient cosines are not, and a budgeted test needs the metric pulled back. The rest is open: function- preserving symmetries, which are not charts of one space, and training trajectories, where “same current function ≠ same learning dynamics”. An answer sorts each diagnosis by what it is a property of. | Open |
| QUESTION-128 | Does the record’s organizational account give a path to normativity from first principles: can norms of function and failure be defined from an organization’s own dynamics, and what more do practical and moral authority need? | The owner’s, U16 of the exchange of 2026-10-17: “does our account provide or perhaps at least allude to a path towards an account of normativity from first principles?” A16: “a plausible route from physical dynamics to system-relative norms of functioning and failure. It does not yet derive moral or rational authority from physical first principles.” The record holds the limit (CLAIM-075), the candidate readings (THEORY-071, THEORY-220, THEORY-628, THEORY-217) and a narrower question (QUESTION-087), but not the question. Filed in will-organization. Its cross-agent half is the authenticity line’s, whose blurb names “normativity across the scales an agent spans” and which was set aside on 2026-10-05; whether that line reopens is the owner’s decision, not made here. An answer is a model that defines function from the dynamics and tells it from mere contribution to persistence, and an account of what a standard needs beyond it. | Open |
| QUESTION-129 | Can relationally indexed normative judgments be objective about the standards and perspectives themselves, so that some conflicts between standpoints have objectively better resolutions, without presupposing the normativity they were meant to explain? | The realist half of the owner’s U18 position, which A18 itself says is not established: “The second is plausible but requires a much stronger argument.” CLAIM-363 holds the constitutive half; this asks whether A18’s third realist condition, constraints on admissible perspectives, can be met. The record’s nearest entries, QUESTION-007 and CLAIM-104, are Deferred with the authenticity line, set aside on 2026-10-05; whether that line reopens is the owner’s decision, not made here. Opposed: Frankfurt (NOTE-264), and Wong’s challenge as A18 put it. An answer is a principled constraint on which standpoints have authority that does not presuppose a normative standard. | 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-131 | How does structural frustration among jointly incompatible demands relate to operative thwarting of a constituent’s demands, and under what conditions can one occur without the other? | Raised in the reviews the owner relayed on 2026-10-18, after the filing of the exchange of 2026-10-17. Structural frustration has a settled formal definition: a collection of demands is structurally frustrated when no outcome attainable under the specified constraints meets them all, S ∉ 𝒦(𝒪; D) (CLAIM-347). What is open is how it relates to operative thwarting, where a particular constituent’s live demand is counteracted by an identifiable constraint or countervailing process. Physics frustration (CLAIM-153) is the structural sense, and self-determination theory’s need thwarting (THEORY-052) the operative one. An answer says when structural incompatibility shows up as thwarting, whether thwarting can occur where joint satisfaction is possible, and what evidence attributes either to a bearer. Merely failing to realize an attainable set of requirements is neither. | Open |
| QUESTION-132 v4 | Under what conditions do initially equivalent adaptive operators differentiate into functionally complementary specialists that each have positive recovery growth when rare, rather than into roles kept in place by external load balancing or by persistent authority asymmetries? | The central mathematical question of the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. QUESTION-083 asks whether operators sharing one update rule can come to hold differentiated authority. This asks the coexistence version: does the differentiation produce stabilizing negative frequency dependence, meaning every specialist recovers when rare (Chesson’s stabilizing mechanisms, LIT-1219, unread)? Or is it held in place from outside, or by one process’s entrenched advantage? An answer is a population model that derives the interaction structure from learned contributions, states recovery criteria, and finds the regimes of coexistence and exclusion. Heterogeneous embeddings, unequal routing weights or persistent expert identities do not answer it. | Open |
| QUESTION-133 | Can a population of operators whose demands are jointly infeasible under one functional organization develop a differentiated or compositional repertoire that makes them jointly feasible, without suppressing, weakening or deleting any of those demands? | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18, which called it the most conceptually interesting new connection. CLAIM-347 defines structural frustration as joint infeasibility and relief as enlargement of the compatibility complex under fixed demands. CASE-119 shows relief by enlarging the attainable set, with every pair compatible and the triple not, until a composite policy appears. The question is whether learning, specialization or recomposition can bring this about endogenously. An answer is a model that keeps the acceptance sets fixed while learning changes what is attainable and strictly enlarges the complex. Apparent relief that comes only from removing a demand or redefining success does not count. | Open |
| QUESTION-134 v2 | When influence decides access to learning opportunities, does the resulting feedback make a marginalized specialist lose its competence, so that it cannot recover influence even when its former niche becomes relevant again? | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. CLAIM-277’s note of 2026-10-18 records niche exclusion by authority deprivation: low exposure, poor competence estimates, low endorsement, lower exposure. This asks whether the loop goes further and destroys the competence, not just the measurement of it. When training opportunities follow influence, a specialist denied opportunities may become genuinely unable to do its job. An answer separates loss of influence, loss of competence and loss of access to evaluation. That gives an operational test for one mechanism of domination without defining domination as holding less authority. | Open |
| QUESTION-135 v2 | When does spectral differentiation among learned features correspond to stabilizing coexistence among the processes that implement them, and what besides the feature geometry decides it? | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. In symmetric resource-mediated competition the interaction matrix is the Gram matrix of the components’ feature vectors, A = UᵀU, so representational redundancy and competitive overlap are one object (CLAIM-369). In the two-component case invasion growth equals λ_min(A) (CASE-118). But the same A supports coexistence or exclusion depending on the growth rates. An answer says when the Gram spectrum of a learned representation predicts that the processes carrying its features will coexist, and what else, such as supply, task distribution or evaluation opportunities, has to be fixed for it to. | Open |
| QUESTION-136 | As the number of stimuli grows, do the task-averaged readout identities with white-noise tasks have a non-degenerate population form, with (1/M²)Tr(K̂_X K̂_Y) converging to the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product of the kernel operators, and at what rate when the regularizer is estimated? | The population clause of THEORY-008’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-008 was confined to a finite stimulus set, where Harvey, Lipshutz & Williams prove its identities, and promoted. Their App. A.3 sketch does not reach the K_z = I case, where its limit is zero (NOTE-834). GULP’s population analysis may answer it, and the record does not hold it. | 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-138 | When does the truncated n × n matrix of a functional map stay nearly orthogonal and nearly block-diagonal by eigenspace under a near-isometry, and how does the bound depend on the spectral gap at n? | The truncation clause of THEORY-297’s former promote_when. THEORY-297 is Active for bijections, with orthogonality for volume-preserving maps and eigenspace preservation for exact isometries. For an exact isometry the truncated block is orthogonal when n ends at a spectral gap. What is open is the near-isometric case, which LIT-993 cites to Kato and does not show. | Open |
| QUESTION-139 | Does the one-hidden-layer lower bound of ∏(rᵢ+1) neurons for the monomial x₁^r₁⋯xₙ^rₙ hold for uniform approximation on a box, and not only for Taylor matching at the origin, and what replaces it when hidden units have biases? | The open half of THEORY-206’s former promotion condition. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-206 was narrowed to the Taylor-matching bound for bias-free networks, which Rolnick and Tegmark prove and the record re-derived, and promoted. Their uniform lower bound rests on a step that fails, and the biased case is untreated. Both are here. | Open |
| QUESTION-140 | In trained networks, how far do CKA and normalized Bures similarity disagree in ranking pairs of representations, and does the rank-dependent envelope between them matter in practice? | The empirical clause of THEORY-233’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-233 was promoted: its envelope between CKA and NBS was checked by a direct derivation. Harvey, Larsen & Williams (LIT-250) illustrate the gap only on random Wishart matrices. Whether it matters for real representations needs a measurement on trained networks, and the record holds none. | 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-142 | For unital JB-algebras, is the existence of a dynamical correspondence exactly what makes observables generate symmetries of what they conserve, as Alfsen and Shultz’s theorem, quoted by Baez, states? | The Alfsen–Shultz clause of THEORY-160’s former promote_when, moved here on 2026-10-19, when THEORY-160 was narrowed to the bracket equivalence and promoted. Baez quotes the theorem (his Theorem 12) without proof, and the record has not read Alfsen and Shultz. | Open |
| QUESTION-143 | Is the presheaf of causal functions on a space of input histories, with the lowerset topology, a sheaf exactly when the space has no solipsistic contextuality witness, as Theorem 2.34 of The Topology of Causality states? | The characterisation clause of THEORY-171’s former promote_when, moved here unchanged on 2026-10-19, when THEORY-171 was narrowed to its existence claim and promoted. That claim is settled by LIT-808’s checked Θ₃ example. The iff is Gogioso and Pinzani’s Theorem 2.34, in an unrefereed preprint whose proof the record has not read. | Open |
| QUESTION-144 | Beyond a finite state space, does an observable commute with a Markov generator exactly when its mean and second moment are conserved in every state, and is there a component form of that condition on general state spaces? | The general-space clause of THEORY-158’s former promote_when, moved here on 2026-10-19, when THEORY-158 was narrowed to the finite state space and promoted. Baez and Fong state the moment form on σ-finite measure spaces (Theorems 2–3). The record has read Theorem 3, but has not re-derived it, and Theorem 2 is stated there as a consequence. The paper gives no component form beyond finite X. | Open |
| QUESTION-145 | In trained models, do the features’ dimensionality-weighted projectors sum to the identity on their span, as they do in the exact polytope and tegum configurations of uniform superposition? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-021, moved here unchanged when THEORY-021 was narrowed to the exact configurations and promoted on 2026-10-19. The algebra is settled for those configurations. Whether trained weights reach them is a measurement no one has made. | Open |
| QUESTION-146 | Is there a map from an empirical model’s signed global sections to a quasiprobability or frame representation of the corresponding GPT fragment, and if so does it preserve positivity both ways? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-014, moved here unchanged when THEORY-014 was promoted on 2026-10-19. THEORY-014 sets the sheaf, GPT and Contextuality-by-Default results side by side and claims no map between them. This question asks for the map, or a proof that none preserves positivity. | Open |
| QUESTION-147 | In a second system of near-identical units on a known graph, are the synchronized clusters the symmetry orbits computed in advance, and does each cluster desynchronize in isolation where its own transverse block predicts? | The empirical condition formerly in THEORY-276’s promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-276 was promoted: that symmetry orbits are flow-invariant synchronization clusters, and that a cluster whose own factor moves nothing else can desynchronize while the others stay synchronized, was checked by a fixed-point-subspace derivation. Whether the stability predictions hold up in a second physical or biological system, as the record’s use of this result as a coupling signature (QUESTION-063) needs, rests on one 11-node experiment. | Open |
| QUESTION-148 | Do bilinear knowledge-graph scores (RESCAL, ComplEx, HolE, the Neural Tensor Network, QuatE) admit a representation as a coboundary of a sheaf of vector spaces, or is there a proof that they do not? | The open half of THEORY-299’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-299 was narrowed and promoted: structured and translational embeddings are 0-cochains of a pulled-back sheaf scored by a norm of the coboundary. Gebhart, Hansen and Schrater (LIT-232) state that bilinear models fall outside the framework as given (App. A.1) and do not prove it. Whether any sheaf of vector spaces takes them in is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-149 | In released language models, do the relational linear properties reported so far lie in the subspaces that enter the logits, with Γ ⊆ N and Γ_q ⊆ M, so that they are properties of the distribution and not of one fitted model? | The trained-model half of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-234, moved here unchanged when THEORY-234 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. Theorem 14 of Marconato et al. says a relational linear property is shared by every model inducing the same distribution when it lies in N with Γ_q ⊆ M. Whether the linearities reported in trained models meet that condition has not been measured. | Open |
| QUESTION-150 | In the Poincaré ball H^r for r > 2, does embedding a tree with worst-case distortion 1 + ε need Ω((ℓ/(εr)) log deg_max) bits per coordinate for r up to about log deg_max, and Ω(ℓ/ε) beyond, matching the code-based upper bound? | The higher-dimensional half of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-196, moved here when THEORY-196’s planar lower bound was split off as THEORY-734 on 2026-10-19. LIT-874’s Proposition 3.1 gives the upper bound in H^r. No lower bound in H^r is held, so whether dimension helps exactly as much as the construction uses is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-151 | Does the decoupling of reproducibility from convergence survive a consensus with memory, where a challenger must win repeatedly or evidence accumulates, and scientists can learn? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-295, moved here when THEORY-295 was narrowed to a consensus that a single test can replace and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-988 shows the decoupling only for a memoryless consensus and agents that do not learn. Whether a population that never pits the true model against the consensus still holds a reproducible false consensus once the consensus has memory is untested. | Open |
| QUESTION-152 | Does the impossibility of robustly rational proposition-wise aggregation extend from categorical judgments to corporate attitudes in general: degrees of belief, desires, intentions or emotions? | The second clause of THEORY-127’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-127 was promoted, narrowed, after the record re-derived Proposition 3 of List and Pettit (2006) for categorical judgments. List (2014), LIT-700, makes holistic supervenience the mark of corporate attitudes in general. Neither paper proves the impossibility for attitudes other than binary judgments, and the record holds no such result. | Open |
| QUESTION-153 | Do the hyperbolic Betti-curve matches in odour space and in CA1 separate a hyperbolic metric from a flat sphere or a flat multiscale code, and do they replicate on other data? | The former promote_when clauses of THEORY-191 and THEORY-192, moved here unchanged when both were narrowed to what was measured and promoted under ADR-047 v3. Each Betti-curve test rejected only uniform Euclidean cubes. On a thin shell, hyperbolic distance is nearly a monotone function of angle, and uniform hyperbolic sampling is nearly an exponential spread of scales, so flat rivals remain. Neither study has been repeated on other data or by another group. | Open |
| QUESTION-154 | Does a block coarse-graining that maximizes the information its coarse variables keep about the far environment, but falls short of full capture with their number and type fixed, keep the renormalized Hamiltonian’s longer-range couplings bounded by the information lost, in two or more dimensions? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-198, moved here unchanged when THEORY-198 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The perfect case is proved: full capture makes the coarse measure factorize across the block. The maximizers actually found fall short of full capture, and for them the link to a short-ranged Hamiltonian is shown only on 1D chains. | Open |
| QUESTION-155 | Does a lossy-compression bound on generalisation error give a non-trivial value for an algorithm whose output carries infinite information about its sample, such as deterministic training of a network with continuous weights? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-248, moved here unchanged when THEORY-248 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The bound is proved and finite wherever the output law’s rate-distortion function is. No one has evaluated it for a learned model whose I(S;W) is infinite. | Open |
| QUESTION-156 | Which published models of concept combination reproduce overextension by dropping conjunction-as-meet, and which by dropping an order-preserving membership weight? | What remains of THEORY-255’s former promote_when after its promotion. In any lattice with an order-preserving membership weight, conjunction as meet cannot overextend. So every model that reproduces Hampton’s guppy-type items drops one of the two. Aerts drops the meet with an emergent subspace. Which assumption the other models drop, Busemeyer and Bruza’s (LIT-316, unavailable) and Franco’s among them, has not been read. | Open |
| QUESTION-157 | Do networks trained on factored sequence processes other than Mess3 and Bloch Walk factors, or under an objective other than next-token prediction, also settle near the factored dimension in per-factor subspaces, and what loss gap does the factored representation pay when noise makes it lossy? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-256, moved here unchanged when THEORY-256 was narrowed to the transformers and processes tested and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). The embedding theorem is settled. Whether the training behaviour holds beyond one synthetic family and one objective, and what the lossy case costs, has not been measured. | Open |
| QUESTION-158 | Does gradient descent on a two-layer network, without a spectral initialization or a data split, recover direction k of a scale-free hierarchical multi-index target at n = Θ(a_k^(−2) d) samples and attain the optimal weighted error, and do the same thresholds hold for an input law that is not isotropic Gaussian? | The condition formerly on THEORY-283, moved here unchanged when THEORY-283 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The thresholds and rates are proved for the Bayes-optimal and spectral estimators, and for a network whose first layer is the spectral estimator. Whether gradient descent reaches them, or whether they survive a second input law, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-159 | Does an exact train-then-predict identity, of the kind proved for unnormalized linear attention and for softmax attention, hold for further sequence-layer classes such as delta-rule or mini-batch inner updates, and is there a standard attention layer whose dependence on its context admits no description as any learner’s train-then-predict step? | The scope test formerly in THEORY-169’s promote_when, moved here unchanged when THEORY-169 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The identities are proved for unnormalized causal linear attention (one batch gradient step of a linear model from zero) and for softmax attention (kernel regression that stores the context). Whether the pattern reaches other layer classes, or is bounded by one, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-160 | Does the heat kernel of a metric tree satisfy the Hellinger Hölder and separation bounds of the multiscale hyperbolic diffusion theorem, with which Hölder exponent, and when does the diffusion operator of sampled data approximate a latent tree’s heat kernel? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-478, moved here unchanged when THEORY-478 was narrowed on 2026-10-19 to the conditional equivalence under two Hellinger bounds, with the admissible range α < θ/β. Whether a metric tree’s heat kernel meets those bounds, with which θ, and whether sampled data yield such a kernel, is not settled by anything the record holds. | Open |
| QUESTION-161 | Do trained language models learn in context by implicit Bayesian inference over a latent concept: do their in-context predictions track the posterior predictive of a latent-concept mixture fitted to their pretraining data, or carry a readable posterior that concentrates as the theorems say? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-614, moved here unchanged on 2026-10-19. THEORY-614’s title is a conditional theorem about the pretraining distribution under exact fit, and it says that whether trained networks learn in context this way is not shown. The old condition asked for evidence on exactly that disclaimed point, so it is a question in its own right. | Open |
| QUESTION-162 | In hyperbolic neural networks on tree-like data, does the advantage over Euclidean networks go with the Möbius bias translations and the distance-based output layer, the only operations through which curvature acts, or do networks without them keep it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-566, moved here unchanged when THEORY-566 was promoted on 2026-10-19 on its structural claim. That the curvature of Ganea et al.’s networks acts only through two operations is settled; whether their gains on tree-like data come from those two operations is untested, since no ablation removes either. | Open |
| QUESTION-163 | Do Blackwell-equivalent representations of trained networks carry different stitching penalties under the paper’s own protocol, by more than the spread across stitching seeds and top networks, or does an independent treatment relate stitching to the comparison of experiments? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-176, moved here unchanged when THEORY-176 was promoted on 2026-10-19. That Blackwell-equivalent representations can stitch differently is shown by a constructed example. Whether they do, by a measurable margin, in trained networks under the paper’s protocol is untested. | Open |
| QUESTION-164 | Does the law of balance hold in a deep network trained on real data during its limiting dynamics: for parameter groups related by a rescaling symmetry, does the difference of squared norms move toward the value where the groups’ gradient-noise traces are equal, at a rate that scales with learning rate over batch size? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-211, moved here unchanged when THEORY-211 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19 to the SDE model in which the law of balance is proved. Whether the law holds for a deep network trained on real data is not shown; the tests are small synthetic networks. | Open |
| QUESTION-165 | On the Random Hierarchy Model, is the number of examples a deep network needs set by when patch-label correlations become detectable, or by the size of the grammar, once the two are separated by moving the correlations with n_c, m and L fixed? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-195, moved here unchanged when THEORY-195 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19 to what the experiments measured. In the model as given, the correlation threshold and the grammar’s size are the same expression, n_c m^L, so the measurements cannot say which one sets the number of examples. | Open |
| QUESTION-166 | Does the depth law of deep linear networks hold from starts off the decoupled set: learning time, counted in iterations at the stable step size, bounded in depth when every mode’s initial end-to-end gain is of order one, and growing as a power of 1/ε when it is ε, for random orthogonal or small random weights not aligned with the task’s singular vectors? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-187, moved here unchanged when THEORY-187 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The depth law is exact for decoupled, balanced starts on whitened inputs. Whether it holds from random orthogonal or small random weights is supported by one MNIST experiment and an argument from dynamical isometry, not derived. | 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-168 | Does the ℓ₁ recovery transition of some non-Gaussian measurement ensemble provably converge to the Gaussian curve ρ(δ) as N → ∞, or do simulations an order of magnitude beyond N = 1600 keep the gap shrinking as N^(−1/2) for an ensemble not used to choose that exponent? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 025, ADR-047 v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-391 to what Donoho and Tanner measured. In 2,948,000 optimizations at N = 200, 400 and 1600, eight non-Gaussian ensembles approached the Gaussian curve, consistent with N^(−1/2) gaps. Whether that agreement is a limit theorem is THEORY-391’s former promote_when, moved here unchanged. | Open |
| QUESTION-169 | On a contested shared canvas, do lasting artworks as a population receive sustained overwrites and repairs, and does adding interaction features make coalition survival predictable early? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-216, moved here when THEORY-216 was narrowed to what Wu and Silva measured on the 2017 r/place log and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-1032 shows persistence under attack in ten illustrated lifecycles and low early predictability from four coalition-state features. How common the first is, and whether the second is in the dynamics or in the feature set, are untested. | Open |
| QUESTION-170 | When no single setting of a regulator is stable in every environment it may meet, must any system that comes to keep its essential variables within limits carry a channel from those variables to the parameters of its regulation, whether or not it adapts by trial and error? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 032, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-324. Ashby’s necessity was re-derived for systems that follow the trial-and-error rule, where it is close to definitional. The former promote_when asked it of any system that comes to keep its essential variables within limits, which is wider. This question holds that wider form. | Open |
| QUESTION-171 | Do volume-maximizing joint-embedding objectives prefer equal-sized clusters as they are actually trained, and does the preference cost semantic transfer on naturally long-tailed data? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-306, moved here when THEORY-306 was narrowed to MSN’s and SwAV’s explicit prior and one study’s imbalanced-batch measurement, and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-231 reaches the same prior for VICReg only through an informal reduction of a simplified loss to K-means, and for SimCLR only through a cited equivalence. Its imbalance experiment uses two to eight ImageNet classes per batch, not a natural long tail. | Open |
| QUESTION-172 | Does a transient change to one regulator, released with the environment held fixed, leave a bacterium’s other genes in a changed expression state for many generations once slow return is excluded? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-178, moved here when THEORY-178 was narrowed to the Boolean model ensemble it was shown in and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-854 predicts lasting expression changes after a transient single-gene perturbation of E. coli’s regulatory core, but no such perturbation has been done in cells. Filed under the nucleating-argument line because CLAIM-184, the claim that grounds on THEORY-178, reads it as evidence about what a lasting state needs. | Open |
| QUESTION-173 | Does the free-riding structure of truth-and-obstinacy debate survive with more than two debaters or with strategies richer than fixed, memoryless premise and conclusion rules? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-290, moved here when THEORY-290 was narrowed to the two-debater, three-proposition model it was computed in and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-966 finds that debaters who value true belief but pay to revise free-ride on one another’s bold arguments, in a model with two players and fixed, memoryless strategies. Whether the structure holds for groups, or for debaters who can target a partner’s false beliefs, is not shown. | Open |
| QUESTION-174 | Outside finite alphabets, is a variable-rate covering argument, rather than a change of measure alone, what yields data-dependent PAC-Bayes bounds? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 036, ADR-047 v2) promoted THEORY-263. Its second clause was re-derived in general spaces by the disintegrated change of measure, with no coding argument. The former promote_when also asked for a second source deriving a PAC-Bayes bound from a variable-rate covering outside finite alphabets; this question holds that request. | Open |
| QUESTION-175 | From generic small initialization, does gradient flow on a symmetrized Barlow Twins loss with a linear or fixed-kernel model follow the aligned trajectory, learning the top eigenvectors one at a time in order of eigenvalue? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 036, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-229 to initialization aligned with the top eigenvectors. Simon et al.’s Result 4.6, for generic small initialization, is an informal derivation; the former promote_when asked for its proof, and this question holds it. | Open |
| QUESTION-176 | Do networks trained by gradient descent on a mixture of random facts and a second domain reach the capacity-optimal allocation, so that their threshold size and mixing ratio are the optimal learner’s? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 036, ADR-047 v2 and v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-293. The theorem about the optimal capacity-bounded learner was re-derived, and Gu et al.’s Pythia runs were accepted as showing a threshold. That the trained networks’ thresholds are the optimal learner’s was the former promote_when, and this question holds it. | 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-179 | Is the latent-variable MDL bound of Theorem 4 in Sefidgaran et al. non-vacuous for a trained encoder, with a type-III symmetric prior that does not use the ghost data? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 038, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-238. The constant in Theorem 4 was re-derived and the bound holds as stated. The former promote_when also asked whether the bound is small for a real network, which the account does not claim. This question holds that request. | Open |
| QUESTION-180 | Does the rate-distortion function of an optimisation trajectory given its sample, with the coupling coefficient M bounded or estimated and the 4Lε term kept, account for the generalisation of trained networks? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 038) narrowed and promoted THEORY-266, Theorem 7 of LIT-233, on its proof. The former promote_when asked for an evaluation that would settle whether the trajectory’s compressibility given the sample accounts for generalisation. That is more than the theorem says. This question holds it. | Open |
| QUESTION-181 | Do trained networks follow the continually renormalized gradient flow toward neural collapse under MSE loss, and does the classifier stay near the least-squares classifier of its features outside Han, Papyan and Donoho’s settings? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 038, ADR-047 v2 and v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-278 to LIT-974’s measured cells and its renormalized model. The former promote_when asked whether ordinary training follows that model’s dynamics, and whether the central path holds in settings the paper did not test. This question holds both. | 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-184 | Do real groups whose members update by averaging reach a settled estimate that moves away from the truth as the largest influence weight grows, as DeGroot’s model predicts? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 036, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-321 to the theorem within DeGroot’s model for a strongly connected society. The former promote_when asked for a case outside the model; this question holds it, together with a check of the theorem for societies with several closed groups. | Open |
| QUESTION-185 | When does the information bottleneck’s first global transition between a lattice block and its far environment coincide with the point where the uninformative encoder loses stability, and is the first feature the leading excited transfer-matrix mode beyond the Ising check? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-205, widened. THEORY-205 was narrowed to the point where the uninformative IB encoder loses stability, β = (λ0/λ1)^(2L_B), and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v2). The global threshold, where the uninformative encoder stops being optimal, is 1/s*. It can come earlier, as it does on a skewed 3-state chain. In the circumference-3 Ising check the two agree. | Open |
| QUESTION-186 | In a second system with a known reciprocal coupling and one unit driven at graded strengths, does the measured transfer-entropy asymmetry grow to one-way flow under strong drive while the coupling stays symmetric? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-275, moved here when THEORY-275 was narrowed to the one bead system of LIT-947 and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). In that system the one-way regime under strong drive is a simulation of the fitted model, not a measurement. | Open |
| QUESTION-187 | Does greedy layered search on the graph HNSW actually builds take expected O(log N) distance computations to a stated recall, under a stated condition on the data such as bounded doubling dimension? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-365, moved here when THEORY-365 was narrowed to what LIT-1098 measured and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). The paper derives O(log N) search only for exact Delaunay layers of bounded degree. It measures logarithmic scaling only at d = 8 and saturating ef only at d = 4, and at d = 128 its scaling departs from a logarithm. | Open |
| QUESTION-188 | Is delete-and-rederive correct for recursive Datalog views with stratified negation and aggregation, and how large is its overestimate of deletions against the deletions actually needed? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 042, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-387. Theorem 7.1 of Gupta, Mumick and Subrahmanian (LIT-1114) was re-derived for positive recursive Datalog under set semantics. The paper asserts the extension to stratified negation and aggregation and leaves its proof to an unseen 1992 report; it measures no overestimate. This question holds both. | 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-191 | Does the per-step nostalgia of a driven system without feedback fail to bound its dissipation when the drive is not Markov or the kernel does not keep each equilibrium stationary, and does any physical system show dissipation tracking nonpredictive information? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-026, with the part met removed. THEORY-026 was promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v2) on a derivation that the per-step nostalgia I[s_t;x_t] − I[s_t;x_{t+1}] is nonnegative under a Markov drive and, summed, bounds dissipation from below when the kernel keeps each equilibrium stationary. What is left is whether the bound fails when either condition is dropped, and a physical system. | Open |
| QUESTION-192 | Does lazy-regime training leave the within-class variability of a network’s features at its initial value beyond one-dimensional, zero-bias, two-class data, where the tangent and initialization kernels are not proportional? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-294. THEORY-294 was narrowed to Kothapalli and Tirer’s Theorem 5.1 and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v2): for a wide two-layer ReLU network with zero bias on one-dimensional data whose classes lie on opposite sides of the origin, the tangent kernel is a constant multiple of the initialization kernel, so NC1 is unchanged. Whether lazy training leaves NC1 in place where the kernels are not proportional is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-193 v2 | Does sign descent provably delay each weaker skill until the stronger one is learned when a loss’s eigendirections are misaligned with the coordinates, and does changing only the optimizer turn a trained network’s simultaneous skill onsets into a sequence? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-253. THEORY-253 was narrowed to what Liu, Liu, Michaud, Gore and Tegmark measured in their Geometry model and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3): skills progress together under gradient descent and in sequence under sign descent, with the ratio of onset times saturating at 2, and on a rotated quadratic only when the eigendirections are misaligned with the coordinates. That is simulation. A derivation, and a test on a trained network, are open. | Open |
| QUESTION-194 | How far is a periodic greedy that switches a capped number of page fragments between caching and materializing, to keep the share of fresh fragments served above a threshold, from the best plan that meets the same threshold? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-382. THEORY-382 was promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3) on what Labrinidis and Roussopoulos measured: in one synthetic simulation with fixed costs, their OVIS greedy tracked the freshness threshold, answered faster than caching alone and recovered from overload. No run compares it with the best plan, and its optimality under the cap is asserted, not proved. | 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-196 | Does Thresholdout keep every one of m adaptively chosen statistical queries within τ of its true mean, with probability 1 − β, on a holdout whose size grows only logarithmically in m, as Dwork and co-authors’ Theorem 11 states? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 044, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-318 to the two results the record has re-derived: max-information bounds the chance of overfitting, and ε-differential privacy bounds max-information. The holdout clause, and the former promote_when’s request for the deferred proofs, are held here. | Open |
| QUESTION-197 | Is there a variant of the Döring–Isham rules, or of the context category, under which tensor-product composites of quantum systems satisfy the translation condition? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 044, ADR-047 v2) proved, for finite dimensions, the failure that THEORY-585 had held as asserted: along a tensor product the pull-back of a non-scalar quantity disagrees with the composite’s quantity at some context, and no operator realises it. The former promote_when’s refutation route, a variant of the rules that repairs the composite, is held here. | Open |
| QUESTION-198 | Does the O(σ²) gap between the kernel and Shannon relative entropies hold for translation-invariant kernels on the torus beyond the exponential Fourier family, and on other compact spaces? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 043, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-313 to the kernel family Bach (2022) works out. The former promote_when asked for a confirmation of the O(σ²) gap beyond the torus; this question holds it. | Open |
| QUESTION-199 | Does the training fraction at which networks summing two learned embeddings generalise follow the fraction at which the training set’s same-answer equations leave only translation and scale free, across group sizes? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 043, ADR-047 v2 and v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-181 to the zero-loss injective model and to the one size Liu et al. measured. The former promote_when asked for the multi-size test; this question holds it. | 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-201 | Do random patterns stored by the Hebbian outer-product rule stay attractors with basins of nonzero width up to a load near 0.14N at large N, does recall then collapse for every pattern at once, and at what overlap do two stored patterns fuse? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-272. THEORY-272 was narrowed to Hopfield’s 1982 simulations at N = 30 and 100 and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Whether the capacity, collapse and fusion it measured hold at large N is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-202 | Does neural collapse hold outside its first protocol, under augmentation, label noise, class imbalance and several seeds per setting, and does gradient descent on cross-entropy provably reach it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-083, moved here when THEORY-083 was narrowed to the runs Papyan, Han and Donoho plotted and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Those runs had balanced classes, no augmentation, dropout removed and one plotted run per learning rate. Whether collapse holds outside that protocol, and why training reaches it, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-203 | How does the average degree of the S¹ hidden-metric model flow under geometric coarse-graining when the closure fails between nearby supernodes, and does an exact ν(γ, β, r) confirm or move the phase boundaries γ = 3 and β = 2? | The degree-flow part of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-190. THEORY-190 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) narrowed to what was proved: the coarse-grained link probability tends to the S¹ form as the supernodes’ separation grows, and exceeds it between nearby supernodes. The source’s flow of ⟨k⟩ as r^ν, and its phase boundaries, rest on the closure holding at every separation and on a power-law approximation. | Open |
| QUESTION-204 v4 | Does a macro description’s effective-information advantage survive when the same intervention distribution over micro states is used at both levels, and does the EI-optimal level agree with an independent interventionist test of which level the effects track? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-222. THEORY-222 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) to the statement about effective information that holds by construction. With uniform interventions imposed separately at each level, a macro description can have higher EI than the micro one. Whether that gain survives a single intervention distribution, and whether the EI peak marks where causation happens, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-205 | Inside Kadanoff’s kernel families, where each hidden spin couples to a block through a kernel of fixed form, does the exact trace condition force the coarse Hamiltonian to keep the relevant operators, or does some further stated condition still have to choose them? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-202. THEORY-202 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2): over general Boltzmann machines, neither a matched partition function nor Kadanoff’s exact trace condition fixes which variables a coarse-graining keeps. Its second counterexample needs visible–visible couplings, so it lies outside Kadanoff’s kernel families. Whether the trace condition suffices inside those families is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-206 | Does stochastic gradient noise drive training into a mirror-symmetric subspace where it is a saddle, beyond the second-order, diagonal-Hessian argument, and does a trained network’s distance to that subspace fall to zero past a threshold set by noise and curvature? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-213. THEORY-213 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) to the exact half of Ziyin’s Theorem 1: a mirror symmetry’s subspace is invariant under gradient training, and weight decay above half the lower bound on the Hessian puts every minimum in it. The SGD half, attraction to the subspace even at a saddle, rests on a diagonal approximation and is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-207 | Without choosing checkpoints on the unseen pairs, does coverage of combinations still beat volume for compositional generalization, in a second architecture or with more than two concepts? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-117. THEORY-117 was narrowed to what Uselis, Dittadi and Oh measured and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3), with a determination result the record re-derived: from-scratch ResNet-50s on two-concept grids, with checkpoints chosen on the unseen pairs, reach unseen combinations as coverage grows and not under up to four times more data of the same combinations. Whether that survives honest model selection, another architecture or more concepts is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-208 | Does the expected structure function of a computable i.i.d. source match its distortion-rate function, with the right-hand step of Grünwald and Vitányi’s Theorem 6.27 filled in? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 050, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-244 to the entropy and mutual-information bridges, which it re-derived. The distortion-rate bridge rests on a step in Theorem 6.27 that the reading found asserted, so it left the title. The former promote_when’s clause for it is held here. | 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-212 | Does a one-off random shock to a prediction-market price persist for weeks on other platforms and at real-money stakes, and do the traders come to believe the shocked price? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 050, ADR-047 v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-267 to what Rasooly and Rozzi measured on Manifold. The former promote_when asked for a second randomised experiment elsewhere, or a design that measures traders’ beliefs; this question holds it. | Open |
| QUESTION-213 | In which causal systems would the effect still occur had a higher-level property been realized differently, and how would an intervention show it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-133. THEORY-133 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) as a result inside List and Menzies’s difference-making account: a higher-level property that makes a difference is the cause, and its realizer is not, exactly when in some nearest situation the property is realized differently and the effect still occurs. Which systems meet that condition is the open part. | 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-215 | Does Landauer’s bound hold without assuming reversible microdynamics, and does any logically reversible operation have a positive entropy floor? | The open part of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-030. THEORY-030 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) on a derivation that assumes the memory and its environment evolve reversibly together and start uncorrelated. Whether the bound survives without that assumption (the Earman–Norton charge that it is circular), what Landauer 1961 itself states, and whether any logically reversible step has a positive floor are 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-217 v2 | When a learning system is said to go from coarse to fine, do the order in which its representations refine one another, the order of their relevance to a task and the order in which training acquires them admit one common chain, and under what conditions on the learning operator? | A1 and A2 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes. The record already holds that “coarse to fine” names different things: an order in training time by singular value (THEORY-186), an order in noise (THEORY-199), and a sample-complexity result in which every level arrives at once (THEORY-195). No entry separates refinement, relevance and acquisition as three relations and asks when they agree. An answer is a theorem giving sufficient conditions for a common chain, or a minimal family of counterexamples. | Open |
| QUESTION-218 v2 | Can a collective mode that is dynamically closed, but is not a weakly coupled block of the units carrying it, be one system, and if so what should a boundary test take as the unit: a subset of members or a function of the whole state? | A5 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, its candidate Q2: “Does organizational unity require a subsystem boundary, or can it arise from a dynamically closed collective mode distributed across multiple otherwise entangled subsystems?” CLAIM-388 shows the two come apart; CASE-120 is the construction. The question is which of them the record’s “one system” should track. | Open |
| QUESTION-219 | Can a persistent pattern of transfer through a system, kept while its constituents are replaced, pick out a unit that neither a block test nor a closed collective mode finds, and what separates such organized throughput from mere transport? | A3 and A5 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, A5’s candidate Q4. Turbulence has scale-local transfer across a range of interacting scales with no split into weakly coupled blocks (Eyink and Aluie, registered unread). A5 distinguished containment, mode and flux as three kinds of organization, and warned that persistent flux alone, as through an inertial range, is not an individual. The record holds dissipative structures (THEORY-072, THEORY-532, CLAIM-273, QUESTION-085) but has not set flux beside its block and closure tests. | Open |
| QUESTION-220 v3 | Given that information-bottleneck optima at two budgets need not be nested, what condition on P(X, Y), beyond Y a function of X or X and Y both binary, guarantees that the coarser optimum is a (possibly noisy) function of the finer, X → Z₂ → Z₁, and how much is lost by forcing nesting when it fails? | A2 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, which called it “the most consequential missing bridge”. A hierarchy of optimal abstractions needs more than an optimum at each budget: it needs the optima to be compatible. NOTE-676 gets nesting by restricting the encoder to prunings of a fixed tree; nothing in the record says when it holds without that restriction. Rate–distortion theory’s answer is successive refinability (Equitz and Cover, registered unread). | Open |
| QUESTION-221 v3 | Does near-decomposability bound dynamical dependence: when the coupling into a block from the rest of the system is at most ε, is the dynamical dependence of the block’s aggregate small to a stated order in ε? | A5 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, its candidate Q1 and its “most valuable near-term result”. THEORY-661 says near-decomposability gives approximate closure of block aggregates over the long run, by coupling strength, and THEORY-733 characterizes exact closure for linear Gaussian VARs. No entry bounds the one by the other. CLAIM-388 shows that the converse fails: a closed aggregate need not be a weakly coupled block. | Open |
| QUESTION-222 v4 | Beyond the scalar linear Gaussian case and the deterministic case of a fast, contracting eliminated variable, when a coarse variable’s reduced dynamics carry memory of the eliminated variables, does it admit a finite-dimensional Markovian augmentation whose prediction error is bounded in terms of the eliminated dynamics, and is a level whose history, not its present state, does the predicting still a level? | A3 and A5 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, A5’s candidate Q3. The Mori–Zwanzig decomposition writes any projected dynamics as a Markovian term, a memory term and noise. The record holds no reading of it. Its criteria of closure (THEORY-257) condition on the coarse variable’s own history, so memory is not by itself a failure of them, and CLAIM-327 already locates a collective in a variable members read from the past. | Open |
| QUESTION-223 | Is Ince’s common change in surprisal a correct redundancy measure: is it continuous, does it agree with a redundancy fixed by mechanism where rivals with non-negative atoms do not, may unique information depend on the source-source marginal, and can a modified sign rule restore subset equality? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 056, ADR-047 v2) corrected and promoted THEORY-714. What I_ccs is and which axioms it keeps is now settled, including that it fails subset equality. Whether it is the right redundancy measure is not: that was the old promote_when, and it moves here. | Open |
| QUESTION-224 | Is Bruno and Chaudhuri’s single-index online tuner within some constant, such as 3 + 2f, of the offline optimum on every workload whose per-statement savings and losses are at most a fraction f of the build cost? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-332. THEORY-332 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) for the lower bound its construction proves: with every step at most fB, Online-SI can cost nearly 3 + 2f times the optimum, and one step above B makes the ratio unbounded. Whether any constant bounds it from above on such workloads is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-225 | Are why-provenance and, for traceable queries, where-provenance preserved by Buneman, Khanna and Tan’s rewrite system, and is traceability necessary for where-provenance to be preserved? | Formerly part of THEORY-367’s title. THEORY-367 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) for what is re-derived: minimal witnesses are invariant across equivalent SPJU queries, and where-provenance is not. Whether the paper’s rewrite system preserves why- and where-provenance, and whether traceability is necessary, is 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-227 | Does the widen-on-push, narrow-on-fetch rule for a cached interval’s width converge to within a stated factor of the best fixed width, and does it hold its cost against the best fixed width and an adaptive cache-or-not rule on data other than its authors’ traces? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-377. THEORY-377 was narrowed to Olston, Loo and Widom’s simulations and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Whether their width-setting rule converges, and whether it holds up on other data, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-228 | Run on real systems, does Kenton et al.’s interventional procedure give the verdicts its definition of agency predicts, for a thermostat with and without its design process, an RL policy with and without its training loop, and a human, and does it separate an accidentally optimal input-output system from an agent where a compression test does not, under a principled choice of variables? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-527. THEORY-527 was narrowed to Kenton et al.’s recovery theorem, stated on their definition of agents, and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2). Whether that definition picks out agency, and whether the procedure can be run on real systems, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-229 | Does the critical delay of a delayed random Lotka–Volterra community still fall with diversity when self-regulation is weak and interactions set the leading eigenvalue, is its Hopf bifurcation supercritical, and is the divergent phase reported past it real under a stiff delay-equation solver? | The delay-half promotion condition formerly on THEORY-548. THEORY-548 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2 for the critical delay, v3 with a re-run against an averaging null for the variability). What it does not settle: the weak-self-regulation regime, whether the Hopf bifurcation is supercritical, and whether the divergent phase is real. | Open |
| QUESTION-230 | Do the released HNSW, NSG and fast-preprocessing DiskANN builds, run independently on Indyk and Xu’s published hard instances at the stated parameters, need a search queue of about a tenth of the points before recall@5 rises above zero, and does the same trap appear on natural data with adversarially chosen queries? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-368. THEORY-368 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3) for what Indyk and Xu’s one study measured. An independent replication on their instances, and the same test on natural data with adversarial queries, are open. | Open |
| QUESTION-231 | Does Coifman and Lafon’s α-normalized diffusion limit hold on a compact manifold with boundary, in L² on band-limited functions at a stated rate, and does the iterated operator P_{ε,α}^{t/ε} converge to the semigroup of the limit operator? | The boundary and semigroup halves of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-744. THEORY-744 was narrowed to compact manifolds without boundary and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2), with the source’s kernel expansion re-derived. What it does not settle: the limit near a boundary, at the rate the source prints, and the heat-kernel limit that the source’s Proposition 11 claims. | Open |
| QUESTION-232 | Does the coarse-graining that maximizes mutual information with the system beyond a buffer find the renormalization-group variables of a system where they were not known beforehand, and does it give short-ranged effective Hamiltonians in two or more dimensions? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-194, moved here when THEORY-194 was narrowed to what Koch-Janusz and Ringel measured on the 2D Ising and dimer models and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Every 2D case in that study had a known answer, and the link to a short-ranged effective Hamiltonian is proved only for 1D and quasi-1D chains. | Open |
| QUESTION-233 | Do language models show the data-limited exponent γ/(2β) because data limits the usable horizon: does the exponent track γ/(2β) when one corpus statistic is moved and the other held, and does the match survive at horizons of thousands of tokens with γ estimated outside the model class? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 062, ADR-047 v2 and v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-204. That the fitted data-limited exponent matches γ/(2β) on TinyStories and WikiText-103, and that assumed per-lag scaling forms give min(δ, γ/(2β)), is settled. Whether real learners show the exponent for the horizon reason was the old promote_when, and it moves here. | Open |
| QUESTION-234 v3 | Do interchange interventions leave the mediating direction underdetermined in trained networks: do two basis-related alignments in a trained model tie on every interchange drawn from the data, and for which networks are alignments that agree on all such interventions unique up to a stated symmetry? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 062, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-243 to what the constructed three-unit network proves: two basis-related alignments tie on every interchange intervention on the input. Whether such ties occur in trained networks, or are ruled out for some class up to a symmetry, was the old promote_when, and it moves here. | Open |
| QUESTION-235 | When looking and holding are priced independently and timed per person, do people still prefer re-fetching information that stays in view where it costs more total time? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-334, moved unchanged when that account was narrowed to what Ballard et al. (1997) observed in block copying and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Open: whether holding information carries a cost beyond time, as Ballard et al. infer, or people’s choices follow total time, as Gray et al.’s model (THEORY-346) does. | Open |
| QUESTION-236 | Does fixed-feature transfer to new classes fall as penultimate class separation rises outside ImageNet-trained ResNet-50s, and does it move with within-class spread when the loss is held fixed? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-246, moved unchanged when that account was narrowed to what Kornblith et al. (2021) measured and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Open: whether the inverse relation between penultimate class separation and new-class transfer holds in other pretraining settings, and whether separation, rather than the loss, is what moves transfer. | Open |
| QUESTION-237 | Does semantic caching keep its ordering against page caching once probe and remainder computation and region upkeep are charged, or in an implemented client-server system? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-376, moved unchanged when that account was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 on the one simulation it rests on (ADR-047 v3). Open: whether semantic caching’s advantage survives charging the client for reasoning about what its cache holds. | Open |
| QUESTION-238 | Does database cracking keep its measured costs against a scan and an upfront sort in another implementation, measured over a long sequence of random range queries? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-333, moved unchanged when that account was promoted on 2026-10-20 on the one study it rests on (ADR-047 v3). Open: whether cracking’s measured first-query overhead, per-query convergence and break-even against sort-then-search hold outside Idreos, Kersten and Manegold’s MonetDB runs. | Open |
| QUESTION-239 | In the linearized operator model, is scoring operators against predictions committed before the evidence equivalent to Regime B’s independent scoring? | The formal sub-question QUESTION-121 asked of its third candidate, commitment before evidence. Split off under ADR-049 and answered No by CLAIM-340. The coupling of interpretation to endorsement is γ = 4ηs(κ′ − κ̄), so commitment removes capture only when the interpretation bends the reading of the evidence no more than it bends the predictions. Which source in one mind does the scoring stays with QUESTION-121. | Answered |
| 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-241 | In the coupled meaning–influence model linearized at its symmetric state, when is the symmetric state unstable, and does scoring endorsement independently of the interpretation remove the instability? | The linear part of QUESTION-100, split off under ADR-049 and answered by CLAIM-330. With each field stable alone and nonnegative couplings, the symmetric state is unstable exactly when βγ > (1 − α)(1 − δ). Only the loop can destabilize it, and independent scoring (γ ≈ 0) removes the instability. The nonlinear regime, and whether capture costs fidelity, stay with QUESTION-100. | Answered |
| QUESTION-242 | Does exact dynamical closure of an aggregate require a nearly decomposable block, or can a collective variable be exactly dynamically independent when no partition of the units is weakly coupled? | The converse half of QUESTION-221, split off under ADR-049 and answered by CLAIM-388: closure does not require a nearly decomposable block. In a linear Gaussian VAR(1) with uniform coupling, the sum of all units is exactly dynamically independent at every stable coupling strength, while every partition couples as strongly across its edges as within them. The forward bound stays with QUESTION-221. | Answered |
| QUESTION-243 | Does temporal information retention track causal propagation, do the ΦID criterion Ψ and dynamical independence agree, and does either of those two detect interaction among the parts or price the size of a feature? | The part of QUESTION-115 on what three of its criteria track, split off under ADR-049. No to all four. Retention measures read association, not propagation (THEORY-424). Ψ and dynamical independence diverge both ways, neither needs the parts to interact, and neither prices a feature’s size (THEORY-764). The joint search for boundary, timescale and macrostate, and its test on CASE-101, stay with QUESTION-115. | Answered |
| QUESTION-244 | Must the optimal representations of an information-bottleneck objective at two budgets be nested, so that the coarser optimum is a (possibly noisy) function of the finer? | The yes-or-no part of QUESTION-220, split off under ADR-049. No, for deterministic encoders (CLAIM-387) and for stochastic ones (CLAIM-392), on one four-state source with binary Y. Raising the budget can reorganize the optimum rather than split it. What condition on P(X, Y) guarantees nesting stays with QUESTION-220. | 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-248 | In a stable linear Gaussian VAR(1), does a scalar linear coarse variable whose reduced dynamics carry memory admit an exact finite-dimensional Markovian augmentation? | QUESTION-222 for the linear Gaussian class, split off under ADR-049 and answered by CLAIM-398. Yes: a scalar coarse variable Y = LX of a VAR(1) on ℝⁿ is an ARMA process of orders at most (n, n − 1). Its Mori–Zwanzig memory is non-zero at every lag in general, but finitely many coordinates, built from Y’s own past and innovations, carry it exactly. Other classes, error in terms of the eliminated spectrum, and the ruling on levels stay with QUESTION-222. | 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-250 | Can a macro description of a known mechanism have interventional autonomy, an effective-information advantage over its micro description, without organizational closure or self-individuation? | The part of QUESTION-093 that Hoel, Albantakis & Tononi settle, split off under ADR-049 and answered Yes by THEORY-222. With uniform interventions imposed separately at each level, a coarse-grained macro of a known discrete mechanism can have more effective information than its micro, in systems that maintain nothing and with a grouping an analyst chose. Which criteria a higher-level agent needs stays with QUESTION-093. | Answered |
| QUESTION-251 | Do the Johnson–Lindenstrauss threshold for distances and the k log(N/k) threshold for sparse recovery rest on one concentration-of-measure argument, a tail bound for each fixed vector’s norm with a union bound over a family, both for sufficiency and for necessity? | The part of QUESTION-120 its readings on distances and sparse recovery settle, split off under ADR-049. For sufficiency, yes: one per-vector tail and a union bound give both, over pairs for distances (THEORY-397) and over net points on every sparse support for recovery (THEORY-390). For necessity, no: the distance lower bounds are encoding and bit-counting arguments (THEORY-395, THEORY-399), recovery’s rests on Gelfand widths, and its sharp location on face counting (THEORY-391). Random features, superposition and expand-and-threshold stay with QUESTION-120. | Answered |
| QUESTION-252 v6 | For the conditions an effective description is asked to meet (predictive sufficiency for a declared target, dynamical independence of the omitted variables, memory closure under a declared projection, approximation fidelity in a declared metric and horizon, and tractability within a declared budget), which can fail while all the others hold, and which such configurations are impossible in which model classes? | The owner’s idea at U3 of the exchange of 2026-10-20: “what if we censor or negate each virtue one at a time? that reduces our combinations from n! to n.” A3 corrected the count (2ⁿ presence/absence configurations, not n!) and fixed five conditions, asking whether each leave-one-out case is realizable: “An impossible configuration is itself a substantive result.” The record holds pairwise non-implications only, none a leave-one-out witness: CLAIM-389 gives zero memory without independence in VAR(1), CLAIM-304 retention without feasible recovery. A4 and A5 then found that some conditions are parameters rather than conditions (CLAIM-401); that part is QUESTION-324, Answered. The same form as QUESTION-093 and QUESTION-115, on a new list. | Open |
| QUESTION-253 v5 | In the coupled meaning–authority model, is authority’s effect on what becomes legible as evidence a third channel beside β and γ, a slower variable with an instability condition of its own, or is it already the commitment regime’s κ′, how far the prevailing interpretation bends the reading of the evidence? | A22 §4 of the exchange of 2026-10-20, on the owner’s U22 (legibility): “Authority can affect not merely how evidence is interpreted, but which facts become legible enough to count as evidence at all.” A22’s own caption: “The additional legibility layer is not a separately validated dynamical model.” The record’s model has two arrows (CLAIM-330) and a weight on the reading of evidence (CLAIM-340). This asks whether legibility adds a third state or renames the weight. It is the place where the record’s mathematics can test the owner’s new concept. | Answered |
| QUESTION-254 v6 | What separates an interpretive organization that constitutes an experiential perspective from one that only processes information, or only represents a perspective, when the separation must not require an episode’s current contents to be veridically constrained by their referents, must not be drawn from the verdict it gives on groups and machines, and must justify the queries, interventions and timescales by which it individuates a perspective without appeal to the phenomenal unity it is meant to explain? | The question the exchange of 2026-10-21 ended each pass on. A3: “What differentiates an interpretation that merely processes information from an interpretation that constitutes a perspective?” A5 proposed it for this line. A6 sharpened it to a class of realized organizations “whose identity and unity are invariant under changes in sensory grounding”, distinguished from systems “that merely simulate or report the same interpretations”. The grounding condition is narrowed here to current veridical grounding, as CLAIM-413 states it, and the question asks for the targets of individuation to be justified too. It narrows QUESTION-046 to the constitutive thesis, CLAIM-412. An answer is that thesis’s missing sufficiency condition, which CLAIM-411 presses. | Open |
| QUESTION-255 v6 | Can an empirical model that genuinely fails to glue, under a specified cover and correspondence between its contexts, take part in one phenomenally unified process, given that a unified experience can contain conflicting interpretations or demands and that such conflicts are not by themselves gluing obstructions? | A7 §10 of the exchange of 2026-10-21, after A6 found a sheaf-theoretic account of global phenomenal unity. The record’s self line already reads a coherent self as a global section (CLAIM-153), and conflict without an overlap as no disunity (CLAIM-198). A7 denied that experiential unity is “the existence of one globally consistent assignment of interpretations”: “the conflict itself can be a unified experience”, and a global assignment “could exist in a merely descriptive model without any corresponding unified process”. A review of 2026-10-22 corrected the example: a felt conflict need not be a gluing failure, since one global state can hold both sides. The question is whether a model that genuinely fails to glue, under a cover and correspondence fixed independently, can be part of one unified experience. | Open |
| QUESTION-256 | What forms of continuity must a person keep to remain capable of governing changes in their own practical organization, and which of those forms can other processes, other people or the environment supply? | A26’s closing question in the exchange of 2026-10-22, drawn from the owner’s case of Clive Wearing (CASE-137). Wearing keeps skilled and short-horizon organization with almost no autobiographical continuity, and is sustained by others’ memory and routine. An answer would say which continuities self-governance needs (skill, short-horizon organization, autobiographical memory, experienced ownership of one’s past) and which can be held outside the person, as the extended mind holds a belief in Otto’s notebook. | Open |
| QUESTION-257 v2 | When an organizational perspective stops being enacted, what distinguishes a temporary loss of activation, a loss of the conditions for enacting it, an interruption of its social reproduction, and irreversible loss or later reconstruction, and what survives when a practice survives but the arrangements that authorized, interpreted and reproduced it do not? | From the branch of the exchange of 2026-10-22: A37’s elevated question and A39’s wording for the record, from the owner’s U37 on the doorway effect and the Cultural Revolution. CLAIM-421 separates kinds of interruption. This asks how to tell them apart in a case, and what returns after one. | Open |
| QUESTION-258 | Should a manuscript drawn from the record be chosen as a well-supported connected part of its argument, or as a smallest set of claims that changes what the argument can conclude, and what else must the choice preserve? | The owner’s question at U3 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: “whether manuscript assembly should optimize for a well-supported connected subgraph or for a minimal set of claims that changes the conclusions reachable from the existing graph”. A3 answered that both “fail as general definitions of manuscript value”. The record already says it does not generate manuscripts (CLAIM-178). This question asks what a choice of claims for one should optimize, and how to test that against the record’s own history. | Open |
| QUESTION-259 v2 | How do populations of heterogeneous processes generate, reproduce and transform organizational perspectives, and what further conditions let such a perspective become the object of its own effective governance? | A31’s successor to QUESTION-090, from the exchange of 2026-10-22, proposed “without overwriting its historical wording”. QUESTION-090 asks when a population of processes develops self-maintaining governance that acts coherently without suppressing its plurality. If the owner’s thesis that the record’s selves are organizational perspectives holds (CLAIM-417), that question splits in two: how perspectives arise and persist at all, and what more makes one self-governing. An answer would keep the two apart. | Open |
| QUESTION-260 | Under what conditions is an organizational perspective constitutive of an agent’s practical organization, rather than one of the perspectives that influence the agent, and can a perspective be agentic in its own right under the record’s competing criteria of agency? | A38’s closing question in the branch of the exchange of 2026-10-22, as A39 phrased it for the record. A martial tradition influences a fighter; a professional perspective influences an engineer, who can refuse it. When is a perspective the agent’s own, and when is it a resource or constraint the agent works through? It refines QUESTION-093, which asks what a coalition of processes needs before it is a higher-level agent. | Open |
| QUESTION-261 | When most members of a group privately reject a norm that a vocal minority and widespread silence make look overwhelmingly supported, does correcting information about the actual distribution of opinion dissolve the apparent consensus, or has the public norm by then acquired an institutional force that no longer depends on anyone believing it is supported? | A39’s “nonexistent consensus”, in the exchange of 2026-10-22, filed at the owner’s request as a question, not a case, because the answer is empirical and open. It refines QUESTION-119 from the members’ side: not when credit is due to a population credited with a stance, but whether a stance credited to it, and then built on, outlives the discovery that the population never held it. | Open |
| QUESTION-262 v4 | When cooperation across a relation’s prevailing perspective changes how one party takes the other, does it change only the state of that party’s interpretive organization or also its coupling, how far outcomes may revise the governing interpretation, and can taking part be told experimentally from receiving information of equal favourable content? | From the exchange of 2026-10-22, “Ben Franklin Effect Explained”, A5: “One could ask whether a perspectival invitation changes only the initial state of the system, or also changes the coupling parameters”. It refines the first half of QUESTION-259, how perspectives are generated and transformed, to one mechanism, CLAIM-430’s invitation, and one distinction, CLAIM-429’s state against coupling. | Open |
| QUESTION-263 | In two optically trapped beads with a symmetric hydrodynamic coupling and a recorded noise drive on one trap, do directional information measures between the beads follow the symmetry of the coupling? | The negative part of QUESTION-063, split off under ADR-049 at the owner’s request in the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, and answered by THEORY-275. No: in the one system LIT-947 studied, time-delayed mutual information and transfer entropy follow the path of the recorded drive, not the symmetry of the coupling. Whether any measurement or intervention tells shared drive from coupling, and what happens under an unrecorded drive shared by both units, stay with QUESTION-063. | Answered |
| QUESTION-264 | Under what conditions do the organization that determines what counts as meaningful, the organization that determines what becomes effective in action, and the organization that reproduces either one through time coincide, diverge, and reorganize one another? | From the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, A3, on the owner’s U3 about the framework’s value: “The organization that determines what counts as meaningful need not coincide with the organization that determines what becomes effective in action, nor with the organization that reproduces either one through time.” A3 proposed making the mismatch the explanandum, “under what conditions do those boundaries align, diverge, and reorganize one another?”, as a sharper focus for the manuscript than organizational perspective alone. | Open |
| QUESTION-265 | Is “psychopathic” a category error when said of a corporation, or can the construct, its affective features included, be assigned to a corporation functionally, and if so, what in a corporation would remorse, or its absence, be? | The owner’s question of 2026-10-23: how the record stands on “corporate psychopathy”, “qua treating the corporation as a sociopathic entity”. Bakan’s thesis (LIT-1430) is that the corporation is “created by law to function much like a psychopathic personality”. The record holds the readings the thesis needs on agency and responsibility (French, Pettit) and on group emotion (Huebner, List), but nothing on the clinical construct and no claim joining them. The question asks which reading of the thesis survives. | Open |
| 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 |
| QUESTION-270 v4 | When can an organization hold an evaluation that is accurate, a consummatory process registering that an outcome no longer pleases or a process whose belief keeps predicting well, and still deny it the authority to revise pursuit or the collective judgement, and how is that told apart from the evaluation’s not being recognized at all? | From the exchange of 2026-10-24 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U23–U25). The owner asked “where does hedonic drive fit into our model?” and then “we have an operational characterization of feeling, wanting, liking… how about belief?” Both answers ended on the same question: an evaluation that is right, registered, and not consequential. It joins CLAIM-437’s wanting and liking, CLAIM-403’s ladder from access to uptake, and CASE-124’s legibility. | Open |
| QUESTION-271 v3 | How can an organization evaluate its own processes so that the evaluation decides authority without being captured by it: when wins among the processes cycle, when no common scale scores them all, when the processes in charge can add, filter or duplicate the tests, and when only the processes heeded are evaluated? | Filed at the owner’s direction, 2026-10-24, with the registration of works from multi-agent reinforcement learning and learning in games, after the owner asked how the record stands on MARL. The governance line keeps returning to one gap: the scoring that allocates authority is itself governed. The replicator construction makes that gap a lock-in threshold, and BoostTheVote assumes it away with an objective metric. The question asks what evaluation procedures resist capture, and in which of four senses. | Open |
| 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-273 v2 | With one population of perspectives, do the three ways of giving them influence that the owner proposed (neighbourhoods in a space whose radii others can change, a shared channel into which they emit at rates, and a budget of passes or locations at which each may act on a common representation) produce different collective decision regimes, and how far does each mechanism’s nominal resource predict the counterfactual influence a perspective actually has? | The owner, at U33 of the exchange of 2026-10-24, continued. It is the third appearance of the owner’s own model: on 2026-10-13, U1 was “a population of denoisers, each of which has different reach, salience valuation, translation (motion across canvas) rate, influence strength” and U2 the influence canvas (CLAIM-285, TERM-053). Here three mechanisms are named. A33, A35 and A36 each took influence to be control over opportunities to modify a shared state, and separated nominal access, its use and its counterfactual effect. The owner took up the build from U37. | Open |
| QUESTION-274 v2 | Do two dictionaries of equal fidelity, trained on the same model with different seeds or widths, give the same validated circuit for the same prompt and behaviour, or is a feature circuit fixed only relative to the dictionary that supplies its units? | Feature circuits (sparse feature circuits, transcoder circuits, attribution graphs) are stated over the units of a learned dictionary. The dictionaries are not unique: features split and merge as the dictionary grows, and which concepts get a feature depends on their frequency relative to its size. Whether the circuit found for a behaviour survives a change of dictionary at equal fidelity is the question THEORY-802 asks of alignments, asked of dictionaries. No work the record holds has run the comparison. | Open |
| QUESTION-275 | Can the development of a transformer’s circuits in training be described as organizational regimes forming over shared, overlapping latent features, so that a model coupling feature allocation to circuit interaction, fitted to early checkpoints, predicts the effects of held-out training interventions that feature-only and circuit-only descriptions fitted to the same checkpoints miss? | The owner, at T24: “could we potentially apply this setup as an interpretive framework for understanding the learning dynamics of transformers?” “This setup” is the dynamic latent-feature model of T23 (CASE-165). The reply answered with a test: “Can the emergence, specialization, overlap, and persistence of transformer circuits be explained by modeling them as developing organizational regimes over shared latent features—and does that description predict training responses that existing feature- or circuit-based analyses miss?” It is the second time the owner has applied the record’s frameworks to a network in training. The first was CASE-113 and CLAIM-367, and CASE-117 is the population form. The sharp edge is CLAIM-427’s third grade: positive results would have to be prospective, against strong conventional baselines at matched complexity. Nothing here says that a circuit is a perspective. | Open |
| QUESTION-276 | How can overlapping higher-level perspectives be identified from the activity of the members who realize them, without being inserted into the model and without their number being fixed in advance, and told apart from coactivity that a common cause produces; and does a structure so inferred, such as a feature allocation under an Indian buffet prior or a nested topic hierarchy, predict an organization’s responses to interventions on its records, membership and authority better than its communication and authorization relations alone? | The owner’s T18 made employees the population from which an organization’s perspectives form, and QUESTION-259 asks how such populations generate perspectives. This asks the prior, methodological question: how one would know that they had. The Northstar simulation’s analyzer (CASE-166) found “candidate organizational modes” with the number of factors fixed, and its reply said they “could reflect shared environmental disturbances”. The owner’s answer, at T21 (“i wonder if something like hLDA might fit here”) and T22 (“maybe we could benefit from a restaurant process model, like an indian buffet model”), is a Bayesian nonparametric latent structure. Those are this question’s candidate methods, not its answer. It does not ask whether perspectives exist in firms. | Open |
| QUESTION-277 v5 | When formerly autonomous partners come to depend on one another, which of mutual dependence, reproductive cohesion, the distribution of essential functions across genomes, the host’s regulatory control and the alignment of selection does each route to dependence bring about, and which of them, alone or together, make the partnership a new evolutionary individual? | From the exchange of 2026-10-27 on the record’s coverage of reductive evolution and endosymbiosis. Dependence can come from selection for individual gene loss (LIT-1568), from drift in small symbiont populations (LIT-1573), from complementary loss across lineages (LIT-1565, LIT-1563) or from gene transfer and protein import (LIT-1557, LIT-1562). None of these is selection for the collective. Athreya et al. (LIT-1570) model dependence and cohesion as separate properties that evolve at different rates. An answer would say, route by route and on real systems, which properties each produces, and which of them a theory of individuality must require. All the works cited are filed unread. | Open |
| QUESTION-278 | When several institutions can together produce an outcome, what relations among them must hold for a challenge to it to produce authorized, timely and effective correction, without their forming one collective agent? | A9 of the exchange of 2026-10-26, from the USIP, CECOT and East Wing cases. QUESTION-041 asks what channels from a whole’s members keep its course correctable; CLAIM-422 separates a correction from a maintained capacity to correct, inside one organization. This asks the same across institutions with different powers, interests and jurisdictions, where correction may need several of them and none governs the rest. An answer names relations that could be checked in a case and could fail. | Open |
| QUESTION-279 v3 | What would certify that no remedy is available to an institutional arrangement, rather than that its present procedures failed to find, authorize or carry one out before the deadline? | A10 of the exchange of 2026-10-26, on the owner’s U10: the correctability frontier “reminds me of the ‘if I can’t find it, it isn’t there’ stuff. let’s poke out the resource-boundedness here.” CLAIM-312 holds that a failed search establishes unavailability, and absence only with a certificate that the unsearched remainder cannot hold the item. An institution’s “we cannot” is the same statement about remedies, and a court must decide whether to accept it. An answer says what such a certificate would be for a remedy, and who can issue it. | Open |
| QUESTION-280 | Can the independence of individuals be approximately true of a world in which individuals are relationally constituted, as Newtonian mechanics is approximately true of a quantum world, or do some ontological features resist approximation however well a system is decoupled? | Jaksland’s question (LIT-1673, read in NOTE-1230), as A6 §5B gave it at the owner’s U6 request for “Rasmus Jaksland’s thoughts”, and as A9 §11 kept it against the exchange’s own synthesis (“Jaksland’s objection remains”). The record’s block criterion (CLAIM-157) measures how far a system is decoupled, which is graded; whether that grade is a grade of independence, or only of operational separability, is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-281 | By which dynamical transitions do the distinctions individuation needs come into being and pass away (instability that amplifies small differences, nucleation across a finite barrier from a locally stable state, bifurcation of the set of attractors, noise- or rate-induced tipping), and are a form’s creation, its stabilization and its coming to have a constitutive role three separate achievements? | The owner’s U14 of the exchange of 2026-10-27: “does this elucidate other work we should account for? maybe in the neighborhood of dynamics? bifurcation/catastrophe theory? far from equilibrium dynamics? pattern formation?” A14 found the record well stocked on Turing, Prigogine and Cross–Hohenberg and named the gap as what comes after an instability. It ended on “the mechanisms that create a form, the mechanisms that stabilize it, and the mechanisms through which it acquires a constitutive or autonomous role. Those may turn out to be three different achievements.” The record’s individuation claims say when a form is one system and how long it lasts (QUESTION-035); none says how it begins or ends. An answer names, for a stated system, the transition that made the form and the one that would unmake it. | Open |
| QUESTION-282 | Under what conditions do interactions change the physically operative correspondence structure among systems (the compatibility operator itself, not only the states it relates), rather than merely reveal it to a measurement or redescribe it in a model? | Raised at the owner’s review of the pull request that filed the exchange “Field Existence Question”, which called it “one of the genuinely unfinished parts of the program”. The formal results the record now holds take the correspondence structure as input. A sheaf’s restriction maps, a gauge connection, a port condition and a Laplacian are given, and the mathematics says what follows. CLAIM-471’s strong thesis is that interactions can make or change that structure. Only one model the record has read changes it through interaction, and there agreement is reached by learning to lie. The question asks for conditions under which the operative structure changes, with a way to tell that change from discovery and from redescription. | Open |
| QUESTION-283 | Can composing systems create an effective structure whose adequate specification needs a richer relational vocabulary than the parts needed separately (relations of higher arity, history, or a new kind) and, if so, under what conditions, and is the new vocabulary forced by the composite or only by the restricted class of descriptions in use? | Raised at the owner’s review of the pull request, which called it the result most worth preserving and asked that it “become a major research question”. Hansen and Ghrist show that eliminating an interior vertex of a cellular sheaf can leave a three-way boundary relation, v₁ = v₂ + v₃, that no sheaf on the boundary’s pairwise edges expresses (THEORY-1090; CLAIM-480). For scalar networks reduction stays pairwise. The question asks when composition forces a change in the type of relational structure an adequate description needs. It also asks whether that is a fact about the composite or about the class of descriptions, and whether the same thing is what happens when a record’s relation scheme cannot express what a composed organization requires. | Open |
| QUESTION-284 | In any domain, when do the constraints on an entity’s relations only characterize an entity individuated without them, and when do they partly constitute its identity, its boundary or what it can do; and are a boundary a process detects, one it maintains and one it constitutes three different things? | Asked three times in the exchange of 2026-10-27 (A5 §5, A6 §8, A10 §8) once the owner had set the record’s scope as unrestricted (U6). It is QUESTION-030’s question for communicative acts, asked without a domain, with A5’s split of boundaries into detected, dynamically maintained and constituted. CLAIM-477 answers it in general and only in part; an answer says, for a stated kind, what evidence would tell constitution from characterization and from ordinary causal modification. | Open |
| QUESTION-285 | What organization turns an interaction into a measurement, a measurement into a record that something uses, and observation into inquiry, without a conscious investigator; and what keeps an apparatus that revises its own discriminations answerable to what it did not produce? | The owner’s U19 of the exchange of 2026-10-27: “let’s double click on the relationship between inquiry and interaction, since this might elucidate (or connect us to) a generic notion of observation/measurement that doesn’t require the presence of a conscious investigator … maybe I’m connecting us back to apparatus here?” A19 answered with a ladder of separable achievements (interaction, correlation, measurement, record, use, revision) and found the record already holding Rovelli, Pattee and the judgement–observation loop (CLAIM-341, CLAIM-342). The question asks for criteria at each rung, and for the condition that keeps the top rung from confirming itself. TERM-089 names the apparatus whose functions the rungs are. | Open |
| QUESTION-286 | Under smooth invertible changes of the parameter coordinates, which first-order frustration diagnoses among a learner’s demands are invariant: pairwise Euclidean gradient angles, common strict first-order descent, or budgeted feasibility with the update geometry transported? | The coordinate part of QUESTION-127, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because CLAIM-366 (Active) settles it in full. Common strict descent, 0 ∉ conv{g_i}, is invariant under smooth invertible reparameterization. The sign of a Euclidean gradient inner product is not, and a negative inner product does not exclude common descent. A budgeted test is invariant when the metric is pulled back. These are the first three rows of A35 §2’s table. | Answered |
| QUESTION-287 | In a deterministic singularly perturbed system whose eliminated variable is fast and contracting and whose reduced system is contracting, does the memoryless quasi-steady-state reduction predict the coarse variable with an error bounded uniformly in time in terms of the eliminated dynamics? | The fast contracting case of QUESTION-222, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-773 (Active) settles it. No memory coordinate is needed: the reduction on the slow manifold stays within O(ε) of the true slow trajectory for all t ≥ 0, with every constant explicit, set by the fast contraction rate λ_z, the reduced contraction rate λ_x and the manifold’s drift. | Answered |
| QUESTION-288 | Can preserving an inquiry’s justificatory history improve decisions beyond a current state that is sufficient for those decisions, and can such a state stop being sufficient when a source, the model or the decision family changes? | A8’s closing question, the part of QUESTION-112 that A10 answered, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because CLAIM-300 (Active) settles it in full. While a state is sufficient for a decision family under a model, its history cannot improve those decisions. The state can stop being sufficient when a source is discredited, the model is revised or the family changes. | Answered |
| QUESTION-289 | Is an inquiry’s current set of conclusions, or its logically closed belief set, enough to retain to fix its future revisions, and if not, what must a single AGM change of a closed theory have besides the theory? | The lower edge of QUESTION-105, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because CLAIM-294, THEORY-347 and THEORY-353 (all Active) settle it. No: two histories can agree on every current conclusion and call for different revisions, and two bases with one closure can revise to opposite conclusions. For one AGM change of a closed theory, what must be added is a selection function on its remainders, generated by a transitive relation when the supplementary postulates hold, or else a base. | Answered |
| QUESTION-290 | When the continuities bundled in a collective come apart, can several later collectives each be a genuine successor of it in a different respect without numerical identity branching? | The possibility part of QUESTION-118’s branching clause, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because CLAIM-328 (Active) settles it. Yes: on the Washington Senators (CASE-105) the league’s successor is the Twins, the city’s the expansion Senators, and the city’s present team claims the history by narrative and place. The successors are plural relations, and identity does not branch. Which successor relation, if any, is persistence stays QUESTION-118’s. | Answered |
| QUESTION-291 | For finite X and Y, does every finite-budget information-bottleneck optimum nest under the β → ∞ optimum, what test on a pair of optimal encoders decides whether two finite budgets nest, and do the optima nest at every pair of budgets when Y is a function of X or when X and Y are both binary? | The settled part of QUESTION-220, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-743, THEORY-753 and THEORY-757 (Active) answer it. Every finite-β optimum is a stochastic coarsening of the causal partition. Two budgets nest iff some pair of optimal encoders forms X → T₂ → T₁, a convex-hull test on decoder points. The optima nest at every pair of budgets when Y is a function of X and when X and Y are both binary. | Answered |
| QUESTION-292 v2 | What evidence would show that a maintaining link, and not a regime’s content, keeps a disorder in place: does the efficacy of a treatment that targets the link count, or only change in the link that is specific and comes before the outcome? | The evidential part of QUESTION-045, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-053 (Active) settles it. A treatment’s efficacy is not evidence for its theory of change. Only change in the theorised process that is specific and comes before the outcome bears on it, and moving the process without moving the outcome counts against the theory. | 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-294 | When a network’s architecture can represent a structured system’s renormalization step exactly, must training by distribution fitting make the variables it represents the system’s relevant ones? | The representability part of QUESTION-060, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-197 (Active) settles it, in the negative. Mehta and Schwab’s RBM–renormalization correspondence is an identity of parametrizations, and an exact RG step is a perfect fit of the data distribution. Away from that point a contrastive-divergence RBM spends its hidden units on noise, not on the relevant fields. The architecture’s match does not fix what training keeps. | Answered |
| QUESTION-295 | Can processes that share one update rule and differ only in parameters and history come to hold stable, differentiated authority without any governance role being coded in, and can the same rule entrench whatever gained influence early? | The first part of QUESTION-083, split off by the fourth status review under ADR-049, because CLAIM-277, promoted on CASE-182, settles it. Yes to both: scored every round, the more accurate operator holds the lead durably, with durability set by the memory kernel. Scored only when it acts, under sharp selection, the early leader keeps its lead. Niches and mutual regulation stay with QUESTION-083. | 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-297 | When the effects of trauma reach descendants who did not live through it, by which route do they travel: germline epigenetics, the womb, parenting, or a group’s narrative and identity; and on the identity route, does an ancestor’s injury become part of the descendant’s self? | The owner’s question of 2026-10-29, beside the legacy line: the past acting on later generations, where legacy is the living acting for them. Claims of epigenetic transmission of trauma rest on animal work (Dias and Ressler) and small human studies (Yehuda et al.), against a sceptical consensus that mammalian germline reprogramming blocks it. Meta-analyses find little general second- or third-generation harm among Holocaust survivors’ descendants. On the cultural route, a group’s past injury becomes part of its identity (chosen trauma, cultural trauma), which is the owner’s extended self running backward in time. | Open |
| QUESTION-298 | When fans of one club perceive their rivalry with another as reciprocated, do the rival’s fans in fact return it, and do the identity benefits of rivalry depend on the perception or on the fact? | Berendt and Uhrich (THEORY-1113) find that rivalry’s gains for fans run through perceived reciprocity, but they surveyed one side of each rivalry. CASE-098 needs the relation itself, a rivalry both sides carry. The study that would answer it pairs surveys of both clubs’ fans, and compares each side’s perceived reciprocity with the other side’s reported rivalry intensity. | Open |
| QUESTION-299 | What, if anything, do the living owe people who will live in the far future, and does that obligation rest on the good of those people, on an impersonal good, or on what the living themselves value? | The owner’s extension of 2026-10-29 of the legacy line (QUESTION-301) to obligations toward the future, “e.g. longtermism”. Longtermism holds that the far future’s size makes its welfare dominate present choices, on an impersonal view. Person-affecting views owe nothing to merely possible people, and the non-identity problem makes even harms to actual future people hard to state. Scheffler grounds concern for the future in what the living value. Lay judgement reaches the far future only when prompted. Which ground holds decides whether the owner’s thesis has a counterexample here. | Open |
| QUESTION-300 | Is any motivation aimed at another’s good and at the good of no self, however far a self can extend to include others and groups? | The owner’s question, from the discussion that first raised self-categorization theory (2026-10-28 and 29). If selves can be more or less inclusive, as self-categorization theory, self-expansion and identity fusion all say, is apparently selfless action just self-interest on an enlarged self? An answer needs a criterion of the self’s extent that is independent of what the agent cares about, and evidence on whether other-directed motivation survives once that extent is controlled. | Open |
| QUESTION-301 | Is acting for one’s legacy, for how one is remembered or for people who will live after one’s death, self-interest on a self extended in time, as collectivism on the owner’s thesis is self-interest on a self extended across people? | The owner’s angle of 2026-10-29, opened by Johnston’s Surviving Death, whose good person lives on in “the onward rush of humankind”. The owner’s thesis (CLAIM-491) enlarges the self across people; legacy enlarges it across time, past death. Psychology measures the temporal extent the way it measures the social one (overlap circles for the future self), and finds legacy motivation drives concern for future generations. Philosophy offers three readings of that concern: an extended self, interests that outlast death (Pitcher), and dependence on a future we will not see (Scheffler). | Open |
| QUESTION-302 | When a memory survives the rebuilding of the nervous system that formed it, as through insect metamorphosis or planarian head regeneration, what carries it across, and what does that show about whether the animal after is the one that learned? | The owner’s angle of 2026-10-29, after the legacy and inheritance questions. Caterpillars trained to avoid an odour avoid it as moths (Blackiston, Silva Casey and Weiss 2008), though metamorphosis rebuilds much of the nervous system. Planarians regrow a brain and, with a reminder, keep a learned familiarity (Shomrat and Levin 2013). If a memory outlasts the tissue that stored it, psychological continuity across radical bodily change is not a philosopher’s fiction. A child’s repetition of the moth study with swallowtails, reported in 2026, is unpublished and not filed. | Open |
| QUESTION-303 | After cued traumatic recall, do people with persistent PTSD sample disambiguating peripheral context less than matched trauma-exposed controls, and does restoring that sampling during the same exposure produce lasting change that the exposure alone does not? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-285, moved here when the eighth status review narrowed THEORY-285 to what its simulations showed and promoted it, as THEORY-178’s moved to QUESTION-172. The model makes the prediction; whether people bear it out is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-304 | Does acting as one require that an agent’s interests synchronize? | The first side of QUESTION-078, split off by the ninth status review under ADR-049 because CLAIM-261 (Active) settles it: no. An agent acting under internal conflict acts as one while its interests stay divided, which TERM-050 calls integration by arbitration. Whether differentiated interests keep distinct roles, boundaries and pathways in a stable pattern of coordination, and what collective variable would show it, stays QUESTION-078’s. | Answered |
| QUESTION-305 | From small random weights not aligned with the data’s eigenbasis, does a linear-attention layer trained on in-context regression come into alignment with that basis before or while its modes are learned, so that its learning is staged by the input spectrum without the alignment being assumed? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-481, moved here when the ninth status review narrowed it to the aligned case it derives and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. THEORY-186 holds the same open claim for two-layer linear networks. | Open |
| QUESTION-306 | Across many artworks of one crowd-built canvas, do placements follow revisions of each artwork’s design made or approved by a small identifiable set of accounts, rather than the designs recording what placers had already done, and does the coordination record assign to other groups placements that a behaviour-only method gives to one? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-218, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-218 to the one artwork it studied and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The case study shows design led the canvas for one artwork; whether that holds across a canvas, and with how small a core, is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-307 | In dialectical behaviour therapy, do skills-homework completion and phone coaching predict falling urges and less frequent target behaviour once baseline functioning and motivation are controlled and patients with missing diary data are kept, and does skill use between sessions mediate the change? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-922, moved here when the tenth status review promoted THEORY-922, whose title claims only the correlations in one programme’s selected sample, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the associations replicate, and what carries them, is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-308 | Do the process effects of implementation intentions, the immediacy, efficiency under load and running without conscious intent of the planned response and the better detection of its cue, survive correction for publication bias or preregistered replication, and do they mediate goal attainment rather than merely accompany it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-913, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-913 to what the 2006 meta-analysis’s small, uncorrected pools showed, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the effects are as large as reported, and whether they carry the effect on goal attainment, is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-309 | Within one design, do contingent if-then plans outperform schedule plans for the same goal, sample and outcome, does recording the plan weaken it, and does rehearsal work through the accessibility of the cue or the strength of the cue–response link? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-908, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-908 to the between-test differences the 2024 meta-analysis measured, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether format, rehearsal and recording cause those differences is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-310 | Does the effect of forming implementation intentions stay reliably above zero, and of the same small order, once tests published after September 2019 are added or preregistered multi-site replications are run with correction for publication bias, and does it hold outside the lab and online? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-918, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-918 to what the 2024 meta-analysis measured to September 2019, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the corrected effect holds in later and registered evidence is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-311 | Do synaptic eligibility traces on the scale of seconds carry learning from delayed outcomes in behaving animals, so that interfering with the trace between action and outcome abolishes learning from the delayed outcome but not from immediate ones? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-909, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-909 to the delay windows Gerstner et al. review, mostly from slices, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether such traces carry learning in behaving animals is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-312 | Does linear mode connectivity emerge during training rather than at initialization outside image classification and beyond MLPs: in a language model or transformer, for copies spawned from a shared state and for independent runs aligned under the architecture’s symmetry group, and for standard-width convnets or ResNets after alignment? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-114, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed it to the image-classification networks and MLPs its two sources measured and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. | Open |
| QUESTION-313 | When a habit is modelled as a prior over policies that grows by counting, do the counts fitted to an animal’s or a person’s own choice history predict when behaviour becomes insensitive to devaluation, and when it still switches at once? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-923, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-923 to what one simulated task, run once per condition, showed, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The model makes the pattern; whether animals or people bear it out is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-314 | Is the response an implementation intention specifies gated by the goal intention it serves, so that with the goal deactivated or weak the cue alone does not produce it, and does the gate survive the plan’s being acted on many times? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-904, moved here when the tenth status review narrowed THEORY-904 to what Gollwitzer and Sheeran concluded and what the 2024 moderator measured, and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The authors conclude the gate from a handful of studies; whether a crossed test shows it, and whether it survives repetition, is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-315 | Does industrial selection, industry funding of researchers whose methods already favour its product, produce industry-favourable consensus in real research fields through those researchers’ productivity and their training of newcomers, rather than through funded researchers changing their methods or results, and does an independent funder that discounts industry-funded work counteract it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-146, moved here when the eleventh status review narrowed THEORY-146 to what Holman and Bruner’s model and figures show and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The model shows the mechanism can work; whether real fields work this way is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-316 | Is it the difference in task, and not depth and initialisation alone, that leaves features with no counterpart in the other model and makes merging fail: at matched width, do models trained from different initialisations on disjoint tasks lose cross-model feature correlation faster with depth than models trained on the same task, with merging failing at that depth? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-113, moved here when the eleventh status review narrowed it to what Stoica et al. measured, with their explanation given as theirs, and promoted it, as THEORY-114’s moved to QUESTION-312. | Open |
| QUESTION-317 | Does aligning independently trained networks over the architecture’s full symmetry group remove most of the linear barrier at standard width, on ImageNet or a language corpus, with an alignment computed without data; is the barrier that remains a difference in what the endpoints compute; and does it rise with depth? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-112, with its dropped depth clause, moved here when the eleventh status review narrowed it to what alignment removed in the networks its sources measured and promoted it, as THEORY-114’s moved to QUESTION-312. | Open |
| QUESTION-318 | Does layerwise linear feature connectivity hold outside image classification, in transformers and language models connected by spawning, shared pretraining or alignment, and does it carry from pairs to the many-model averages practice uses, model soups and SWA? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-111, moved here when the eleventh status review narrowed it to the pairs of image classifiers its source measured and promoted it, as THEORY-114’s moved to QUESTION-312. | Open |
| QUESTION-319 | Where an organization’s parts are related by transports established independently of the analysis, and those transports have nontrivial holonomy, is the holonomy an error the organization tends to remove, or a persistent feature it maintains, and does its pattern predict the organization’s response to intervention beyond what its pairwise relations and its dynamics predict? | From A2 §5 of the exchange “Paper assessment” (2026-10-28 to 29), which inverted LIT-1820’s use of holonomy as an error signal: “What if it is a persistent feature of the organization itself?” It is QUESTION-130’s question asked of organizations, not of evaluative contexts, and its first objection is the same: the transports must not be chosen. An answer needs transports derived from measurement, their holonomy followed under perturbation, and a test against matched systems whose holonomy differs. | Open |
| QUESTION-320 | Do the precursors of abrupt overthrow found for crowd-maintained images on r/place (plural, partly the defenders’ restoring, accepting and coordinating, and absent for many overthrows) hold in a second collectively maintained system with its own record of attacks and repairs? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-214, moved here when the twelfth status review narrowed THEORY-214 to what Falmagne, Stephenson and Levin measured on r/place and promoted it, as THEORY-216’s moved to QUESTION-169. Both of their test sets are r/place, and the social readings of the precursors are the authors’ conjecture from SHAP curves. | Open |
| 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-322 | Does Fricker’s book state testimonial injustice as her 2003 paper and 2017 retrospective do, as a prejudiced misjudgement that is not deliberate with a pre-emptive form when a speaker’s word is never sought, and is there a wrong to a speaker as a knower, of the testimonial kind, that is deliberate or non-prejudiced and no different in its wrong from the ingenuous one? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-327, moved here when the twelfth status review narrowed it to Fricker’s two papers read in full and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. | 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-324 | Are the conditions an effective description is asked to meet (predictive sufficiency, dynamical independence, memory closure, approximation fidelity, tractability) of one logical kind, or are some of them parameters of the regime under which the others are assessed rather than conditions in their own right? | The last clause of QUESTION-252, split off by the thirteenth status review under ADR-049 because CLAIM-401 (Active) settles it: they are not of one kind. Predictive sufficiency and approximation fidelity are adequacy relative to a declared target, metric and horizon; tractability restricts the operations under which adequacy is assessed; dynamical independence and memory closure are relations of the representation to the system, memory relative to a chosen projection. Which conditions can fail while the others hold, and which configurations are impossible in which model classes, stays QUESTION-252’s. | Answered |
| QUESTION-325 | Is persistent avoidance in anxiety maintained by an inflated uncertainty estimate about the avoided states, as Brown, Price and Dombrovski propose, or by a pessimistic evaluation of one’s own future avoidance, as Zorowitz, Momennejad and Daw propose, rather than by an inflated threat value? | The promotion conditions formerly on THEORY-910 and THEORY-915, moved here together when the thirteenth status review promoted both, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. They are the two belief-maintained rivals CLAIM-446’s test must hold fixed. | Open |
| QUESTION-326 | Does reducing safety behaviours lower symptoms, and instructed increases raise them, in diagnosed anxiety disorders, in pre-registered trials with active controls and masked rationale or a larger meta-analysis, once publication bias and expectancy are accounted for? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-903, moved here when the thirteenth status review promoted THEORY-903, whose title claims only the meta-analytic estimates, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the effects survive bias, expectancy and diagnosed samples is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-327 | Does available avoidance leave threat expectancy uncorrected in proportion to how few unavoided disconfirming trials it allows, in people with anxiety disorders as in healthy controls, and does performing and then losing an unsignalled avoidance response raise threat expectancy for a stimulus never paired with harm, scaling with how much the person avoided? | The promotion conditions formerly on THEORY-901 and THEORY-920, moved here together when the thirteenth status review narrowed both to what Mancinelli and Bach’s review reports and promoted them, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Both ask what avoidance does to threat expectancy, outside the signalled, healthy-volunteer paradigms the review covers. | Open |
| QUESTION-328 | Does an implemented model-based or latent-cause model of human avoidance, compared on the same data with the model-free two-factor implementations, reproduce the phenomena Mancinelli and Bach rate A or B, including residual avoidance after signalled outcome omission, and does a model without an inferential component fail them? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-900, moved here when the thirteenth status review promoted THEORY-900, whose title claims only the systematic review’s verdict, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether a fitted inferential model wins is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-329 | In people with fear-based anxiety disorders against controls, does a systematic search with meta-analysis, or a large preregistered study, find that what differs is the adjustment of learning rate to the kind of uncertainty, noise against volatility, mainly for aversive outcomes, while overall learning rate, choice consistency and outcome valuation do not? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-897, moved here when the thirteenth status review narrowed THEORY-897 to Brown, Price and Dombrovski’s reading of seven studies and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the pattern holds in a systematic synthesis is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-330 | How does anxiety change exploration across tasks and facets: does it reduce foraging exploration once stress and effort cost are controlled, does somatic anxiety reduce checking for threat through aversion to detecting it rather than a lower value placed on the information, and, in the same participants across more than one bandit task, does directed exploration rise with trait or cognitive anxiety and fall with state or somatic anxiety? | The promotion conditions formerly on THEORY-907 and THEORY-917, moved here together when the thirteenth status review narrowed both to Chou, Wilson and Smith’s review and promoted them, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Both ask whether the review’s patterns hold with facets, tasks and confounds separated. | Open |
| QUESTION-331 | In a second, preferably pre-registered sample with a cost attached to avoiding, do anxiety-disorder patients again avoid a safety cue more than controls but danger cues no more, keep a higher threat expectancy after effective avoidance, and report more relief at omissions, with rated aversiveness matched or controlled? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-912, moved here when the thirteenth status review promoted THEORY-912, whose title claims only what one cross-sectional study measured (ADR-047’s one-study ruling), as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. Whether the pattern replicates 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-333 | Does how far fear falls within or across exposure or extinction sessions predict fear at follow-up once initial fear is controlled, in the studies Craske et al. 2014 cite or a later meta-analysis, and in well-powered clinical samples? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-921, moved here when the fourteenth status review narrowed THEORY-921 to what Craske et al.’s review reports and promoted it, as THEORY-920’s moved to QUESTION-327. The review reports the finding from six cited studies, mostly of analog samples; whether the primary studies and clinical samples bear it out is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-334 | Outside NASA, does an organization’s first acceptance of a deviation, traced prospectively, predict widening acceptance and later failure more often than in comparable organizations that eliminate deviations, and does an independent safety function interrupt the pattern? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-140, moved here when the fourteenth status review narrowed THEORY-140 to the Columbia board’s finding and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The Board’s finding concerns two accidents in one agency; whether normalization of deviance is a general, causal pattern is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-335 | Does causal emergence of effective information in Hoel, Albantakis and Tononi’s temporal and spatio-temporal macros survive a common intervention distribution, or does it come from comparing a macro step that spans several micro steps with a single micro step? | THEORY-1167 bounds the effective information of a coarse-graining of one transition by the micro’s. LIT-1038’s temporal and spatio-temporal macros are not of that form: the macro effect lies several micro steps ahead, and the comparison is with one micro step. The question is whether their positive causal emergence survives a common distribution, and whether that comparison is a fair one. | Open |
| 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-337 | Does payoff-driven phase synchronisation still form along the strong couplings, and still turn those groups into units that switch as one, when modules overlap or constraints are frustrated, or when entrainment runs through the units’ outputs rather than a payoff gradient on phase? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-265, moved here when the sixteenth status review promoted it on ADR-047’s ruling on one study. The model was run on one clean game; whether the mechanism survives overlap, frustration or output coupling is open scope nobody asserts, and it is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-338 | Measured on another game, or on Hex with a standard AlphaZero implementation or larger networks, is the iso-strength trade between training compute and tree-search compute again a straight line in log–log space ending at a one-node search, and is its slope, reported with its uncertainty and with test-time compute in a stated unit, within error of Jones’s −1.2? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-342, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Jones measured one game with one nonstandard implementation and gave no uncertainty on the slope, and he asks twice for the test on other games. | 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-340 | When does a cache replacement value based on distance from the current query beat recency-based eviction: does a competitive analysis, or an analysis under a stated distribution of query paths, say so, and do experiments in another system that vary cycle length relative to cache size recover the crossover with MRU? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-375, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Dar et al.’s crossover between distance and MRU is simulated on synthetic paths and not explained. | Open |
| QUESTION-341 | On two-scale Lorenz 96 at ε = 0.5, K = 18, J = 20, F = 10, h_x = −1, h_y = 1, does a NARMAX discrepancy closure whose structure is chosen by a rule fixed before scoring still match the full system’s x₁ statistics (Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance) and beat a polynomial-plus-AR(1) closure on lead time at anomaly correlation 0.6, at δ = 0.05? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-818, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Chorin and Lu chose the closure’s orders by trial and error against statistics they then report; whether the result survives a selection rule fixed in advance and an independent rerun is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-342 | In an independent replication of the 2 × 2 removal of shared music and of visual contact in dancing dyads, or a reanalysis of the public data under another movement decomposition, do the music-driven and partner-driven components stay distinct with an equivalence test bounding their interaction near zero, and does a temporal measure other than periodicity (phase lags, directional measures) still fail to tell them apart while a spatial one succeeds? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-891, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. The direction of the partner-driven coupling stays outside it, as the old condition said. | Open |
| QUESTION-343 | Does a rerun of Sarkar, Mukherjee and Sato’s released harness, or an independent implementation, reproduce Table 1’s single-path, uniform and holonomy-weighted accuracies on S4 synchronization with outliers within their intervals, including the paired holonomy − uniform gains? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1158, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. The accuracies are the paper’s, on 1000 instances per cell, and were not rerun; the AUC ceiling, which is arithmetic, was recomputed and needs no rerun. | Open |
| QUESTION-344 | Does raising or holding below threshold one relation’s subject–object co-occurrences in pretraining, with the rest of the corpus unchanged, make its LRE causality cross 0.9 or fail to, and is the threshold, with its spread, recovered across more model sizes and families? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-269, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Merullo et al. measured a correlation in three models and say they can draw neither causal claims nor conclusions about scale from it. | 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-346 | On confounded causal systems larger than toy models, with a known causal partition, does gradient search for the causal information bottleneck through an adjustment set find the partition by p(y | do(x)) reliably, and how often does it fail? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1146, moved here when the twenty-second status review narrowed that reading to what three toy models showed and promoted it (ADR-065). That the causal partition is the optimum is THEORY-1125; whether search finds it at scale is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-347 | On another database and web stack with native materialized views and queries of graded cost, does a stored query result kept current on every update lose to recomputation exactly when reading it costs about as much as recomputing it and its refresh runs on the resource that serves requests, and win otherwise? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-383, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Labrinidis and Roussopoulos measured one testbed with cheap indexed selections; their cost model’s Eq. 9 was never evaluated against measurement. | Open |
| QUESTION-348 | In groups that discuss a sequence of issues under a stable network of relative influence, measured independently of the members’ self-weights, does each member’s influence over outcomes come to order as the network’s eigenvector centralities and concentrate above them, as the DeGroot–Friedkin model proves for its own dynamics? | The second half of THEORY-916’s promotion condition, moved here when the twenty-third status review narrowed that condition to the proofs the title asserts (ADR-065; ADR-047 kind 4). The model proves where reflected appraisal goes; whether groups bear it out is this question, and the authors say its assessment “has just begun”. | Open |
| QUESTION-349 | On tasks other than Jacobs and colleagues’ four-class vowel discrimination, do mixtures of experts trained on the error of a single expert chosen stochastically by the gate, or on the mixture’s negative log-likelihood, leave most experts with near-zero mixing proportions while matching the accuracy of a dense network of equal size? | The replication THEORY-937’s promotion condition asked for, moved here when the twenty-third status review promoted that reading of one study (ADR-065 §3: a request to replicate moves to a QUESTION). The vowel task needs two or three lines; whether the sparse division appears on tasks without so few natural subtasks is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-350 | With V1/V2 and category-selective cortex densely sampled in the same subjects, during clearly seen images held for over a second, is content-specific gamma-band phase or amplitude coupling between them, with the evoked response removed, again brief or absent at a sensitivity that detects it elsewhere, or is it sustained for the duration of the image? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-296, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 narrowed and promoted it under ADR-065. COGITATE’s iEEG (LIT-973, read in NOTE-812) had 12 V1/V2 electrodes, and the authors grant that the null “could stem from methodological limitations”. | Open |
| QUESTION-351 | Recorded with single units or dense bilateral prefrontal sampling in a no-report or task-irrelevant design, is a clearly seen image’s category present in prefrontal cortex while its identity and orientation, decodable posteriorly in the same subjects, are absent there with Bayesian support for the absence, and does prefrontal cortex stay silent at stimulus offset under an equally sensitive test? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-245, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 narrowed and promoted it under ADR-065. COGITATE (LIT-973, read in NOTE-812) recorded high gamma, MEG and BOLD, with no single units; whether the pattern holds in signals it did not sample is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-352 | Once Qualified Competitors have used the index snapshot, the Glue and RankEmbed data and the syndication licence ordered in United States v. Google, do their results close the gap on long-tail queries, and does their search share move, compared with rivals or periods without the data? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-480. It moved here when the twenty-fourth status review promoted that entry as a report of the remedies opinion (ADR-065 §3). The court expects the shared data to help rivals, and finds nothing about whether it will. This question asks what the decree did. | Open |
| QUESTION-353 | Across real symbioses, does the partner with the larger and faster-growing population become obligate first more often than chance, and does the other partner’s dependence follow the balance of births and deaths inside the collective, as Athreya, Czuppon and Gokhale’s model predicts? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1051, moved here when the twenty-fourth status review narrowed and promoted THEORY-1051 (ADR-065 §3). The model makes the prediction; whether real symbioses bear it out is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-354 | Do Monderer and Shapley (1996) state, as their Lemma 2.5, that a finite strategic game has the finite improvement property exactly when it has a generalized ordinal potential, with the standard definitions of improvement path, finite improvement property and generalized ordinal potential? | THEORY-896’s former promote_when, moved here when the twenty-fourth status review promoted it on its re-derivation, second-checked. The mathematics is proved in the record and stated by Apt (LIT-1866). What is open is only whether the attribution to Monderer and Shapley (LIT-1462, unread) is exact: lemma number, page, wording and class. | 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 |
| QUESTION-356 | In a real community whose members’ private opinions are measured independently of what they express, does a small, persistently vocal minority go with a large silent share of the majority, and does that silence, rather than conversion or network geometry alone, account for most of the gap between expressed and private opinion? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-242, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Vilone and Polizzi’s result (LIT-939, read in NOTE-810) is simulation only, and they say the model “should also be validated with empirical data”. | Open |
| QUESTION-357 | Outside MNIST and CIFAR-10, or under a second probe family such as a regularized nonlinear readout, do encoders constrained to preserve their input’s information exactly still span a range of downstream quality that includes worse than the raw input? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-227, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Tschannen et al. (LIT-247, read in NOTE-749) showed the spread on MNIST halves, with CIFAR-10 for two experiments, under a linear probe only. | Open |
| QUESTION-358 | Does an independent computation of the linearized plane Couette and Poiseuille operators in the energy norm reproduce transient growth of order R, resonance of order R² and a minimal destabilizing perturbation of order R⁻², with leading constants near those of Trefethen et al.’s Table 1? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-304, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. The lower bounds are CLAIM-383’s derivation; the upper orders and the constants rest on one computation (LIT-932, read in NOTE-839). Reddy & Henningson (1993) and Schmid & Henningson’s monograph are the obvious independent sources, unread. | Open |
| QUESTION-359 | Is the revision closure of Aevyra’s The Ledger of Will, Proposition 4, the Moore–Nerode minimal-machine construction applied to the expanded target family {T_d ∘ J_u}, under the same hypotheses, as its authors say? | The part of THEORY-884’s former promote_when that asked for more than its title. THEORY-884 was promoted on its own re-derivation, second-checked at the twenty-fourth status review. Whether its criterion is the classical construction, which the authors say it is, needs a reading of Moore (1956), Nerode (1958) or a standard automata text. | Open |
| QUESTION-360 | When does a learned distinction become a concept rather than a discriminator or a habit (by being reused systematically, transferring to counterfactual cases, integrating with other capacities, or being correctable), is the transition graded or categorical, and how is a concept told apart from the organization that realizes it and from the thing it is about? | From the owner’s questions at U4 to U6 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31): “how does our current position characterize the notion of a ‘concept’?”, “can we distinguish between a ‘concept’ and a ‘thing’?” and “how about ‘entity’?”. The assistant defined “concept” three times in three turns, each a little differently, which is the record’s signal to give it a code. A candidate term is filed beside it, Proposed (TERM-098); this question asks what would settle it. | Open |
| QUESTION-361 | Is an organization’s recursive production usefully understood as self-distillation, each realization generating a specification of its own effective organization that constrains how its successor is built, and if so, what makes the distillation the organization’s own rather than run by an outside optimizer, and what makes a successor a good teacher as well as a faithful student? | The owner’s proposal at U15 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31): “maybe framing this recursive production as self-distillation could be helpful or at least interesting?”, with Teoh’s multi-token-prediction paper (LIT-1896). A15 and A16 developed it as “organizational inheritance”. It refines QUESTION-016, which asks when iterated reconstruction preserves task-relative sufficiency, by adding who runs the reconstruction and whether the successor can carry it on. | Open |
| QUESTION-362 | Which predictive and causal query capabilities are implied by competence across specified goal families, which are available to the agent under its actual resource constraints, and which require distinct internal modeling mechanisms; and under what conditions can those mechanisms and capabilities be maintained, revised or reconstructed endogenously? | The owner’s question at the second review of the filing of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31). The record’s world-model thesis (CLAIM-519) and its counter from Richens et al. (CLAIM-513) disagree less than they seem, because “world model” names several things. This question separates them so that the record can investigate each without presupposing that one is fundamental. | Open |
| QUESTION-363 | When does the order in which stochastic gradient descent comes to occupy a network’s organizations over training time follow the order in which they come to dominate the Bayesian posterior as the sample grows, and what fixes the correspondence where it holds: an effective temperature set by learning rate and batch size, the accessibility of regions and the barriers between them, or the time allowed to equilibrate? | The owner’s challenge at U4 of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31). A3 had said that “Bayesian posterior dominance as sample size n changes is not the same process as gradient-based optimization as training time advances”. The owner: “Isn’t it? I think there’s a David M Blei paper that discusses this.” The paper is Mandt, Hoffman and Blei 2017 (LIT-1898). A4 conceded the separation was “too strong” and kept a narrower one, which is this question. It refines QUESTION-039, which asks what sets the order and moment of acquisition. | Open |
| QUESTION-364 | When an agent’s own processes revise its will-organization, what makes the result the continuation of that agent’s will rather than a replacement authored by something else, and how can a history of authorization count when the standards for reading authorization are themselves revised? | One of the four “hardest problems” A29 listed in its synthesis of the exchange “Analyze nucleation concepts” (2026-10-31), under “organizational identity and authorship”. A29 cited QUESTION-284 for it, which asks something else (whether constraints characterize or constitute). The nearest held question, QUESTION-118, asks the collective form without will or authorization. This is the will-organization form. | Open |
| QUESTION-365 | When a conflict among an agent’s processes is settled neither by local accommodation nor by escalation, can it be settled by another organization taking up the demand the agent’s arbitration leaves ungranted, and what would tell that apart from suppression of the demand or a change in the agent’s own arbitration? | Filed 2026-10-31 from Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy (2024) and Bencherki (2017), after Simondon. The record settles conflict among an agent’s processes in two ways, locally or by escalation (CLAIM-358), and holds conflict to be the gap between the precedence a motive claims and the authority it is granted (CLAIM-484). The readings propose a third: the ungranted demand is taken up by a collective the agent joins or forms. The record has no place for it, because its account of will is indexed to a given agent (CLAIM-080). | Open |
| QUESTION-366 | Does an inquiry need the record of its own development to know its object, as Simondon’s method and its organization-studies readers hold, or only to revise its conclusions, which is what the record has shown? | Bencherki, Brummans and Vézy (2024, p. 1366), quoting Simondon, hold that research “consists in following the being in its genesis, in accomplishing the genesis of thought at the same time as the genesis of the object”, and Bencherki and Iliadis (proposition 4) that knowledge of an entity “should reflect on the way that knowledge itself has individuated”. The record has shown a narrower thing: an inquiry’s history is needed to fix its revisions (CLAIM-294), and a stabilized specification lets later inquiry proceed without repeating the history that made it (CLAIM-475). Whether the history is needed for anything besides revision is open, and an answer would also say whether the record’s objects are constituted by its inquiry in any sense beyond CLAIM-469’s operational one, which is CLAIM-476’s unanswered defeater. | Open |
| QUESTION-367 | Is an agent’s representation of its own capacity to control a process a condition of that capacity’s efficacy, and so one of the relations a will-organization maintains, or only its accompaniment, and what intervention would tell the two apart? | Filed 2026-11-01 from Metzinger’s work on mental autonomy. In 2015 (LIT-1941) he holds that mind-wandering loses not the ability to stop one’s own thinking but its representation in the self-model, and that “one can only deliberately and autonomously exert an ability if that ability is explicitly represented” (THEORY-1300). In 2017 (LIT-1945) he says the data cannot decide whether that representation constitutes the control, enables it, or only accompanies it (THEORY-1296). The record’s six relations (CLAIM-027) are all relations among regimes; none is the agent’s representation of a regime. If the first answer is right, the will-organization includes a self-representational relation the record has not named. | Open |
| QUESTION-368 | Would a system that had phenomenal experience but no phenomenal self-model and no valence, as minimal phenomenal experience is described, have moral standing, and on what ground, given that the argument for a moratorium on synthetic phenomenology locates the risk in a self that can suffer? | From the reading of Metzinger 2024 (LIT-1943, pp. 484–485). There artificial consciousness is risky because it “may involve a consciously experienced sense of self that may in turn generate artificial suffering”. Minimal phenomenal experience is described as conscious, selfless and “involv[ing] no psychological suffering whatsoever”. The book asks whether building a machine that stays in that state would be wrong. It does not ask whether such a machine would be owed anything. TERM-083 lists sentience as one ground of standing and TERM-082 keeps phenomenal consciousness apart from it. The question is whether phenomenality without a self or valence is a ground. An answer is an argued position on that ground, or a showing that the case is incoherent. | Open |
| QUESTION-369 | What would show that an experience is a basic psychological need, something an organism’s functioning requires, rather than something that reliably raises reported well-being, when self-determination theory identifies needs by their effects on well-being and treats well-being as the presence of need satisfaction? | A3’s closing question in the exchange “Assess SDT Coverage” (2026-11-02), at the owner’s U3 (“how about the basic psychological needs stuff?”): “What evidence would establish that a psychological experience is a need … rather than simply something that reliably makes humans feel better?” It is the second time the record meets it. The first is NOTE-439’s “Interdefinition” limitation, which says “need” and “well-being” are “partly interdefined” in Deci and Ryan 2000, and the paper “does not show how to test a need claim without assuming the well-being measure”. A3 did not know the record had raised it. | Open |
| QUESTION-370 | Do the concepts a language model’s workspace makes reportable across an Assistant episode share an episode-level mixture, so that an LDA-style admixture over J-lens readouts predicts their co-occurrence better than one persona selected per conversation and better than independent draws per position; does intervening on the inferred mixture change which concepts reach report while leaving the consumers that bypass the workspace unchanged; and if two models matched on persona distribution and mixture differ under such interventions, whose will-organization is that difference: the simulated Assistant’s, the network’s or the deployed system’s? | From the owner’s U10 and U12 of the exchange “Assess SDT Coverage” (2026-11-02): “the J-Space is basically this kind of LDA”, and H2, not H1, is the LDA because of the Dirichlet over each episode’s mixture (CLAIM-536). With U9’s question, how to read an LDA as will-organization under the Persona Selection Model. The paper is held and read (LIT-1347, NOTE-1069). At the level of a concept the analogy holds, as the owner put it at review: “J-space is a concept space. concepts are distributions over words. concepts are directions in a word space.” What keeps it a question: the paper fits no episode-level mixture, concepts combine additively in logits rather than as a mixture, and the workspace’s privilege is selective, where an LDA topic mediates every word. | Open |
| QUESTION-371 | Can a moral norm work among cooperating groups as a stabilizing mechanism does in coexistence theory, limiting a dominant group more than it limits its rivals so that a group reduced to rarity can increase again; and is that what separates norms that keep several groups in being from norms that serve only one group’s internal cooperation? | From §9 of the synthesis “The Evolution of Cooperation: From Coexistence to Symbiosis to Morality”, which the owner supplied on 2026-11-04: “Can moral norms function analogously to ecological stabilizing mechanisms by preventing powerful groups from excluding weaker ones?” Made precise here with Chesson’s distinction (LIT-1219). A stabilizing mechanism makes each type limit itself more than it limits others, which is what lets a type recover from rarity. | Open |