Question statuses — Where a QUESTION stands. A question is never deleted; it is answered, dissolved or set aside, and the record keeps what it was.
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).
32 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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 |