Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Contextuality — whether outcomes can be explained without reference to the context of measurement — Kochen–Specker and Bell contextuality and their sheaf-theoretic form, generalized (Spekkens) contextuality, noncontextual models and their limits, and contextuality outside physics.
10 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-001 | To what extent can an utterance’s pragmatic identity be reconstructed from a globally consistent collection of context-relative judgements, and what fails when it cannot? | A24’s refinement of QUESTION-021, once the underlying act was replaced by context-indexed judgements. It folds in A21’s question whether pragmatic dimensions show “an empirically identifiable incompatibility structure”. | Open |
| QUESTION-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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 |