Lines of inquiry — A named line of the record’s own argument, so that a line can be set aside as a whole and what depends on it can be found. Retracting a line is a status change on its members, never a deletion (ADR-032).
Will-organization — what organizes practical efficacy in an agent, and how that organization becomes precarious.
13 of 100 TERM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| TERM-003 | will, as a second- or higher-order attractor | Will defined dynamically: a higher-order attractor that stabilizes which first-order regimes govern action. The owner’s operational definition at U34; replaced by will-organization once the account became agent-indexed. | Superseded — by TERM-023 |
| TERM-017 | precedence, jurisdiction and suspension | Three relations among rules that are easily conflated: precedence orders applicable constraints, jurisdiction governs which apply, suspension governs when an applicable one may be disabled (Section 5.3). | Active |
| TERM-019 | action-generating regime | A relatively stable organization capable of producing a characteristic pattern of agent-level action under appropriate conditions — desires, habits, plans, policies, institutional operating modes (Section 1). | Active |
| TERM-020 | protective lock-in | A protective regime that, by reorganizing ordinary activity, generates the conditions that justify its own continuation and reduces the capacity to leave it (Section 6.1). | Active |
| TERM-023 v2 | will-organization | The maintained organization of relations governing the conditions under which an agent’s available action-generating regimes acquire, retain, lose, or alter practical efficacy (Section 3.2). | Active |
| TERM-050 | intrapersonal synchronization | An agent’s action-generating regimes are synchronized on a course of action over a horizon when each ranks it first from every delay at which it is evaluated within that horizon. The course then becomes effective without any regime being overridden, bargained with or suspended. The regimes are desynchronized where their valuations cross. | Active |
| TERM-059 | relational normative realism, as frame-, order-, scale- and perspective-relative normative realism: the position that a normative judgment indexed to a frame, an organizational or reflective order, a scale, a perspective and a standard is correct or incorrect whatever the judge prefers, and that which frames, perspectives and standards are admissible is itself constrained, the second of which the record has not established | The owner’s name, U18 of the exchange of 2026-10-17: “so maybe something like a frame/order/scale/perspectival-relative normative realism?” A18 proposed “relational normative realism” as the short name and the owner’s wording “as its explicit technical characterization”, and split “order” into organizational and reflective order. The term names the position. It does not assert it. In particular its third condition, constraints on admissible perspectives, is unmet: without it the position is conditional objectivity, not realism about the standards themselves. The indexing is CLAIM-363’s thesis, and the realism about standards is QUESTION-129’s open question. | Active |
| TERM-061 | practical synchronization: an agent’s action-generating regimes, relative to a context and a horizon, sustaining mutually compatible courses of activity through their own interactions, without recurrent overriding arbitration by a higher level, whether or not they rank the same course first | The broader sense the owner asked for at U45 of the exchange of 2026-10-17 (“we should probably propose a more general definition for this term”), defined from A45. Regimes are practically synchronized when their own coupling keeps their activity compatible without a higher level routinely settling their conflicts, though their rankings may differ. TERM-050’s sense, all regimes ranking the same course first, is not a special case of it: agreement in rankings needs no coupling, and coupling needs no agreement. The two are separate dimensions, and TERM-050 stays Active beside it. | Active |
| TERM-067 v4 | governance-response profile, of a state for a declared family of interventions on the mechanisms that govern efficacy: the tuple of its response kernels, J_I(s) = (K_i(· | s))_{i∈I} with K_i(y | s) = P(Y^(i) = y | S = s); a description is governance-response sufficient for (I, Y) when the profile factors through it | Defined at A15 §2, A16 §4 and A17 §4.1 of the exchange of 2026-10-20, and reused at A18 and A23. A15 called sufficiency for it “a direct application of the factorization criterion [CLAIM-350], not an independently established new theorem”; A16 §14 “a governance-specific causal preservation test, not necessarily a wholly independent kind of fidelity”. It is not TERM-043’s causal component with the identity correspondence, as this entry first said: that component compares interventional laws, and is zero for a coarse-graining that loses the response of every state (CLAIM-399). It is a fixed-target, state-conditional sufficiency. Adopted by the owner on 2026-10-21. It names what CLAIM-407 is stated in; it replaces nothing. | Active |
| TERM-079 | belief, of a process: a maintained, truth-directed inferential commitment, held to the degree that the process uses a proposition as a premise in interpreting observations, generating expectations and evaluating counterfactuals across the contexts it bears on, together with the profile by which that commitment is revised; distinct from entertaining an interpretation, from asserting it, and from granting it authority over action | Proposed in the exchange of 2026-10-24 (workbench entry of 2026-10-24, U25), after the owner asked: “we have an operational characterization of feeling, wanting, liking… how about belief?” The record had accounts of what governs action and what is felt, and nothing comparable for belief. The candidate puts belief on the same footing, tested by its role in anticipation, inference and revision, not by report or by which motive wins. Not adopted. | Proposed |
| TERM-094 | action readiness, with control precedence, in Frijda’s sense: a state of preparation for action, not a representation of a desirable state, that claims control over behaviour by persisting until an end state, resuming after interruption, capturing attention and taking priority over other actions | Filed by the status review of 2026-10-27 (ADR-057). THEORY-055 had eight dependents, the most of any Proposed THEORY after one, and most of them used only this concept: CLAIM-039 says THEORY-055 “supplies the Frijda characterization the claim depends on (a mode of action readiness), not evidence”. The concept is Frijda, Ridderinkhof and Rietveld’s (LIT-540, read in full in NOTE-433). It is separable from the contested part of THEORY-055, that an appraisal of concern pertinence elicits the emotion and that emotion categories differ by mode of readiness, which THEORY-057’s constructionism denies. A constructionist can use this term. Adopted on filing, because the record already relies on it in nine places and its definition is quoted from a source read in full. | Active |
| TERM-099 | self-formation, of an agent: the production, by the agent’s own activity on a discrepancy it cannot yet resolve, of a maintained capacity, a new distinction it can make legible or a new channel by which it can act, that outlasts the discrepancy and serves a class of later ones | At the owner’s review of 2026-11-03. “Self-formation” had appeared uncoded in CLAIM-022’s note of 2026-11-02, CLAIM-540, CLAIM-533, QUESTION-071’s notes and CLAIM-532, past the second-time rule. This term fixes the sense; CLAIM-532 is the thesis that it is what TERM-023’s transformation dimension produces, and CASE-191 a construction of it. It is the record’s sense, not Kane’s: Kane’s self-forming actions are undetermined choices that form the will, and this term says nothing about determinism. ADR-056’s proposed kinds would class it as a construct. | Proposed |
| TERM-100 | provenance, of a capacity or an organization, and which sense: formation provenance (whose process produced it), maintenance provenance (whose process keeps it), or source provenance (what it was made from, the sense the descent term holds) | At the owner’s review of 2026-11-03 (“there are probably one or more TERMs we could either connect to or add that would help make these groupings persistent”), after CASE-191 found that formation and maintenance provenance come apart, and that only the second can be read off a present organization. “Provenance” was already used in both senses, uncoded: CLAIM-522’s “maintenance provenance”, CASE-161, CASE-179’s arms. TERM-084 holds a third sense, a realization made from a source. This term separates them, says what can test each, and names the entries that turn on formation provenance, so that they can cite it. ADR-056’s proposed kinds would class it as a disambiguation. | Proposed |