The inference
CLAIM-091 grounds on CASE-018, “You blow it all on sex and booze” said by
four speakers. A24 read it as the reverse of translation: reattribution
“keeps the words and changes the footing”, (u, s, a, k, g) → (u, s′, a, k,
g), so translation, which changes the words, can compensate to keep the
footing. ADR-032 separates a CASE that illustrates a claim, which “bears no
weight”, from one a claim grounds on, which is “evidence from outside the
record’s own argument”.
Critical questions
- Would the evidence be expected if the hypothesis were false? Yes. The readings of the four speakers were assigned by the assistant that framed the hypothesis, so they would read the same whatever readers do.
- Does it tell the hypothesis apart from its rivals? No. “It is not an observation, so there is nothing yet for a rival to predict” (CLAIM-229, of CLAIM-151’s use of the same case).
- Does the measure measure what it is said to? No. This is the question that fails. CASE-018: “Invented, so it shows a possibility; whether readers’ judgements shift as described is what CASE-021 would test.” CLAIM-229: “The possibility is not in dispute. … The theses need more than the possibility, and the test that would supply it, CASE-021, is among the October outline’s drops.”
Rejected as evidence for CLAIM-091. The case shows that compensation is possible.
Since then
CASE-066 (2026-10-10) gives the mechanism a documented case: three published English translations of Dolly’s slip into ты in Anna Karenina I.4. CLAIM-229’s note: it “answers this objection’s point about CLAIM-091 at the level of existence: the mechanism is attested, not only imagined”. It does not answer the deeper point. “The case’s evidence about what the renderings convey is the translators’ and Tolstoy’s, not readers’.” That would be a second line to CLAIM-091, from CASE-066, and is not filed here.