The inference
CLAIM-202 compares three predictors of receivers’ recovery: semantic similarity, the static pragmatic profile, and the transport structure. CASE-055 is the study built to dissociate them. CLAIM-202 justifies the static profile as the rival by saying that each rival account “fixes a profile of the rendering as read once”. So if the transport measures beat the static profile in CASE-055, the line adds something to the functional and relevance-theoretic accounts.
Critical questions
- Would the evidence be expected if the hypothesis were false? It could be. A relevance-theoretic or functional account with a rich model of context would also predict that context-indexed measures beat a static profile.
- Does it tell the hypothesis apart from its rivals? This is the question it fails: no; CLAIM-205, Active, says why. The interlocutor’s reading, relayed on 2026-10-12, denies the premise that the rivals fix one profile: “A relevance-theoretic or functional account need not be committed to only one context or a static stance profile.” So the rival the thesis must beat is a “strong contextual baseline” of “rich context-response profiles, supervised predictive methods”. “What matters is whether transport structure adds predictive or explanatory power over the strong contextual baseline, not merely over static pragmatic judgments. Otherwise, an empirical victory may establish that context matters without establishing that the transport formalism makes a distinctive contribution.” CLAIM-205, on what the rival accounts are committed to, undercuts this argument.
- Does the measure measure what it is said to? Not in dispute here. CASE-055’s measures are fixed in its own body.
What would answer it
The incremental thesis restated against a strong contextual baseline, specified in advance, with the margin fixed as CLAIM-202 already requires. Or an argument that the static profile is the strongest rival the functional and relevance-theoretic accounts license. QUESTION-074 names the test the reading takes to be distinctive of the formalism.
It does not say the transport structure will fail the stronger test, or that CLAIM-202 should not be the line’s principal empirical thesis. Rejected 2026-10-30: the undercutter is held.