The inference
CASE-030 and CASE-032 are chains of reconstructions written by the assistant. In the stable chain the final text drops the hustle and the bet and is said to keep the friend’s complicity, while content-word overlap falls. So lexical similarity cannot tell kept footing from a changed act, and a reconstruction study needs a pragmatic outcome (CLAIM-084).
Critical questions
- Would the evidence be expected if the hypothesis were false? Yes. The retention was asserted by the author of the chains, who held the hypothesis.
- Does it tell the hypothesis apart from its rivals? No. Without an independent judgement of footing there is no measured retention for overlap to fail to predict.
- Does the measure measure what it is said to? No. This is the question that fails. CASE-030: “the retention of complicity is the author’s reading, not a measurement. It illustrates CLAIM-084 and can test nothing.” CLAIM-084 says the same of itself: “They illustrate it, and their pragmatic retention was asserted, not measured.”
Rejected as evidence for CLAIM-084. The chains now stand as CLAIM-084’s
illustrated_by, which is what the verdict asks. CLAIM-229 also noted that
CASE-030’s chain is the record’s nearest case of the act kept while the
proposition changes, and that it fails for the same reason
(ARG-021).