The case
A34 §4: “One translation might preserve an ambiguity between amused solidarity and moral disapproval. Another might settle that ambiguity immediately. Their static judgment profiles could look similar while their interpretive dynamics differ.” A48 §7.5: “One translation sustains an ambiguity between solidarity and criticism. Another fixes the speaker as explicitly condemnatory, reducing sensitivity to subsequent affiliative framing”, with the hypothesis “that such differences may explain fidelity judgments not captured by static similarity measures.”
What it can show
Why endpoints can agree while routes differ (CLAIM-117): ambiguity is a property of how an utterance responds to later frames, not of any single judgement of it. Stipulated; the renderings are not specified. It is the most concrete form of the manuscript’s §9 claim, which states it abstractly (“preservation of the effects of future frames”). Absent from A52 and from the manuscript.