The claim
A110, “The final thesis”: “What Survives Translation? The invariants—and approximately preserved relations—of communicative transformation. A communicative realization is identified through an overlapping system of observational distinctions. Translation and reconstruction act on that system through directed stochastic transformations. What survives depends on the structural invariants of those transformations, the information needed to recover them, and the interpretive capacities of the receiving system. Meaning is not simply carried across representations; its defining relationships are selectively conserved, reconstructed, and sometimes transformed.”
How it was replaced
U39 (“draft a manuscript”, 21:33) produced C7, What Survives Translation? Symmetry, Observational Context, and Information Transport Across Representations. Its last sentence answers differently: “What survives translation is not necessarily its wording or even its proposition, but the communicative distinctions and relationships that a receiving system can still reconstruct and act upon” (CLAIM-115). The answer moved from invariants of the transformation to what the receiver can recover and use. The subtitle kept “Symmetry”, and the argument’s own thesis had already named “the interpretive capacities of the receiving system” third. The move is a change of emphasis, but it decides which of the two is the criterion, and nothing in the transcript argues it. A100’s conclusion (“for particular observers and communicative purposes”) is its nearest precedent.