The claim
A86: “Translation is not the transmission of an invariant semantic object. It is the selective preservation of decision-relevant information across changing observational and interpretive structures.” And “its dynamical complement”: “What survives each act of communication depends not only on what was transmitted, but on what each successive interpreter is capable of observing, inferring, and reconstructing.” “I think this is strong enough to justify reorganizing the manuscript around a unified theory of contextual pragmatic information transport.”
The division of labour behind it, A86: “Sheaf theory tells us how observations fit together; information theory tells us which distinctions survive transmission; communication theory tells us how to design a channel that preserves the distinctions that matter.”
Why it was replaced
U32 (“make it so”) produced C6, What Survives Translation? Contextual Pragmatic Information Transport. Its abstract fuses this with CLAIM-124: “Communicative identity is characterized by partially overlapping families of observations rather than a privileged global semantic vector.” The manuscript’s last sentence (CLAIM-115) keeps both halves: the distinctions “that a receiving system can still reconstruct and act upon”. The chain runs on through proposal v6 (CLAIM-048), the structuralist thesis (CLAIM-036) and the symmetry thesis (CLAIM-108).