CLAIM-087: Cross-modal reconstruction often improves a receiver's access to an implicit communicative relation beyond the text-only baseline, as when posture or expression conveys solidarity better than the source text's literal content, though a rendering made without the situation is a garbling and cannot improve what an ideal receiver could do

The claim

A97 §6: a cross-modal chain may improve as well as degrade; “an image might convey solidarity through posture or facial expression more effectively than the source text’s literal content alone.” A100 §11.10 kept it as “visual realization improving access to an implicit relation”.

Where it went

Manuscript §7 frames the medium change as where “relational fidelity is indispensable” and a generator can fail “precisely the higher-order communicative constraint”. The opposite possibility is not stated. It bears on QUESTION-012, and it is the cross-modal case of CLAIM-105’s reverse: a transport that adds a distinction.

Note of 2026-10-15: split under ADR-043

ADR-043’s full classification found this claim compound: the improvement of a receiver’s access through an image is a hypothetical example with an empirical test proposed and none run, which is interpretive, while the bound in its last clause, that a rendering made without the situation is a garbling and cannot improve what an ideal receiver could do, is demonstrated. That bound is already stated and derived in CLAIM-225 (Active, demonstrated): with a generator whose channel T(v | u) does not depend on the situation z, P(V | Z) is T applied to P(U | Z), so by Blackwell’s theorem the image is no better than the text for any bounded decision problem about the situation. No new claim was drafted. No relation was added either: CLAIM-225 already rests on this claim, so this claim cannot rest on it without a cycle, and the two are already linked. This claim keeps the improvement for a given receiver as its conclusion, with the bound as the condition that scopes it, and its warrant stays interpretive. The title is kept.

Note of 2026-10-19: the title restated as prevalence

The promotion audit’s batch 034 found the title’s first clause behind its own defeat condition. Since version 2 the condition tests the share of items on which access rises above the text-only baseline by a margin, after CLAIM-238. The title still said reconstruction “can” improve access, which one item settles. It now says “often”, and “beyond the text-only baseline”, which is what the condition measures. The bound in the last clause still scopes it: the improvement is for a given receiver (CLAIM-199), never past what an ideal receiver could do (CLAIM-225). The warrant stays interpretive, because no chain has been run.

Note of 2026-10-27: rests on CLAIM-225

The status review of this date (ADR-057) found the dependence the body’s note on a cycle worried about running one way only. CLAIM-225 does not need this claim, and its dilemma holds either way. This claim’s garbling bound uses CLAIM-225’s result, so it now rests on CLAIM-225.

Note of 2026-10-30: what holds it back

The first clause is a prevalence, “often”, and no text→image→text chain has been run: CASE-009 is stipulated, and CASE-062’s documented gains are on content probes, not on the interpersonal relation. The defeat condition’s margin and rate are still not fixed (CLAIM-238), so even a chain that was run could not yet meet or miss it.