The claim
The manuscript’s thesis (CLAIM-115) says what survives is what “a receiving system can still reconstruct and act upon”. The October thesis (CLAIM-139) says “Fidelity concerns which independently identifiable, decision-relevant relational distinctions persist through those transformations.” Identifiability in A218 is relative to the analyst’s probe system 𝒪. Its theorem target defines it: θ ∼_𝒪 θ′ when P_θ(Y_𝒪) = P_θ′(Y_𝒪), and a signature s is identifiable “precisely when” θ ∼_𝒪 θ′ implies s(θ) = s(θ′). Nothing in that definition mentions a receiver.
The receiver did not leave in one step. A151 kept “which distinctions a receiver can still recover and use”, and outline v7 (A178) kept “appropriately situated observers can recover, test, and act upon” (CLAIM-133). A203 kept “recoverable, usable”. A214’s thesis paragraph has no receiver, and A218 puts identifiability in its place. In A218 the receiver survives in two places, outside the thesis: §8, “Receiver knowledge and adaptation enter explicitly into the interpretation problem”, and Ch13.5, “Receiver knowledge and decoder side information”.
The two tests come apart in both directions.
- Identifiable but unusable. A distinction can be identifiable from the analyst’s “sparse, multi-view, context-indexed observation” (A218 Part III) and still not be recoverable by a receiver who has only the target text. A218’s Ch13.6, “Identifiable but task-irrelevant factors”, comes near this and keeps it outside the thesis.
- Usable but unidentifiable. A receiver with side information can recover a distinction that the analyst’s probes cannot identify. This is Ch13.5’s “decoder side information”, and CLAIM-074’s point that fidelity is relative to the interpreter’s learning history.
TERM-034 (“relative to an interpreter”) and CLAIM-074 are on the receiver’s side. The October thesis keeps the receiver in the fidelity profile and drops it from the criterion. No turn argues the change: U59 and U60 asked for the argument to be tied together and for a new proposal, and the owner raised nothing about the receiver.
What it does not say
It does not say the analyst’s notion is wrong. Identifiability is what makes a fidelity measure non-arbitrary, which is QUESTION-005’s worry about building the preferred notion of fidelity into the measurement. It says only that the thesis now needs both conditions, or an argument for dropping one. It does not say the October thesis is false.
Note of 2026-10-10: the replies
CLAIM-223 is the argument this entry asked for. It keeps both conditions, in different roles: recovery fixes what survived, identifiability what can be shown to have survived. On this entry’s two cases, a distinction identifiable but unusable did not survive for those receivers, and one usable but unidentifiable survived without evidence of it. The revised October thesis CLAIM-204 states the fidelity clause so. Both are Proposed; CLAIM-139 is unchanged.