The claim
A10 closed: “The central insight is that justificatory history is not extra information beyond a sufficient state. Its potential value lies in expanding the set of decisions for which the retained state is sufficient, or making those decisions computationally feasible.”
It separated three comparisons, “not automatically additive”:
- Informational value. What a narrower state discarded: R_Q(S) − R_Q(H). Zero when S is sufficient for Q (CLAIM-300).
- Computational value. What a bounded agent gains from a representation that makes relations easy to reach: R^(r)_Q(S) − R^(r)_Q(J). It can be positive “without adding information”. A10’s example: forty dependents of a challenged premise among ten thousand claims, found by reverse reachability in an index and by search in a flat archive.
- Option value. The expected gain when future families differ from the one the state was optimized for (QUESTION-112).
A5’s second claim is the specific mechanism: “When conclusions depend on distinguishable sources, assumptions, and inferential steps, preserving those dependencies can enable targeted reconsideration after a premise or source is challenged.” CASE-086 and CASE-090 illustrate the two operations this supports, tracing descendants of a defeated premise and reopening an alternative whose defeater is defeated.
Where it stands against CLAIM-250
A10 §7: CLAIM-250 is “a proposal about what accountable inquiry ought to preserve”. This claim concerns what preserving it can buy. “These four propositions can support one another without being reduced to one another.” A10 kept the fallback in view: if a latent sufficient state does as well once costs are counted, the record’s structure “might still be justified by inspectability, auditing, and shared human–agent coordination, rather than by superior predictive updating.”
What it does not say
- Not that topology is enough (CLAIM-293).
- Not that history is always worth keeping. A10: the argument “only establishes an option value for retained information. It does not imply retaining everything is worth its cost.” That is CLAIM-303 and QUESTION-098.
- Not that a record that keeps justifications is correct (CLAIM-299).
Note of 2026-10-29: filed with its concessions
CLAIM-293 is granted against reading this claim as saying a graph of justifications is enough, and the body has said “Not that topology is enough” since the claim was filed. The title says what a kept record can add, not how to revise with it.
Note of 2026-10-29: what holds it back
The informational clauses are carried by CLAIM-294 and CLAIM-300, both Active. The computational clause has only A10’s illustrative example, and a state built for the tasks could carry the same dependency index, which is exactly what the defeat condition asks to be shown or ruled out.