The claim
The interlocutor’s reading of 2026-10-12, as CLAIM-205 quotes it, proposes a fourth row for CLAIM-202’s comparison, between the static pragmatic profile and the transport model: a “strong contextual baseline” of “rich context-response profiles, supervised predictive methods”. “What matters is whether transport structure adds predictive or explanatory power over the strong contextual baseline, not merely over static pragmatic judgments.”
CLAIM-205, on which this rests, holds that the functional and relevance-theoretic accounts, as Nida, Nord and Gutt state them, need not fix one context or a static stance profile. This claim adds that the strongest form of those rivals, for the purpose of the comparison, is such a baseline.
What it does not say
- It does not say the transport structure will fail against the baseline.
- It does not specify the baseline beyond the reading’s table.
Note of 2026-10-30: what holds it back
The baseline is not specified beyond the reading’s table. No argument in the record shows it to be the strongest operationalization the rivals license, rather than one strong one.