Why it is a question
A67: “The next result worth obtaining is whether stable speaker footing measurably reduces pragmatic drift relative to shifting framing conditions, even when both conditions experience substantial lexical drift.” The authored chains (CASE-030, CASE-032) were built to show this pattern, so they cannot answer it; the harness that could (CASE-020) was never run.
What would count as an answer
Independently sampled chains under stable and shifting frames, scored for footing by raters blind to condition (CLAIM-084). The manuscript’s §10 Case II is the design. A positive answer would bear on CLAIM-068: a stable frame may hold a chain away from a conventional attractor.
Note of 2026-10-11: material in the record that may bear on this
A synthesis review of 2026-10-11 found these entries bearing on this
question without being linked to it. Each is listed for what its title
says; none has yet been assessed as an answer, and none is linked by
answers.
- THEORY-155: Iterated learning by Bayesian agents who sample from the posterior converges to the shared prior
- CLAIM-066: Kirby, Cornish and Smith show structure emerging under transmission with an experimenter’s filter, not…
- CLAIM-186: How fast an argument grows sets how it grows: drift tracks how fast new material arrives relative to how…
Note of 2026-10-12: the listed material was assessed on 2026-10-10
The note of 2026-10-11 says none of the material listed above has been assessed. That is no longer so. PR #121’s round of 2026-10-10 assessed THEORY-155 and CLAIM-066 in CLAIM-234, which is granted and Active: “none measures stance, footing or speech-act function along a chain”. CLAIM-227, also granted, holds that no validated measure of footing exists in the record. CASE-068 gives documented chain evidence for evaluative stance only, and CLAIM-234’s note of 2026-10-10 says that for footing “it still has none”. A footing chain would first need the measurement QUESTION-076 asks for.