Why it is a question
- THEORY-139: a corporation that forms its judgments through authorized avowal and corrects the inconsistency of aggregating its members’ views “has a mind of its own”, and is fit to be held responsible.
- THEORY-137: attributions of mental states to institutions “work largely by shaping the institutions to which they are made rather than by describing states they already had”, “whether or not institutions really have minds”.
The two are not strictly incompatible. A regulative attribution could build a mind that then exists. But they disagree about what the attribution is evidence of, and so about how QUESTION-009 could be settled by looking at how corporations are treated.
What would count as an answer: a case where corporate “knowledge” or intention persists, and guides action, without regulative uptake, which would favour THEORY-139. Or one where it appears only once a norm is imposed and lapses when the norm is lifted, which would favour THEORY-137.
Note of 2026-10-12: a typed partial answer
THEORY-139 now carries an answered_by edge, for the tracking side.