Why it is a question
A14 §1: “A distinction may survive a transformation in principle while becoming too computationally expensive for the receiver to recover.” The second and third failure modes “matter even when the transformation is mathematically invertible.” CLAIM-304 shows the gap exists. This asks where it falls for communicative distinctions and real renderings.
A15 §4 added a contrast with CLAIM-117. That claim asks whether a translation preserves how interpretation changes under later framings. “Complexity introduces a further question: even if the transformed interpretive dynamics correspond mathematically, can a bounded receiver actually recover or enact that correspondence?”
An answer measures, for named receivers and budgets, the bounded risk on a communicative decision before and after a rendering, Δ_q(r, T) in A15’s notation, and shows how it varies with r.