Why it is a question
THEORY-255 holds the impossibility. If membership is an order-preserving weight on a lattice and “and” is the meet, then µ(A and B) ≤ min(µ(A), µ(B)), whatever the negation. On 2026-10-19 it was narrowed and promoted at the owner’s direction, carrying out the promotion audit’s batch 018 (record/promotion-audit/decisions/THEORY-255.yaml, ADR-047). Its former promote_when also asked for a reading of a second quantum model of the concept-combination data, to confirm that it too puts the guppy-type deviations outside the lattice meet.
That confirmation is now a consequence: every model that reproduces an overextended item drops conjunction-as-meet or the monotone weight. What is open is which one each published model drops. That matters because the two choices make different claims about concepts. Dropping the meet says a conjunction is a new concept, as Aerts’s emergent subspace does. Dropping monotonicity says membership in a narrower concept can exceed membership in a broader one.
What would answer it
A reading of at least one model other than Aerts’s that reproduces Hampton’s overextended items, such as Busemeyer and Bruza (LIT-316, if a copy is found) or Franco’s conditional-probability model. It should state which of the two assumptions the model gives up. A better fit to Hampton’s data does not answer it, because the question is where the deviation lives, not how well it is fitted.
A model that reproduces overextension with conjunction as a lattice meet and an order-preserving weight would refute THEORY-255 instead.