Why it is a question
Will-organization (TERM-023) is defined by six relations: accessibility, precedence, persistence, jurisdiction, suspension and transformation. CLAIM-057 shows precedence, jurisdiction and suspension vary independently, and CLAIM-027 holds that which regime becomes effective is not reducible to the contents of the competing regimes. The potential account of valence (TERM-076, TERM-078) uses three marks, priority, persistence and resumption, and reads all three off the record of which side won each contested pair. Each of the other relations bears on valence in a way that record may not show.
- Jurisdiction decides which conflicts are contested at all: which of a perspective’s demands count as applicable to the case. The nonvacuity condition (valence undefined where no pair is contested) is therefore relative to jurisdiction, and so is every share of contested wins. Two organizations with the same wins and different jurisdictions have different contested sets.
- Suspension disables an applicable perspective without its losing a contest. Mindfulness works this way on CLAIM-156’s account, and CLAIM-442 reads it as changing the system’s valence while the perspectives’ claims stay fixed. A suspended perspective’s demand may never appear in the record as a lost contest.
- Accessibility fixes the options X_t over which the ordering is read. Narrowing it can make a record acyclic that would cycle on the full set, or leave nothing contested.
- Transformation changes the perspectives themselves. A reorganization that merges two perspectives removes their conflicts, which on the account changes intensity and can make valence undefined, without any ordering having prevailed.
What would count as an answer
For each relation, either an argument that its effect on valence shows up in the record of wins after all, or a case in which it changes the system’s valence (or the definedness of valence) with the wins fixed, and a statement of how the measurement procedure of QUESTION-268 must record it.
What would not answer it
A redefinition of valence that folds the relation into “who won” by stipulation, which is the reduction CLAIM-027 denies.