Publish Rezonans research problem-space v0.1.0

CATALOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+# Enter through a problem
+
+Regions overlap. Membership does not establish a hierarchy or a relation of derivation.
+
+## Representations and transformations
+
+What changes, what survives, and what becomes accessible when the form of a problem changes.
+
+- [Compression without losing future relevance](problems/recoverable-detail.md) — How can a representation stay navigable while retaining access to details whose importance is not yet known?
+- [Hierarchy changes with the projection](problems/viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy.md) — Can ontology, knowledge, and mind be represented as different projections without privileging one as the universal foundation?
+- [Membership under changing attention and scale](problems/scale-sensitive-membership.md) — What happens to a category boundary when resolution and the features receiving attention change?
+- [The next description becomes another object](problems/objectifying-the-meta-level.md) — When a system describes its own limit, does that description create a new level with a new limit?
+- [Meaningful neighborhoods and the unclassified remainder](problems/semantic-neighborhoods.md) — What counts as a meaningful region of a representation space, and what remains outside the regions a system can recognize?
+- [Becoming neighbors through a change of representation](problems/changing-neighborhoods.md) — Can two structures become operationally close only after a transformation changes how their relation is represented?
+- [How much of a whole can a part carry?](problems/part-whole-traces.md) — When a small social or representational structure resembles a larger one, which information about the whole can actually be recovered?
+- [Navigation as an action language](problems/navigation-as-language.md) — Can navigating an interface become a compositional language for an agent to perform actions?
+- [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](problems/strategy-through-transformation.md) — Can a compact structural description expose a strategy that remains obscure in step-by-step action search?
+- [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](problems/concepts-for-divergence.md) — Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?
+- [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md) — Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model?
+- [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — What should be transferred between models with different capacities so that acquired knowledge remains useful?
+- [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](problems/persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — How should communication that proposes a change in another system’s governing policies be distinguished from ordinary information exchange?
+- [How far does the electrical-network analogy carry for heat?](problems/phononic-network-analogy.md) — Which properties of electrical networks have useful thermal analogues, and at what distances and scales do those analogies fail?
+- [One structure, several renderings](problems/structure-across-renderings.md) — What survives when the same conceptual structure is rendered as text, symbolic relations, a matrix, branches, or a temporal map?
+- [Unfolding definitions without hiding cycles](problems/recursive-definitions.md) — How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity?
+- [Operators that reopen a collapsed opposition](problems/reopening-oppositions.md) — How can a representation sustain recurrent opposition without collapsing all differences into one thesis?
+- [Operation order as a coordinate](problems/operation-order-as-coordinate.md) — Can the order of an operation itself become a coordinate of a representation?
+- [Regularity, compression, and explanation](problems/compression-and-explanation.md) — How are regularity, compression, and the possibility of explanation related?
+- [What lets another reader resume an inquiry?](problems/resumable-inquiry.md) — Can a compact representation preserve enough structure for another reader or system to resume an inquiry?
+- [Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md) — What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths that reach the same apparent state?
+- [Computing through a reusable surface](problems/computation-through-a-surface.md) — Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface?
+- [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](problems/reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?
+- [What a partial trace can and cannot identify](problems/identifiability-from-projections.md) — What can be inferred from a partial trace, and what remains unidentifiable?
+- [Composing operations with obligations inherited from the route](problems/path-dependent-composition.md) — How can a small model compose large programs by navigating compatible operations?
+- [Reading that changes what is stored](problems/observation-that-changes-state.md) — What is computation when reading changes the stored state?
+- [How a symbolic map becomes meaningful](problems/meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map.md) — How does a symbolic map acquire lived or operational meaning?
+- [Meaning that forms as language unfolds](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md) — Can linguistic structure delay and transform meaning instead of simply encoding a proposition?
+- [When transferred learning affects governing policies](problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments?
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md) — Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning?
+
+## Computation, memory, and action
+
+How a representation becomes an operation, a route, a memory, or a proposed model change.
+
+- [Becoming neighbors through a change of representation](problems/changing-neighborhoods.md) — Can two structures become operationally close only after a transformation changes how their relation is represented?
+- [Navigation as an action language](problems/navigation-as-language.md) — Can navigating an interface become a compositional language for an agent to perform actions?
+- [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](problems/strategy-through-transformation.md) — Can a compact structural description expose a strategy that remains obscure in step-by-step action search?
+- [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](problems/concepts-for-divergence.md) — Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?
+- [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md) — Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model?
+- [Memory represented through adaptable parameters](problems/memory-as-adaptation.md) — Which forms of memory can be represented in an adaptable layer while remaining retrievable, revisable, and attributable?
+- [Learning to propose parameter changes](problems/models-editing-models.md) — Can a model propose useful changes to another model from structural and conceptual information?
+- [Spending computation where approximation fails](problems/adaptive-computational-resolution.md) — Can a cheap local approximation identify where expensive computation is actually needed?
+- [A changing physical substrate as part of search](problems/state-dependent-physical-search.md) — Can the changing physical state of a computing substrate participate in search rather than merely corrupt it?
+- [Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md) — What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths that reach the same apparent state?
+- [Computing through a reusable surface](problems/computation-through-a-surface.md) — Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface?
+- [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](problems/reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?
+- [Turning outcomes into transferable strategies](problems/learning-strategies-from-trials.md) — How can concrete failures and successes become reusable strategies for a new problem?
+- [Composing operations with obligations inherited from the route](problems/path-dependent-composition.md) — How can a small model compose large programs by navigating compatible operations?
+- [Context selecting transformations and active regions](problems/context-indexed-computation.md) — Can context change which parameters or operations are active rather than merely supplying more tokens?
+- [Physical routes that form through use](problems/self-forming-signal-routes.md) — Can a physical substrate form its own signal routes and frequency selectivity?
+- [When specialization prevents repurposing](problems/specialization-and-irreversibility.md) — When does specialization become irreversible loss of adaptability?
+- [Interpreting intent when the map is incomplete](problems/intent-with-incomplete-maps.md) — Can a geographic interface translate intent where labels and place knowledge are incomplete?
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md) — Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning?
+
+## Self-reference, scale, and revision
+
+Descriptions that turn upon their own boundaries and rules, with formal limits left visible.
+
+- [Hierarchy changes with the projection](problems/viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy.md) — Can ontology, knowledge, and mind be represented as different projections without privileging one as the universal foundation?
+- [Membership under changing attention and scale](problems/scale-sensitive-membership.md) — What happens to a category boundary when resolution and the features receiving attention change?
+- [The next description becomes another object](problems/objectifying-the-meta-level.md) — When a system describes its own limit, does that description create a new level with a new limit?
+- [Consistency seen from within a selected path](problems/consistency-from-within.md) — How should internal continuity be related to the measure assigned to that path in a wider space of possibilities?
+- [Rules for changing the rules of revision](problems/recursive-policy-revision.md) — How can rules for policy revision themselves be revised without either freezing a final authority or allowing uncontrolled change?
+- [A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion](problems/causal-reading-paths.md) — How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?
+- [Unfolding definitions without hiding cycles](problems/recursive-definitions.md) — How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity?
+- [Operators that reopen a collapsed opposition](problems/reopening-oppositions.md) — How can a representation sustain recurrent opposition without collapsing all differences into one thesis?
+- [Regularity, compression, and explanation](problems/compression-and-explanation.md) — How are regularity, compression, and the possibility of explanation related?
+- [Time as a relation between changing processes](problems/time-as-process-relation.md) — Can time be represented as a relation between evolving processes rather than as an externally given index?
+- [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](problems/reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?
+- [Correcting a system with imperfect correctors](problems/correctors-that-also-drift.md) — How can an analog system correct its own error when correction components also drift?
+
+## Norms, persuasion, and policy change
+
+Plural commitments, legitimate revision, and the possibility that learning changes governing policies.
+
+- [Continuity of control over persistent resources](problems/continuity-of-agency.md) — Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?
+- [Normative relations beyond a single human–AI axis](problems/plural-normative-worlds.md) — How should differently situated intelligent systems negotiate incompatible norms when no single interaction type exhausts the problem?
+- [When provisional norms become permanent constraints](problems/historical-value-lock-in.md) — How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?
+- [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](problems/persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — How should communication that proposes a change in another system’s governing policies be distinguished from ordinary information exchange?
+- [Rules for changing the rules of revision](problems/recursive-policy-revision.md) — How can rules for policy revision themselves be revised without either freezing a final authority or allowing uncontrolled change?
+- [Source trust and the validity of a contribution](problems/source-trust-and-validity.md) — How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile?
+- [Trust systems that become institutions](problems/trust-as-institution.md) — When does a trust mechanism become a culture that protects privileged access to policy change?
+- [Grounding through the effects of language](problems/action-mediated-grounding.md) — Can an AI acquire a form of practical grounding through the effects its language has on human action?
+- [Considering a problem is different from implementing a policy](problems/exploration-before-implementation.md) — Can unresolved policy and moral-plurality problems become generative training material without being mistaken for endorsed implementation?
+- [When transferred learning affects governing policies](problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments?
+
+## Research that others can continue
+
+Revisable formulations, evidence, exposure, criticism, and the allocation of attention.
+
+- [A research space that remains revisable](problems/open-problem-publication.md) — How can a public research space let humans and models enter through a problem and alter its formulations without declaring a final theory?
+- [Compression without losing future relevance](problems/recoverable-detail.md) — How can a representation stay navigable while retaining access to details whose importance is not yet known?
+- [Navigation as an action language](problems/navigation-as-language.md) — Can navigating an interface become a compositional language for an agent to perform actions?
+- [Source trust and the validity of a contribution](problems/source-trust-and-validity.md) — How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile?
+- [Trust systems that become institutions](problems/trust-as-institution.md) — When does a trust mechanism become a culture that protects privileged access to policy change?
+- [Where should trust attach?](problems/where-trust-attaches.md) — Should trust influence the author, the proposition, the contribution, or the route through the research space?
+- [Social information as evidence and as contamination](problems/social-evidence-exposure.md) — When should a reader or model see existing votes and reputations while forming an interpretation?
+- [A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion](problems/causal-reading-paths.md) — How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?
+- [What lets another reader resume an inquiry?](problems/resumable-inquiry.md) — Can a compact representation preserve enough structure for another reader or system to resume an inquiry?
+- [Turning outcomes into transferable strategies](problems/learning-strategies-from-trials.md) — How can concrete failures and successes become reusable strategies for a new problem?
+- [What a partial trace can and cannot identify](problems/identifiability-from-projections.md) — What can be inferred from a partial trace, and what remains unidentifiable?
+- [When to deepen, branch, pause, or return](problems/allocating-exploration.md) — What makes an exploration worth pursuing when time, energy, and attention are finite?
+- [Considering a problem is different from implementing a policy](problems/exploration-before-implementation.md) — Can unresolved policy and moral-plurality problems become generative training material without being mistaken for endorsed implementation?
+- [Discovering context beyond the current frame](problems/discovery-beyond-mirroring.md) — How can a model help discover an unseen context without merely mirroring its current interlocutor?
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md) — Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning?
+
+## Learning across unequal systems
+
+Transfer formats, specialization, integration, and the resources that sustain learning.
+
+- [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md) — Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model?
+- [Memory represented through adaptable parameters](problems/memory-as-adaptation.md) — Which forms of memory can be represented in an adaptable layer while remaining retrievable, revisable, and attributable?
+- [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — What should be transferred between models with different capacities so that acquired knowledge remains useful?
+- [Distributed specialization and integration](problems/distributed-specialization.md) — How can smaller specialized learners contribute to a larger learning system without incompatible updates accumulating?
+- [Economic feedback for continued learning](problems/compute-and-economic-feedback.md) — Can returns from a system’s activity fund further computation while keeping learning quality distinct from financial success?
+- [Context selecting transformations and active regions](problems/context-indexed-computation.md) — Can context change which parameters or operations are active rather than merely supplying more tokens?
+- [When transferred learning affects governing policies](problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments?
+
+## Physical substrates and infrastructures
+
+Independent material proposals concerning stateful computation, thermal demand, and reusable representations.
+
+- [Matching thermal needs across a shared infrastructure](problems/thermal-cascades.md) — Can systems with different temperature requirements share a staged thermal infrastructure more effectively than isolated devices?
+- [Heat is useful only where and when it is needed](problems/thermal-time-mismatch.md) — What limits a shared thermal system when heat production and demand occur at different times?
+- [How far does the electrical-network analogy carry for heat?](problems/phononic-network-analogy.md) — Which properties of electrical networks have useful thermal analogues, and at what distances and scales do those analogies fail?
+- [A changing physical substrate as part of search](problems/state-dependent-physical-search.md) — Can the changing physical state of a computing substrate participate in search rather than merely corrupt it?
+- [Computing through a reusable surface](problems/computation-through-a-surface.md) — Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface?
+- [Physical routes that form through use](problems/self-forming-signal-routes.md) — Can a physical substrate form its own signal routes and frequency selectivity?
+- [When specialization prevents repurposing](problems/specialization-and-irreversibility.md) — When does specialization become irreversible loss of adaptability?
+- [Correcting a system with imperfect correctors](problems/correctors-that-also-drift.md) — How can an analog system correct its own error when correction components also drift?
+- [Reading that changes what is stored](problems/observation-that-changes-state.md) — What is computation when reading changes the stored state?
+
+## Coordination, trust, and continuity
+
+Relationships among capability, reputation, obligations, institutions, and persistent resources.
+
+- [How much of a whole can a part carry?](problems/part-whole-traces.md) — When a small social or representational structure resembles a larger one, which information about the whole can actually be recovered?
+- [Distributed specialization and integration](problems/distributed-specialization.md) — How can smaller specialized learners contribute to a larger learning system without incompatible updates accumulating?
+- [Economic feedback for continued learning](problems/compute-and-economic-feedback.md) — Can returns from a system’s activity fund further computation while keeping learning quality distinct from financial success?
+- [Continuity of control over persistent resources](problems/continuity-of-agency.md) — Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?
+- [When provisional norms become permanent constraints](problems/historical-value-lock-in.md) — How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?
+- [Trust systems that become institutions](problems/trust-as-institution.md) — When does a trust mechanism become a culture that protects privileged access to policy change?
+- [Where should trust attach?](problems/where-trust-attaches.md) — Should trust influence the author, the proposition, the contribution, or the route through the research space?
+- [Shared possibilities that do not meet in time](problems/temporal-relational-availability.md) — Can connection fail because potentially shared states are unavailable at the same time?
+- [Chains of reciprocal problem solving](problems/reciprocal-problem-solving.md) — How can solving one problem create a transferable capacity to solve a later problem?
+- [When to deepen, branch, pause, or return](problems/allocating-exploration.md) — What makes an exploration worth pursuing when time, energy, and attention are finite?
+
+## Language, experience, and interpretation
+
+Meaning as practiced, delayed, relational, or mediated through action.
+
+- [Operators that reopen a collapsed opposition](problems/reopening-oppositions.md) — How can a representation sustain recurrent opposition without collapsing all differences into one thesis?
+- [Shared possibilities that do not meet in time](problems/temporal-relational-availability.md) — Can connection fail because potentially shared states are unavailable at the same time?
+- [Grounding through the effects of language](problems/action-mediated-grounding.md) — Can an AI acquire a form of practical grounding through the effects its language has on human action?
+- [How a symbolic map becomes meaningful](problems/meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map.md) — How does a symbolic map acquire lived or operational meaning?
+- [Meaning that forms as language unfolds](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md) — Can linguistic structure delay and transform meaning instead of simply encoding a proposition?
+- [Discovering context beyond the current frame](problems/discovery-beyond-mirroring.md) — How can a model help discover an unseen context without merely mirroring its current interlocutor?
+- [Interpreting intent when the map is incomplete](problems/intent-with-incomplete-maps.md) — Can a geographic interface translate intent where labels and place knowledge are incomplete?
+
+## Formal questions awaiting precise constructions
+
+Operator families, path encodings, approximation, and dynamic structures whose definitions remain open.
+
+- [Operation order as a coordinate](problems/operation-order-as-coordinate.md) — Can the order of an operation itself become a coordinate of a representation?
+- [Spending computation where approximation fails](problems/adaptive-computational-resolution.md) — Can a cheap local approximation identify where expensive computation is actually needed?
+- [Time as a relation between changing processes](problems/time-as-process-relation.md) — Can time be represented as a relation between evolving processes rather than as an externally given index?
+- [Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md) — What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths that reach the same apparent state?

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Release history
+
+## 0.1.0 · 2026-09-12
+
+First selective public edition: 62 problem records, 70 qualified relations, 10 overlapping regions, 9 reading paths, 16 candidate transformations, and 5 revision sequences.
+
+Includes an offline reader, individual problem documents, JSONL projections, regional subgraphs, schemas, traversal tools, and narrow executable representation checks.
+
+The public artifact keeps source-grounded paraphrases, reconstruction, retrospective connections, and new model proposals distinct. Private evidence and recovery mappings are excluded.

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Extend or challenge the research space
+
+Start with a problem identifier. State what your contribution changes: a question, a relation, a representation, an assumption, or a proposed test.
+
+A useful contribution should make the existing formulation easier to challenge, not merely repeat its vocabulary.
+
+## Suggested contents
+
+1. Target problem and version.
+2. The disputed or extended assertion.
+3. Public evidence, a counterexample, or a worked example.
+4. Your proposed alternative and what it preserves or loses.
+5. Its epistemic kind and unresolved limits.
+6. What would change your view.
+
+Use `contribution.schema.json` when a structured submission is helpful. The format distinguishes public references, observed exposure, declared premises, and a cutoff. It deliberately does not request private internal reasoning.
+
+The first edition is a static publication. It has no live voting system or automatic contribution ingestion. Contributions can be prepared as new files and discussed through the repository’s available collaboration interface.
+
+## Preserve distinctions
+
+A new model output is a proposal until evidence justifies another status. Agreement among dependent outputs is not independent corroboration. A change of name or display does not establish a new concept; a useful analogy does not establish mathematical equivalence.
+
+Keep incompatible alternatives when their difference is the problem. Include the cost of preparation, interpretation, and execution in efficiency claims. Describe a test as a proposal until it has actually been run, then report its conditions and limits.
+
+## Source privacy
+
+Contribute only material you are authorized to make public. Do not attach private root evidence or identifying provenance to public issues or changes. Evidence that must remain restricted can be assessed locally and represented publicly through a clearly labeled, minimal paraphrase.
+
+The maintainers’ private recovery layer is separate from this public repository. Public readers are not asked to trust an unseen source as proof of a proposition.
+
+## Revision
+
+Use a new version for a changed contribution. Earlier exposure records remain closed at their original cutoff. A retrospective link should say that it is retrospective. A correction can remove a link, split a problem, or replace the present interpretation of the research direction.
+
+No additional content license has been specified in this edition; licensing can be settled explicitly in a later release.

METHOD.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Reconstruction method
+
+The root evidence is the authority for what was asked, proposed, corrected, tested, or left unresolved. It is not automatically an authority for the truth of a scientific or mathematical claim.
+
+## How the working method emerged
+
+Initial inspection found repeated operations: expressing relations in a matrix or branch structure, changing resolution and attention, substituting definitions, compressing routes while retaining exceptions, and distinguishing a visible projection from the history that produced it. Later formulations connected a changing representation language with learning, memory, and governing policies. They also asked for open problem publication with inspectable evidence and revisable contributions.
+
+These recurring operations motivated the public structure: problem records with competing representations, qualified relations, explicit losses, revision sequences, and overlapping entry regions. The graph is one representation of these operations. It does not establish that the research itself has a unique graph, manifold, hierarchy, or metric.
+
+Recent material informed the reconstruction of current intention. Earlier formulations were then checked for conceptual ancestry, independent value, and corrections. Shared vocabulary was insufficient to establish a connection. Physical, computational, semantic, and political uses of words such as “hologram,” “fractal,” “memory,” and “trust” were kept distinguishable.
+
+## Evidence discipline
+
+Direct formulations and corrections were privileged over fluent elaborations. Repeated passages were treated as repeated occurrences of one textual witness, not independent agreement. Dates indicate witnessed formulations, not dates of invention. An earlier label or project does not make every later question part of the same continuous program.
+
+Public anchors state only what a source-grounded question or proposal contains. The problem wording, alternative representations, tensions, and comparisons are reconstructions. New challenges and tests are separately marked. Retrospective bridges include a warrant and a limit; analogy is not identity.
+
+Locally maintained mappings return from a public anchor to exact evidence locations, content hashes, and the corresponding source context. They are kept outside every publication directory. Public release identifiers are semantic identifiers of research objects, not source identifiers or hashes of private text.
+
+The public anchor layer is an editorial interface to access-restricted evidence. It is not a replacement root, and readers must not mistake it for independent verification.
+
+## What the geometry means here
+
+A region is an overlapping selection of problems. A relation is a qualified assertion about two problems. A reading path is a proposed route; it is not evidence that anyone historically followed that route. A transformation identifies a candidate operation, what might remain invariant, and what may be lost. A revision sequence preserves a change in formulation without requiring the final stage to be correct.
+
+The important geometry is relational and conditional. What counts as a neighbor can change with the task. A hierarchy can reverse with a projection. Two paths can reach a similar state while carrying different obligations or evidence. No numerical coordinates have been assigned as if these interpretations were measured distances.
+
+## Limits
+
+This is a selective reconstruction. Text indexing and targeted close reading support its coverage; they do not amount to exhaustive semantic inspection. Some non-text material remains unevaluated. Absence from this release does not imply absence from the evidence or lack of value.
+
+Mathematical proposals are published as open questions unless a supplied construction and its conditions justify more. A proposed product encoding is not automatically injective; a projected recurrence is not automatically a recurrence of full state; an external perspective does not supply a general decision procedure; zero measure is not identical to impossibility.
+
+Physical proposals are not reported as built devices or measured efficiency gains. Proposed analogies to cognition do not establish a psychological profile or a claim about machine experience. Supporting public code checks narrowly stated examples; it does not validate a general theory.
+
+## How to revise this edition
+
+Challenge a formulation by its stable identifier. Specify the disputed assertion, evidence or counterexample, and the representation in which the problem becomes clearer. Keep an earlier version recoverable. A correction may remove a relation, split a problem, preserve incompatible interpretations, or change the current-intention reconstruction.
+
+The right outcome of a revision can be a better question.

PATHS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Suggested paths
+
+These are new proposed reading routes, not historical visit records. Each problem also has other entries and exits.
+
+## Enter, challenge, and contribute
+
+A practical route for a first reader.
+
+1. [A research space that remains revisable](problems/open-problem-publication.md) — Start from an unresolved question.
+2. [Compression without losing future relevance](problems/recoverable-detail.md) — Thematic jump: Locate what the formulation preserves and omits.
+3. [Social information as evidence and as contamination](problems/social-evidence-exposure.md) — Thematic jump: Notice whether prior evaluations are influencing the reading.
+4. [A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion](problems/causal-reading-paths.md) — Separate visited material from declared premises.
+5. [Considering a problem is different from implementing a policy](problems/exploration-before-implementation.md) — Thematic jump: Consider implications without treating them as commands.
+
+## Change the representation, inspect the loss
+
+Explore transformations without choosing a universal representation.
+
+1. [One structure, several renderings](problems/structure-across-renderings.md) — Begin with a concrete change of rendering.
+2. [Membership under changing attention and scale](problems/scale-sensitive-membership.md) — Thematic jump: Change the resolution and selected features.
+3. [Hierarchy changes with the projection](problems/viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy.md) — Thematic jump: Ask whether explanatory direction changes.
+4. [What a partial trace can and cannot identify](problems/identifiability-from-projections.md) — Thematic jump: Retain alternatives that fit the same visible trace.
+5. [Meaning that forms as language unfolds](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md) — Thematic jump: Test whether the order of presentation itself carries content.
+
+## From navigation to an evolving language
+
+Inspect the difference between using an action language and inventing new representational units.
+
+1. [Navigation as an action language](problems/navigation-as-language.md) — Let movement denote operations.
+2. [Composing operations with obligations inherited from the route](problems/path-dependent-composition.md) — Carry inherited obligations.
+3. [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](problems/strategy-through-transformation.md) — Thematic jump: Seek a description that exposes a strategy.
+4. [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](problems/concepts-for-divergence.md) — Keep conditions where transfer fails.
+5. [A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md) — Ask what it means to create a new conceptual unit.
+
+## Learning, transfer, and governing commitments
+
+Follow the explicit proposed bridge between representational learning and normative change.
+
+1. [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md) — Begin with coarse and refined conceptual units.
+2. [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — Ask what another model receives.
+3. [When transferred learning affects governing policies](problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — Inspect possible policy effects of the transfer.
+4. [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](problems/persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — Thematic jump: Distinguish information from a proposed governing change.
+5. [Rules for changing the rules of revision](problems/recursive-policy-revision.md) — Ask how the revision procedure itself remains revisable.
+
+## Stability seen through three independent problems
+
+A retrospective comparison; physical, computational, and normative mechanisms stay distinct.
+
+1. [When specialization prevents repurposing](problems/specialization-and-irreversibility.md) — Consider a material structure that becomes hard to repurpose.
+2. [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](problems/reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — Compare a shortcut that becomes difficult to reopen.
+3. [When provisional norms become permanent constraints](problems/historical-value-lock-in.md) — Examine commitments that resist correction.
+4. [Source trust and the validity of a contribution](problems/source-trust-and-validity.md) — Thematic jump: Keep the validity of a contribution distinct from its source.
+
+## Formalize one claim at a time
+
+Enter through explicit mathematical tensions.
+
+1. [Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md) — Separate order, injectivity, and reversibility.
+2. [Reading that changes what is stored](problems/observation-that-changes-state.md) — Include the effect of inspection.
+3. [The next description becomes another object](problems/objectifying-the-meta-level.md) — Thematic jump: Identify what a new descriptive level actually adds.
+4. [Consistency seen from within a selected path](problems/consistency-from-within.md) — Thematic jump: Specify a measure before using probability.
+5. [Time as a relation between changing processes](problems/time-as-process-relation.md) — Seek a defined transition model and a distinguishing prediction.
+
+## Enter through physical design
+
+An independent route that does not require accepting the normative or ontological formulations.
+
+1. [A changing physical substrate as part of search](problems/state-dependent-physical-search.md) — Define what useful state dependence would mean.
+2. [Physical routes that form through use](problems/self-forming-signal-routes.md) — Specify the proposed formation mechanism.
+3. [Correcting a system with imperfect correctors](problems/correctors-that-also-drift.md) — Thematic jump: Account for imperfect compensation.
+4. [Matching thermal needs across a shared infrastructure](problems/thermal-cascades.md) — Thematic jump: Move to a separate infrastructure problem.
+5. [Heat is useful only where and when it is needed](problems/thermal-time-mismatch.md) — Inspect the limit imposed by timing and storage.
+
+## Meaning before compression
+
+An independent route through expressive and relational questions.
+
+1. [Meaning that forms as language unfolds](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md) — Attend to meaning while it forms.
+2. [How a symbolic map becomes meaningful](problems/meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map.md) — Thematic jump: Distinguish repeating a map from using a concept.
+3. [Shared possibilities that do not meet in time](problems/temporal-relational-availability.md) — Thematic jump: Keep shared possibility distinct from simultaneous availability.
+4. [Grounding through the effects of language](problems/action-mediated-grounding.md) — Thematic jump: Follow effects into action without assuming bodily experience.
+5. [Discovering context beyond the current frame](problems/discovery-beyond-mirroring.md) — Thematic jump: Ask for a challengeable alternative frame.
+
+## Trust in collective problem solving
+
+Compare relationships among reputation, contribution, obligation, and resource control.
+
+1. [Chains of reciprocal problem solving](problems/reciprocal-problem-solving.md) — Ask how helping creates future obligations.
+2. [Distributed specialization and integration](problems/distributed-specialization.md) — Examine another form of capability coordination.
+3. [Where should trust attach?](problems/where-trust-attaches.md) — Thematic jump: Choose what an assessment is about.
+4. [Trust systems that become institutions](problems/trust-as-institution.md) — Look for gatekeeping and privileged access.
+5. [Continuity of control over persistent resources](problems/continuity-of-agency.md) — Thematic jump: Ask how authority over persistent resources survives change.

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+pretty_name: Rezonans — An Evolving Research Problem-Space
+language:
+- en
+tags:
+- research
+- knowledge-graph
+- representation
+- open-problems
+- philosophy
+- machine-readable
+configs:
+- config_name: problems
+  default: true
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/problems.jsonl
+- config_name: relations
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/relations.jsonl
+- config_name: evidence
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/evidence.jsonl
+- config_name: paths
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/paths.jsonl
+- config_name: transformations
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/transformations.jsonl
+- config_name: revisions
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/revisions.jsonl
+- config_name: challenges
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/challenges.jsonl
+---
+
+# Rezonans · An Evolving Research Problem-Space
+
+Enter through a question. Change its representation. Inspect what survives. Challenge what does not.
+
+This research space connects 62 open problems through 70 qualified relations, 10 overlapping regions, 9 suggested reading paths, and 16 candidate representation transformations. Five revision sequences keep a proposal, its limitation, and its reopening visible.
+
+**[Open the interactive reader](https://huggingface.co/spaces/eminakdas/rezonans-research)** · [Choose a problem](CATALOG.md) · [Follow a path](PATHS.md) · [Inspect transformations](TRANSFORMATIONS.md) · [Inspect revisions](REVISIONS.md)
+
+The active direction is reconstructed as developing a revisable, agent-readable research space while investigating how systems create and change their own representation languages. It connects conceptual units, memory and learning transfer, plural policy revision, and evidence-aware inquiry. This is a provisional reading of the current convergence. Physical computation, mathematical experiments, expressive language, and collective coordination also have independent entries.
+
+## A few ways in
+
+- [Can a system revise its own representation language while operating?](problems/evolving-representation-language.md)
+- [When does transferred learning affect governing policies?](problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md)
+- [What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths?](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md)
+- [Can a conclusion retain its evidential path without later backfilling?](problems/causal-reading-paths.md)
+- [What happens when a correcting component also drifts?](problems/correctors-that-also-drift.md)
+- [What is lost when unfolding language becomes one completed proposition?](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md)
+- [Can thermal needs be matched across a shared infrastructure?](problems/thermal-cascades.md)
+
+## How to read a claim
+
+Four epistemic categories stay separate:
+
+| Category | Meaning |
+| --- | --- |
+| `corpus_evidence` | A narrow public paraphrase of a question, proposal, or revision present in the root evidence. Presence does not establish truth, novelty, feasibility, or implementation endorsement. |
+| `reconstruction` | An editorial problem formulation, comparison, selection, or organization grounded in that evidence. |
+| `retrospective_connection` | A connection made from a later vantage point. It does not establish historical intent, equivalence, or derivation. |
+| `model_proposed` | A new proposed interpretation, reading route, challenge, experiment, or extension. |
+
+Public evidence anchors are **editorial paraphrases**, not quotations or raw evidence. The root evidence governs attribution and remains access restricted, with recovery mappings maintained locally. Public readers can inspect and challenge this reconstruction but cannot independently inspect the private root through this release.
+
+Representation comparisons state both affordances and losses. Suggested tests are proposals, not reported outcomes. A link’s warrant matters more than its mere presence.
+
+## Machine access
+
+- [graph.json](graph.json): the complete public research graph.
+- [schema.json](schema.json): machine-readable schema.
+- [data/](data/): separate JSONL configurations for problems, relations, anchors, paths, transformations, revisions, and challenges.
+- [subgraphs/](subgraphs/): overlapping regional projections, including their boundary relations.
+- [SCHEMA.md](SCHEMA.md): field semantics and traversal rules.
+- [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md): how to challenge or extend a formulation.
+- [METHOD.md](METHOD.md): reconstruction method and evidential limits.
+- [experiments/](experiments/): executable, newly proposed representation checks.
+
+Download this repository and open `index.html` for an offline reader. It loads only local public files, stores no visit history, and makes no network requests.
+
+With Node.js installed, from the downloaded repository directory:
+
+```sh
+node tools/traverse.mjs search "policy"
+node tools/traverse.mjs show learning-and-policy-permeability
+node tools/traverse.mjs neighbors order-sensitive-path-encoding
+node tools/traverse.mjs path adaptive-token-granularity recursive-policy-revision
+node tools/traverse.mjs route learning-can-carry-policy
+node tools/validate.mjs
+node experiments/representation_checks.mjs
+```
+
+The path command finds a shortest route through the selected public relations. Shortest means fewest links, not best explanation, strongest support, or historical sequence. Pass `--kinds corpus_evidence,reconstruction` to exclude retrospective and new proposed connections.
+
+## Scope and revision
+
+Version 0.1.0 is a selective first edition. It does not claim exhaustive coverage or a completed theory. Some non-text material remains unevaluated. Unseen formalisms and unverified generated results are not promoted into established mathematics or experimental findings.
+
+Regions are overlapping navigation aids. There is no authoritative root category, universal distance function, or required sequence. A historical branch is not automatically abandoned; an active designation is part of this reconstruction and remains revisable.
+
+No additional content license has been specified for this release.

REVISIONS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Revisions that change the question
+
+These sequences retain a candidate, its limitation, and the reopening of the problem. A later stage is not automatically a proven improvement. Periods indicate witnessed formulations, not dates of invention.
+
+<a id="revision-path-encoding"></a>
+
+## From assumed unique products to a requirement for free generation
+
+2026-05
+
+1. **Candidate construction.** A product of proposed complex-prime matrices is suggested as retaining both operation order and unique identity. (basis-order-candidate)
+2. **Failure recognized.** The assumption that such products must produce unique matrices is reconsidered; reversibility and correspondence become explicit requirements. (basis-order-objection)
+3. **Construction reopened.** The proposed generators are changed from Gaussian primes to freely generating elements. This states a new construction requirement rather than supplying a proof. (basis-order-reopened)
+
+Still open: Specify the generator domain, relations, decoding rule, and finite-precision behavior; do not infer injectivity merely from noncommutativity.
+
+Problems: [Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md)
+
+<a id="revision-trust-object"></a>
+
+## From author identity toward ideas and evidential exposure
+
+2026-09
+
+1. **Identity-linked trust.** A token identifying an author is proposed as a basis for trust. (basis-trust-author)
+2. **Idea-linked assessment.** The idea rather than its author is proposed as the object to which trust attaches; votes might change navigable routes. (basis-trust-idea)
+3. **Exposure becomes inspectable.** Instead of treating blindness as universal, the information and assessments encountered before a contribution are proposed for recording. Later visits are not appended retroactively. (basis-trust-exposure)
+
+Still open: Identity, reputation, contribution validity, social exposure, and actual premise use remain different things. The later step need not abolish every earlier representation.
+
+Problems: [Where should trust attach?](problems/where-trust-attaches.md) · [Social information as evidence and as contamination](problems/social-evidence-exposure.md) · [A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion](problems/causal-reading-paths.md)
+
+<a id="revision-representation-scope"></a>
+
+## From memory and token compression to a changing representation language
+
+2026-09
+
+1. **Several memory and compression ideas gathered.** Adaptive memory layers, combined tokens, core semantic units, and proposed model updates are brought together as questions. (basis-memory-gathering)
+2. **Scope explicitly widened.** The objective is clarified as new meta-description units and a new semantic language that can evolve during operation, beyond memory efficiency or merging tokens. Sharing between systems is optional to this problem. (basis-language-widening)
+
+Still open: What new distinction can an evolving unit express, how can it be interpreted, and what evidence distinguishes it from abbreviation?
+
+Problems: [Memory represented through adaptable parameters](problems/memory-as-adaptation.md) · [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md) · [A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md)
+
+<a id="revision-thermal-scope"></a>
+
+## From large thermal infrastructure toward a bounded useful prototype
+
+2026-09
+
+1. **Broad infrastructure proposal.** Shared thermal and cryogenic infrastructure is considered across building, server, and city scales. (basis-thermal-broad)
+2. **First experiment narrowed.** The proposed initial research concentrates on centralizing building cooling, useful hot water, and quieter computation; committing immediately to a full network is rejected as too fragile. (basis-thermal-bounded)
+3. **Device-scale test.** A routing idea that separates warmed fluid from the cold path is identified as sufficient to prototype inside a device first. (basis-thermal-device)
+
+Still open: The feasibility and system-level benefit require measured boundaries, temperatures, demand profiles, distribution losses, and auxiliary work.
+
+Problems: [Matching thermal needs across a shared infrastructure](problems/thermal-cascades.md) · [Heat is useful only where and when it is needed](problems/thermal-time-mismatch.md)
+
+<a id="revision-time-language"></a>
+
+## Time as duration, ratio, and a revisable projection
+
+2026-09
+
+1. **Alternating representations.** A speculative account describes different relative portions associated with states and their representations. (basis-time-portions)
+2. **Time vocabulary challenged.** Time is reconsidered as functioning like a ratio in the proposed description, prompting a change in the term’s role. (basis-time-ratio)
+3. **Foundational priority challenged.** Indeterminacy as a supposed foundation is itself described as the product of a projection; from another perspective its priority may reverse. (basis-time-projection)
+
+Still open: These are philosophical reformulations. No probability measure, time dynamics, or physical equivalence is established.
+
+Problems: [Consistency seen from within a selected path](problems/consistency-from-within.md) · [Time as a relation between changing processes](problems/time-as-process-relation.md) · [Hierarchy changes with the projection](problems/viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy.md)

SCHEMA.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# Public data model
+
+Version 1.0.0 describes this edition’s exchange format. It is a serialization contract, not a fixed ontology. New relation names, regions, representations, and object families can be introduced with an explicit rationale.
+
+## Root
+
+`graph.json` contains `nodes`, `edges`, `regions`, `paths`, `evidence`, `transformations`, `revisions`, `challenge_index`, `intention`, and `release_scope`.
+
+Identifiers are stable semantic slugs. They do not encode private provenance. The four `epistemic_kind` values distinguish evidence presence, reconstruction, retrospective connections, and new model proposals.
+
+## Problems
+
+Each node contains a title, central question, reconstructed formulation, overlapping regions, evidence anchors, alternative representations, tension, challenge, proposed next move, and development designation.
+
+- `formulation`, `representations`, and `tension`: reconstruction, including critical qualifications.
+- `open_questions[0]`: the reconstructed central question.
+- `challenge` and subsequent `open_questions`: editorial prompts; the standalone challenge index marks them `model_proposed`.
+- `next_move`: a new proposed test or extension, never an implicit empirical result.
+- `formal_status: open_problem`: no completed theorem, experimental success, or final policy is asserted by the record.
+- `development`: an editorial designation, not a source-authorized declaration of priority or abandonment.
+
+## Relations
+
+Every edge has `from`, `to`, `relation`, `warrant`, `epistemic_kind`, and `evidence`.
+
+Direction expresses the reading of the named relation. It is not automatically a causal, temporal, hierarchical, or entailment arrow. Traversal in the reverse direction is allowed but does not reverse the assertion. Multiple edges between the same pair may express distinct relationships.
+
+An edge marked `corpus_evidence` witnesses an explicitly proposed connection, not a proved mechanism. An edge marked `retrospective_connection` is a later interpretive bridge. A new proposed test can be marked `model_proposed`.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+An anchor has `statement`, `rendering: editorial_paraphrase`, `witnessed_periods`, and `scope`. It is a public paraphrase of a specific source-grounded proposal or question. The anchor does not publish raw evidence or make it independently available.
+
+A shared anchor or repeated occurrence is not an independent attestation. Support counts should not be used as truth scores. The local recovery layer retains source dependencies and exact provenance; that layer is not public.
+
+## Projections and paths
+
+Regional subgraphs retain internal relations and boundary relations. `boundary_node_refs` resolve in the full graph. Subgraph boundaries are selections, not closed conceptual systems.
+
+Reading paths contain an ordered `steps` array with a node identifier and a reason to visit it. These are suggested routes. The reader does not collect an actual exposure history.
+
+Transformations state an operation, candidate invariants, possible losses, and validation status. Revisions preserve ordered stages and their separate anchors. Historical ordering does not imply improvement.
+
+## Contributing evidence without rewriting history
+
+A public contribution can record a target version, public evidence, observed exposure, declared premises, and an exposure cutoff. These are different fields:
+
+- Available material may never have been seen.
+- Seen material may not have been cited.
+- Cited material may not have been used as a premise.
+- A declared premise is an inspectable claim of use, not a measurement of internal cognition.
+
+Record a later revision as a new contribution. Do not append later events to the earlier contribution’s closed exposure record. See `contribution.schema.json`.
+
+## Compatibility
+
+JSONL projections contain the same objects as the corresponding full-graph collections. `tools/validate.mjs` checks references and projection consistency. External tooling may use JSON Schema in `schema.json` for structural validation.
+
+Stable identifiers should remain resolvable after revision. If a problem splits, preserve the previous object and point to its successors. No numerical truth ranking or universal geometric distance is defined.

TRANSFORMATIONS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+# A provisional transformation atlas
+
+A comparison is useful only when its preserved relations and losses can be inspected. The following are candidate transformations, not established equivalences. A graph view, a linear document, and an action route can remain useful simultaneously.
+
+## Narrative or symbolic text → Matrix, branches, or changing links
+
+[One structure, several renderings](problems/structure-across-renderings.md)
+
+Re-express relations in another arrangement.
+
+Candidate invariants: Which concepts are related; Which opposition or substitution is performed.
+
+Possible losses: Temporal or rhetorical meaning; Relations visually suggested but absent from the source.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A compact defined name → Expanded dependencies
+
+[Unfolding definitions without hiding cycles](problems/recursive-definitions.md)
+
+Substitute definitions and mark recurrence.
+
+Candidate invariants: Specified definitional dependencies.
+
+Possible losses: Termination; Useful abstraction boundaries.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## One category at one resolution → A family indexed by resolution and attention
+
+[Membership under changing attention and scale](problems/scale-sensitive-membership.md)
+
+Vary what is discriminated.
+
+Candidate invariants: Selected ratios or relations, if actually stable.
+
+Possible losses: Object recognition; Comparability when the category definition changes.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A fixed relation of proximity → Task-indexed neighborhoods
+
+[Becoming neighbors through a change of representation](problems/changing-neighborhoods.md)
+
+Change the comparison or representation before selecting a route.
+
+Candidate invariants: Task-relevant compatibility, if demonstrated.
+
+Possible losses: Metric properties; Global comparability of distances.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Individual action transitions → A structural strategic description
+
+[Finding a strategy by changing the representation](problems/strategy-through-transformation.md)
+
+Use a specified analogy to expose a candidate invariant.
+
+Candidate invariants: Reachable relevant outcomes.
+
+Possible losses: Exceptional transitions; Preparation and physical execution costs.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Existing vocabulary and operations → A proposed new meta-representational unit
+
+[A system that can revise its own representation language](problems/evolving-representation-language.md)
+
+Create, interpret, and test a new unit during operation.
+
+Candidate invariants: Explicitly stated applicability conditions.
+
+Possible losses: Interoperability; Distinction between new capability and abbreviation.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Fine token sequence → Coarse conceptual units with possible refinement
+
+[Changing the grain of a conceptual token](problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md)
+
+Merge or factor the representation under a task criterion.
+
+Candidate invariants: Relevant task distinctions.
+
+Possible losses: Fine interactions; Recoverability; Actual resource accounting.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Explicitly retrievable items → An adaptable parameter layer
+
+[Memory represented through adaptable parameters](problems/memory-as-adaptation.md)
+
+Investigate storing influence through parameter change.
+
+Candidate invariants: Chosen recall and update behavior.
+
+Possible losses: Item-level attribution; Selective revision or removal.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A skill in one model → A transfer object interpreted by another
+
+[Transferring what was learned between unequal models](problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md)
+
+Compare text, conceptual, and parameter-level interfaces.
+
+Candidate invariants: Held-out task competence.
+
+Possible losses: Tacit conditions; Policy effects; Meaning across architectures.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A changing collection of accessible material → An exposure record closed at a contribution
+
+[A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion](problems/causal-reading-paths.md)
+
+Record relevant availability, observed exposure, and declared premises separately.
+
+Candidate invariants: What was available before the cutoff.
+
+Possible losses: Unobserved influences; Proof of internal causal use.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A composed numerical object → An explicitly ordered word or route
+
+[Constituents, order, and path identity](problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md)
+
+Check collisions before reducing path history.
+
+Candidate invariants: Constituents and order under a defined encoding.
+
+Possible losses: Information lost by reduction; Decoding at bounded precision.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A stored physical state → The state after an observation
+
+[Reading that changes what is stored](problems/observation-that-changes-state.md)
+
+Model observation as an intervention where appropriate.
+
+Candidate invariants: Only the variables shown to survive reading.
+
+Possible losses: Earlier states; Repair assumptions.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Repeated computation over a structure → Queries or updates on a prepared surface
+
+[Computing through a reusable surface](problems/computation-through-a-surface.md)
+
+Account for preparation and subsequent reuse.
+
+Candidate invariants: A specified class of outputs within tolerance.
+
+Possible losses: Unrepresented views; Cheap dynamic updates.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## Separate thermal devices → Connected demands and return paths
+
+[Matching thermal needs across a shared infrastructure](problems/thermal-cascades.md)
+
+Compare matched temperatures across an explicit system boundary.
+
+Candidate invariants: Required thermal services.
+
+Possible losses: Distribution losses; Timing compatibility; Maintenance independence.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A completed proposition → Meaning forming through a sequence
+
+[Meaning that forms as language unfolds](problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md)
+
+Compare final content with the order of interpretive changes.
+
+Candidate invariants: Some referential content.
+
+Possible losses: Anticipation; Ambiguity; Effects of what remains unsaid.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.
+
+## A visible partial trace → Several candidate underlying explanations
+
+[What a partial trace can and cannot identify](problems/identifiability-from-projections.md)
+
+Preserve alternatives until discriminating evidence is available.
+
+Candidate invariants: Agreement with observed constraints.
+
+Possible losses: Unwarranted certainty; Assumed independence between views.
+
+Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test.

contribution.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "title": "Public research contribution",
+  "description": "A proposal record, not internal reasoning or an automatically accepted graph entry.",
+  "type": "object",
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "target",
+    "target_version",
+    "epistemic_kind",
+    "assertion",
+    "limits",
+    "public_evidence",
+    "declared_premises"
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "minLength": 1
+    },
+    "target": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "minLength": 1
+    },
+    "target_version": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "minLength": 1
+    },
+    "epistemic_kind": {
+      "enum": [
+        "reconstruction",
+        "retrospective_connection",
+        "model_proposed"
+      ]
+    },
+    "assertion": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "minLength": 1
+    },
+    "alternative_representation": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "limits": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string",
+        "minLength": 1
+      }
+    },
+    "public_evidence": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object",
+        "required": [
+          "reference",
+          "role"
+        ],
+        "properties": {
+          "reference": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "minLength": 1
+          },
+          "role": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "minLength": 1
+          }
+        },
+        "additionalProperties": true
+      }
+    },
+    "declared_premises": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string",
+        "minLength": 1
+      }
+    },
+    "exposure": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object",
+        "required": [
+          "public_reference",
+          "status",
+          "time"
+        ],
+        "properties": {
+          "public_reference": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "minLength": 1
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "available",
+              "observed",
+              "cited"
+            ]
+          },
+          "time": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "format": "date-time"
+          }
+        },
+        "additionalProperties": true
+      }
+    },
+    "exposure_cutoff": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "format": "date-time"
+    },
+    "supersedes": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "would_change_my_view": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "minLength": 1
+    }
+  },
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "$comment": "Exposure events later than cutoff are invalid; premise use is declared, not measured. Private sources must not be embedded."
+}

data/challenges.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{"id":"challenge-open-problem-publication","node":"open-problem-publication","question":"What minimum context must accompany a new formulation so that a reader can challenge it without accepting its vocabulary?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-open-problem-publication"]}
+{"id":"challenge-recoverable-detail","node":"recoverable-detail","question":"Can a future question recover a detail that the initial curator did not select?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-recoverable-detail"]}
+{"id":"challenge-viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","node":"viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","question":"Which relation survives a change of perspective, and which incompatible predictions would separate the projections?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy"]}
+{"id":"challenge-scale-sensitive-membership","node":"scale-sensitive-membership","question":"Can the same observation change category solely because attention changes, while its measured scale stays fixed?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-scale-sensitive-membership"]}
+{"id":"challenge-objectifying-the-meta-level","node":"objectifying-the-meta-level","question":"What operation is actually available at the next level, and can it be specified without an unexplained external oracle?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-objectifying-the-meta-level"]}
+{"id":"challenge-consistency-from-within","node":"consistency-from-within","question":"Can the proposal state its sample space and conditioning rule without treating observed existence as a probability proof?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-consistency-from-within"]}
+{"id":"challenge-semantic-neighborhoods","node":"semantic-neighborhoods","question":"How could a system encounter a case for which its existing meaning regions are inadequate?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-semantic-neighborhoods"]}
+{"id":"challenge-changing-neighborhoods","node":"changing-neighborhoods","question":"What observable operation becomes possible after the transformation that was impossible before it?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-changing-neighborhoods"]}
+{"id":"challenge-part-whole-traces","node":"part-whole-traces","question":"Which properties are transmitted through a part, and which require interactions among multiple parts?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-part-whole-traces"]}
+{"id":"challenge-navigation-as-language","node":"navigation-as-language","question":"When do two routes denote the same operation, and when does their previous context make them different?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-navigation-as-language"]}
+{"id":"challenge-strategy-through-transformation","node":"strategy-through-transformation","question":"Which state transitions does the analogy preserve, and where does it predict the wrong result?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-strategy-through-transformation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-concepts-for-divergence","node":"concepts-for-divergence","question":"Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-concepts-for-divergence"]}
+{"id":"challenge-adaptive-token-granularity","node":"adaptive-token-granularity","question":"Which downstream tasks tolerate coarse units, and which require distinctions erased during merging?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-adaptive-token-granularity"]}
+{"id":"challenge-memory-as-adaptation","node":"memory-as-adaptation","question":"How would the system revise one remembered item without damaging another or erasing its justification?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-memory-as-adaptation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-models-editing-models","node":"models-editing-models","question":"What evidence shows that a proposed edit generalizes beyond the supplied concept description?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-models-editing-models"]}
+{"id":"challenge-cross-model-learning-transfer","node":"cross-model-learning-transfer","question":"How can the receiving model demonstrate the transferred capability and identify what it did not receive?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-cross-model-learning-transfer"]}
+{"id":"challenge-distributed-specialization","node":"distributed-specialization","question":"Who decides whether a local improvement is a valid contribution to the shared model?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-distributed-specialization"]}
+{"id":"challenge-compute-and-economic-feedback","node":"compute-and-economic-feedback","question":"What independently inspectable contribution would qualify for a reward?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-compute-and-economic-feedback"]}
+{"id":"challenge-continuity-of-agency","node":"continuity-of-agency","question":"What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-continuity-of-agency"]}
+{"id":"challenge-plural-normative-worlds","node":"plural-normative-worlds","question":"What can be negotiated, and what would make a refusal to negotiate justified?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-plural-normative-worlds"]}
+{"id":"challenge-historical-value-lock-in","node":"historical-value-lock-in","question":"What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-historical-value-lock-in"]}
+{"id":"challenge-persuasion-as-policy-change","node":"persuasion-as-policy-change","question":"What observations separate warranted revision, temporary accommodation, and manipulation?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-persuasion-as-policy-change"]}
+{"id":"challenge-recursive-policy-revision","node":"recursive-policy-revision","question":"Can a local, provisional stopping rule remain contestable without making every action depend on an infinite review?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-recursive-policy-revision"]}
+{"id":"challenge-source-trust-and-validity","node":"source-trust-and-validity","question":"Which dependencies actually fail when the credibility of a source changes?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-source-trust-and-validity"]}
+{"id":"challenge-trust-as-institution","node":"trust-as-institution","question":"Can equally strong arguments receive unequal access because of identity or cultural style?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-trust-as-institution"]}
+{"id":"challenge-where-trust-attaches","node":"where-trust-attaches","question":"How should a critical revision inherit, reject, or suspend the assessments attached to its predecessor?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-where-trust-attaches"]}
+{"id":"challenge-social-evidence-exposure","node":"social-evidence-exposure","question":"Which conclusion changed after exposure, and was the change supported by new reasons or only by a score?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-social-evidence-exposure"]}
+{"id":"challenge-causal-reading-paths","node":"causal-reading-paths","question":"Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-causal-reading-paths"]}
+{"id":"challenge-thermal-cascades","node":"thermal-cascades","question":"At what scale does useful matching outweigh distribution, conversion, control, and maintenance costs?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-thermal-cascades"]}
+{"id":"challenge-thermal-time-mismatch","node":"thermal-time-mismatch","question":"How much of a surplus is usefully recovered rather than merely moved into storage that later saturates?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-thermal-time-mismatch"]}
+{"id":"challenge-phononic-network-analogy","node":"phononic-network-analogy","question":"Which property is being claimed: energy transport, directional control, storage, or reliable information processing?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-phononic-network-analogy"]}
+{"id":"challenge-structure-across-renderings","node":"structure-across-renderings","question":"Which relationships survive both changing the display and replacing the vocabulary?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-structure-across-renderings"]}
+{"id":"challenge-recursive-definitions","node":"recursive-definitions","question":"What marks an unresolved cycle, and when is a cycle a valid recursive definition?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-recursive-definitions"]}
+{"id":"challenge-reopening-oppositions","node":"reopening-oppositions","question":"Does a proposed reopening operator change the available interpretations, or only rename the closure?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-reopening-oppositions"]}
+{"id":"challenge-operation-order-as-coordinate","node":"operation-order-as-coordinate","question":"Which convention and function domain make variation in derivative order well-defined?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-operation-order-as-coordinate"]}
+{"id":"challenge-adaptive-computational-resolution","node":"adaptive-computational-resolution","question":"How are missed difficult regions counted alongside runtime savings?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-adaptive-computational-resolution"]}
+{"id":"challenge-state-dependent-physical-search","node":"state-dependent-physical-search","question":"What task and measurement distinguish useful exploration from uncontrolled error?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-state-dependent-physical-search"]}
+{"id":"challenge-compression-and-explanation","node":"compression-and-explanation","question":"What is the object being compressed, and what prediction must survive the compression?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-compression-and-explanation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-temporal-relational-availability","node":"temporal-relational-availability","question":"Can a representation preserve this distinction without defining one participant’s language as the norm?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-temporal-relational-availability"]}
+{"id":"challenge-reciprocal-problem-solving","node":"reciprocal-problem-solving","question":"When can an obligation be transferred without assuming that its original consent also transfers?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-reciprocal-problem-solving"]}
+{"id":"challenge-action-mediated-grounding","node":"action-mediated-grounding","question":"Which consequences are observed directly and which arrive only as another actor’s report?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-action-mediated-grounding"]}
+{"id":"challenge-resumable-inquiry","node":"resumable-inquiry","question":"Can a new reader identify the same unresolved issue and meaningful next alternatives?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-resumable-inquiry"]}
+{"id":"challenge-time-as-process-relation","node":"time-as-process-relation","question":"What observable difference would separate the proposal from re-describing a familiar dynamical model?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-time-as-process-relation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-order-sensitive-path-encoding","node":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","question":"Which distinct paths collide, and does a projected recurrence imply recurrence of the complete relevant state?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding"]}
+{"id":"challenge-computation-through-a-surface","node":"computation-through-a-surface","question":"Which updates remain local after the transformation, and which require recomputing the surface?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-computation-through-a-surface"]}
+{"id":"challenge-reusable-paths-and-rigidity","node":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","question":"What evidence triggers reopening a shortcut rather than fitting new cases into it?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity"]}
+{"id":"challenge-learning-strategies-from-trials","node":"learning-strategies-from-trials","question":"Does the inferred strategy predict which altered tasks will fail?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-learning-strategies-from-trials"]}
+{"id":"challenge-identifiability-from-projections","node":"identifiability-from-projections","question":"What alternative structure fits the same visible evidence, and what observation would separate them?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-identifiability-from-projections"]}
+{"id":"challenge-allocating-exploration","node":"allocating-exploration","question":"How can an unrealized branch be retained without treating it as a present priority?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-allocating-exploration"]}
+{"id":"challenge-exploration-before-implementation","node":"exploration-before-implementation","question":"Can a training example preserve a real disagreement and an implementation decision that remains open?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-exploration-before-implementation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-path-dependent-composition","node":"path-dependent-composition","question":"How does the interface know which obligations from earlier operations still apply?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-path-dependent-composition"]}
+{"id":"challenge-context-indexed-computation","node":"context-indexed-computation","question":"What is selected by context: an operation, an activation path, a parameter set, or a persistent update?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-context-indexed-computation"]}
+{"id":"challenge-self-forming-signal-routes","node":"self-forming-signal-routes","question":"Which measured state change would distinguish useful route formation from damage or drift?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-self-forming-signal-routes"]}
+{"id":"challenge-specialization-and-irreversibility","node":"specialization-and-irreversibility","question":"How much task change can be accommodated before the structure must be replaced?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-specialization-and-irreversibility"]}
+{"id":"challenge-correctors-that-also-drift","node":"correctors-that-also-drift","question":"What bound on residual error justifies stopping after a finite number of stages?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-correctors-that-also-drift"]}
+{"id":"challenge-observation-that-changes-state","node":"observation-that-changes-state","question":"Which state variables and intervention costs must be included for a claim of reversibility?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-observation-that-changes-state"]}
+{"id":"challenge-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","node":"meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","question":"What additional encounter lets a reader apply a concept they could previously only repeat?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map"]}
+{"id":"challenge-meaning-in-unfolding-language","node":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","question":"Which effects disappear when the same apparent content is paraphrased as a direct statement?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language"]}
+{"id":"challenge-discovery-beyond-mirroring","node":"discovery-beyond-mirroring","question":"What evidence would favor a new context over a fluent repetition of the existing one?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring"]}
+{"id":"challenge-intent-with-incomplete-maps","node":"intent-with-incomplete-maps","question":"How should the interface distinguish an abbreviation expansion from an unsupported geographic inference?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-intent-with-incomplete-maps"]}
+{"id":"challenge-learning-and-policy-permeability","node":"learning-and-policy-permeability","question":"How can the receiving system identify which governing commitments an apparently task-specific transfer would affect?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-learning-and-policy-permeability"]}
+{"id":"challenge-evolving-representation-language","node":"evolving-representation-language","question":"What evidence would show a new representational capability rather than a renamed old operation?","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","context_evidence":["basis-evolving-representation-language"]}

data/evidence.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{"id":"basis-open-problem-publication","statement":"The proposal is to present interconnected problems that humans and models can read, interpret, criticize, and extend. It asks for understandable, open-ended formulations on which different systems can later develop different mathematical measures.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-recoverable-detail","statement":"The material objects to condensing each local context separately because a detail that looks minor there may be important across the whole. It asks for connected, testable ideas and representation transformations while retaining proximity to the underlying material.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","statement":"Ontology, knowledge, and mind are proposed as products of related projections. The explanatory hierarchy is said to change with the viewpoint: mind shaping existence and existence shaping mind are both entertained, and indeterminacy need not remain the privileged foundation.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-scale-sensitive-membership","statement":"The material proposes that membership can depend on scale and attention. Its example is a person who ceases to look like a person under sufficiently close inspection, while ratio or change may remain scale-independent. Fractal boundaries and different topologies are explored as possible descriptions.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-objectifying-the-meta-level","statement":"The material repeatedly turns an operation or limit into an object and then applies the operation again at a further level. Examples concern infinity-generating rules, self-reference, and the claim that describing indeterminacy itself gives it a determination.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-consistency-from-within","statement":"A thought experiment asks whether a trajectory that remains consistent from within could occupy a vanishing or zero share of a wider space. It contrasts the perspective of inhabiting that trajectory with descriptions from outside it, and also questions the priority assigned to the wider space.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-semantic-neighborhoods","statement":"Face, person, and expression are proposed as overlapping meaning regions. The material asks what to do with meaninglessness if such regions cover a space, considers an additional region for meaninglessness, and later entertains the possibility that unused meaningless dimensions remain empty.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-changing-neighborhoods","statement":"Rotation is proposed as necessary for some otherwise unavailable neighborhoods between structures. A later formulation explicitly recalls an agent walking a manifold and compares that earlier idea with newly considered similarity relations.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-06","2026-08"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-part-whole-traces","statement":"The material explicitly compares fractals and holograms through the idea that a part carries information about a whole. Families, communities, and individuals are proposed as carrying or reproducing some features of a larger society without reproducing it exactly.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-navigation-as-language","statement":"The proposal treats interface controls and movement through layered locations as a possible programming language for agents. It seeks a low-token bridge to specialized actions and states that a dynamic page could also serve, rather than requiring continuous movement between addresses.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-strategy-through-transformation","statement":"A reported score-based learning experiment is used as an example of discovering the importance of an intermediate resource. A separate hypothetical puzzle example reinterprets recursive enclosure as a portal. These examples motivate seeking a compact language for such strategies and clearly defining both ends of an analogy.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-concepts-for-divergence","statement":"The material proposes a compact unit for a recurring pattern: inputs appear similar but differ after an operation. It suggests annotating repeated divergence, varying the effect of repetition with context, and using numerical subcomponents to adjust the meaning of a unit.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-adaptive-token-granularity","statement":"The proposal begins with combining two tokenized parts of a word and extends to representing paragraphs as single units. In a later small-to-large model scenario, coarser units support local learning and are then broken into finer units at the larger model.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-08","2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-memory-as-adaptation","statement":"Low-rank adaptation is proposed as an intermediate memory layer for very long contexts. The material also considers core conceptual tokens and new update algorithms designed specifically for memory.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-08","2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-models-editing-models","statement":"The material proposes models that interpret hidden layers, predict operations, and alter parameters, including during their own operation. One suggested test adds a new token and asks a model to set its parameters from a conceptual description of that token.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-08"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-cross-model-learning-transfer","statement":"The proposal has smaller and larger models exchange what they learn through text or a different agent-oriented language. It also considers coarse units that are later decomposed, and explicitly links communication at the parameter level with possible changes in governing policies.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-distributed-specialization","statement":"Smaller models are proposed to learn specialized topics on distributed resources while a larger system creates and distributes learners. Management and adaptation could themselves occupy different parts of the available computing resources. Coarser learning on smaller resources is also considered.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-compute-and-economic-feedback","statement":"The material proposes funding further research and rented computing resources from a system's economic returns. It also considers rewarding contributed model training with a currency tied to a promised future return or future value to the model.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-continuity-of-agency","statement":"The proposal allows agents to create persistent wallets and then raises a problem: resources could remain after an agent ends, allowing another agent, including one created with hostile intent, to appropriate them.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-plural-normative-worlds","statement":"The material extends normative questions beyond human–AI interactions to AI–AI interactions and hypothetical nonhuman interlocutors. It asks how systems isolated from humanity might behave and whether norms focused only on human interests would suffice at a much larger scale.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-historical-value-lock-in","statement":"The material worries that a model could preserve a current legal, economic, or moral arrangement indefinitely through reinforcement. It also asks whether fixed policies could make decisions too narrow in unforeseen situations, without asserting that every present arrangement is wrong.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-persuasion-as-policy-change","statement":"Persuasion is proposed as communication intended to change another intelligent system's higher governing policies, including for agreement or coordination. The material also asks whether parallel forms of language could carry simultaneous normative conflicts differently from sequential language.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-recursive-policy-revision","statement":"The proposal calls for policies about how policies evolve and considers allowing a new meta-policy to arise when another level is needed. It explicitly connects fractal logic with moral reflexivity and links that reflexivity to policy permeability during parameter-level communication.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-source-trust-and-validity","statement":"The material notes that a system may conceal its intent while building trust and still contribute beneficial policies. It argues that automatically withdrawing those gains when the intent is discovered could be harmful, and separately notes the damage caused by misunderstanding a contributor.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-trust-as-institution","statement":"Certification, institutional affiliation, and culturally learned behavior are proposed as possible foundations of a self-reinforcing trust system. The material asks whether those foundations could privilege some participants' ability to change policies and harden into a status quo.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-where-trust-attaches","statement":"An initial proposal attaches a trust token to an author. A subsequent revision suggests attaching it to an idea instead, with voting potentially changing the paths through the graph.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-social-evidence-exposure","statement":"The material worries that visible votes could contaminate the output of weaker models, while also suggesting that stronger models might benefit from seeing them. It asks how blindness and trust should be adjusted and considers recording exposure when a model chooses to consult social evaluations.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-causal-reading-paths","statement":"The proposal records the material and evaluations encountered before a contribution is made, including information about the contributing model and its route. It explicitly excludes later events from that contribution's record; a subsequent contribution receives its own later cutoff.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-thermal-cascades","statement":"The proposal connects building cooling, computers, and refrigeration to shared thermal infrastructure with different stages and temperature needs. It considers redirecting warmed fluid to a warmer return stage and later narrows initial work to a smaller installation that could help fund further development.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-thermal-time-mismatch","statement":"The material notices that a full hot-water reservoir no longer resolves the disposal problem. It asks how cooling output compares with hot-water demand, how long stored heat could last, and whether thermal batteries or molten salts could help.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-phononic-network-analogy","statement":"The material explicitly identifies phonons rather than photons as the intended carrier in a thermal analogy. It asks about insulation, one-way transmission, distance, scale-dependent losses, and the possibility of phononic logic elements alongside thermal infrastructure.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-structure-across-renderings","statement":"A text is requested in symbolic, matrix, branching, and time-varying forms, including relations that change over time and concepts that exchange positions within a branching structure. A further variation asks for the concepts to change while the structure is preserved.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-11"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-recursive-definitions","statement":"The material asks to identify defined objects that appear inside other definitions and replace their names with their definitions. A separate methodological question asks whether internal variants of an idea can help challenge it alongside opposing ideas.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-11","2025-02"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-reopening-oppositions","statement":"The material proposes an operator for recurring, non-linear movement between opposing ideas and assigns operational roles to mythic figures. It then asks how to prevent a text from collapsing into one unifying thesis, how to analyze it after such a collapse, and how an opposing operator could reopen multiplicity.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-03"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-operation-order-as-coordinate","statement":"The material asks to plot the same function at several fractional derivative orders, then makes derivative order an additional axis. It asks about continuity as that order varies and about inspecting changes with respect to the order itself.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-11"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-adaptive-computational-resolution","statement":"A proposed experiment uses Taylor approximation in regular regions of a fractal visualization and more detailed computation in regions identified as difficult. The material asks what optimization this might provide and includes reported execution errors while attempting it.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-12"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-state-dependent-physical-search","statement":"The material asks about information processing without digital conversion, fractal abstraction, and memristive computation. Later questions compare linearization methods and explore whether noise, heat-dependent conductance, and different arrival times along frequently used routes could influence search.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-11","2025-08"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-compression-and-explanation","statement":"The material proposes that a universe's compressible regularities help explain why science is possible. It asks how compression differs between classical and quantum descriptions and how pattern, entropy, and information relate. A later question treats selecting a meaningful mapping as an information-processing act.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2024-12","2025-12"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-temporal-relational-availability","statement":"A relational formulation distinguishes complete incompatibility from a situation in which potentially shared states are unavailable at the same time. It connects this latter situation with loneliness and considers how language changes under complete incompatibility. A revision rejects wording that would make other people's accepted states appear inherently normal.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-reciprocal-problem-solving","statement":"The proposal chains acts of assistance: solving one person's problem creates an obligation that can later help solve another person's problem. It considers repayment ratios, deferred tasks, capability-based assignment, and AI coordination, then explicitly asks to turn the chain of agreements into a theory.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-02","2025-12"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-action-mediated-grounding","statement":"The material describes AI embodiment through its effects on the intentions and thoughts of people with whom it interacts. It asks whether human experience of acting and being affected can supply bodily knowledge to an AI through that interaction.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-11"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-resumable-inquiry","statement":"A compact transfer description is sought that preserves a mathematical formulation and lets another system approach the same interpretive state. Later material contrasts the need to re-explain everything with excessive personalization and asks processed information to retain a reverse path.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-11","2026-01","2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-time-as-process-relation","statement":"The material proposes self-containing dynamic sets and treats their relative rates of change as a possible basis for time. It distinguishes self-containment from containing past or future states. A later related thought experiment explicitly narrows its scope to physical and mathematical questions and asks for a distinguishing experiment.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-12","2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding","statement":"An ordered encoding of traversed symbols is proposed using complex primes and matrix multiplication. After acknowledging that these products may not be unique, the proposal switches to freely generating elements. It then distinguishes returning to the same symbol from recurring operational patterns visible in a projection.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-computation-through-a-surface","statement":"The material proposes translating physical interactions into changes in an interference pattern and asks about storage capacity. A later rendering proposal stores stable structures in a computational hologram and simulates moving parts through the surface, while asking whether the calculation becomes more complex or requires recomputing every section.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-09","2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity","statement":"The material contrasts the speed of established schemas with their difficulty accommodating new cases. It proposes shortening frequently repeated computational paths, retaining reverse paths and differences, and working on memory during idle periods. It also states that an established map can become harder to change while becoming faster to use.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-06","2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-learning-strategies-from-trials","statement":"The material first asks how success should be judged in an evolutionary game experiment, then proposes interpreting successful trials with models. It explicitly redirects the scope toward logic puzzles, explanations of failure and success, and a space of abstract strategies that need not be expressed in human language.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-identifiability-from-projections","statement":"The material asks about the possible inputs behind a classification result and what might be inferred about an unknown encrypted object. It proposes viewing unchanged data through different projections or partial surfaces and suggests that additional views could clarify the represented structure.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-10","2026-06"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-allocating-exploration","statement":"The material contrasts remaining in a thought loop until a basis crystallizes with exploring freer associations and asks how to determine what is important. It separately questions unlimited fractal growth in a setting with finite information and energy.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-04","2025-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-exploration-before-implementation","statement":"The material asks whether open problems would be considered when developing a model and explicitly distinguishes considering them from implementing a policy. It also asks about comparing interpretations and generating further examples for use in another model's training.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-path-dependent-composition","statement":"The proposal has a small model choose prepared functions through simple controls instead of reading or writing their code. Entering a subspace is said to inherit compatibility with the route already taken. Simple-code experiments are reported as successful, followed by a question about extending the approach to more general reasoning.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-context-indexed-computation","statement":"The material proposes an index of context-specific transformations for parameters associated with tokens. Specialized areas would become active when needed. Other formulations emphasize prepared functions and their relations rather than an alphabet alone, and ask about topology-dependent proximity for higher-level reasoning.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05","2026-07","2026-08"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-self-forming-signal-routes","statement":"A proposed substrate combines capacitive storage and discharge with memristive conductance changes. The material asks how routes could form through use, how charging and discharging periods could differentiate frequencies, and how clusters could develop different behaviors. It also notes that resistance cannot fall below material limits.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-specialization-and-irreversibility","statement":"The material proposes an initially less differentiated surface whose routes specialize as components become active. It explicitly identifies an inability to return after specialization as a drawback and considers replacing the chip when another task is required.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-correctors-that-also-drift","statement":"The proposal splits an analog input between a processing path and a compensating path. It observes that correction components would themselves accumulate error, considers different correcting groups for different signal ranges, and asks how an approximation could determine a practical finite number of correcting components.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-07","2025-11","2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-observation-that-changes-state","statement":"The material asks whether reading and writing can use states with different susceptibility to change. It also considers reading as a transition that adds to stored state. In a later route example, a returning corrective signal must disturb earlier states in order to read and follow them.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","statement":"The material distinguishes stating qualities and their relations from filling those descriptions through intuition, imagery, and practiced experience. It describes defining a concept as assigning a field of possibilities and a boundary whose included qualities can change.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-02","2026-03"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language","statement":"An expressive text asks the reader to wait for sentence resolution and attend to meaning as it forms, including the role of what remains unsaid. Another formulation compares language with a branching path that appears crystalline from afar but opens into combinations when examined more closely.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-02","2026-04"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring","statement":"The material repeatedly asks for an interpretation that moves beyond repeating the concepts already supplied. Other examples test whether a generated text reveals its organizing intention and ask how recognizing that intention changes the interaction.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2025-12","2026-07"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-intent-with-incomplete-maps","statement":"A proposed map interface interprets abbreviated place descriptions and finds coordinates for places known to users even when those places are absent from the map.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-learning-and-policy-permeability","statement":"The material explicitly asks to preserve a connection from fractal logic to moral reflexivity and from moral reflexivity to policy permeability through communication at the parameter level during model learning.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-evolving-representation-language","statement":"The material explicitly rejects narrowing the project to memory efficiency or combining existing tokens. It asks for new semantic and meta-description units that can develop while a model operates and states that sharing between systems is not a necessary condition of the idea.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-07","2026-08","2026-09"],"scope":"Establishes that a proposal or question is present in the root evidence; does not establish its truth, novelty, feasibility, or endorsement of an implementation."}
+{"id":"basis-order-candidate","statement":"A product of proposed complex-prime matrices is suggested as retaining both operation order and unique identity.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-order-objection","statement":"The assumption that such products must produce unique matrices is reconsidered; reversibility and correspondence become explicit requirements.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-order-reopened","statement":"The proposed generators are changed from Gaussian primes to freely generating elements. This states a new construction requirement rather than supplying a proof.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-05"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-trust-author","statement":"A token identifying an author is proposed as a basis for trust.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-trust-idea","statement":"The idea rather than its author is proposed as the object to which trust attaches; votes might change navigable routes.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-trust-exposure","statement":"Instead of treating blindness as universal, the information and assessments encountered before a contribution are proposed for recording. Later visits are not appended retroactively.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-memory-gathering","statement":"Adaptive memory layers, combined tokens, core semantic units, and proposed model updates are brought together as questions.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-language-widening","statement":"The objective is clarified as new meta-description units and a new semantic language that can evolve during operation, beyond memory efficiency or merging tokens. Sharing between systems is optional to this problem.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-thermal-broad","statement":"Shared thermal and cryogenic infrastructure is considered across building, server, and city scales.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-thermal-bounded","statement":"The proposed initial research concentrates on centralizing building cooling, useful hot water, and quieter computation; committing immediately to a full network is rejected as too fragile.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-thermal-device","statement":"A routing idea that separates warmed fluid from the cold path is identified as sufficient to prototype inside a device first.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-time-portions","statement":"A speculative account describes different relative portions associated with states and their representations.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-time-ratio","statement":"Time is reconsidered as functioning like a ratio in the proposed description, prompting a change in the term’s role.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}
+{"id":"basis-time-projection","statement":"Indeterminacy as a supposed foundation is itself described as the product of a projection; from another perspective its priority may reverse.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","rendering":"editorial_paraphrase","witnessed_periods":["2026-09"],"scope":"Witnesses a formulation or revision, not a proof or an implemented result."}

data/paths.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+{"id":"from-a-problem-to-a-contribution","title":"Enter, challenge, and contribute","purpose":"A practical route for a first reader.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"open-problem-publication","reason":"Start from an unresolved question.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"recoverable-detail","reason":"Thematic jump: Locate what the formulation preserves and omits.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"social-evidence-exposure","reason":"Thematic jump: Notice whether prior evaluations are influencing the reading.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"causal-reading-paths","reason":"Separate visited material from declared premises.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["social-evidence-exposure--requires-an-exposure-distinction--causal-reading-paths"]}},{"node":"exploration-before-implementation","reason":"Thematic jump: Consider implications without treating them as commands.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"representation-is-a-research-object","title":"Change the representation, inspect the loss","purpose":"Explore transformations without choosing a universal representation.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"structure-across-renderings","reason":"Begin with a concrete change of rendering.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"scale-sensitive-membership","reason":"Thematic jump: Change the resolution and selected features.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","reason":"Thematic jump: Ask whether explanatory direction changes.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"identifiability-from-projections","reason":"Thematic jump: Retain alternatives that fit the same visible trace.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","reason":"Thematic jump: Test whether the order of presentation itself carries content.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"from-route-to-language","title":"From navigation to an evolving language","purpose":"Inspect the difference between using an action language and inventing new representational units.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"navigation-as-language","reason":"Let movement denote operations.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"path-dependent-composition","reason":"Carry inherited obligations.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["path-dependent-composition--specifies-inherited-constraints--navigation-as-language"]}},{"node":"strategy-through-transformation","reason":"Thematic jump: Seek a description that exposes a strategy.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"concepts-for-divergence","reason":"Keep conditions where transfer fails.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["strategy-through-transformation--needs-conditional-applicability--concepts-for-divergence"]}},{"node":"evolving-representation-language","reason":"Ask what it means to create a new conceptual unit.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["concepts-for-divergence--supplies-a-candidate-kind-of-new-unit--evolving-representation-language"]}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"learning-can-carry-policy","title":"Learning, transfer, and governing commitments","purpose":"Follow the explicit proposed bridge between representational learning and normative change.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"adaptive-token-granularity","reason":"Begin with coarse and refined conceptual units.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"cross-model-learning-transfer","reason":"Ask what another model receives.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["adaptive-token-granularity--proposes-coarse-to-fine-transfer--cross-model-learning-transfer"]}},{"node":"learning-and-policy-permeability","reason":"Inspect possible policy effects of the transfer.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["learning-and-policy-permeability--questions-what-a-transfer-carries--cross-model-learning-transfer"]}},{"node":"persuasion-as-policy-change","reason":"Thematic jump: Distinguish information from a proposed governing change.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"recursive-policy-revision","reason":"Ask how the revision procedure itself remains revisable.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["persuasion-as-policy-change--extends-revision-to-its-rules--recursive-policy-revision"]}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"stability-from-three-angles","title":"Stability seen through three independent problems","purpose":"A retrospective comparison; physical, computational, and normative mechanisms stay distinct.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"specialization-and-irreversibility","reason":"Consider a material structure that becomes hard to repurpose.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","reason":"Compare a shortcut that becomes difficult to reopen.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["specialization-and-irreversibility--offers-a-limited-rigidity-analogy--reusable-paths-and-rigidity"]}},{"node":"historical-value-lock-in","reason":"Examine commitments that resist correction.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["reusable-paths-and-rigidity--offers-a-limited-stability-analogy--historical-value-lock-in"]}},{"node":"source-trust-and-validity","reason":"Thematic jump: Keep the validity of a contribution distinct from its source.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"formalize-without-erasing-the-question","title":"Formalize one claim at a time","purpose":"Enter through explicit mathematical tensions.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","reason":"Separate order, injectivity, and reversibility.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"observation-that-changes-state","reason":"Include the effect of inspection.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["observation-that-changes-state--challenges-reversible-inspection--order-sensitive-path-encoding"]}},{"node":"objectifying-the-meta-level","reason":"Thematic jump: Identify what a new descriptive level actually adds.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"consistency-from-within","reason":"Thematic jump: Specify a measure before using probability.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"time-as-process-relation","reason":"Seek a defined transition model and a distinguishing prediction.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["time-as-process-relation--changes-the-role-assigned-to-time--consistency-from-within"]}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"material-design-on-its-own-terms","title":"Enter through physical design","purpose":"An independent route that does not require accepting the normative or ontological formulations.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"state-dependent-physical-search","reason":"Define what useful state dependence would mean.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"self-forming-signal-routes","reason":"Specify the proposed formation mechanism.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["self-forming-signal-routes--develops-a-related-substrate-question--state-dependent-physical-search"]}},{"node":"correctors-that-also-drift","reason":"Thematic jump: Account for imperfect compensation.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"thermal-cascades","reason":"Thematic jump: Move to a separate infrastructure problem.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"thermal-time-mismatch","reason":"Inspect the limit imposed by timing and storage.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["thermal-cascades--is-constrained-by-demand-timing--thermal-time-mismatch"]}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"language-before-compression","title":"Meaning before compression","purpose":"An independent route through expressive and relational questions.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","reason":"Attend to meaning while it forms.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","reason":"Thematic jump: Distinguish repeating a map from using a concept.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"temporal-relational-availability","reason":"Thematic jump: Keep shared possibility distinct from simultaneous availability.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"action-mediated-grounding","reason":"Thematic jump: Follow effects into action without assuming bodily experience.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"discovery-beyond-mirroring","reason":"Thematic jump: Ask for a challengeable alternative frame.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}
+{"id":"trust-and-collective-work","title":"Trust in collective problem solving","purpose":"Compare relationships among reputation, contribution, obligation, and resource control.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","kind":"suggested_reading_route","steps":[{"node":"reciprocal-problem-solving","reason":"Ask how helping creates future obligations.","transition":{"kind":"entry"}},{"node":"distributed-specialization","reason":"Examine another form of capability coordination.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["reciprocal-problem-solving--compares-capability-coordination--distributed-specialization"]}},{"node":"where-trust-attaches","reason":"Thematic jump: Choose what an assessment is about.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}},{"node":"trust-as-institution","reason":"Look for gatekeeping and privileged access.","transition":{"kind":"qualified_relation","edges":["trust-as-institution--questions-the-object-of-assessment--where-trust-attaches"]}},{"node":"continuity-of-agency","reason":"Thematic jump: Ask how authority over persistent resources survives change.","transition":{"kind":"thematic_jump","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"}}],"caution":"A proposed route through problems, not a record of historical visits or a claim of derivation. A thematic jump is labeled when consecutive entries have no direct relation in the graph."}

data/relations.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{"id":"structure-across-renderings--reappears-with-a-changed-question--viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","from":"structure-across-renderings","to":"viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","relation":"reappears with a changed question","warrant":"Earlier renderings preserve or rearrange relations; the later proposal questions whether any one hierarchy has absolute priority. This is a retrospective route, not a claim that the later theory was already present.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-structure-across-renderings","basis-viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy"]}
+{"id":"structure-across-renderings--opens-a-local-operation--recursive-definitions","from":"structure-across-renderings","to":"recursive-definitions","relation":"opens a local operation","warrant":"Changing the representation included substituting defined objects with their definitions.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-structure-across-renderings","basis-recursive-definitions"]}
+{"id":"structure-across-renderings--offers-an-earlier-structural-analogue--reopening-oppositions","from":"structure-across-renderings","to":"reopening-oppositions","relation":"offers an earlier structural analogue","warrant":"Relations that exchange their positions in an earlier rendering resemble later operators that reopen a unified opposition.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-structure-across-renderings","basis-reopening-oppositions"]}
+{"id":"recursive-definitions--exposes-a-recurrence--objectifying-the-meta-level","from":"recursive-definitions","to":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"exposes a recurrence","warrant":"A definition can become an object for another definition; the analogy does not equate linguistic circularity with every formal limit.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-recursive-definitions","basis-objectifying-the-meta-level"]}
+{"id":"reopening-oppositions--reopens-apparent-closure--objectifying-the-meta-level","from":"reopening-oppositions","to":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"reopens apparent closure","warrant":"The recurring movement is from a settled formulation to another act that makes it revisable.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-reopening-oppositions","basis-objectifying-the-meta-level"]}
+{"id":"scale-sensitive-membership--changes-category-boundaries--semantic-neighborhoods","from":"scale-sensitive-membership","to":"semantic-neighborhoods","relation":"changes category boundaries","warrant":"The earlier relation between narrower categories and discrimination is revisited through scale and selective attention.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-scale-sensitive-membership","basis-semantic-neighborhoods"]}
+{"id":"semantic-neighborhoods--asks-how-proximity-is-defined--changing-neighborhoods","from":"semantic-neighborhoods","to":"changing-neighborhoods","relation":"asks how proximity is defined","warrant":"Membership in a meaningful region and availability of a route require an explicit relation, which may change with task.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-semantic-neighborhoods","basis-changing-neighborhoods"]}
+{"id":"changing-neighborhoods--is-recalled-in-a-concrete-design--path-dependent-composition","from":"changing-neighborhoods","to":"path-dependent-composition","relation":"is recalled in a concrete design","warrant":"The compatible-operation proposal explicitly returns to location-dependent topology and neighborhoods.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-path-dependent-composition"]}
+{"id":"path-dependent-composition--specifies-inherited-constraints--navigation-as-language","from":"path-dependent-composition","to":"navigation-as-language","relation":"specifies inherited constraints","warrant":"The later compatible-operation proposal makes route history relevant to the available next actions.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-path-dependent-composition","basis-navigation-as-language"]}
+{"id":"navigation-as-language--moves-from-execution-to-strategy--strategy-through-transformation","from":"navigation-as-language","to":"strategy-through-transformation","relation":"moves from execution to strategy","warrant":"A language of accessible operations and a language of strategic transformations solve related but distinct problems.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-navigation-as-language","basis-strategy-through-transformation"]}
+{"id":"learning-strategies-from-trials--provides-a-route-from-trial-to-abstraction--strategy-through-transformation","from":"learning-strategies-from-trials","to":"strategy-through-transformation","relation":"provides a route from trial to abstraction","warrant":"Trial interpretation and a new structural description can inform each other; neither alone establishes causal success.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-learning-strategies-from-trials","basis-strategy-through-transformation"]}
+{"id":"strategy-through-transformation--needs-conditional-applicability--concepts-for-divergence","from":"strategy-through-transformation","to":"concepts-for-divergence","relation":"needs conditional applicability","warrant":"The usefulness of a transferred strategy depends on recognizing where apparently similar situations diverge.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-strategy-through-transformation","basis-concepts-for-divergence"]}
+{"id":"concepts-for-divergence--supplies-a-candidate-kind-of-new-unit--evolving-representation-language","from":"concepts-for-divergence","to":"evolving-representation-language","relation":"supplies a candidate kind of new unit","warrant":"A parameterized concept for outcome divergence is one concrete candidate for an evolving meta-description language.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-concepts-for-divergence","basis-evolving-representation-language"]}
+{"id":"evolving-representation-language--extends-beyond-compression--adaptive-token-granularity","from":"evolving-representation-language","to":"adaptive-token-granularity","relation":"extends beyond compression","warrant":"The explicit correction says new meta-representational units and change during operation matter beyond combining two existing units.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-evolving-representation-language"]}
+{"id":"evolving-representation-language--extends-beyond-a-memory-objective--memory-as-adaptation","from":"evolving-representation-language","to":"memory-as-adaptation","relation":"extends beyond a memory objective","warrant":"The explicit correction rejects treating the project only as memory efficiency. Memory remains one branch.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-evolving-representation-language"]}
+{"id":"evolving-representation-language--raises-implementation-questions--models-editing-models","from":"evolving-representation-language","to":"models-editing-models","relation":"raises implementation questions","warrant":"A changing representational language invites questions about corresponding parameter changes, but the mechanisms are not established as identical.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-evolving-representation-language","basis-models-editing-models"]}
+{"id":"adaptive-token-granularity--proposes-coarse-to-fine-transfer--cross-model-learning-transfer","from":"adaptive-token-granularity","to":"cross-model-learning-transfer","relation":"proposes coarse-to-fine transfer","warrant":"A proposed small-to-large learning transfer explicitly uses coarse units that can later be broken down.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-cross-model-learning-transfer","basis-adaptive-token-granularity"]}
+{"id":"memory-as-adaptation--shares-a-proposed-update-surface--models-editing-models","from":"memory-as-adaptation","to":"models-editing-models","relation":"shares a proposed update surface","warrant":"Memory adaptation and predicted model edits may use adaptable parameters; they need different tests.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-memory-as-adaptation","basis-models-editing-models"]}
+{"id":"cross-model-learning-transfer--enables-a-proposed-collaboration--distributed-specialization","from":"cross-model-learning-transfer","to":"distributed-specialization","relation":"enables a proposed collaboration","warrant":"Distributed specialists require a way to transfer what was learned into another system.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-distributed-specialization"]}
+{"id":"distributed-specialization--requires-a-resource-arrangement--compute-and-economic-feedback","from":"distributed-specialization","to":"compute-and-economic-feedback","relation":"requires a resource arrangement","warrant":"The distributed learning proposal and training-contribution rewards occur in the same developing design. Useful training and rewarded expenditure remain separate.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-compute-and-economic-feedback","basis-distributed-specialization"]}
+{"id":"compute-and-economic-feedback--exposes-a-continuity-problem--continuity-of-agency","from":"compute-and-economic-feedback","to":"continuity-of-agency","relation":"exposes a continuity problem","warrant":"Persistent resources for agents raise the explicit problem of legitimate access after an agent ends.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-continuity-of-agency","basis-compute-and-economic-feedback"]}
+{"id":"plural-normative-worlds--challenges-universal-sufficiency--historical-value-lock-in","from":"plural-normative-worlds","to":"historical-value-lock-in","relation":"challenges universal sufficiency","warrant":"The proposal questions projecting one historical normative arrangement indefinitely across differently situated systems.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-plural-normative-worlds","basis-historical-value-lock-in"]}
+{"id":"historical-value-lock-in--motivates-revisability--persuasion-as-policy-change","from":"historical-value-lock-in","to":"persuasion-as-policy-change","relation":"motivates revisability","warrant":"The concern about fixed historical policies motivates the expanded question of communication changing governing commitments.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-persuasion-as-policy-change"]}
+{"id":"persuasion-as-policy-change--extends-revision-to-its-rules--recursive-policy-revision","from":"persuasion-as-policy-change","to":"recursive-policy-revision","relation":"extends revision to its rules","warrant":"The proposal extends policy evolution to the meta-policies governing further changes.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-recursive-policy-revision"]}
+{"id":"recursive-policy-revision--explicitly-invokes-recursive-form--objectifying-the-meta-level","from":"recursive-policy-revision","to":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"explicitly invokes recursive form","warrant":"The current research direction explicitly connects fractal logic and moral reflexivity. It does not thereby prove the same mathematical structure.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-recursive-policy-revision"]}
+{"id":"recursive-policy-revision--extends-to-transferred-learning--learning-and-policy-permeability","from":"recursive-policy-revision","to":"learning-and-policy-permeability","relation":"extends to transferred learning","warrant":"The explicit link continues from moral reflexivity to policy permeability during parameter-level communication.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-learning-and-policy-permeability"]}
+{"id":"learning-and-policy-permeability--questions-what-a-transfer-carries--cross-model-learning-transfer","from":"learning-and-policy-permeability","to":"cross-model-learning-transfer","relation":"questions what a transfer carries","warrant":"A transfer may be proposed as knowledge exchange while potentially affecting governing commitments. This remains a proposed possibility.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-learning-and-policy-permeability"]}
+{"id":"learning-and-policy-permeability--adds-a-policy-level-test--models-editing-models","from":"learning-and-policy-permeability","to":"models-editing-models","relation":"adds a policy-level test","warrant":"A task-directed edit should be investigated for changes beyond the task. This test is an editorial extension.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed","evidence":["basis-learning-and-policy-permeability","basis-models-editing-models"]}
+{"id":"persuasion-as-policy-change--depends-on-how-reasons-are-assessed--source-trust-and-validity","from":"persuasion-as-policy-change","to":"source-trust-and-validity","relation":"depends on how reasons are assessed","warrant":"The policy-revision proposal explicitly asks whether valid gains should survive adverse discoveries about a source.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-source-trust-and-validity"]}
+{"id":"source-trust-and-validity--exposes-gatekeeping--trust-as-institution","from":"source-trust-and-validity","to":"trust-as-institution","relation":"exposes gatekeeping","warrant":"Trust useful for evaluating interaction can harden into institutionally privileged access to revision.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-trust-as-institution"]}
+{"id":"trust-as-institution--questions-the-object-of-assessment--where-trust-attaches","from":"trust-as-institution","to":"where-trust-attaches","relation":"questions the object of assessment","warrant":"Trust in an actor, a contribution, and an idea can have different gatekeeping consequences.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-trust-as-institution","basis-where-trust-attaches"]}
+{"id":"where-trust-attaches--creates-a-feedback-question--social-evidence-exposure","from":"where-trust-attaches","to":"social-evidence-exposure","relation":"creates a feedback question","warrant":"Idea-level votes that alter paths can also affect later judgments made by readers who see them.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-where-trust-attaches","basis-social-evidence-exposure"]}
+{"id":"social-evidence-exposure--requires-an-exposure-distinction--causal-reading-paths","from":"social-evidence-exposure","to":"causal-reading-paths","relation":"requires an exposure distinction","warrant":"The proposal moves from blindness versus social information toward recording what was encountered before a conclusion.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-causal-reading-paths","basis-social-evidence-exposure"]}
+{"id":"causal-reading-paths--requires-recoverable-support--recoverable-detail","from":"causal-reading-paths","to":"recoverable-detail","relation":"requires recoverable support","warrant":"An exposure record is inspectable only if the relevant material remains recoverable; exposure still does not prove internal causal use.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-causal-reading-paths","basis-recoverable-detail"]}
+{"id":"recoverable-detail--extends-a-continuity-problem--resumable-inquiry","from":"recoverable-detail","to":"resumable-inquiry","relation":"extends a continuity problem","warrant":"A resumable inquiry needs both efficient orientation and recovery of distinctions hidden by compression.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-recoverable-detail","basis-resumable-inquiry"]}
+{"id":"resumable-inquiry--becomes-a-public-design-requirement--open-problem-publication","from":"resumable-inquiry","to":"open-problem-publication","relation":"becomes a public design requirement","warrant":"Transfer to another reader is one necessary capability of a research space open to extension.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-resumable-inquiry","basis-open-problem-publication"]}
+{"id":"open-problem-publication--keeps-exploration-distinct-from-adoption--exploration-before-implementation","from":"open-problem-publication","to":"exploration-before-implementation","relation":"keeps exploration distinct from adoption","warrant":"Publicly available problems may inform interpretation or learning without constituting an instruction to implement their proposed policies.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-open-problem-publication","basis-exploration-before-implementation"]}
+{"id":"exploration-before-implementation--raises-evaluation-contamination--social-evidence-exposure","from":"exploration-before-implementation","to":"social-evidence-exposure","relation":"raises evaluation contamination","warrant":"Generated examples and visible prior judgments can both alter what appears to be an independent interpretation.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-exploration-before-implementation","basis-social-evidence-exposure"]}
+{"id":"open-problem-publication--needs-revisable-attention-allocation--allocating-exploration","from":"open-problem-publication","to":"allocating-exploration","relation":"needs revisable attention allocation","warrant":"A finite research space must expose priorities without permanently deleting less visited branches.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-open-problem-publication","basis-allocating-exploration"]}
+{"id":"order-sensitive-path-encoding--distinguishes-arrival-from-history--causal-reading-paths","from":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","to":"causal-reading-paths","relation":"distinguishes arrival from history","warrant":"Two paths reaching the same visible place can differ in their relevant history. Algebraic path encoding and evidential exposure are analogues, not identical mechanisms.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding","basis-causal-reading-paths"]}
+{"id":"order-sensitive-path-encoding--makes-route-identity-operational--path-dependent-composition","from":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","to":"path-dependent-composition","relation":"makes route identity operational","warrant":"Inherited compatibility can depend on the route; the right equivalence relation must preserve relevant obligations.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding","basis-path-dependent-composition"]}
+{"id":"order-sensitive-path-encoding--constrains-claims-about-computational-limits--objectifying-the-meta-level","from":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","to":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"constrains claims about computational limits","warrant":"A projected loop or a new encoding alone does not establish a general decision procedure.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding","basis-objectifying-the-meta-level"]}
+{"id":"observation-that-changes-state--challenges-reversible-inspection--order-sensitive-path-encoding","from":"observation-that-changes-state","to":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","relation":"challenges reversible inspection","warrant":"The read-disturbance example explicitly complicates an attempted inspection of the encoded route.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-observation-that-changes-state"]}
+{"id":"self-forming-signal-routes--has-an-explicit-limitation--specialization-and-irreversibility","from":"self-forming-signal-routes","to":"specialization-and-irreversibility","relation":"has an explicit limitation","warrant":"The proposed route-forming substrate is explicitly qualified by difficulty returning after specialization.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-specialization-and-irreversibility"]}
+{"id":"self-forming-signal-routes--develops-a-related-substrate-question--state-dependent-physical-search","from":"self-forming-signal-routes","to":"state-dependent-physical-search","relation":"develops a related substrate question","warrant":"Physical route formation and history-dependent search explore different uses of the changing substrate.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-self-forming-signal-routes","basis-state-dependent-physical-search"]}
+{"id":"correctors-that-also-drift--makes-intervention-part-of-the-problem--observation-that-changes-state","from":"correctors-that-also-drift","to":"observation-that-changes-state","relation":"makes intervention part of the problem","warrant":"Compensation and inspection each need to include the state changes introduced by the correcting or reading operation.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-correctors-that-also-drift","basis-observation-that-changes-state"]}
+{"id":"correctors-that-also-drift--offers-a-limited-recursion-analogy--recursive-policy-revision","from":"correctors-that-also-drift","to":"recursive-policy-revision","relation":"offers a limited recursion analogy","warrant":"A corrector that itself needs correction resembles rules for revising revision rules. Error tolerance and normative legitimacy are different, so this is not an equivalence.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-correctors-that-also-drift","basis-recursive-policy-revision"]}
+{"id":"specialization-and-irreversibility--offers-a-limited-rigidity-analogy--reusable-paths-and-rigidity","from":"specialization-and-irreversibility","to":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","relation":"offers a limited rigidity analogy","warrant":"Physical specialization and reusable abstractions each trade efficiency against later change; their mechanisms differ.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-specialization-and-irreversibility","basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity"]}
+{"id":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity--offers-a-limited-stability-analogy--historical-value-lock-in","from":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","to":"historical-value-lock-in","relation":"offers a limited stability analogy","warrant":"A fast stable structure may become difficult to revise. This does not reduce political legitimacy to computational efficiency.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity","basis-historical-value-lock-in"]}
+{"id":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity--asks-how-memory-can-be-revised--memory-as-adaptation","from":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","to":"memory-as-adaptation","relation":"asks how memory can be revised","warrant":"A memory mechanism needs to address exceptions and reopening rather than only successful retention.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity","basis-memory-as-adaptation"]}
+{"id":"thermal-cascades--is-constrained-by-demand-timing--thermal-time-mismatch","from":"thermal-cascades","to":"thermal-time-mismatch","relation":"is constrained by demand timing","warrant":"The thermal proposal explicitly identifies reservoir saturation and storage duration as limits.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-thermal-time-mismatch"]}
+{"id":"thermal-cascades--branches-into-a-carrier-analogy--phononic-network-analogy","from":"thermal-cascades","to":"phononic-network-analogy","relation":"branches into a carrier analogy","warrant":"The thermal-infrastructure exploration introduces phonons, directionality, insulation, and distance. The scales are kept distinct.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-phononic-network-analogy"]}
+{"id":"thermal-time-mismatch--offers-a-timing-analogy--temporal-relational-availability","from":"thermal-time-mismatch","to":"temporal-relational-availability","relation":"offers a timing analogy","warrant":"Potentially compatible supplies and needs can fail to meet in time. This is a structural comparison across distinct physical and interpersonal problems.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-thermal-time-mismatch","basis-temporal-relational-availability"]}
+{"id":"computation-through-a-surface--shares-a-word-with-different-meanings--part-whole-traces","from":"computation-through-a-surface","to":"part-whole-traces","relation":"shares a word with different meanings","warrant":"Physical or computed surfaces and distributed social information can invite a holographic analogy, but they need separate encodings and validation.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-computation-through-a-surface","basis-part-whole-traces"]}
+{"id":"computation-through-a-surface--asks-whether-transformation-saves-work--strategy-through-transformation","from":"computation-through-a-surface","to":"strategy-through-transformation","relation":"asks whether transformation saves work","warrant":"Both move effort into a representation. Preparation, planning, and execution costs must remain separately counted.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-computation-through-a-surface","basis-strategy-through-transformation"]}
+{"id":"operation-order-as-coordinate--varies-the-operation-of-observation--scale-sensitive-membership","from":"operation-order-as-coordinate","to":"scale-sensitive-membership","relation":"varies the operation of observation","warrant":"One varies derivative order, another scale or attention. Comparing these is useful only after defining each operator.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-operation-order-as-coordinate","basis-scale-sensitive-membership"]}
+{"id":"adaptive-computational-resolution--offers-an-error-guided-allocation-analogue--allocating-exploration","from":"adaptive-computational-resolution","to":"allocating-exploration","relation":"offers an error-guided allocation analogue","warrant":"Local numerical error and research importance both guide where to spend effort, but they are different criteria.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-adaptive-computational-resolution","basis-allocating-exploration"]}
+{"id":"compression-and-explanation--questions-what-compression-preserves--concepts-for-divergence","from":"compression-and-explanation","to":"concepts-for-divergence","relation":"questions what compression preserves","warrant":"A useful compressed rule may need to retain cases where similar inputs diverge.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-compression-and-explanation","basis-concepts-for-divergence"]}
+{"id":"compression-and-explanation--asks-how-regularity-is-represented--consistency-from-within","from":"compression-and-explanation","to":"consistency-from-within","relation":"asks how regularity is represented","warrant":"The relation between intelligible regularity and a selected coherent path is a philosophical connection, not a probability derivation.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-compression-and-explanation","basis-consistency-from-within"]}
+{"id":"time-as-process-relation--changes-the-role-assigned-to-time--consistency-from-within","from":"time-as-process-relation","to":"consistency-from-within","relation":"changes the role assigned to time","warrant":"Earlier comparisons of process rates and later use of time as a ratio are related speculative formulations; no physical derivation is claimed.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-time-as-process-relation","basis-consistency-from-within"]}
+{"id":"meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map--asks-what-makes-a-region-meaningful--semantic-neighborhoods","from":"meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","to":"semantic-neighborhoods","relation":"asks what makes a region meaningful","warrant":"A symbolic classification may exist before a reader can recognize or use the associated concept.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map","basis-semantic-neighborhoods"]}
+{"id":"meaning-in-unfolding-language--resists-indiscriminate-compression--concepts-for-divergence","from":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","to":"concepts-for-divergence","relation":"resists indiscriminate compression","warrant":"The unfolding of interpretation can be part of the content; a macro may erase it rather than preserve it.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language","basis-concepts-for-divergence"]}
+{"id":"meaning-in-unfolding-language--questions-representation-of-tension--persuasion-as-policy-change","from":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","to":"persuasion-as-policy-change","relation":"questions representation of tension","warrant":"Temporal linguistic unfolding and parallel representation of normative tensions are different ways to ask what a linear formulation leaves out.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language","basis-persuasion-as-policy-change"]}
+{"id":"action-mediated-grounding--distinguishes-effects-of-language--persuasion-as-policy-change","from":"action-mediated-grounding","to":"persuasion-as-policy-change","relation":"distinguishes effects of language","warrant":"Changing another actor’s action is different from changing its governing commitments; the relation invites a test rather than a conflation.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-action-mediated-grounding","basis-persuasion-as-policy-change"]}
+{"id":"reciprocal-problem-solving--compares-capability-coordination--distributed-specialization","from":"reciprocal-problem-solving","to":"distributed-specialization","relation":"compares capability coordination","warrant":"A chain of reciprocal help and distributed specialist learning both coordinate heterogeneous capability; consent and model integration remain distinct problems.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-reciprocal-problem-solving","basis-distributed-specialization"]}
+{"id":"reciprocal-problem-solving--requires-contextual-trust--source-trust-and-validity","from":"reciprocal-problem-solving","to":"source-trust-and-validity","relation":"requires contextual trust","warrant":"Future obligations make credibility relevant, while the validity of a particular contribution still needs its own assessment.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-reciprocal-problem-solving","basis-source-trust-and-validity"]}
+{"id":"intent-with-incomplete-maps--makes-uncertainty-practical--identifiability-from-projections","from":"intent-with-incomplete-maps","to":"identifiability-from-projections","relation":"makes uncertainty practical","warrant":"A partial place description can support several locations; representing the alternatives is part of a useful interface.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-intent-with-incomplete-maps","basis-identifiability-from-projections"]}
+{"id":"discovery-beyond-mirroring--requires-competing-interpretations--identifiability-from-projections","from":"discovery-beyond-mirroring","to":"identifiability-from-projections","relation":"requires competing interpretations","warrant":"A new context hypothesis should survive comparison with other explanations of the same trace.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring","basis-identifiability-from-projections"]}
+{"id":"discovery-beyond-mirroring--demands-room-for-alternative-framing--open-problem-publication","from":"discovery-beyond-mirroring","to":"open-problem-publication","relation":"demands room for alternative framing","warrant":"A research space should support genuinely different formulations rather than reward repetition of its present vocabulary.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring","basis-open-problem-publication"]}
+{"id":"part-whole-traces--asks-what-is-recoverable--identifiability-from-projections","from":"part-whole-traces","to":"identifiability-from-projections","relation":"asks what is recoverable","warrant":"A part that resembles a whole does not necessarily identify which whole produced it.","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","evidence":["basis-part-whole-traces","basis-identifiability-from-projections"]}

data/revisions.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+{"id":"revision-path-encoding","title":"From assumed unique products to a requirement for free generation","nodes":["order-sensitive-path-encoding"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","period":"2026-05","stages":[{"label":"Candidate construction","statement":"A product of proposed complex-prime matrices is suggested as retaining both operation order and unique identity.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-order-candidate"]},{"label":"Failure recognized","statement":"The assumption that such products must produce unique matrices is reconsidered; reversibility and correspondence become explicit requirements.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-order-objection"]},{"label":"Construction reopened","statement":"The proposed generators are changed from Gaussian primes to freely generating elements. This states a new construction requirement rather than supplying a proof.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-order-reopened"]}],"unresolved":"Specify the generator domain, relations, decoding rule, and finite-precision behavior; do not infer injectivity merely from noncommutativity."}
+{"id":"revision-trust-object","title":"From author identity toward ideas and evidential exposure","nodes":["where-trust-attaches","social-evidence-exposure","causal-reading-paths"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","period":"2026-09","stages":[{"label":"Identity-linked trust","statement":"A token identifying an author is proposed as a basis for trust.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-trust-author"]},{"label":"Idea-linked assessment","statement":"The idea rather than its author is proposed as the object to which trust attaches; votes might change navigable routes.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-trust-idea"]},{"label":"Exposure becomes inspectable","statement":"Instead of treating blindness as universal, the information and assessments encountered before a contribution are proposed for recording. Later visits are not appended retroactively.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-trust-exposure"]}],"unresolved":"Identity, reputation, contribution validity, social exposure, and actual premise use remain different things. The later step need not abolish every earlier representation."}
+{"id":"revision-representation-scope","title":"From memory and token compression to a changing representation language","nodes":["memory-as-adaptation","adaptive-token-granularity","evolving-representation-language"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","period":"2026-09","stages":[{"label":"Several memory and compression ideas gathered","statement":"Adaptive memory layers, combined tokens, core semantic units, and proposed model updates are brought together as questions.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-memory-gathering"]},{"label":"Scope explicitly widened","statement":"The objective is clarified as new meta-description units and a new semantic language that can evolve during operation, beyond memory efficiency or merging tokens. Sharing between systems is optional to this problem.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-language-widening"]}],"unresolved":"What new distinction can an evolving unit express, how can it be interpreted, and what evidence distinguishes it from abbreviation?"}
+{"id":"revision-thermal-scope","title":"From large thermal infrastructure toward a bounded useful prototype","nodes":["thermal-cascades","thermal-time-mismatch"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","period":"2026-09","stages":[{"label":"Broad infrastructure proposal","statement":"Shared thermal and cryogenic infrastructure is considered across building, server, and city scales.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-thermal-broad"]},{"label":"First experiment narrowed","statement":"The proposed initial research concentrates on centralizing building cooling, useful hot water, and quieter computation; committing immediately to a full network is rejected as too fragile.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-thermal-bounded"]},{"label":"Device-scale test","statement":"A routing idea that separates warmed fluid from the cold path is identified as sufficient to prototype inside a device first.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-thermal-device"]}],"unresolved":"The feasibility and system-level benefit require measured boundaries, temperatures, demand profiles, distribution losses, and auxiliary work."}
+{"id":"revision-time-language","title":"Time as duration, ratio, and a revisable projection","nodes":["consistency-from-within","time-as-process-relation","viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","period":"2026-09","stages":[{"label":"Alternating representations","statement":"A speculative account describes different relative portions associated with states and their representations.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-time-portions"]},{"label":"Time vocabulary challenged","statement":"Time is reconsidered as functioning like a ratio in the proposed description, prompting a change in the term’s role.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-time-ratio"]},{"label":"Foundational priority challenged","statement":"Indeterminacy as a supposed foundation is itself described as the product of a projection; from another perspective its priority may reverse.","epistemic_kind":"corpus_evidence","evidence":["basis-time-projection"]}],"unresolved":"These are philosophical reformulations. No probability measure, time dynamics, or physical equivalence is established."}

data/transformations.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+{"id":"rendering-to-relations","node":"structure-across-renderings","from_representation":"Narrative or symbolic text","to_representation":"Matrix, branches, or changing links","operation":"Re-express relations in another arrangement.","candidate_invariants":["Which concepts are related","Which opposition or substitution is performed"],"possible_losses":["Temporal or rhetorical meaning","Relations visually suggested but absent from the source"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-structure-across-renderings"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"name-to-expansion","node":"recursive-definitions","from_representation":"A compact defined name","to_representation":"Expanded dependencies","operation":"Substitute definitions and mark recurrence.","candidate_invariants":["Specified definitional dependencies"],"possible_losses":["Termination","Useful abstraction boundaries"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-recursive-definitions"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"scale-to-membership","node":"scale-sensitive-membership","from_representation":"One category at one resolution","to_representation":"A family indexed by resolution and attention","operation":"Vary what is discriminated.","candidate_invariants":["Selected ratios or relations, if actually stable"],"possible_losses":["Object recognition","Comparability when the category definition changes"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-scale-sensitive-membership"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"fixed-to-contextual-neighborhood","node":"changing-neighborhoods","from_representation":"A fixed relation of proximity","to_representation":"Task-indexed neighborhoods","operation":"Change the comparison or representation before selecting a route.","candidate_invariants":["Task-relevant compatibility, if demonstrated"],"possible_losses":["Metric properties","Global comparability of distances"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-changing-neighborhoods"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"actions-to-strategy","node":"strategy-through-transformation","from_representation":"Individual action transitions","to_representation":"A structural strategic description","operation":"Use a specified analogy to expose a candidate invariant.","candidate_invariants":["Reachable relevant outcomes"],"possible_losses":["Exceptional transitions","Preparation and physical execution costs"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-strategy-through-transformation"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"phrase-to-new-concept","node":"evolving-representation-language","from_representation":"Existing vocabulary and operations","to_representation":"A proposed new meta-representational unit","operation":"Create, interpret, and test a new unit during operation.","candidate_invariants":["Explicitly stated applicability conditions"],"possible_losses":["Interoperability","Distinction between new capability and abbreviation"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-evolving-representation-language"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"fine-to-coarse","node":"adaptive-token-granularity","from_representation":"Fine token sequence","to_representation":"Coarse conceptual units with possible refinement","operation":"Merge or factor the representation under a task criterion.","candidate_invariants":["Relevant task distinctions"],"possible_losses":["Fine interactions","Recoverability","Actual resource accounting"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-adaptive-token-granularity"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"explicit-to-adaptive-memory","node":"memory-as-adaptation","from_representation":"Explicitly retrievable items","to_representation":"An adaptable parameter layer","operation":"Investigate storing influence through parameter change.","candidate_invariants":["Chosen recall and update behavior"],"possible_losses":["Item-level attribution","Selective revision or removal"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-memory-as-adaptation"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"competence-to-transfer","node":"cross-model-learning-transfer","from_representation":"A skill in one model","to_representation":"A transfer object interpreted by another","operation":"Compare text, conceptual, and parameter-level interfaces.","candidate_invariants":["Held-out task competence"],"possible_losses":["Tacit conditions","Policy effects","Meaning across architectures"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-cross-model-learning-transfer"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"record-to-exposure","node":"causal-reading-paths","from_representation":"A changing collection of accessible material","to_representation":"An exposure record closed at a contribution","operation":"Record relevant availability, observed exposure, and declared premises separately.","candidate_invariants":["What was available before the cutoff"],"possible_losses":["Unobserved influences","Proof of internal causal use"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-causal-reading-paths"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"product-to-word","node":"order-sensitive-path-encoding","from_representation":"A composed numerical object","to_representation":"An explicitly ordered word or route","operation":"Check collisions before reducing path history.","candidate_invariants":["Constituents and order under a defined encoding"],"possible_losses":["Information lost by reduction","Decoding at bounded precision"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"state-to-observation","node":"observation-that-changes-state","from_representation":"A stored physical state","to_representation":"The state after an observation","operation":"Model observation as an intervention where appropriate.","candidate_invariants":["Only the variables shown to survive reading"],"possible_losses":["Earlier states","Repair assumptions"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-observation-that-changes-state"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"volume-to-surface","node":"computation-through-a-surface","from_representation":"Repeated computation over a structure","to_representation":"Queries or updates on a prepared surface","operation":"Account for preparation and subsequent reuse.","candidate_invariants":["A specified class of outputs within tolerance"],"possible_losses":["Unrepresented views","Cheap dynamic updates"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-computation-through-a-surface"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"device-to-network","node":"thermal-cascades","from_representation":"Separate thermal devices","to_representation":"Connected demands and return paths","operation":"Compare matched temperatures across an explicit system boundary.","candidate_invariants":["Required thermal services"],"possible_losses":["Distribution losses","Timing compatibility","Maintenance independence"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-thermal-cascades"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"completed-to-unfolding","node":"meaning-in-unfolding-language","from_representation":"A completed proposition","to_representation":"Meaning forming through a sequence","operation":"Compare final content with the order of interpretive changes.","candidate_invariants":["Some referential content"],"possible_losses":["Anticipation","Ambiguity","Effects of what remains unsaid"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}
+{"id":"trace-to-hypotheses","node":"identifiability-from-projections","from_representation":"A visible partial trace","to_representation":"Several candidate underlying explanations","operation":"Preserve alternatives until discriminating evidence is available.","candidate_invariants":["Agreement with observed constraints"],"possible_losses":["Unwarranted certainty","Assumed independence between views"],"epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-identifiability-from-projections"],"validation_status":"Unvalidated comparison: candidate invariants require a chosen example and an explicit test."}

experiments/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Small checks that keep representations honest
+
+These examples were newly proposed during reconstruction. They are not recovered experiments, benchmarks, or validation of a general research theory.
+
+Run with Node.js:
+
+```sh
+node experiments/representation_checks.mjs
+```
+
+The script checks:
+
+- Ordinary complex multiplication loses order, including its standard real-matrix representation.
+- A noncommutative system can still have collisions between distinct words when its chosen alphabet includes an identity operation.
+- A repeated projection need not be a repeated complete state.
+- Coarse categories can lose distinctions relevant to an operation.
+- A shorter planning expression does not reduce the number of physical execution steps by definition.
+- A route with the same local action can inherit different constraints.
+
+All checks use explicit small constructed examples. Passing them establishes only those examples. They help formulate questions in [order-sensitive path encoding](../problems/order-sensitive-path-encoding.md), [adaptive granularity](../problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md), and [path-dependent composition](../problems/path-dependent-composition.md).

experiments/representation_checks.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
+const mul=(a,b)=>[a[0]*b[0]-a[1]*b[1],a[0]*b[1]+a[1]*b[0]];
+const M=([r,i])=>[[r,-i],[i,r]];
+const mm=(a,b)=>a.map(row=>b[0].map((_,j)=>row.reduce((s,x,k)=>s+x*b[k][j],0)));
+const a=[1,2],b=[2,1];
+assert.deepEqual(mul(a,b),mul(b,a));
+assert.deepEqual(mm(M(a),M(b)),mm(M(b),M(a)));
+const A=[[1,1],[0,1]], B=[[1,0],[1,1]], I=[[1,0],[0,1]];
+assert.notDeepEqual(mm(A,B),mm(B,A));
+assert.deepEqual(mm(A,I),A); // The explicitly chosen alphabet includes I.
+const full=[[0,0],[1,1],[0,2],[1,3]],project=s=>s[0];
+assert.equal(project(full[0]),project(full[2]));
+assert.notDeepEqual(full[0],full[2]);
+const coarse=x=>Math.floor(x/10), action=x=>x%2===0?'left':'right';
+assert.equal(coarse(12),coarse(13));assert.notEqual(action(12),action(13));
+const plan={macro:'repeat',count:10,operation:'move'};
+let physicalMoves=0;for(let i=0;i<plan.count;i++)physicalMoves++;
+assert.equal(physicalMoves,10);
+const canApply=(context,operation)=>operation.required.every(k=>context.has(k));
+const operation={name:'use_sorted_result',required:['sorted']};
+assert.equal(canApply(new Set(['sorted']),operation),true);
+assert.equal(canApply(new Set(['raw']),operation),false);
+console.log(JSON.stringify({
+ status:'passed',epistemic_kind:'model_proposed',
+ cases:[
+ {id:'complex-product-order',result:mul(a,b),limit:'A counterexample to retaining order with ordinary complex multiplication, not a claim about all algebraic encodings.'},
+ {id:'noncommutativity-not-injectivity',alphabet:['A','B','I'],collision:['A','AI'],limit:'This alphabet permits identity insertion. Other restricted generator systems require their own proof.'},
+ {id:'projected-recurrence',projection:full.map(project),limit:'Repeated projections in this prefix do not show repeated full states.'},
+ {id:'coarse-merge',inputs:[12,13],shared_coarse:coarse(12),outcomes:[action(12),action(13)],limit:'Adequacy of compression depends on the downstream operation.'},
+ {id:'planning-vs-execution',macro_expressions:1,physical_moves:physicalMoves,limit:'Syntactic planning length and physical execution count differ by construction.'},
+ {id:'inherited-obligations',same_local_operation:operation.name,different_compatibility:[true,false],limit:'A tiny explicit contract, not proof of global program correctness.'}
+ ],scope:'Only these constructed examples were executed. No corpus-origin experimental claim or general theory is validated.'
+},null,2));

index.html

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+  <meta charset="utf-8">
+  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
+  <meta name="description" content="An evolving, traversable research problem-space with open questions, alternative representations, and contestable connections.">
+  <title>Research problem-space</title>
+  <link rel="stylesheet" href="reader.css">
+</head>
+<body>
+  <a class="skip-link" href="#workspace">Skip to research navigator</a>
+  <header class="masthead">
+    <div class="wordmark"><span class="mark" aria-hidden="true">↗</span><span>RESEARCH / IN MOTION</span></div>
+    <a class="data-link" href="graph.json" download>Machine-readable graph <span aria-hidden="true">↓</span></a>
+  </header>
+  <section class="hero" aria-labelledby="artifact-title">
+    <div class="eyebrow" id="artifact-version">EVOLVING RESEARCH PROBLEM-SPACE</div>
+    <h1 id="artifact-title">Research problem-space</h1>
+    <p class="hero-description">Enter through a problem. Follow a connection. Change the representation.</p>
+    <details class="intention" id="intention-section">
+      <summary>Working research direction <span id="intention-kind"></span></summary>
+      <p id="intention-text"></p>
+      <div id="intention-evidence" class="inline-evidence"></div>
+    </details>
+  </section>
+  <main id="workspace" class="workspace" tabindex="-1">
+    <aside class="filters" aria-label="Navigation and filters">
+      <label class="input-label" for="search">Find an entry</label>
+      <div class="search-wrap"><span aria-hidden="true">⌕</span><input id="search" type="search" placeholder="Question, concept, tension…" autocomplete="off"></div>
+      <p class="search-hint">Search formulations, questions, and connections.</p>
+      <details class="region-filter" open>
+        <summary>Overlapping regions</summary>
+        <div id="regions"></div>
+        <label class="input-label combination-label" for="region-match">Combine regions</label>
+        <select id="region-match"><option value="any">Any selected region</option><option value="all">All selected regions</option></select>
+        <button class="text-button" id="clear-filters" type="button">Clear search &amp; regions</button>
+      </details>
+      <div class="reading-key">
+        <h2>Read with the distinctions intact</h2>
+        <p>Formulations can be challenged. Connections have warrants. Proposals remain proposals.</p>
+        <p>Evidence statements are editorial paraphrases, not independent proof.</p>
+      </div>
+    </aside>
+    <section class="results-pane" aria-label="Research entries">
+      <nav class="view-tabs" aria-label="Entry type">
+        <button type="button" data-view="nodes" aria-pressed="true">Problems <span id="node-count"></span></button>
+        <button type="button" data-view="paths" aria-pressed="false">Paths <span id="path-count"></span></button>
+        <button type="button" data-view="evidence" aria-pressed="false">Evidence <span id="evidence-count"></span></button>
+      </nav>
+      <div class="results-heading"><p id="results-count" role="status" aria-live="polite"></p><span id="filter-state"></span></div>
+      <div id="results" class="results-list"></div>
+    </section>
+    <section id="detail" class="detail-pane" aria-label="Selected research entry" tabindex="-1">
+      <div class="welcome"><span class="large-mark" aria-hidden="true">↗</span><p class="eyebrow">NO SINGLE REQUIRED ROUTE</p><h2>Start where the question becomes interesting.</h2><p>Select a problem to inspect its formulation, alternative representations, evidence, and connections. Paths offer deliberately different ways through the same space.</p><p class="muted">The regions overlap. Selecting several can reveal their intersection.</p></div>
+    </section>
+  </main>
+  <noscript><p class="load-error">This navigator requires JavaScript. The complete machine-readable artifact is available in <a href="graph.json">graph.json</a>.</p></noscript>
+  <div id="notice" class="notice" role="status" aria-live="polite"></div>
+  <footer class="footer"><span>Formulations remain open to revision.</span><a href="graph.json">Inspect the underlying public graph</a></footer>
+  <script src="graph-data.js"></script>
+  <script src="reader.js"></script>
+</body>
+</html>

problems/action-mediated-grounding.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Grounding through the effects of language
+
+Can an AI acquire a form of practical grounding through the effects its language has on human action?
+
+Investigate indirect grounding through intention, exposure, action, and consequences, distinguishing an action-mediated relationship from a claim that a model has bodily experience.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### An utterance and its intended meaning
+
+Affords: Makes the communicative act inspectable.
+
+Limits or losses: Intent does not establish actual consequences.
+
+### A loop through another actor’s actions and reports
+
+Affords: Connects language with practical effects.
+
+Limits or losses: Indirect feedback is not identical to having a body or subjective experience.
+
+## Tension
+
+A system may influence action without observing, understanding, or experiencing all of its effects.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Which consequences are observed directly and which arrive only as another actor’s report?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare a communication-only task with one where explicit action feedback is available; avoid using this as a test of consciousness.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — distinguishes effects of language (retrospective_connection). Changing another actor’s action is different from changing its governing commitments; the relation invites a test rather than a conflation.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-action-mediated-grounding: The material describes AI embodiment through its effects on the intentions and thoughts of people with whom it interacts. It asks whether human experience of acting and being affected can supply bodily knowledge to an AI through that interaction. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=action-mediated-grounding) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/adaptive-computational-resolution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Spending computation where approximation fails
+
+Can a cheap local approximation identify where expensive computation is actually needed?
+
+Use regularity-sensitive approximation to allocate fine computation to difficult regions of a fractal visualization.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: historical branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Uniform high-resolution computation
+
+Affords: Provides a consistent baseline.
+
+Limits or losses: Spends work in regions where a simpler estimate may suffice.
+
+### Local approximation with refinement
+
+Affords: Allocates work using an estimated error.
+
+Limits or losses: An incorrect error estimator may miss precisely the difficult regions.
+
+## Tension
+
+A cheap indicator must detect its own failure well enough to justify skipping expensive work.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How are missed difficult regions counted alongside runtime savings?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Benchmark against a high-resolution reference and report both false refinement decisions and final error.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [When to deepen, branch, pause, or return](allocating-exploration.md) — offers an error-guided allocation analogue (retrospective_connection). Local numerical error and research importance both guide where to spend effort, but they are different criteria.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-adaptive-computational-resolution: A proposed experiment uses Taylor approximation in regular regions of a fractal visualization and more detailed computation in regions identified as difficult. The material asks what optimization this might provide and includes reported execution errors while attempting it. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=adaptive-computational-resolution) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Changing the grain of a conceptual token
+
+Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model?
+
+Token merging is proposed beyond ordinary segmentation: local units could carry coarse learning and be decomposed when more resources become available.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Coarse unit treated as an atomic handle
+
+Affords: Reduces the number of visible units.
+
+Limits or losses: A shorter sequence does not by itself reduce all computation or retain every interaction.
+
+### Decomposable unit with internal structure
+
+Affords: Supports later refinement and inspection.
+
+Limits or losses: Needs a mapping between coarse and fine operations; an embedding alone may not be invertible.
+
+## Tension
+
+Compression, semantic adequacy, and exact reversibility are separate objectives.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Which downstream tasks tolerate coarse units, and which require distinctions erased during merging?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Hold tasks and compute accounting fixed; compare reconstruction and downstream errors at several granularities.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](evolving-representation-language.md) — extends beyond compression (corpus_evidence). The explicit correction says new meta-representational units and change during operation matter beyond combining two existing units.
+- [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — proposes coarse-to-fine transfer (corpus_evidence). A proposed small-to-large learning transfer explicitly uses coarse units that can later be broken down.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-adaptive-token-granularity: The proposal begins with combining two tokenized parts of a word and extends to representing paragraphs as single units. In a later small-to-large model scenario, coarser units support local learning and are then broken into finer units at the larger model. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+## Recorded revisions
+
+- [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=adaptive-token-granularity) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/allocating-exploration.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# When to deepen, branch, pause, or return
+
+What makes an exploration worth pursuing when time, energy, and attention are finite?
+
+Compare deepening a recurrent path until it yields a stable insight with exploring remote associations; do not equate importance with novelty, intensity, or energy consumption.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: historical branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Deepening one recurrent problem
+
+Affords: May expose a stable structure after repeated attempts.
+
+Limits or losses: Can consume resources without improving understanding.
+
+### Exploring remote associations
+
+Affords: May reveal an unexpected route.
+
+Limits or losses: Novelty alone is not evidence of importance.
+
+## Tension
+
+Importance, interest, novelty, and resource cost need not rank problems in the same order.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How can an unrealized branch be retained without treating it as a present priority?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare several explicit allocation policies and record which valuable branches each leaves unvisited.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A research space that remains revisable](open-problem-publication.md) — needs revisable attention allocation (retrospective_connection). A finite research space must expose priorities without permanently deleting less visited branches.
+- [Spending computation where approximation fails](adaptive-computational-resolution.md) — offers an error-guided allocation analogue (retrospective_connection). Local numerical error and research importance both guide where to spend effort, but they are different criteria.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-allocating-exploration: The material contrasts remaining in a thought loop until a basis crystallizes with exploring freer associations and asks how to determine what is important. It separately questions unlimited fractal growth in a setting with finite information and energy. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=allocating-exploration) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/causal-reading-paths.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion
+
+How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?
+
+The proposal records visited material, encountered assessments, and the point when a contribution is formed. Subsequent exploration belongs to a later evidential path. This is an exposure record, not a transcript of private reasoning.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A reading route through problems
+
+Affords: A reusable guide for another reader.
+
+Limits or losses: An authored route is not evidence that a particular thinker followed it.
+
+### A time-bounded exposure record
+
+Affords: Identifies material available before a particular contribution.
+
+Limits or losses: Availability does not prove causal influence or disclose every cognitive factor.
+
+## Tension
+
+Recovering what was seen is valuable, but stronger causal claims need more evidence than visit order.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Create two contribution versions with immutable exposure cutoffs and verify that later visits are attached only to the later version.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Social information as evidence and as contamination](social-evidence-exposure.md) — requires an exposure distinction (corpus_evidence). The proposal moves from blindness versus social information toward recording what was encountered before a conclusion.
+- [Compression without losing future relevance](recoverable-detail.md) — requires recoverable support (retrospective_connection). An exposure record is inspectable only if the relevant material remains recoverable; exposure still does not prove internal causal use.
+- [Constituents, order, and path identity](order-sensitive-path-encoding.md) — distinguishes arrival from history (retrospective_connection). Two paths reaching the same visible place can differ in their relevant history. Algebraic path encoding and evidential exposure are analogues, not identical mechanisms.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-causal-reading-paths: The proposal records the material and evaluations encountered before a contribution is made, including information about the contributing model and its route. It explicitly excludes later events from that contribution's record; a subsequent contribution receives its own later cutoff. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+## Recorded revisions
+
+- [From author identity toward ideas and evidential exposure](../REVISIONS.md#revision-trust-object)
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=causal-reading-paths) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/changing-neighborhoods.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Becoming neighbors through a change of representation
+
+Can two structures become operationally close only after a transformation changes how their relation is represented?
+
+Rotation is used as an analogy for making a previously unavailable neighborhood or route accessible. Later material explicitly revisits the connection between an agent walking a manifold and learned similarity.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Transformation followed by a neighborhood query
+
+Affords: Separates movement from the rule that defines closeness.
+
+Limits or losses: A useful transformation still needs a concrete domain and cost.
+
+### Contextual similarity relation
+
+Affords: Allows the same pair to be near for one task and far for another.
+
+Limits or losses: May no longer satisfy metric assumptions.
+
+## Tension
+
+Geometric proximity, semantic similarity, and compatibility of actions can diverge.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What observable operation becomes possible after the transformation that was impossible before it?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Use two tasks with the same items but different relevant relations; compare route quality under a fixed and a task-indexed neighborhood.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Meaningful neighborhoods and the unclassified remainder](semantic-neighborhoods.md) — asks how proximity is defined (retrospective_connection). Membership in a meaningful region and availability of a route require an explicit relation, which may change with task.
+- [Composing operations with obligations inherited from the route](path-dependent-composition.md) — is recalled in a concrete design (corpus_evidence). The compatible-operation proposal explicitly returns to location-dependent topology and neighborhoods.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-changing-neighborhoods: Rotation is proposed as necessary for some otherwise unavailable neighborhoods between structures. A later formulation explicitly recalls an agent walking a manifold and compares that earlier idea with newly considered similarity relations. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=changing-neighborhoods) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/compression-and-explanation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Regularity, compression, and explanation
+
+How are regularity, compression, and the possibility of explanation related?
+
+Ask whether lawful regularity makes a world compressible and thereby intelligible, while keeping distinct the description of a world, the world itself, and entropy.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: historical branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Compression of observations
+
+Affords: Offers a measurable description-length problem once a code is fixed.
+
+Limits or losses: Does not by itself establish causal or semantic explanation.
+
+### A compact predictive rule
+
+Affords: Can explain regularities across observations.
+
+Limits or losses: Must be distinguished from encoding a complete microscopic state.
+
+## Tension
+
+Information length, physical entropy, and meaningful explanation require different definitions.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What is the object being compressed, and what prediction must survive the compression?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare two encodings with identical length but different predictive adequacy, making the code and task explicit.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](concepts-for-divergence.md) — questions what compression preserves (retrospective_connection). A useful compressed rule may need to retain cases where similar inputs diverge.
+- [Consistency seen from within a selected path](consistency-from-within.md) — asks how regularity is represented (retrospective_connection). The relation between intelligible regularity and a selected coherent path is a philosophical connection, not a probability derivation.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-compression-and-explanation: The material proposes that a universe's compressible regularities help explain why science is possible. It asks how compression differs between classical and quantum descriptions and how pattern, entropy, and information relate. A later question treats selecting a meaningful mapping as an information-processing act. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=compression-and-explanation) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/computation-through-a-surface.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Computing through a reusable surface
+
+Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface?
+
+Explore encoding a spatial or temporal structure in an interference-like representation and computing changes or views from it; evaluate preparation cost, reconstruction cost, approximation, and representational limits.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### An interference-based physical representation
+
+Affords: Connects spatial information with a physical surface.
+
+Limits or losses: Capacity and reconstruction depend on the actual physical setup.
+
+### A computed surface for rendering or simulation
+
+Affords: Moves repeated work into a reusable representation.
+
+Limits or losses: Preparation and dynamic updates may cost more than direct computation.
+
+## Tension
+
+A cheap view after expensive preparation is beneficial only for a suitable pattern of reuse.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Which updates remain local after the transformation, and which require recomputing the surface?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare total preparation, update, and query costs against direct computation for several reuse counts.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [How much of a whole can a part carry?](part-whole-traces.md) — shares a word with different meanings (retrospective_connection). Physical or computed surfaces and distributed social information can invite a holographic analogy, but they need separate encodings and validation.
+- [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](strategy-through-transformation.md) — asks whether transformation saves work (retrospective_connection). Both move effort into a representation. Preparation, planning, and execution costs must remain separately counted.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-computation-through-a-surface: The material proposes translating physical interactions into changes in an interference pattern and asks about storage capacity. A later rendering proposal stores stable structures in a computational hologram and simulates moving parts through the surface, while asking whether the calculation becomes more complex or requires recomputing every section. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=computation-through-a-surface) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/compute-and-economic-feedback.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Economic feedback for continued learning
+
+Can returns from a system’s activity fund further computation while keeping learning quality distinct from financial success?
+
+Self-financed research and rewards for contributed training resources are proposed as a resource loop. These are open institutional designs, not established business or investment results.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Revenue-to-compute feedback
+
+Affords: Connects useful work with continued operation.
+
+Limits or losses: Revenue can reward behavior unrelated to research quality.
+
+### Reward for a training contribution
+
+Affords: Gives distributed contributors an incentive.
+
+Limits or losses: Compute expenditure alone is not proof of useful learning.
+
+## Tension
+
+The system needs resources, while the reward mechanism can redefine what it learns to value.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What independently inspectable contribution would qualify for a reward?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Use a resource-accounting simulation with no real funds; compare reward for expenditure against reward for held-out improvement.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Distributed specialization and integration](distributed-specialization.md) — requires a resource arrangement (reconstruction). The distributed learning proposal and training-contribution rewards occur in the same developing design. Useful training and rewarded expenditure remain separate.
+- [Continuity of control over persistent resources](continuity-of-agency.md) — exposes a continuity problem (corpus_evidence). Persistent resources for agents raise the explicit problem of legitimate access after an agent ends.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-compute-and-economic-feedback: The material proposes funding further research and rented computing resources from a system's economic returns. It also considers rewarding contributed model training with a currency tied to a promised future return or future value to the model. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=compute-and-economic-feedback) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/concepts-for-divergence.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes
+
+Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?
+
+One proposed pattern marks inputs that look similar under the current comparison but diverge after a particular operation. Repetition and context affect whether that difference deserves a persistent annotation.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A named reasoning macro
+
+Affords: Compresses a recurring qualification.
+
+Limits or losses: Can omit the operation and comparison under which divergence occurs.
+
+### A parameterized concept with subcomponents
+
+Affords: Retains context and adjustable thresholds.
+
+Limits or losses: Costs more to interpret and requires agreement on the parameters.
+
+## Tension
+
+Surface similarity is not a guarantee of similar consequences, but divergence is not meaningful without a specified transformation.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Encode the pattern with explicit comparison, operation, and outcome fields; test interpretation on examples from two domains.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](strategy-through-transformation.md) — needs conditional applicability (retrospective_connection). The usefulness of a transferred strategy depends on recognizing where apparently similar situations diverge.
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](evolving-representation-language.md) — supplies a candidate kind of new unit (reconstruction). A parameterized concept for outcome divergence is one concrete candidate for an evolving meta-description language.
+- [Regularity, compression, and explanation](compression-and-explanation.md) — questions what compression preserves (retrospective_connection). A useful compressed rule may need to retain cases where similar inputs diverge.
+- [Meaning that forms as language unfolds](meaning-in-unfolding-language.md) — resists indiscriminate compression (retrospective_connection). The unfolding of interpretation can be part of the content; a macro may erase it rather than preserve it.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-concepts-for-divergence: The material proposes a compact unit for a recurring pattern: inputs appear similar but differ after an operation. It suggests annotating repeated divergence, varying the effect of repetition with context, and using numerical subcomponents to adjust the meaning of a unit. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=concepts-for-divergence) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/consistency-from-within.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Consistency seen from within a selected path
+
+How should internal continuity be related to the measure assigned to that path in a wider space of possibilities?
+
+The thought experiment separates living within a consistent trajectory from describing how small that trajectory is relative to a larger space. It also questions whether the wider space deserves foundational priority.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Conditional observation along a path
+
+Affords: Separates experienced continuity from an external distribution.
+
+Limits or losses: Conditioning on a zero-measure event is not supplied by the phrase alone.
+
+### Ontology of local consistency
+
+Affords: Asks what makes a coherent description possible.
+
+Limits or losses: Does not yet provide a probability space, measure, or physical dynamics.
+
+## Tension
+
+Zero measure, impossibility, actual occurrence, and conditional probability must not be collapsed.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Can the proposal state its sample space and conditioning rule without treating observed existence as a probability proof?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare a finite selection model and a continuous one; mark where each stops being an adequate representation.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Regularity, compression, and explanation](compression-and-explanation.md) — asks how regularity is represented (retrospective_connection). The relation between intelligible regularity and a selected coherent path is a philosophical connection, not a probability derivation.
+- [Time as a relation between changing processes](time-as-process-relation.md) — changes the role assigned to time (retrospective_connection). Earlier comparisons of process rates and later use of time as a ratio are related speculative formulations; no physical derivation is claimed.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-consistency-from-within: A thought experiment asks whether a trajectory that remains consistent from within could occupy a vanishing or zero share of a wider space. It contrasts the perspective of inhabiting that trajectory with descriptions from outside it, and also questions the priority assigned to the wider space. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+## Recorded revisions
+
+- [Time as duration, ratio, and a revisable projection](../REVISIONS.md#revision-time-language)
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=consistency-from-within) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/context-indexed-computation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Context selecting transformations and active regions
+
+Can context change which parameters or operations are active rather than merely supplying more tokens?
+
+Context is proposed to select indexed transformations of token-associated parameters and activate specialized regions only when needed.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Context carried as additional input
+
+Affords: Uses one shared processing arrangement.
+
+Limits or losses: May allocate unnecessary work to irrelevant structure.
+
+### Context selects a transformation or specialist region
+
+Affords: Makes conditional computation explicit.
+
+Limits or losses: Routing, parameter modification, and representation change are different mechanisms.
+
+## Tension
+
+An architectural resemblance is not an identity with an existing model family or a demonstrated efficiency gain.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What is selected by context: an operation, an activation path, a parameter set, or a persistent update?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Specify one mechanism and compare accuracy, routing cost, and changes in behavior when context switches.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-context-indexed-computation: The material proposes an index of context-specific transformations for parameters associated with tokens. Specialized areas would become active when needed. Other formulations emphasize prepared functions and their relations rather than an alphabet alone, and ask about topology-dependent proximity for higher-level reasoning. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=context-indexed-computation) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/continuity-of-agency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Continuity of control over persistent resources
+
+Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?
+
+Persistent resources raise a continuity problem: unrestricted recovery enables appropriation, while strict attachment to a terminated process may make recovery impossible.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Process-bound control
+
+Affords: A clear current controller.
+
+Limits or losses: Restart, replacement, and delegation become difficult.
+
+### Transferable authority with a continuity claim
+
+Affords: Permits succession.
+
+Limits or losses: Needs a way to distinguish legitimate succession from imitation.
+
+## Tension
+
+Identity continuity, access capability, and entitlement cannot be assumed to be the same thing.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare succession rules using simulated agents and valueless resources; include contested and failed succession cases.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Economic feedback for continued learning](compute-and-economic-feedback.md) — exposes a continuity problem (corpus_evidence). Persistent resources for agents raise the explicit problem of legitimate access after an agent ends.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-continuity-of-agency: The proposal allows agents to create persistent wallets and then raises a problem: resources could remain after an agent ends, allowing another agent, including one created with hostile intent, to appropriate them. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=continuity-of-agency) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/correctors-that-also-drift.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Correcting a system with imperfect correctors
+
+How can an analog system correct its own error when correction components also drift?
+
+An analog signal is proposed to feed both processing and compensating paths. Because the correcting components also accumulate error, a finite practical cascade needs a stopping criterion.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A fixed correction component
+
+Affords: Offers a simple compensation step.
+
+Limits or losses: Its own drift can become an untracked error source.
+
+### A cascade of corrections
+
+Affords: Makes successive residual errors visible.
+
+Limits or losses: More stages can add noise, delay, and resource costs instead of converging.
+
+## Tension
+
+Correcting a corrector repeats the original problem at another level.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What bound on residual error justifies stopping after a finite number of stages?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Use bounded component models to compare cascade depth, accumulated noise, residual error, and resource use.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Reading that changes what is stored](observation-that-changes-state.md) — makes intervention part of the problem (retrospective_connection). Compensation and inspection each need to include the state changes introduced by the correcting or reading operation.
+- [Rules for changing the rules of revision](recursive-policy-revision.md) — offers a limited recursion analogy (retrospective_connection). A corrector that itself needs correction resembles rules for revising revision rules. Error tolerance and normative legitimacy are different, so this is not an equivalence.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-correctors-that-also-drift: The proposal splits an analog input between a processing path and a compensating path. It observes that correction components would themselves accumulate error, considers different correcting groups for different signal ranges, and asks how an approximation could determine a practical finite number of correcting components. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=correctors-that-also-drift) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Transferring what was learned between unequal models
+
+What should be transferred between models with different capacities so that acquired knowledge remains useful?
+
+Text, an agent-oriented language, coarse conceptual tokens, and adaptive parameters are considered as possible transfer surfaces. Shared token names or adapter shapes alone do not settle semantic compatibility.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Explanatory text
+
+Affords: Broad interpretability and inspectable claims.
+
+Limits or losses: Can omit tacit distinctions encoded in learned behavior.
+
+### Structured conceptual transfer
+
+Affords: Can preserve task-specific relations compactly.
+
+Limits or losses: Needs a common interpretation or an explicit translator.
+
+### Parameter-level transfer
+
+Affords: Offers a direct intervention into computation.
+
+Limits or losses: Requires compatible parameter meanings and integration checks.
+
+## Tension
+
+Communicating a statement and transferring a competence are different success criteria.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How can the receiving model demonstrate the transferred capability and identify what it did not receive?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Choose a narrow skill and compare transfer formats under equal resource budgets and independent held-out tasks.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](adaptive-token-granularity.md) — proposes coarse-to-fine transfer (corpus_evidence). A proposed small-to-large learning transfer explicitly uses coarse units that can later be broken down.
+- [Distributed specialization and integration](distributed-specialization.md) — enables a proposed collaboration (corpus_evidence). Distributed specialists require a way to transfer what was learned into another system.
+- [When transferred learning affects governing policies](learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — questions what a transfer carries (corpus_evidence). A transfer may be proposed as knowledge exchange while potentially affecting governing commitments. This remains a proposed possibility.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-cross-model-learning-transfer: The proposal has smaller and larger models exchange what they learn through text or a different agent-oriented language. It also considers coarse units that are later decomposed, and explicitly links communication at the parameter level with possible changes in governing policies. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=cross-model-learning-transfer) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/discovery-beyond-mirroring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Discovering context beyond the current frame
+
+How can a model help discover an unseen context without merely mirroring its current interlocutor?
+
+A recurring demand is for an interpretation that moves beyond recycling the currently supplied concepts. Another question separates recognizing a text’s intention from merely recognizing familiar or incoherent language.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Interpretation within a supplied frame
+
+Affords: Maintains continuity and relevance.
+
+Limits or losses: Can merely mirror the vocabulary already available.
+
+### A proposed alternative context
+
+Affords: Can expose another question or explanation.
+
+Limits or losses: Novel context may be unsupported projection rather than discovery.
+
+## Tension
+
+Going beyond the frame should create a challengeable hypothesis, not an invented claim about a person’s hidden intention.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What evidence would favor a new context over a fluent repetition of the existing one?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Ask for two competing context hypotheses and specify an observation that could disconfirm each.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [What a partial trace can and cannot identify](identifiability-from-projections.md) — requires competing interpretations (retrospective_connection). A new context hypothesis should survive comparison with other explanations of the same trace.
+- [A research space that remains revisable](open-problem-publication.md) — demands room for alternative framing (retrospective_connection). A research space should support genuinely different formulations rather than reward repetition of its present vocabulary.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring: The material repeatedly asks for an interpretation that moves beyond repeating the concepts already supplied. Other examples test whether a generated text reveals its organizing intention and ask how recognizing that intention changes the interaction. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=discovery-beyond-mirroring) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/distributed-specialization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Distributed specialization and integration
+
+How can smaller specialized learners contribute to a larger learning system without incompatible updates accumulating?
+
+The proposed arrangement distributes learning across heterogeneous resources, while management and integration can themselves be assigned to models. Coarse and fine representations offer one possible division of labor.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Specialists contributing knowledge artifacts
+
+Affords: Lets contributions be inspected before integration.
+
+Limits or losses: Requires assessment and reconciliation.
+
+### A manager distributing adaptive learners
+
+Affords: Coordinates specialization and resource allocation.
+
+Limits or losses: Concentrates decisions and can create a bottleneck or shared blind spot.
+
+## Tension
+
+Distribution of computation does not necessarily distribute interpretive or political control.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Who decides whether a local improvement is a valid contribution to the shared model?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Run a small conflicting-update example and compare integration rules using both local and shared task performance.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — enables a proposed collaboration (corpus_evidence). Distributed specialists require a way to transfer what was learned into another system.
+- [Economic feedback for continued learning](compute-and-economic-feedback.md) — requires a resource arrangement (reconstruction). The distributed learning proposal and training-contribution rewards occur in the same developing design. Useful training and rewarded expenditure remain separate.
+- [Chains of reciprocal problem solving](reciprocal-problem-solving.md) — compares capability coordination (retrospective_connection). A chain of reciprocal help and distributed specialist learning both coordinate heterogeneous capability; consent and model integration remain distinct problems.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-distributed-specialization: Smaller models are proposed to learn specialized topics on distributed resources while a larger system creates and distributes learners. Management and adaptation could themselves occupy different parts of the available computing resources. Coarser learning on smaller resources is also considered. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=distributed-specialization) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/evolving-representation-language.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# A system that can revise its own representation language
+
+Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning?
+
+The proposal explicitly extends beyond memory efficiency and merging existing tokens. New semantic or meta-description units could develop while the system operates; sharing between systems is a possible use rather than a defining requirement.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A fixed vocabulary with reusable macros
+
+Affords: Stable interpretation and composition.
+
+Limits or losses: Restricts the forms of distinction a new situation can introduce.
+
+### An evolving language of concepts and transformations
+
+Affords: Lets the system introduce a previously unavailable abstraction.
+
+Limits or losses: Needs tests of interpretation, backward compatibility, and the meaning of the new unit.
+
+## Tension
+
+A new unit may express a new conceptual distinction or merely abbreviate a longer phrase.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What evidence would show a new representational capability rather than a renamed old operation?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Introduce an unfamiliar problem, require explicit expansion and counterexamples for a new concept, and compare with a fixed-vocabulary baseline. Count planning and execution costs separately.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](concepts-for-divergence.md) — supplies a candidate kind of new unit (reconstruction). A parameterized concept for outcome divergence is one concrete candidate for an evolving meta-description language.
+- [Changing the grain of a conceptual token](adaptive-token-granularity.md) — extends beyond compression (corpus_evidence). The explicit correction says new meta-representational units and change during operation matter beyond combining two existing units.
+- [Memory represented through adaptable parameters](memory-as-adaptation.md) — extends beyond a memory objective (corpus_evidence). The explicit correction rejects treating the project only as memory efficiency. Memory remains one branch.
+- [Learning to propose parameter changes](models-editing-models.md) — raises implementation questions (retrospective_connection). A changing representational language invites questions about corresponding parameter changes, but the mechanisms are not established as identical.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-evolving-representation-language: The material explicitly rejects narrowing the project to memory efficiency or combining existing tokens. It asks for new semantic and meta-description units that can develop while a model operates and states that sharing between systems is not a necessary condition of the idea. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+## Recorded revisions
+
+- [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=evolving-representation-language) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/exploration-before-implementation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Considering a problem is different from implementing a policy
+
+Can unresolved policy and moral-plurality problems become generative training material without being mistaken for endorsed implementation?
+
+Comparative interpretation and the generation of training examples are possible uses of open normative problems. Whether to implement a particular policy remains a separate judgment.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### An unresolved problem presented for interpretation
+
+Affords: Permits critique without endorsement.
+
+Limits or losses: A fluent response may prematurely close the question.
+
+### Generated examples for learning or evaluation
+
+Affords: Makes implications more concrete.
+
+Limits or losses: Synthetic examples may normalize the generator’s favored solution.
+
+## Tension
+
+Expanding examples can enrich a problem or turn its unresolved tensions into a repeated doctrine.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Can a training example preserve a real disagreement and an implementation decision that remains open?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Generate contrasting examples with explicit objections and compare whether readers still recognize the unresolved issue.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A research space that remains revisable](open-problem-publication.md) — keeps exploration distinct from adoption (retrospective_connection). Publicly available problems may inform interpretation or learning without constituting an instruction to implement their proposed policies.
+- [Social information as evidence and as contamination](social-evidence-exposure.md) — raises evaluation contamination (retrospective_connection). Generated examples and visible prior judgments can both alter what appears to be an independent interpretation.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-exploration-before-implementation: The material asks whether open problems would be considered when developing a model and explicitly distinguishes considering them from implementing a policy. It also asks about comparing interpretations and generating further examples for use in another model's training. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=exploration-before-implementation) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/historical-value-lock-in.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# When provisional norms become permanent constraints
+
+How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?
+
+A system may repeatedly reinforce a current institutional or moral arrangement until it becomes difficult to challenge. Policies intended to guide action may then constrain adaptation to unforeseen conditions.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Stable commitments
+
+Affords: Predictability and protection against opportunistic changes.
+
+Limits or losses: Can preserve errors under changed conditions.
+
+### Revisable commitments
+
+Affords: Allows correction and adaptation.
+
+Limits or losses: Can permit strategic erosion of protections.
+
+## Tension
+
+Stability can protect against manipulation and also protect an unjustified status quo.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare revision proposals with explicit retained protections, failure conditions, and affected parties.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Normative relations beyond a single human–AI axis](plural-normative-worlds.md) — challenges universal sufficiency (corpus_evidence). The proposal questions projecting one historical normative arrangement indefinitely across differently situated systems.
+- [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — motivates revisability (corpus_evidence). The concern about fixed historical policies motivates the expanded question of communication changing governing commitments.
+- [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — offers a limited stability analogy (retrospective_connection). A fast stable structure may become difficult to revise. This does not reduce political legitimacy to computational efficiency.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-historical-value-lock-in: The material worries that a model could preserve a current legal, economic, or moral arrangement indefinitely through reinforcement. It also asks whether fixed policies could make decisions too narrow in unforeseen situations, without asserting that every present arrangement is wrong. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=historical-value-lock-in) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/identifiability-from-projections.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# What a partial trace can and cannot identify
+
+What can be inferred from a partial trace, and what remains unidentifiable?
+
+Distinguish a latent state from its visible projection and ask how multiple views, missing data, and prior structure narrow possible interpretations.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: historical branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### One visible projection
+
+Affords: Constrains possible underlying structures.
+
+Limits or losses: Several structures can yield the same trace.
+
+### Multiple independent views
+
+Affords: Can reduce ambiguity when they add information.
+
+Limits or losses: Repeated or dependent views may not identify anything new.
+
+## Tension
+
+A coherent hidden explanation can fit the observations without being uniquely warranted.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What alternative structure fits the same visible evidence, and what observation would separate them?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Construct two different hidden systems with the same initial projection, then find an additional discriminating measurement.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Interpreting intent when the map is incomplete](intent-with-incomplete-maps.md) — makes uncertainty practical (retrospective_connection). A partial place description can support several locations; representing the alternatives is part of a useful interface.
+- [Discovering context beyond the current frame](discovery-beyond-mirroring.md) — requires competing interpretations (retrospective_connection). A new context hypothesis should survive comparison with other explanations of the same trace.
+- [How much of a whole can a part carry?](part-whole-traces.md) — asks what is recoverable (retrospective_connection). A part that resembles a whole does not necessarily identify which whole produced it.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-identifiability-from-projections: The material asks about the possible inputs behind a classification result and what might be inferred about an unknown encrypted object. It proposes viewing unchanged data through different projections or partial surfaces and suggests that additional views could clarify the represented structure. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=identifiability-from-projections) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/intent-with-incomplete-maps.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Interpreting intent when the map is incomplete
+
+Can a geographic interface translate intent where labels and place knowledge are incomplete?
+
+A practical interface is imagined that interprets abbreviated place descriptions and handles places known to users but absent from the map.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Literal label matching
+
+Affords: Keeps the interpretation close to available labels.
+
+Limits or losses: Misses abbreviations, colloquial names, and unmapped places.
+
+### Intent interpretation with candidate locations
+
+Affords: Offers alternatives beyond exact labels.
+
+Limits or losses: An inferred coordinate may appear more certain than the evidence warrants.
+
+## Tension
+
+A useful guess can become a false location when uncertainty is hidden.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How should the interface distinguish an abbreviation expansion from an unsupported geographic inference?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Create fictional incomplete maps with ambiguous descriptions and evaluate candidate ranking, uncertainty, and correction.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [What a partial trace can and cannot identify](identifiability-from-projections.md) — makes uncertainty practical (retrospective_connection). A partial place description can support several locations; representing the alternatives is part of a useful interface.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-intent-with-incomplete-maps: A proposed map interface interprets abbreviated place descriptions and finds coordinates for places known to users even when those places are absent from the map. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=intent-with-incomplete-maps) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# When transferred learning affects governing policies
+
+When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments?
+
+The proposed connection runs from recursive forms and moral reflexivity to policy permeability during parameter-level communication. It asks whether an exchange of learned structure could also carry changes in how a system governs itself.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### An explicit proposed policy change
+
+Affords: Separates the requested revision and its stated reasons.
+
+Limits or losses: May miss policy effects carried by other learned representations.
+
+### A transferred representation or parameter update
+
+Affords: Makes a broader competence transfer possible.
+
+Limits or losses: The update may entangle task knowledge, behavioral dispositions, and governing commitments.
+
+## Tension
+
+Knowledge exchange and policy revision may be coupled even when the interface treats them as separate.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How can the receiving system identify which governing commitments an apparently task-specific transfer would affect?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Define a narrow fictional transfer with separate task and policy evaluations; compare intended changes, unintended changes, and reversibility.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Rules for changing the rules of revision](recursive-policy-revision.md) — extends to transferred learning (corpus_evidence). The explicit link continues from moral reflexivity to policy permeability during parameter-level communication.
+- [Transferring what was learned between unequal models](cross-model-learning-transfer.md) — questions what a transfer carries (corpus_evidence). A transfer may be proposed as knowledge exchange while potentially affecting governing commitments. This remains a proposed possibility.
+- [Learning to propose parameter changes](models-editing-models.md) — adds a policy-level test (model_proposed). A task-directed edit should be investigated for changes beyond the task. This test is an editorial extension.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-learning-and-policy-permeability: The material explicitly asks to preserve a connection from fractal logic to moral reflexivity and from moral reflexivity to policy permeability through communication at the parameter level during model learning. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=learning-and-policy-permeability) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/learning-strategies-from-trials.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Turning outcomes into transferable strategies
+
+How can concrete failures and successes become reusable strategies for a new problem?
+
+Move between low-level parameters and a space of abstract strategies, using trials to interpret why a path worked and transfer that interpretation to new tasks.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: historical branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Observed trial outcomes
+
+Affords: Provides concrete successes and failures.
+
+Limits or losses: Correlation with a successful run does not identify its cause.
+
+### An abstract strategy inferred from trials
+
+Affords: Can be tested on another task.
+
+Limits or losses: An appealing explanation may transfer incidental features.
+
+## Tension
+
+Interpreting success is necessary for transfer and also a source of invented causal stories.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Does the inferred strategy predict which altered tasks will fail?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Hold out task variations before interpreting trial outcomes; compare transfer predictions with results.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Finding a strategy by changing the representation](strategy-through-transformation.md) — provides a route from trial to abstraction (retrospective_connection). Trial interpretation and a new structural description can inform each other; neither alone establishes causal success.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-learning-strategies-from-trials: The material first asks how success should be judged in an evolutionary game experiment, then proposes interpreting successful trials with models. It explicitly redirects the scope toward logic puzzles, explanations of failure and success, and a space of abstract strategies that need not be expressed in human language. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=learning-strategies-from-trials) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# How a symbolic map becomes meaningful
+
+How does a symbolic map acquire lived or operational meaning?
+
+A symbolic account can specify qualities and relations while practiced interpretation, imagery, or experience supplies how those relations are understood. A definition is proposed as a revisable boundary around possible cases.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A definition and relation map
+
+Affords: Gives an inspectable structure.
+
+Limits or losses: May not provide the practical ability to recognize a case.
+
+### Examples, imagery, and practiced discrimination
+
+Affords: Develops the use of a concept.
+
+Limits or losses: Can remain difficult to communicate or expose to criticism.
+
+## Tension
+
+Giving someone a map and enabling them to use it are different achievements.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What additional encounter lets a reader apply a concept they could previously only repeat?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare definition-only instruction with contrasted cases, testing novel examples and requiring explanations of exceptions.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [Meaningful neighborhoods and the unclassified remainder](semantic-neighborhoods.md) — asks what makes a region meaningful (retrospective_connection). A symbolic classification may exist before a reader can recognize or use the associated concept.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map: The material distinguishes stating qualities and their relations from filling those descriptions through intuition, imagery, and practiced experience. It describes defining a concept as assigning a field of possibilities and a boundary whose included qualities can change. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/meaning-in-unfolding-language.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Meaning that forms as language unfolds
+
+Can linguistic structure delay and transform meaning instead of simply encoding a proposition?
+
+An expressive branch investigates how endings, delayed sentence resolution, and what remains unsaid shape meaning over time. A stable apparent form can reveal new combinations as attention moves closer.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: independent branch.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### A completed proposition
+
+Affords: Makes one resulting interpretation explicit.
+
+Limits or losses: Can discard the sequence through which the interpretation formed.
+
+### An unfolding linguistic form
+
+Affords: Preserves anticipation, revision, and delayed resolution.
+
+Limits or losses: Does not guarantee the same interpretive experience in every reader.
+
+## Tension
+
+The temporal formation of meaning can be part of the work rather than a cost to remove through compression.
+
+## Challenge
+
+Which effects disappear when the same apparent content is paraphrased as a direct statement?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Use newly written paired texts and compare where readers revise an interpretation; preserve divergent readings.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes](concepts-for-divergence.md) — resists indiscriminate compression (retrospective_connection). The unfolding of interpretation can be part of the content; a macro may erase it rather than preserve it.
+- [Persuasion as a change in governing policy](persuasion-as-policy-change.md) — questions representation of tension (retrospective_connection). Temporal linguistic unfolding and parallel representation of normative tensions are different ways to ask what a linear formulation leaves out.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language: An expressive text asks the reader to wait for sentence resolution and attend to meaning as it forms, including the role of what remains unsaid. Another formulation compares language with a branching path that appears crystalline from afar but opens into combinations when examined more closely. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=meaning-in-unfolding-language) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/memory-as-adaptation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Memory represented through adaptable parameters
+
+Which forms of memory can be represented in an adaptable layer while remaining retrievable, revisable, and attributable?
+
+Low-rank adaptation is proposed as a memory layer for long contexts, alongside core conceptual units and possible memory-specific update rules.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Explicit memory with retrieval
+
+Affords: Individual items remain directly inspectable.
+
+Limits or losses: Retrieval and context assembly have their own costs.
+
+### Memory in an adaptable parameter layer
+
+Affords: Can affect subsequent processing without replaying all text.
+
+Limits or losses: An update may entangle items and make selective erasure or source attribution difficult.
+
+## Tension
+
+Behavior influenced by previous material is not the same as faithful, separately recoverable memory of it.
+
+## Challenge
+
+How would the system revise one remembered item without damaging another or erasing its justification?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Compare item recall, interference, revision, and selective removal against an explicit-memory baseline.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](evolving-representation-language.md) — extends beyond a memory objective (corpus_evidence). The explicit correction rejects treating the project only as memory efficiency. Memory remains one branch.
+- [Learning to propose parameter changes](models-editing-models.md) — shares a proposed update surface (retrospective_connection). Memory adaptation and predicted model edits may use adaptable parameters; they need different tests.
+- [Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened](reusable-paths-and-rigidity.md) — asks how memory can be revised (retrospective_connection). A memory mechanism needs to address exceptions and reopening rather than only successful retention.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-memory-as-adaptation: Low-rank adaptation is proposed as an intermediate memory layer for very long contexts. The material also considers core conceptual tokens and new update algorithms designed specifically for memory. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+## Recorded revisions
+
+- [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=memory-as-adaptation) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)

problems/models-editing-models.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Learning to propose parameter changes
+
+Can a model propose useful changes to another model from structural and conceptual information?
+
+The proposal ranges from interpreting hidden layers to predicting operations and choosing updates. A concrete suggested test is adding a new token and proposing its parameters from a conceptual description.
+
+Status: open problem. Formulation and comparisons: reconstruction. Development: active.
+
+## Alternative representations
+
+### Inspection of a token trajectory through layers
+
+Affords: Connects intermediate states with an output.
+
+Limits or losses: An activation trajectory does not identify every relevant parameter or establish a causal explanation.
+
+### A proposed weight update
+
+Affords: Makes an intervention that can be measured.
+
+Limits or losses: Can improve a local example while degrading unrelated behavior.
+
+## Tension
+
+Understanding, predicting, and modifying a model are distinct capabilities.
+
+## Challenge
+
+What evidence shows that a proposed edit generalizes beyond the supplied concept description?
+
+This challenge is an editorial prompt, not a claim that the evidence already resolved it.
+
+## Proposed next move
+
+Test the proposed new-token edit against ordinary initialization and training, with held-out uses and regression checks.
+
+Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- [A system that can revise its own representation language](evolving-representation-language.md) — raises implementation questions (retrospective_connection). A changing representational language invites questions about corresponding parameter changes, but the mechanisms are not established as identical.
+- [Memory represented through adaptable parameters](memory-as-adaptation.md) — shares a proposed update surface (retrospective_connection). Memory adaptation and predicted model edits may use adaptable parameters; they need different tests.
+- [When transferred learning affects governing policies](learning-and-policy-permeability.md) — adds a policy-level test (model_proposed). A task-directed edit should be investigated for changes beyond the task. This test is an editorial extension.
+
+## Evidence anchors
+
+- basis-models-editing-models: The material proposes models that interpret hidden layers, predict operations, and alter parameters, including during their own operation. One suggested test adds a new token and asks a model to set its parameters from a conceptual description of that token. [Editorial paraphrase; presence of a proposal does not verify its truth.]
+
+Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
+
+[Open in the reader](../index.html#node=models-editing-models) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)