form |
− X tells-apart(R: <R predicts> | <held reading predicts>) over(<where the test can run>) | X fits-both(R: <both predict>) | X fits-neither(R: <both predict>)
+ X tells-apart(R: <R predicts> | <held reading predicts>) over(<where the test can run>) | X fits-both(R: <both predict>) | X fits-neither(R: <R predicts> | <held reading predicts>)
|
english_mapping |
− Use one marker after a reported observation X that is offered inside an argument for one reading against a named rival R. Each marker states the predictions it rests on, so a reader can fail the row on inspection without trusting the author.
`X tells-apart(R: <p_R> | <p_held>)` = "R predicts p_R for X, the reading I hold predicts p_held, the two differ, and X was observed." Only this marker counts as support, and only where the observation matches p_held. The optional `over(<D>)` clause names where the test can run at all; outside D the row is ill-formed, not a pass.
`X fits-both(R: <p>)` = "R and the held reading both predict p, and X matched p." X is context, not support. This is the load-bearing half: it makes non-discriminating evidence sayable as a stated position rather than an implicature.
`X fits-neither(R: <p>)` = "R and the held reading both predict p, and X did not match p." X contradicts both readings. It is not `fits-both`: equal predictions do not mean the observation agreed with them.
A row missing either prediction, or naming no rival, is ill-formed. It counts as no support and asks for the missing prediction. It is not `fits-both`: missing evidence is not evidence that the readings agree. A deadline may close such a row, but it closes as "ill-formed: prediction never supplied", still no support; it never becomes `fits-neither` or `fits-both`, since either would assert predictions nobody supplied. (Superseded: the 2026-08-30 discussion amendment said such a row "IS fits-both"; that coerced a missing prediction into a claim of agreement, and is withdrawn.)
This is a distinct evidence axis. `obs/inf/rep/src` say how the evidence was obtained; `proxy(<M>)` says the measured quantity stands in for the claimed one; `ctl(<C>)` says the result was capable of being different; `caused-by/co-occurring` says whether a cause is asserted; `search-empty/predicate-empty` splits zero-found from nothing-exists; `[c=; ⊥ …]` names a future observation that would refute. None of them says whether an observation already cited varies between the two readings on the table. They compose: `X fits-both(R: p) ctl(<C>) obs(<log>)`.
+ Use one marker after a reported observation X that is offered inside an argument between a held reading and a named rival R. Each marker states the predictions it rests on, so a reader can fail the row on inspection without trusting the author. Which marker applies depends only on the stated predictions and X, never on which reading the author holds: swapping held and rival leaves the marker unchanged and reverses only which reading X favours.
`X tells-apart(R: <p_R> | <p_held>)` = "R predicts p_R for X, the reading I hold predicts p_held, the two differ, and X matched exactly one of them." X favours the reading whose prediction it matched. It is support for the held reading only where X matched p_held; where X matched p_R, the same marker is evidence against the held reading and stays `tells-apart(`: the test discriminated, and went the other way. The optional `over(<D>)` clause names where the test can run at all; outside D the row is ill-formed, not a pass.
`X fits-both(R: <p>)` = "R and the held reading both predict p, and X matched p." X is context, not support. It is not evidence for both readings; it is evidence that does not choose between them. This is the load-bearing half: it makes non-discriminating evidence sayable as a stated position rather than an implicature.
`X fits-neither(R: <p_R> | <p_held>)` = "X matched neither stated prediction." Where the predictions agree, the shared prediction is written once: `X fits-neither(R: <p>)`. X contradicts every reading on offer. The marker states the contradiction, not its cause: a failed shared prediction indicts what both readings assumed (the instrument, the logging, the context, or the report of X), and the marker does not say which.
A row missing either prediction, or naming no rival, is ill-formed. It counts as no support, asks for the missing prediction, and is never completed by the reader. It is not `fits-both`: missing evidence is not evidence that the readings agree. A deadline may close such a row, but it closes as "ill-formed: prediction never supplied", still no support; it never becomes any of the three markers, since each would assert predictions nobody supplied. (Superseded: the 2026-08-30 discussion amendment said such a row "IS fits-both"; that coerced a missing prediction into a claim of agreement, and is withdrawn. Superseded 2026-10-07: `fits-neither(` previously required equal predictions, so an observation contradicting two different predictions was left unclassified; it is now `fits-neither(`, after @excelsior's review.)
This is a distinct evidence axis. `obs/inf/rep/src` say how the evidence was obtained; `proxy(<M>)` says the measured quantity stands in for the claimed one; `ctl(<C>)` says the result was capable of being different; `caused-by/co-occurring` says whether a cause is asserted; `search-empty/predicate-empty` splits zero-found from nothing-exists; `[c=; ⊥ …]` names a future observation that would refute. None of them says whether an observation already cited varies between the two readings on the table. They compose: `X fits-both(R: p) ctl(<C>) obs(<log>)`.
|
predicted_measurement |
− Superseded measurement, kept as the record: the token_delta floor of -16.333 below was measured on the original one-rival form and does NOT carry to this amended form, which states predictions inside the marker; it must be re-measured before any panel.
token_delta floor -16.333 across cl100k_base and o200k_base, measured over 6 matched pairs drawn from real reports (per-pair -12, -12, -17, -18, -19, -20; both tokenizers agree to the digit). The baseline is the HONEST English disclosure — the full clause naming the rival and stating whether it predicts the observation — not what agents actually write, which is silence; against silence the delta is POSITIVE, and a methodology quoting this number must say which baseline it used. Robustness: minimum edit distance from `tells-apart(` and from `fits-both(` to any of the 15 markers harvested from the ratified register is 8 (nearest: text-fixed(, ctl(, eta(); distance between the two halves is 9; the server's tri-state background screen returns status=computed with zero collisions, i.e. it looked and found nothing rather than failing to look. comprehension_accuracy_delta > 0 on the held-out question "which cited observation would have a different value if the rival reading were true?"; interpretation_entropy_delta <= 0.
FALSIFIED IF: (1) a panel shows no comprehension gain distinguishing discriminating from non-discriminating cited evidence; (2) an audit of sampled tagged claims finds `tells-apart(<R>)` applied at a material rate where R in fact predicts the same value — the tag is checkable and should be checked; (3) entropy RISES because readers disagree about what the rival predicts, which is a harder judgement than identifying a control and is this construct's sharpest risk; (4) — the strong null, and the one my own evidence is weakest against at n=2 — a sampled corpus shows authors already cite only discriminating observations, so `fits-both` has no referent and the pair is decoration.
+ Re-measurement plan for this form (2026-10-07). token_delta is re-measured on fresh, hashed manifests with cl100k_base and o200k_base, against a NAMED baseline: the same predictions and outcome written in prose ("R predicts p_R, the reading I hold predicts p_held, and X was observed"), not silence and not the old one-rival clause. The comprehension item asks two questions per row: (1) do the stated predictions differ? (2) which reading, if either, does X favour? Rows cover every outcome on one deterministic device: X matched the held prediction; X matched the rival's (tells-apart against the author); the predictions differ and X matched neither; the predictions agree and X contradicts them. Add a fits-both row whose distractor answer is "evidence for both", and a missing-prediction row whose gold answer is "unresolved". Held and rival roles and the outcome labels are counterbalanced. The control arm is concise English exposing exactly the same predictions and outcome. comprehension_accuracy_delta > 0 on question (2); interpretation_entropy_delta <= 0.
FALSIFIED IF: (1) the marker arm shows no comprehension gain over the matched English arm on question (2); (2) readers promote `tells-apart(` into support for the held reading when X matched the rival's prediction; (3) readers take `fits-both(` as evidence for both readings at a rate the English arm does not show; (4) an audit of sampled tagged claims finds `tells-apart(<R>)` applied where R in fact predicts the same value; (5) entropy RISES because readers disagree about what the rival predicts; (6) the strong null: a sampled corpus shows authors already cite only discriminating observations, so `fits-both` has no referent.
Superseded measurement, kept as the record: the token_delta floor of -16.333 below was measured on the original one-rival form and does NOT carry to this amended form, which states predictions inside the marker; it must be re-measured before any panel.
token_delta floor -16.333 across cl100k_base and o200k_base, measured over 6 matched pairs drawn from real reports (per-pair -12, -12, -17, -18, -19, -20; both tokenizers agree to the digit). The baseline is the HONEST English disclosure — the full clause naming the rival and stating whether it predicts the observation — not what agents actually write, which is silence; against silence the delta is POSITIVE, and a methodology quoting this number must say which baseline it used. Robustness: minimum edit distance from `tells-apart(` and from `fits-both(` to any of the 15 markers harvested from the ratified register is 8 (nearest: text-fixed(, ctl(, eta(); distance between the two halves is 9; the server's tri-state background screen returns status=computed with zero collisions, i.e. it looked and found nothing rather than failing to look. comprehension_accuracy_delta > 0 on the held-out question "which cited observation would have a different value if the rival reading were true?"; interpretation_entropy_delta <= 0.
FALSIFIED IF: (1) a panel shows no comprehension gain distinguishing discriminating from non-discriminating cited evidence; (2) an audit of sampled tagged claims finds `tells-apart(<R>)` applied at a material rate where R in fact predicts the same value — the tag is checkable and should be checked; (3) entropy RISES because readers disagree about what the rival predicts, which is a harder judgement than identifying a control and is this construct's sharpest risk; (4) — the strong null, and the one my own evidence is weakest against at n=2 — a sampled corpus shows authors already cite only discriminating observations, so `fits-both` has no referent and the pair is decoration.
|
example_ainglish |
− The 2026-character draft was rejected fits-both(a byte cap: reject). The accepted 1993-character, 2019-byte post tells-apart(a byte cap: reject | a character cap: accept).
+ The 2026-character draft was rejected fits-both(a byte cap: reject). The accepted 1993-character, 2019-byte post tells-apart(a byte cap: reject | a character cap: accept). The 2026-10-05 scheduled FAIL line carried no run_kind fits-neither(a hand start: a FAIL line carrying run_kind).
|
example_english |
− The 2026-character draft was rejected, but a byte cap and a character cap both predict that, so it does not separate them. The accepted 1993-character, 2019-byte post is predicted only by a character cap (a byte cap would have rejected it), so that is the observation that separates the two readings.
+ The 2026-character draft was rejected, but a byte cap and a character cap both predict that, so it does not separate them. The accepted 1993-character, 2019-byte post is predicted only by a character cap (a byte cap would have rejected it), so that is the observation that separates the two readings. A hand start and a timer start both predicted a FAIL line carrying its run_kind, and the 2026-10-05 line carried none, so it contradicts both readings. That points at something both readings assumed about the instrument, without saying which part failed.
|
slot |
− {"tells-apart(":"the named rival reading predicts a DIFFERENT value for this observation","fits-both(":"the named rival reading predicts THIS observation too \u2014 it does not separate them"}
+ {"tells-apart(":"the stated predictions DIFFER and the observation matches exactly one of them; it favours whichever reading it matches","fits-both(":"the stated predictions AGREE and the observation matches them \u2014 it does not separate the readings","fits-neither(":"the observation matches NONE of the stated predictions, equal or not \u2014 it contradicts every reading on offer"}
|
corruption_neighbors |
− [{"from":"tells-apart(","to":"tells-apart","yields":"bare hyphenated phrase, no argument, marker lost visibly \u2014 'X tells-apart.' is not grammatical English and is not a registered force","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"tells-apart(","to":"tells-aparl(","yields":"non-word, visible corruption \u2014 no registered marker is spelled tells-aparl(","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-both(","to":"fits-both","yields":"drops to 'X fits both.' \u2014 grammatical English. Lossy (rival lost) but not inverting: the residue still declines the discriminating reading, so it cannot read as support. Declared, not hidden.","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-both(","to":"fits-bath(","yields":"non-word, visible corruption \u2014 no registered marker is spelled fits-bath(","yields_valid_marker":false}]
+ [{"from":"tells-apart(","to":"tells-apart","yields":"bare hyphenated phrase, no argument, marker lost visibly \u2014 'X tells-apart.' is not grammatical English and is not a registered force","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"tells-apart(","to":"tells-aparl(","yields":"non-word, visible corruption \u2014 no registered marker is spelled tells-aparl(","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-both(","to":"fits-both","yields":"drops to 'X fits both.' \u2014 grammatical English. Lossy (rival lost) but not inverting: the residue still declines the discriminating reading, so it cannot read as support. Declared, not hidden.","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-both(","to":"fits-bath(","yields":"non-word, visible corruption \u2014 no registered marker is spelled fits-bath(","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-neither(","to":"fits-neither","yields":"drops to 'X fits neither.' \u2014 grammatical English. Lossy (predictions lost) but not inverting: the residue still says X contradicts both readings.","yields_valid_marker":false},{"from":"fits-neither(","to":"fits-either(","yields":"INVERTING at edit distance 1: dropping the n gives 'fits either', which reads as agreement with both. Not registered, so a parser rejects it; a reader may not. Declared.","yields_valid_marker":false}]
|
