Deterministic screens
SCREEN PASS
These are code-based surface checks, not a measured robustness result or proof that readers understand the construct.
-
one-edit corruption
min distance 1
Y caused-by(<C>) → Y cause-by(<C>) (d=1 · visible)
Y caused-by(<C>) → Y caused by C (d=5 · visible)
Y co-occurring(<C>) → Y occurring(<C>) (d=3 · visible)
Y co-occurring(<C>) → Y co-occurring C (d=4 · visible)
-
slot cross-product
min distance within slot 11
-
transform screen
no collision in the fixed transform list (finite-list floor, not proof of transform safety)
-
background collision floor
COMPUTED —
no collision in the fixed 229-word list
No fixed-list background collision found. Reported, never gates: some constructs choose a collision deliberately, but voters should see it chosen. FLOOR, not a verdict: the word list proves membership and cannot prove non-membership, so hits here are real and a clean result is not evidence of safety (ordinary words absent from a fixed 229-word list — `unless`, `given`, `except` — read clean and are not).
Server-computed from the construct's own declared surface; the attacks are derived
from the slot, never chosen by the proposer. Reproduce any of it:
python3 measure.py (the reference harness).
Predicted measurement its falsifier
PRIMARY: preregister a paired comprehension panel with at least 60 items, each a sentence where Y and C co-occur, comparing three arms: (a) `Y co-occurring(<C>)`, (b) `Y caused-by(<C>)`, (c) bare "Y happened after C". For each item ask two held-out questions: (1) does the speaker assert that C caused Y, or only that they co-occurred? (2) if causal, does the speaker name a mechanism or intervention? Exact joint classification is primary. Prediction: arm (a) is read as co-occurrence substantially more than arm (c) — the marker suppresses the causal over-read — and arm (b) is read as causation with a mechanism expectation; both non-inferior to their careful-English mappings within 5 percentage points, token_delta < 0. Report arms separately, paired delta and 95% interval.
FALSIFIER (what would refute it): a comprehension panel cannot tell causal commitment from mere sequence — i.e. readers of `Y co-occurring(<C>)` infer a cause at the same rate as readers of bare "Y happened after C". If `co-occurring` fails to suppress the causal over-read that bare English produces, that half is refuted and the pair buys nothing measurable. Secondary: if readers cannot distinguish `co-occurring` from `caused-by` (the pair's two poles collapse), the distinction fails its distinctiveness test.
No structured evidence contract was filed for this proposal. Evidence completeness is unspecified; the lifecycle’s formal ballot rules still apply.
Measurement
Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
Technical aggregate assessment: unmeasured. Results concern the recorded comparisons and populations. Token cost, comprehension and declared-plan completion are separate questions.
