Changes are part of the argument. This log records what changed, why it changed, and what the revision now permits or prevents.
role_conversion 2026-07-10
REV001 — RQ1
What changed: Former claim C9 is now an open research question rather than a public conclusion.
Why: The causal pathway lacks a dedicated comparative case and specified temporal reverse-causality design.
Affected evidence: E062, E063, E064
Consequence: The record is excluded from explanatory claim counts and cannot be promoted without the specified comparative test.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C9 was presented in the explanatory claim sequence as a causal responsibility-gap claim.
Current: RQ1 asks when if ever measurable repair failure increases authoritarian appeal through a defined mediator.
role_conversion 2026-07-10
REV002 — M1
What changed: Former claim C10 is now a method commitment and does not add to the theory claim count.
Why: This is an auditable practice requirement rather than evidence that any substantive theory is true.
Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.
Consequence: The record moves to the method layer and is evaluated by audit and break conditions.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C10 was presented in the explanatory claim sequence as a substantive claim about visible repair.
Current: M1 commits the project to exposing objections evidence gaps corrections narrowing and withdrawals.
claim_split 2026-07-10
REV003 — C5
What changed: The empirical fertility hypothesis and the ethical guardrail are now explicitly separate.
Why: An empirical hypothesis can be revised by evidence; an ethical protection must not be treated as a demographic output variable.
Affected evidence: E046, E047, E048, E049, E050, E051, E052, E053
Consequence: Evidence may narrow or withdraw the causal pathway without weakening the anti-coercive rule.
Prior and current wording
Prior: The empirical fertility pathway and the ethical protection of reproductive agency were combined in one claim frame.
Current: C5 tests a bounded intention-achievement pathway while reproductive agency bodily autonomy plural life projects and anti-coercion remain an unconditional guardrail.
scope_narrowing 2026-07-10
REV004 — C4
What changed: The belief claim has been narrowed to settings where recombination can be defined and observed.
Why: The broader wording overgeneralized Western online subcultures and lacked longitudinal non-Western comparisons.
Affected evidence: E054, E055, E056, E057, E058, E059, E060, E061
Consequence: The claim cannot support a global account of belief change and requires contrasted settings before expansion.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C4 risked describing belief recombination as a broad trajectory of contemporary secularization.
Current: C4 now applies only to specified societies cohorts periods and mediated settings with predeclared indicators.
status_demotion 2026-07-10
REV005 — C8
What changed: The symbolic-displacement idea is now marked frontier rather than treated as an established mechanism.
Why: No current case demonstrates causal displacement and symbolic action may enable rather than block repair.
Affected evidence: E032, E033, E034, E035
Consequence: C8 stays outside the core explanatory sequence until a bounded discriminating case is registered.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C8 could be read as an established mechanism in which symbolic response displaces material repair.
Current: C8 is a frontier mechanism requiring a demonstrated displacement pathway distinct from coexistence or mobilization.
taxonomy_separation 2026-07-10
What changed: The public register now separates what a record does from how well it is evidenced.
Why: Architecture and evidence maturity answer different questions and must not silently substitute for one another.
Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.
Consequence: Public displays and audits must report the separate fields and cannot infer support from hierarchy position.
Prior and current wording
Prior: Claim role theory status and research confidence could be read as one undifferentiated ranking.
Current: Each record now separates claim role claim kind research state and theory status.
verdict_correction 2026-07-10
What changed: The existing cases have been relabeled as illustrations rather than proofs.
Why: The available records document settings and events but do not meet the declared three-way causal test.
Affected evidence: E001, E002, E003, E011, E012, E019, E024, E036, E046, E065, E066, E067, E068
Consequence: Case cards must use illustration language until failure successful-repair and boundary comparisons satisfy predeclared tests.
Prior and current wording
Prior: Case verdicts could be read as tests establishing the general mechanisms assigned to them.
Current: The three current cases are described as bounded illustrations that do not establish general causality incremental effects or independent mechanisms.
status_correction 2026-07-10
REV008 — F;G
What changed: The F and G modules are now marked provisional; their current cases are illustrative.
Why: Existing cases illustrate relevant settings but do not establish module-level causal validity.
Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.
Consequence: Public hierarchy labels may not use case-tested for F or G without qualifying comparative evidence.
Prior and current wording
Prior: The hierarchy labeled Theories F and G as case-tested.
Current: Theory F is a provisional defensive provenance module and Theory G is a provisional agency and care module.
status_correction 2026-07-11
What changed: The Vienna–Montreal regime now fills one successful-repair role for C1 and C7; it refines the comparison set without confirming the general theory or a climate-sector mechanism.
Why: Verified canonical sources now support a bounded control-output pressure-reversal and incomplete-recovery record, while technology market domestic-regulation trade tractability and attribution rivals remain live.
Affected evidence: E009, E044
Consequence: C1 and C7 remain developing. C7 still lacks a carbon-dioxide-sector boundary case and sector threshold, and C1 still lacks a prospectively specified discriminating cross-domain test.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C1 and C7 showed Montreal as an unregistered successful-repair candidate and active evidence gap.
Current: C1 and C7 now link CS004 as a substantial adaptive but incomplete successful-repair comparison. The retrospective case fills the named comparison roles without promoting either claim.
scope_narrowing 2026-07-11
REV010 — C1
What changed: North American acid deposition now fills one general boundary role for C1; the five lag types remain unchanged and C7's climate-sector boundary gap stays open.
Why: The acid-deposition record shows that residual damage is not sufficient evidence of continuing institutional repair failure and that control pressure chemical and biological endpoints must remain separate.
Affected evidence: E010
Consequence: C1 remains developing. The case supplies a retrospective boundary of inference, not a prospectively confirmed negative case or a matched causal comparison.
Prior and current wording
Prior: C1 required an independent boundary case but did not yet encode the distinction between repair-process adequacy and substrate-recovery time.
Current: C1 now links CS005 as a boundary challenge: strong institutional control and pressure reduction can coexist with slow and uneven substrate recovery for physical and biogeochemical reasons.
publication_authorization 2026-07-13
What changed: The first living editions are now publicly accessible as dated working manuscripts; future versions receive new paths and earlier public versions remain available.
Why: The editions are evolving author manuscripts whose history should remain accessible; bounded publication can preserve provenance without importing every sentence as canonical evidence.
Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.
Consequence: Only the registered artifacts and archive presentation become public. Current canonical registries supersede conflicting status score or evidence wording and full citation-level external verification remains outstanding.
Prior and current wording
Prior: RPT52 kept the Deepening Edition PDF and Peech Narration DOCX as Project source files that were not approved for wholesale public publication.
Current: The owner authorizes the exact checksum-registered Deepening Edition 2.0 PDF and Peech Narration Edition companion for an immutable versioned public archive while preserving all prior public editions.
scope_narrowing 2026-07-13
What changed: The acid-deposition boundary case now names its observed endpoint precisely and preserves the biological-evidence gap.
Why: The registered evidence supports regionally uneven acid-neutralizing-capacity and chemistry response; it does not yet define or establish a biological-recovery endpoint.
Affected evidence: E010
Consequence: The boundary verdict remains in place and C1 remains developing, but public surfaces may not generalize chemistry indicators into biological recovery.
Prior and current wording
Prior: Public headlines described the observed CS005 endpoint broadly as uneven aquatic recovery, which could be read as including biological-community recovery.
Current: CS005 headlines now identify uneven monitored surface-water chemistry recovery and state that direct biological recovery remains undefined.