PermalinkNarration editions

Print / Save PDF makes a convenience copy of this live page, not an immutable project edition. Narration PDF is offered only where a separately edited listening companion exists.

Public Revision History

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

REV006 — PUBLIC_CLAIM_SET

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

REV007 — CS001-CS003

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

REV009 — C1;C7

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

REV011 — ED-ST-DEEP-002;ED-ST-NARR-001

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

REV012 — CS005

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.

scope_narrowing 2026-07-13

REV013 — C4

What changed: The public history now matches C4's bounded status and keeps its rival descriptions visible.

Why: The categorical sentence exceeded C4's bounded developing status and obscured its registered rivals and non-Western longitudinal gaps.

Affected evidence: E054, E055, E056, E057, E058, E059, E060, E061

Consequence: Historical framing may introduce C4 only as a specified-setting question and cannot promote a general account of belief change.

Prior and current wording

Prior: The public History page stated categorically that belief change is recombination.

Current: The History page now says that in some specified settings belief change may involve recombination alongside secularization indifference institutional switching or continuity.

status_correction 2026-07-13

REV014 — M1

What changed: The method record now distinguishes an existing public revision history from the still-unmet test of responsiveness over time.

Why: The old wording was stale after twelve public revisions and multiple evidence-driven corrections; publication alone still does not prove sustained responsiveness.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: M1's remaining test is sustained response to real external criticism or a failed prospective test with timing evidence and consequence recorded.

Prior and current wording

Prior: M1 still described the revision log as a v1.7.2 design and proposed publishing revision records as a future test.

Current: M1 now records the published correction history through v1.8.2 while retaining partially implemented status.

scope_narrowing 2026-07-13

REV015 — PUBLIC_NARRATIVE_HORIZON

What changed: The broad thematic list is now explicitly framing rather than a supported causal package.

Why: The narrative layer could otherwise sound more evidentially mature and causally unified than the canonical registry.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: Homepage themes cannot borrow active-claim status from proximity and must defer to canonical claim and challenge records.

Prior and current wording

Prior: The homepage listed broad contemporary themes before explaining whether they were active claims context or frontier questions.

Current: The homepage now labels the list an interpretive horizon rather than a bundle of supported claims and directs readers to Claims and Challenges for current status.

taxonomy_separation 2026-07-13

REV016 — M1

What changed: The v1.9 method records how the simulated forum was disciplined and what it cannot establish while M1 remains partially implemented pending real external criticism review and failed-test response evidence.

Why: The forum needed a durable method record that preserved disagreement and prevented simulated convergence from being mistaken for evidence authority or participation.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: Forum recommendations may be implemented only with stated reasons dependencies risks and stop conditions; simulation cannot supply empirical support expert review consent affected-party legitimacy or public authorization.

Prior and current wording

Prior: M1 exposed objections gaps and corrections but did not yet encode the full forum procedure used for the v1.9 project review.

Current: M1 now anchors a public simulated-standpoint forum protocol with evidence-room tags independent openings a steelman-before-critique rule adversarial pairings a dissent ledger an affected-party absence check dual co-chair functions and seven non-numeric disposition criteria.

scope_narrowing 2026-07-13

REV017 — M1

What changed: The project now exposes one prospective-design infrastructure stub while still reporting zero prospective discriminating tests and zero results.

Why: A visible contract can make missing design decisions auditable before case selection or outcome inspection without pretending that infrastructure is a test or result.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: T001 cannot be cited as a preregistration active or completed test result evidence or support for C3 Theory F Repair-Lag Systems Theory or another substantive claim; any future design requires a new dated version and no silent amendment.

Prior and current wording

Prior: No prospective-design registry row existed for a discriminating comparison and no prospective test was registered.

Current: Under M1 T001 now records a future synthetic-versus-conventional voice-deception comparison as a design stub with infrastructure-only status and outcomes not inspected; required design fields and real review gates remain unresolved.

candidate_integration 2026-07-17

REV018 — ED-HIATUS-INTENSITY-REPORT-001;ED-HIATUS-SYSTEMS-REPORT-001;ED-HIATUS-FAILURE-REPORT-001;ED-HIATUS-CONTINUATION-REPORT-001

What changed: The hiatus family is a governed publication boundary and final pre-adoption closure transfer, not empirical validation, external review, release authority, or a narration/accessibility proxy.

Why: The dated closure material should be inspectable without overwriting the current Forum pairs, implying independent review, promoting a claim, or converting selectable text into an accessibility claim.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: RPT69-RPT72 add no evidence edge, case verdict, prospective event, real review, or claim-state change; v1.9 Forum and v2 completion artifacts retain their own identities and states.

Prior and current wording

Prior: The four reviewed 16 July hiatus reports existed only as a checksum-bound transfer package outside the canonical repository.

Current: The exact reviewed Markdown sources and PDF bytes are registered as a distinct report-only project-hiatus family with current-state wrappers, immutable paths, explicit topical lineage, and no invented narration.

publication_authorization 2026-07-17

REV019 — PUBLIC-V2-RELEASE

What changed: This entry records a release-state and rights-map correction only; it is not theory validation, independent review, accessibility conformance, or successor visibility authority.

Why: Release facts must follow verified repository and live-origin events, while historical candidate records and substantive epistemic qualifiers remain unchanged.

Affected evidence: No individual typed evidence edge was assigned to this architecture-level revision.

Consequence: No claim, evidence edge, case verdict, prospective event, real-review state, T001 state, accessibility claim, or immutable artifact byte changes in this reconciliation.

Prior and current wording

Prior: The official website and current registries still described v2.0.0 and the Project Hiatus family as unmerged candidate material after the exact reviewed pull requests had merged and deployed.

Current: Mutable current-state documents, site sources, registries, lifecycle rows, and successor rights text now record the verified v2.0.0 release while preserving all six registered completion and hiatus PDF bytes.

Historical-to-current crosswalk

Historical IDCurrent IDCurrent typeDispositionNote
C1C1explanatory_claimkeep_boundedSynthesis spine; developing; requires domain-specific operationalization and success/boundary comparisons.
C2C2explanatory_claimkeep_boundedEnabling condition; no one-to-one Deepening support; shared reality must be operationalized for a specified coordination task.
C3C3explanatory_claimkeep_split_hypothesesSeparate verification-cost and liar's-dividend hypotheses.
C4C4explanatory_claimkeep_narrowedLimit to specified mediated societies cohorts and forms of recombination.
C5C5explanatory_claimkeep_empirical_separate_ethicsIntention-achievement hypothesis is empirical; reproductive agency and anti-coercion remain a standing guardrail.
C6C6explanatory_claimkeep_sector_specificCare capacity is tested one sector population and outcome at a time.
C7C7explanatory_claimkeep_sector_specificClimate application must name sector lag stage rival and threshold; Montreal is a positive comparison once registered.
C8C8explanatory_claimfrontier_onlyRequire evidence that symbolic response displaces rather than accompanies material repair.
C9RQ1research_questionretire_and_convertCausal pathway is not yet evidenced; keep out of explanatory claim sequence.
C10M1method_commitmentmove_to_methodPublic repair process is partially implemented and auditable only through revisions corrections and withdrawals.