id	batch	pass	choice	confidence	reader_need	revision_consequence	boundary_test	auth_status	justification
G001	1	A	premised-on	high	Establish that a symbolic scheduler is itself a revisable learning target and that codification supplies its write path.	If the target no longer supports that conclusion, recheck the source's claim that reflective machinery is already inside the loop rather than merely hand-maintained.	Premised-on rather than evidenced-by: the source imports the target's general learning-target conclusion, not its empirical cases as corroboration.	candidate-new	The source argues that reflective machinery cannot be exempt by position and cites the symbolic layer as revisable content; the target concludes that schedulers, schemas, and invariants are learned and rewritten through codification even though symbolic execution remains separate.
G001	1	B	evidenced-by	medium	Check the concrete symbolic-runtime case in which schedulers, schemas, and invariants remain revisable learning targets with codification as their write path	If the target withdrew that learning-target conclusion, replace or qualify one corroborating case for machinery already lying inside the reflective loop; the no-outside argument would remain	Evidenced-by beats premised-on because the reflective source derives its core from loop geometry and cites the target as one bounded case among several, rather than requiring the scheduler thesis for truth	authorized	The source claims all loop machinery is revisable and must earn persistence; the target independently shows symbolic scheduling is justified yet non-static, with operational evidence moving constraints into validator code and codification revising the layer
G001	1	C	premised-on	medium	Verify that the symbolic scheduler layer is itself revisable machinery and that codification is its update path	If the target retracts either its learning-target conclusion or the codification write path, the source must recheck and rewrite that support for its no-outside claim	Premised-on rather than extends: the source imports one target conclusion as support but does not develop the target's error-correction argument	candidate-new	The source argues that reflective machinery is in loop scope and cites the symbolic layer as a learning target; the target argues for scheduler separation and concludes that this symbolic layer is revisable through codification
G002	2	A	premised-on	medium	Verify the objective premise that lets a reflective-loop analysis treat objective-setting as externally supplied even when loop machinery is revisable.	If objectives need not be declared and antecedently identifiable, revise the source's claim that the objective function stays outside the reflective loop.	Not extends: the source does not develop objective indexing or antecedence; it uses them as a premise inside a separate argument about reflective machinery.	candidate-new	The source places the objective among functions no reflective loop can supply for itself; the target makes an objective a declared analysis parameter and requires its independent, antecedent specification rather than a post-hoc fit to the change.
G002	2	B	premised-on	medium	Verify why the improvement objective must be declared and antecedently specifiable rather than licensed by the artifact change under judgment.	If independent antecedence ceased to constrain an improvement objective, recheck the claim that the objective function remains categorically outside artifact-level revision.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target supplies a condition assumed by the external-function claim but does not explain why machinery survives selection or how governance replaces the fixed point.	candidate-new	The source places the objective among functions that remain outside a reflective loop's revisable artifact classes; the target establishes objective indexing and independent antecedence while explicitly allowing internal representation.
G002	2	C	premised-on	medium	Verify why the objective remains an external function even when reflective machinery is revisable.	If objectives cease to require antecedent independent specification, revise the source's external-function-class substitution, though its persistence-by-warrant thesis may remain.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target establishes the objective's independent analytical status but does not explain why reflective machinery persists.	candidate-new	The source names the objective as a function that stays external by category; the target makes an objective a declared, antecedent, independently specifiable parameter that need not be represented inside the system.
G003	1	A	operates-through	high	Understand how retained checks give learned localized artifacts an accumulating selection channel across later candidates.	If check accumulation does not improve later selection or cannot be maintained, recheck the source's claim that accumulated evaluation supplies a discrete credit-assignment component for the localized loop.	Operates-through rather than explained-by: maintained checks are evaluation machinery applied to later candidates, not merely an account of why localized forms may persist.	candidate-new	The source names accumulated evaluation checks as one discrete substitute for credit assignment in learned localized forms; the target describes the process that retains failure-derived checks and applies them exhaustively to later in-scope candidates, with explicit domain and maintenance limits.
G003	1	B	explained-by	medium	Understand how retained enforced checks give localized symbolic state a compounding selection role and one discrete substitute for cross-artifact credit assignment	If accumulated checks did not improve later-candidate selection or their exhaustive wire failed, remove this compounding function and reassess one proposed credit-assignment substitute while retaining the production/form distinction	Explained-by beats operates-through because the source presents oracle accumulation as an account of one localized-form advantage in a still-uncomposed hypothesized loop, not as the actual control path implementing its overall claim	candidate-new	The source argues mixed deployments can retain localized forms and names accumulated evaluations among missing-loop fragments; the target explains lesson-versus-check channels, exhaustive enforcement, domain-limited reuse, and costs that produce and bound that advantage
G003	1	C	explained-by	medium	Understand why maintained checks let the localized symbolic layer compound by improving later candidate selection	If maintained checks no longer improve later selection within their domain, the source must revise its account of the symbolic layer's compounding role in the localized learning loop	Explained-by rather than operates-through: the source invokes the target's account of compounding without specifying an implemented loop component whose alteration would require an operational change	candidate-new	The source needs a reason localized state can contribute cumulatively to its proposed learning loop; the target explains that codified checks run exhaustively, prevent recurrent failures, and improve the selection environment within a maintained domain
G004	2	A	extends	high	See the general diagnostic-richness claim whose Meta-Harness evidence the source accepts and then bounds.	If the target's raw-trace versus thin-feedback claim or evidence changes, revise the source's accepted finding and burden-of-proof constraint; its unrun-treatment identification critique can remain.	Not premised-on: the non-identification result follows from treatment differences even if the broader richness claim weakens, so the source specializes and limits the target rather than depending on it for that result.	authorized	The target generalizes Meta-Harness's trace advantage into a diagnostic-richness principle; the source preserves that result while distinguishing replacement summaries from retained-episode, post-attribution, reviewed theory formation.
G004	2	B	extends	high	Recover the general diagnostic-richness result before assessing the source's narrower identification limit on the summary ablation.	If richer failure evidence no longer supported better proposal formation, recheck the source's concession of adverse evidence and its burden-of-proof framing, although its unrun-arm critique could remain.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source specializes the target by separating summarize-and-discard from episode-backed reviewed theory formation, and its identification critique does not require the whole general claim.	authorized	The target generalizes the Meta-Harness trace advantage into a diagnostic-richness claim; the source accepts that finding but develops it by showing that replacement summaries did not test retained-episode theory formation.
G004	2	C	extends	high	Reach the general diagnostic-richness claim that the source accepts and then bounds for this ablation.	If diagnostic richness no longer constrains proposal quality, revise the source's accepted finding and design constraints, while its treatment-identification critique could remain.	Extends rather than is-evidence-for: the source does not merely add the Meta-Harness case but develops what its treatment can and cannot establish.	authorized	The target argues that inspectable traces enable better outer-loop hypotheses; the source accepts that result while distinguishing summary replacement from reviewed, episode-backed theory formation and specifying the missing arms.
G005	1	A	operates-through	high	Inspect the standing process by which failures become machinery and independent checks contribute to reflective-loop stability.	If the target's check-retention channel loses exhaustive delivery or independence, revise the source's machinery-production and governance claims.	Operates-through rather than evidenced-by: oracle accumulation is the loop channel producing and applying machinery, not only a case corroborating that machinery can change.	candidate-new	The source presents oracle accumulation as both a machinery-production channel and part of the governance replacing a frozen meta-method; the target shows failures becoming maintained checks whose enforced wire evaluates every later candidate in scope.
G005	1	B	operates-through	high	Inspect the enforced-check channel by which a reflective loop can manufacture machinery and obtain a judgment-independent contribution to selection stability	If retained checks were not exhaustively applied or could not improve selection in their maintained domain, rework the source's standing machinery-production channel and part of its governance substitute for a fixed meta-method	Operates-through beats explained-by because the source names accumulated oracles and their exhaustive wire as an operative governance channel, not merely a principle accounting for stability	candidate-new	The source says reflective machinery survives through governance and cites accumulated oracles as both loop-produced machinery and an independent wire; the target specifies the failure-to-check process, exhaustive enforcement, calibration limits, and observed validator case that realize that channel
G005	1	C	operates-through	high	Inspect the maintained-check channel through which a reflective loop produces machinery and stabilizes self-revision	If accumulated checks cease to provide an exhaustive independent wire or a standing machinery-production channel, the source must rework the governance path that replaces the frozen fixed point	Operates-through rather than explained-by: the source names accumulated oracles as working parts of governance and machinery production, so changing them reopens operational fit, not only the rationale	candidate-new	The source says oracle accumulation is a standing channel for producing machinery and that accumulated checks help governance replace a fixed meta-method; the target describes the actual codification, enforcement, reuse, and monitoring path for those checks
G006	2	A	explained-by	high	Understand why recurring workaround load can degrade task performance quietly before any hard context limit is reached.	If volume, complexity, and interference do not cause silent soft degradation, replace the source's saturation account, although workarounds may still impose direct per-encounter cost.	Not premised-on: the target supplies the account by which added load and interference silently reduce effective processing, rather than merely a proposition the source assumes.	candidate-new	The source says workarounds repeatedly consume context, attention, and reasoning until task work is crowded out without a crash; the target explains this behavior through a task-dependent soft degradation surface that remains invisible while output stays well formed.
G006	2	B	explained-by	high	Understand why recurring workaround load can degrade task performance quietly before any hard context limit is reached.	If context did not degrade softly under volume, complexity, and interference, recheck the source's silent-saturation claim and its budget-reclamation consequences.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target supplies the mechanism from accumulated context load to fluent but degraded performance, not merely a condition assumed by the source.	candidate-new	The source says workarounds repeatedly consume context, attention, and reasoning until useful work is crowded out; the target explains the soft, invisible degradation surface on which that accumulation acts.
G006	2	C	explained-by	high	Understand why recurring workarounds approach their capacity ceiling silently rather than causing a hard stop.	If volume, complexity, and interference do not cause soft context degradation, revise the source's accumulation and quiet-saturation mechanism, while its procedure-interpreter contrast may stand.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target supplies the causal account of how added context load degrades reliable processing without an overt failure.	candidate-new	The source says workarounds repeatedly consume context and reasoning budget until task work is crowded out; the target explains that these loads create silent degradation across volume, complexity, and interference before the hard token limit.
G007	1	A	explained-by	high	See why scale's successful selection pressure is against untested scope claims rather than representation or structure.	If earned reach does not distinguish what scaling retains from what it replaces, recheck the source's argument that the bitter lesson is orthogonal to representational form.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target supplies an account of what scalable selection removes, not merely an independent assumption.	candidate-new	The source separates production method from representational form and rejects the claim that structure itself is scale's target; the target explains the observed replacement pattern through asserted versus refutation-tested reach and explicitly allows earned structure to survive.
G007	1	B	explained-by	medium	Understand the selection principle that distinguishes tested scope from asserted scope and thereby explains why explicit localized structure is not the bitter lesson's target	If scale did not discriminate earned from unearned reach, revisit the source's rejection of structure/weights monism and its claim that searched and tested localized forms are lesson-compliant; the textual method/form carve would need separate support	Explained-by beats extends because the source imports the target's earned-reach account to explain why structure can survive; it does not further develop the target's reach-assessment argument or evidence	candidate-new	The source separates production method from representational form and uses searched localized artifacts as the open quadrant; the target explains losses by untested scope rather than structure or human origin and applies the same condition to automated theory search
G007	1	C	explained-by	high	Understand the selection principle that targets unearned scope rather than representational structure	If the target's earned-versus-asserted account of what scale removes fails or narrows, the source must reopen its explanation for why representational form is not the bitter lesson's selection axis	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target does more than provide an assumed fact by supplying the selection account that explains why structure as such is not displaced	candidate-new	The source rejects both weights-monism and manual-content persistence by separating production method from form; the target explains that scalable search removes untested reach claims while structure whose reach is earned can survive
G008	2	A	premised-on	medium	Verify that natural-language instructions admit multiple valid runtime projections, providing the path multiplicity required for rerouting.	If an instruction fixed a unique executable interpretation, rewrite the source's re-derivation step and its claim that interpretive freedom supplies resilience under blockage.	Not explained-by: the target establishes multiple semantic projections but does not supply the goal retention and blocked-step recovery process; the source adds those causal links itself.	candidate-new	The source's soft-failure argument requires an interpreter to derive another route from a retained goal; the target establishes the underlying one-to-many spec-to-program space and distinguishes that semantic freedom from execution noise.
G008	2	B	explained-by	medium	Understand why an interpreting agent has multiple admissible paths available when a chosen route is blocked.	If underspecified instructions did not admit multiple valid projections, recheck the source's path-multiplicity account of soft recovery while retaining its separate claims about goal retention and budget cost.	Explained-by rather than operates-through: the target accounts for why alternate paths exist but does not specify the goal-retention, blockage-detection, and replanning control loop that executes a workaround.	candidate-new	The target models natural-language execution as projection from a plural interpretation space; the source uses that same interpretive freedom to explain both deviation from intent and resilient rerouting after blockage.
G008	2	C	explained-by	high	Understand how interpretive freedom supplies alternative routes when a chosen path is blocked.	If natural-language instructions do not admit multiple valid projections, revise the source's path-multiplicity and soft-recovery account; goal retention alone would not supply alternatives.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target describes the one-to-many projection mechanism that generates alternate executable readings, not merely a proposition the source assumes.	candidate-new	The target models an instruction as admitting multiple valid programs selected at runtime; the source combines that interpretive plurality with a retained goal to explain re-derivation, workarounds, and soft blockage failure.
G009	1	A	premised-on	high	Check why exact hardening of a narrowed operation does not establish that the narrowing fits an upstream objective.	If exact conformance did validate the requirement-objective link, revise the source's task-fit qualification and its harden-versus-relax boundary.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target limits the trade's applicability but does not explain how constraining or extraction yields reliability, speed, or cost gains.	candidate-new	The source makes reliability and cost gains conditional on task fit and preserves fallback or relaxation when a narrowed artifact omits what matters; the target supplies the needed premise that exact artifact-requirement conformance leaves the requirement-objective proxy claim unvalidated.
G009	1	B	premised-on	high	Verify the requirement-chain distinction that lets codification increase local reliability without establishing that the narrowed requirement serves the larger objective	If exact conformance did validate the upstream objective, revise the source's task-fit caveat and hardening-versus-relaxing boundary; if the distinction merely shifts, rescope its calculator and validator claims	Premised-on beats explained-by because the target supplies a logical applicability condition for the trade, while the source gives its own mechanisms for reliability, speed, cost, and lost generality	candidate-new	The source conditions constraining gains on good task fit and exact capture of the operation; the target separates artifact-requirement exactness from conjectural requirement-objective proxyhood and shows why local green checks cannot settle that fit
G009	1	C	premised-on	medium	Check the local-exactness versus upstream-proxy distinction that bounds when narrowing can be hardened confidently	If local conformance can no longer be separated from warrant for the requirement-objective link, the source must revise its task-fit qualification and its harden-versus-relax boundary	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target supplies a correctness-and-warrant distinction the source assumes when qualifying hardening, not the process that produces the generality trade-off	candidate-new	The source claims constraints can trade semantic latitude for reliability, speed, or cost only under good task fit; the target supplies the premise that deterministic exactness establishes conformance to an immediate requirement without validating that requirement against the objective
G010	2	A	evidenced-by	high	Inspect the representational-form decomposition as a worked case of derivation-based conditional scope warrant.	If the target's two axes no longer generate its categories, empty cell, and inspection rule, remove or replace this recorded instance; the general provenance claim need not change.	Not exemplifies: in this direction the source is the general warrant claim and the target is the particular case bearing on it, not the reverse.	authorized	The source claims that independently supported axes provide conditional starting warrant and names representational form as an instance; the target actually derives three forms, an empty fourth cell, and the read-test-probe rule from consequence-assignment and localization axes.
G010	2	B	evidenced-by	high	Inspect a concrete case in which independently stated axes derive categories, an empty cell, and a downstream inspection rule.	If the representational-form categories no longer followed from their stated axes, remove or rescope this recorded conditional-warrant instance while leaving the general provenance theory open.	Evidenced-by rather than defined-in: the source uses the target's derivation as a worked case supporting its warrant claim, not merely to resolve the meaning of representational form.	authorized	The source presents representational form as one of two recorded instances of starting warrant by derivation; the target exposes the consequence-assignment and localization axes and the consequences derived from them.
G010	2	C	evidenced-by	high	Inspect representational form as a worked case of derivation-based conditional warrant.	If its two axes fail to derive the categories and inspection rule, the source loses a recorded instance but not its abstract provenance thesis.	Evidenced-by rather than defined-in: the source uses the target's derivation as a case supporting its warrant framework, not primarily to resolve the meaning of the term.	authorized	The target derives three forms, an empty cell, and read-test-probe consequences from consequence-assignment and localization axes; the source explicitly presents that construction as a recorded instance of conditional warrant.
G011	1	A	extends	high	Inspect the artifact-level proxy chain and composition-failure diagnosis that the source generalizes to the target-objective link.	If the target's distinction between local conformance and upstream warrant changes, rework the source's upward transposition and its composition-failure test.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source adds target, criterion, and oracle levels plus goal-position consequences to the target's artifact-requirement account.	authorized	The target separates exact artifact-requirement conformance from an unvalidated requirement-objective proxy and uses composition failure to expose the latter; the source carries that structure upward, distinguishing achievement of a proximate target from warrant that it serves the objective.
G011	1	B	extends	high	Read the base artifact-requirement-objective model and its composition-failure diagnostic before following the source's one-level-up target model	If the target's exactness/proxy separation or composition diagnostic changes, rederive the source's target-objective transposition and its proposed failure signal	Extends beats premised-on because the source explicitly transposes the target's three-level relation into four levels and derives new goal-position consequences, rather than only assuming its conclusion	authorized	The target distinguishes local conformance from an upstream proxy claim and uses composition failure to expose it; the source carries that structure upward to objective, proximate target, criterion, and oracle, where achievement can pass while warrant fails
G011	1	C	extends	high	Trace the artifact-level proxy argument that the source carries upward to proximate targets	If the target's artifact-requirement-objective chain or its composition-failure diagnosis changes, the source must rederive its transposition to the target-objective level	Extends rather than premised-on: the source explicitly transposes the target's proxy chain and diagnostic into a new goal-position level instead of merely assuming them	authorized	The target separates exact artifact conformance from an unvalidated requirement-objective link and uses composition failure as a diagnostic; the source develops that argument into four levels and shows the analogous failure when a checked target does not move its objective
G012	2	A	extends	high	Read the general earned-reach and scale argument that the source carries into decomposition provenance and theory-search acceptance.	If the target's account of what scaling selects changes, revise the source's scaling and automated-search consequences; its derivation, inheritance, and free-choice taxonomy may still stand.	Not premised-on: the source argues its provenance taxonomy independently and specializes the target's earned-reach account for decompositions rather than relying on the target for the whole assertion.	authorized	The target argues that scale displaces asserted scope and that automated theory search still needs refutation-capable acceptance; the source develops that argument by separating derivation, inheritance, and free choice as starting warrants and target-domain use as what earns scope.
G012	2	B	extends	high	Understand the asserted-versus-tested reach account and automated-search case that the source develops into provenance rules for decompositions.	If refutation-capable testing no longer separated earned from unearned reach, recheck how the source says free-choice decompositions earn scope and how it applies scaling pressure.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source adds a derivation, inheritance, and free-choice taxonomy plus target-domain tests, carrying the target's earned-reach argument further.	authorized	The target argues that scale displaces scope claims asserted from source-case fit; the source specializes that argument to decompositions by separating their starting warrant from the discriminating use that earns transfer.
G012	2	C	extends	high	Follow the earned-versus-unearned reach argument into a provenance and testing account for decompositions.	If the target's selection account changes, revise the source's scaling and automated-search motivation, while its derivation-inheritance taxonomy may still stand independently.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source develops the target by distinguishing starting warrants and locating the remaining tests for each provenance.	authorized	The target argues that scale rejects asserted reach unless refutation-capable tests earn it; the source specializes that argument to decomposition axes, separating derivation, inheritance, free choice, and discriminating target-domain use.
G013	1	A	extends	high	Recover the general earned-versus-unearned reach account that the source applies to reflective machinery.	If the target no longer makes persistence under scale contingent on tested reach, rework the source's warrant standard and claim of bitter-lesson compliance.	Extends rather than explained-by: the source specializes the target's general rule to a movable meta-method boundary and derives fixed-point and governance consequences.	authorized	The target argues that scale removes structure with asserted rather than tested scope; the source applies that standard uniformly to machinery inside a reflective loop, replaces exemption by position with earned persistence, and develops the resulting governance problem.
G013	1	B	extends	high	See the general earned-versus-asserted reach standard that the source specializes to reflective machinery previously exempted by architectural position	If the target's earned-reach account fails, reformulate the source's persistence-by-warrant criterion and lesson-compliance claim, though its no-outside geometry can remain	Extends beats premised-on because the source applies the target's general selection standard to the meta-method itself and derives the new fixed-point and governance consequences	authorized	The target argues scale preserves structure only when scope survives refutation-capable tests; the source carries that standard into a reflective loop, makes gates and types earn persistence, and replaces the frozen outside with governed, reversible selection
G013	1	C	extends	high	Read the general earned-reach standard that the source applies to reflective machinery	If the target changes the earned-versus-asserted selection standard, the source must revise its extension of that standard to formerly exempt meta-method machinery	Extends rather than premised-on: the source adds reflective-system scope by applying the target's general selection claim uniformly to gates, types, validators, and other machinery	authorized	The target argues that scale selects against unearned reach rather than structure or human origin; the source carries that argument further by denying machinery exemption by position and requiring each reflective artifact to earn persistence
G014	2	A	premised-on	medium	Verify the oracle-domain limit behind keeping adoption authority outside the artifact currently under revision.	If unattended evaluation can remain warranted beyond what its oracle establishes, revise the source's governance substitute for a fixed meta-method; its no-exemption-by-position claim can remain.	Not explained-by: the target bounds warranted evaluation authority but does not explain why reflection erases the fixed meta-method; the source supplies that reflective-loop account.	candidate-new	The source replaces a frozen external meta-method with governance and an adoption decision outside the judged artifact; the target supplies the needed premise that unattended acceptance is warranted only within an oracle's domain and otherwise needs a human or narrower gate.
G014	2	B	explained-by	medium	Understand why governance must limit unattended adoption to what independent evaluation can warrant when revisable machinery has no protected outside.	If oracle domain no longer bounded trustworthy autonomous evaluation, recheck the source's claim that external adoption governance can substitute for a frozen meta-method.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target's oracle-domain account directly explains why governance and an outside adoption decision replace positional exemption.	candidate-new	The source replaces a frozen fixed point with adoption outside the judged text and independent checks; the target explains that bare autonomous gating is unwarranted beyond the domain its oracles can assess.
G014	2	C	premised-on	medium	Verify why adoption in a reflective loop must remain externally governed outside the available oracle's warranted domain.	If warranted evaluation autonomy is not bounded by oracle domain, revise the source's claim that an external adoption decision is needed in place of a fixed point, though its per-artifact warrant thesis may remain.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target limits when a gate may be unattended but does not explain the source's no-outside geometry or machinery-persistence claim.	candidate-new	The source assigns governance and an adoption decision outside the text being judged as the substitute for a frozen meta-method; the target establishes that unattended acceptance is warranted only where an oracle can discriminate adequately and otherwise retains a human gate.
G015	1	A	explained-by	high	Understand why explicit readable dependencies can make localized-form learning tractable through a bounded validation radius.	If readable changes lack a bounded validation radius or coupling advantages, recheck the source's claim that dependency edges are a viable credit-assignment substitute and that the localized loop is coherent.	Explained-by rather than operates-through: the target supplies the tractability account for a proposed loop; the source does not establish that a complete loop currently runs through it.	candidate-new	The source identifies cross-artifact credit assignment as the missing machinery and points to dependency edges that bound affected validation work; the target explains why readable artifacts have a bounded causal neighborhood and therefore form a tractable coupled optimization unit.
G015	1	B	explained-by	high	Understand why explicit dependencies and bounded validation radius make readable artifacts a tractable localized learning unit and a candidate substitute for chain-rule credit assignment	If readable artifacts lacked bounded validation neighborhoods or the pair were not tractable, remove this credit-assignment fragment and weaken the source's case that the learned-localized quadrant has a workable near-term route	Explained-by beats operates-through because the source says no general composition method yet exists and uses the target to account for tractability, not to identify an already-running end-to-end optimizer	candidate-new	The source locates cross-artifact credit assignment as the open quadrant's hard core and cites dependency edges as one substitute; the target explains the readable pair through shared context, explicit dependencies, deployment-paced edits, and especially bounded validation radius
G015	1	C	explained-by	high	Understand why explicit dependencies give readable artifacts a bounded validation radius and make their learning loop tractable	If readable artifacts no longer have a bounded validation-radius advantage, the source must revise its claim that explicit dependency edges are a viable substitute for chain-rule credit assignment	Explained-by rather than operates-through: the target supplies the principle explaining tractability while the source does not commit to a particular deployed readable-loop component	candidate-new	The source identifies explicit dependency edges as one discrete substitute in the missing localized credit-assignment loop; the target explains that readable artifacts expose dependencies and checks, bounding collateral validation in a way parametric updates generally do not
G016	2	A	premised-on	high	Verify the local-exactness versus upstream-proxy distinction that bounds what symbolic scheduling can claim to eliminate.	If exact conformance also validated the requirement against its objective, rewrite the source's relativization to the implemented transition function and its specification-error caveat.	Not explained-by: the target does not account for the discrete-state error-correction asymmetry; it supplies the premise that exact execution leaves upstream specification error untouched.	candidate-new	The source says a symbolic substrate eliminates interpreter deviation only relative to its implemented transition function; the target separates exact artifact-to-requirement conformance from the still-conjectural requirement-to-objective link.
G016	2	B	premised-on	high	Preserve the distinction between exact execution of a transition function and correctness of the requirement that function implements.	If exact conformance did validate the upstream objective, recheck the source's qualification that symbolic systems eliminate interpreter deviation only relative to the implemented transition function.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target bounds what symbolic exactness establishes but does not explain discrete-state restoration or the scheduler's error-correction asymmetry.	candidate-new	The source explicitly relativizes symbolic reliability to the implemented function and delegates the wrong-function question; the target separates artifact-to-requirement conformance from the conjectured requirement-to-objective link.
G016	2	C	premised-on	high	Verify the requirement-chain distinction that bounds what symbolic exactness establishes.	If exact conformance did validate the upstream objective, revise the source's relativization of error elimination to the implemented transition function and its specification-error caveat.	Premised-on rather than explained-by: the target supplies a logical scope condition on exact execution, not the discrete-state mechanism that eliminates interpreter deviation.	candidate-new	The source claims a symbolic substrate executes its transition exactly yet may execute the wrong transition; the target separates exact artifact-requirement conformance from the conjectured requirement-objective link.
G017	1	A	explained-by	high	Understand how stronger models can absorb old scaffolds while new external structure recurs at a moving deployment frontier.	If frontier difficulty does not keep pace with capability or externalization loses its advantage, narrow the source's answer to weights-monism and temporary-harness objections.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target provides the conditional causal account of recurrence, not just a proposition the source assumes.	candidate-new	The source argues that current absorption at fixed difficulty does not collapse the form axis; the target explains this by separating yesterday's task from a harder frontier where horizon, complexity, and reliability demands can recreate an advantage for external structure.
G017	1	B	explained-by	high	See the conditional moving-frontier account that reconciles absorption of yesterday's scaffolding with recurring value for external structure on harder deployments	If deployment difficulty did not track capability or no function retained an externalization advantage, retract this rebuttal to temporary scaffolding and narrow the source's mixed-form frontier conjecture	Explained-by beats premised-on because the target supplies the causal conditions for recurrent external structure, which the source uses as an account of why the form axis need not collapse	candidate-new	The source rejects weights monism while conceding fixed-difficulty absorption; the target explains the coexistence by separating yesterday's task from the moving deployment frontier and states saturation and full absorption as explicit failure conditions
G017	1	C	extends	high	Read the moving-frontier argument that the source carries into its production-method versus representational-form distinction	If the target's conditions for recurring external structure are falsified or narrowed, the source must narrow its extension against weights-monism and its frontier qualification	Extends rather than premised-on: the source develops the target's conditional frontier account inside a broader two-axis argument rather than merely depending on it as an undeveloped premise	authorized	The target distinguishes absorption on fixed tasks from conditional recurrence when task difficulty and external reliability value keep moving; the source carries that distinction into its claim that scaling has not collapsed the form axis into weights
G018	2	A	extends	high	See the earned-versus-unearned reading of scaling that the source carries into the fixed-task versus moving-frontier distinction.	If the target changes what scaling is said to select against, revise the source's fixed-difficulty concession and its framing of absorption; the independently argued moving-frontier condition may remain.	Not premised-on: the source adds an independently supported change in assigned task difficulty, so its frontier conclusion does not require the target's full scaling account to remain true.	authorized	The target recasts the bitter lesson as selection against untested scope rather than structure; the source develops that account by conceding absorption on yesterday's fixed task while arguing that harder frontier deployments can recreate demand for externalized reliability functions.
G018	2	B	extends	high	Start from the target's account of what scaling removes before following the source's distinction between fixed task difficulty and a moving deployment frontier.	If scaling did not preferentially remove unearned scope claims, recheck the source's account of why yesterday's scaffolding is absorbed, while its conditional frontier-recurrence argument could remain.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source adds the fixed-difficulty versus frontier distinction and conditions for recurring external functions instead of merely assuming the target unchanged.	authorized	The target explains scale as selection against untested scope rather than structure; the source carries that argument forward by conceding fixed-task absorption while specifying when new external structure recurs at the frontier.
G018	2	C	extends	high	Carry the target's earned-reach account into the fixed-difficulty versus moving-frontier scaffolding distinction.	If scaling does not preferentially remove unearned scope claims, revise the source's account of fixed-task absorption, though its longitudinal frontier test could remain.	Extends rather than premised-on: the source develops the target's selection claim into a conditional argument about recurring external functions at harder deployment frontiers.	authorized	The target distinguishes structure from unearned generalization under scale; the source applies and advances that distinction by conceding obsolete fixed-task artifacts while explaining when new externalized reliability functions recur at the frontier.
G019	1	A	evidenced-by	high	Inspect a claimed inherited definition in which borrowed criteria and a local retrieval extension are separated.	If the definition's provenance no longer separates inherited criteria from Commonplace's extension, remove or replace the source's worked case of transferred warrant.	Evidenced-by rather than defined-in: the source points to the target's provenance as a case supporting its ontology-warrant claim, not to obtain the meaning of a source term.	authorized	The source offers reflective system as one of two recorded instances of its provenance taxonomy; the target documents inherited causal connection, self-representation, and theory-relativity while marking retrieval-mediated causal connection as Commonplace's separate bridge claim.
G019	1	B	evidenced-by	high	Inspect a concrete inherited-ontology case whose definition separates borrowed causal criteria from Commonplace's retrieval extension and exposes the target-domain bridge	If the definition's provenance no longer supports inheritance or its local departure is not separable, replace or qualify the source's recorded transferred-warrant instance without changing the general provenance thesis	Evidenced-by beats premised-on because the source offers reflective system as one recorded case testing its provenance taxonomy, not as a premise from which derivation, inheritance, or earning follows	authorized	The source claims inheritance transfers only discriminating source-domain warrant and names reflective system as an instance; the target records Maes and Smith's causal self-representation criteria as inherited while marking retrieval-mediated connection and boundary choices as Commonplace departures
G019	1	C	evidenced-by	high	Inspect the reflective-system definition as the source's recorded case of transferred starting warrant	If the definition stops separating inherited reflection criteria from Commonplace's retrieval extension, the source loses this recorded case and must replace or remove the evidence while its general provenance claim can remain	Evidenced-by rather than defined-in: the source already states the relevant term and follows the target for its auditable provenance record, not primarily for lexical meaning	authorized	The source presents reflective system as a worked instance of inheritance with a bridge claim; the target's provenance section separates Maes-derived causal connection, self-representation, and theory-relativity from Commonplace's retrieval-mediated extension
G020	2	A	explained-by	high	Understand why exact hand-built structure can survive even when an upstream generalization is displaced by scale.	If local implementation exactness did validate the requirement-objective link, rewrite the source's central reason for exempting exact specifications, tests, and validators from a blanket anti-structure lesson.	Not premised-on: the target gives the link-by-link account of how local correctness survives a failed proxy, thereby explaining the source's selection claim rather than merely assuming it.	candidate-new	The source says scale selects against unearned scope and exposes only conjectured links, not structure as such; the target explains this by locating exactness at the artifact-requirement link and proxy failure at the separate requirement-objective link.
G020	2	B	explained-by	high	Understand why precise human-built structure can remain locally correct even when the proxy theory above it fails under scale.	If exact artifact conformance did validate its requirement against the objective, or proxy failure erased local correctness, recheck the source's thesis that only conjectured links rather than structure as such are exposed.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target's two-link requirement chain supplies the account of where refuting evidence can bite, not merely a background assumption.	candidate-new	The source uses calculators, validators, and exact specifications to reject an anti-structure reading of the bitter lesson; the target explains this by locating exactness at artifact-to-requirement links and proxyhood upstream.
G020	2	C	explained-by	high	Understand why exact hand-built structure can survive even when a broader capability claim fails under scale.	If local exactness cannot be separated from upstream proxy validity, revise the source's explanation for why scale exposes only conjectured links rather than all structure.	Explained-by rather than premised-on: the target supplies the requirement-chain account of how local correctness survives failure of a higher reach claim.	candidate-new	The source argues that scale selects against unearned reach rather than structure; the target explains this by locating exactness at the artifact-requirement link and proxy failure at the separate requirement-objective link.
G021	1	A	evidenced-by	high	Inspect the Meta-Harness ablation and its limits behind the source's bounded claim for localized-artifact optimization.	If the ablation arms or released-code provenance show an isolated episode-backed theory intervention, revise the source's characterization of the strongest fourth-quadrant evidence and its limits.	Evidenced-by rather than premised-on: the target is a bounded empirical case qualifying the source's broad hypothesis, whose production-form distinction survives without it.	authorized	The source cites Meta-Harness as a bounded learned-localized fragment rather than proof of scalable corpus learning; the target reports the raw-trace advantage and shows that summarized feedback, retained reports, and episode-backed theory formation were not separately identified.
G021	1	B	evidenced-by	high	Check the Meta-Harness case analysis that bounds what its scores-plus-summaries ablation says about learned localized artifacts and episode-backed theory formation	If the ablation did include an audited episode-retaining reviewed theory arm, revise the source's characterization of the strongest fourth-quadrant fragment; its broader two-axis argument would survive	Evidenced-by beats premised-on because the target is a bounded empirical-case interpretation that qualifies one supporting instance, not a theoretical premise needed for the production/form distinction	authorized	The source presents Meta-Harness as a bounded learned-localized instance and explicitly limits its ablation; the target supplies the 50.0 versus 34.9 result, identifies trace replacement and other confounds, and preserves only adverse evidence about summarize-and-discard
G021	1	C	evidenced-by	high	Inspect the bounded Meta-Harness ablation reading behind the source's strongest fourth-quadrant example	If the ablation interpretation changes, the source must revise the evidential bound and standing of its Meta-Harness fragment while its conceptual two-axis claim can survive	Evidenced-by rather than premised-on: the Meta-Harness analysis is a bounded empirical case for the open quadrant, not a premise required by the production-method and form distinction	authorized	The source cites Meta-Harness as a precisely bounded instance of computation optimizing localized artifacts; the target analyzes the trace-versus-summary ablation, preserves its adverse finding, and shows why it does not identify episode-backed theory formation