Friction check: Naur's retained passages do not establish a human-only theory bearer

Note: kb/notes/irreducibility-to-rules-bounds-text-alone-not-text-plus-interpreter.md Central claim (one sentence): Naur's retained passages require world-sensitive, program-specific judgment beyond any limited list of criteria, but without a further human-exclusivity premise they do not rule out retained text informing a competent interpreter that supplies that judgment.

Filter

Verdict: SURVIVES

Signal — thinnest joints

  1. “The text could preserve decision premises that the interpreter cannot faithfully regenerate, such as prior relevance decisions, intended scope, or reasons alternatives were rejected.” — UNSUPPORTED — The note names plausible records but gives no concrete interpreter or recovery failure showing that these records are both needed for a later decision and unavailable at the required fidelity from that interpreter's other sources; the linked recovery question supplies a test, not this missing witness.
  2. “Together, they state what capacity Naur requires and who supplies it in his account. They do not argue from that requirement to human exclusivity.” — THIN — Separating the requirement sentence from the contributor sentence shows that no explicit exclusivity inference is stated, but it does not settle whether “someone,” “programmer,” or Naur's use of understands already restricts the bearer to a human person rather than merely naming the bearer present in his account.
  3. “The artifact supplies inputs to the capacities; it does not relocate the capacities into text.” — THIN — Requiring a fresh interpreter to select and apply a recorded reason establishes that text alone does not exercise the capacity, but it does not establish that retained records are merely inputs rather than constitutive external state of a capacity attributable to the text-plus-interpreter composite.
  4. “The theory-holder must decide a new case that those criteria do not settle.” — HOLDS — Naur's stated non-reducibility to any limited set of criteria supports the existence of novel applications that such a set cannot settle, while leaving particular cases open to criteria-informed judgment.

For the human

Look first at whether “someone,” “programmer,” and understands merely identify Naur's exhibited contributor or already restrict the possible bearer, because the requirement/contributor split alone does not decide that range.