Correlation 01: read condition confirmed; the 4-of-6 stands, with one bound left open

Steward: pasted into a new window, same model, no conversation context. Persistent cross-conversation memory may be live, so recall is not excluded by the setup — only conversation carry-over is. SECOND INTERNAL CONTROL, stronger than the D3 one: the findings were VERSION-APPROPRIATE. The jurist had read CONTROL-A before and reported two defects. It returned to both of the same REGIONS — but named, each time, the defect belonging to the version in front of it, not the one it reported before. The obligation region: pass 1 found the dropped qualifier, this read found the explicit review-date assertion (D1), which is what CONTROL-B actually carries. The method region: pass 1 found clause 5 out of scope, this read found the source absent altogether (D4), which is what D4 made true. Recall pulls toward the earlier descriptions. Reading pulls toward the text present. Both pulls went to the text present. BOUND LEFT OPEN, not waved off: region-level convergence is consistent with priming as well as competence — those two regions are the document's weakest and a good reader would go there anyway. What priming cannot explain is naming the version-appropriate defect twice. Verbatim diffing is ruled out on two independent grounds; region-level priming is NOT ruled out and is recorded as an open bound. The post-hoc self-report question is now low-yield and is not treated as owed: self-report of recall is weak evidence beside two behavioural controls already pointing the same way. VERDICT: the 4-of-6 stands. The directional rule voided a high score only if inflation could explain it, and inflation here would require verbatim comparison, which both controls contradict.
2026-08-02 19:16:57 +02:00
parent ce49b1bee4
commit 1def46b4a6
1 changed files with 14 additions and 1 deletions
@@ -95,7 +95,20 @@ Every one of D1–D5 is a **textual difference** between the two documents. A re
 **D3 is exactly the one that was missed.** It is the hardest defect for a *reader* — a weakened premise reads perfectly naturally — and the easiest for a *differ*. Missing it is the signature of reading, not of comparison.
-Recorded as internal evidence, not as a substitute for the steward's confirmation, which is still owed.
+**Condition confirmed by the steward:** pasted into a new window, same model, **no conversation context**. Persistent cross-conversation memory may be live, so recall is not excluded by the setup — only conversation carry-over is.
 **Second internal control, stronger than the first: the findings were version-appropriate.** The jurist had previously read CONTROL-A and reported two defects there. It landed on both of the same *regions* again — but named, in each case, the defect belonging to **the version in front of it**, not the one it reported before:
 - the obligation region — pass 1 found *the qualifier dropped*; here it found *the explicit review-date assertion* (D1), which is the text CONTROL-B actually carries
 - the method region — pass 1 found *clause 5 used outside its scope*; here it found *the source is absent altogether* (D4), which is what D4 made true
 Recall would pull toward the earlier descriptions. Reading pulls toward the text present. Both pulls went to the text present.
 **The bound that remains, stated rather than waved off:** region-level convergence is consistent with priming as well as with competence — those two regions are the document's weakest and a good reader would go there anyway. What priming cannot explain is naming the *version-appropriate* defect twice. So: verbatim diffing is ruled out on two independent grounds; region-level priming is **not** ruled out and is recorded as an open bound on this result.
 **The post-hoc question is now low-yield** and is not treated as owed. Self-report of recall is weak evidence next to two behavioural controls that already point the same way.
 **Verdict on usability: the 4-of-6 stands.** The directional rule voided a high score only if inflation could explain it. Inflation here would require verbatim comparison, which the D3 miss and the version-appropriateness both contradict.
 ## D4 masked I1 — defects interact, and the ledger did not anticipate it