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.
David F Glidden
1def46b4a6