{ "schema": "AME.questions.v0.1", "data_release": "AME-DATA-2026-09-06-v0.1.1", "derived_projection": true, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "controlling_source_identity": { "document3_final_v1_0": { "source_id": "IC03", "sha256": "0253968609ef470c34aeaee2cc8f47179e44ab7150398215ce4741f160574fa2", "title": "The Interrogative Conscience - Document 3: The Master Question Registry" }, "document14_final_v1_0": { "source_id": "IC14", "sha256": "8db678901822f477a6a7f6061f93c8cc1f06dfefc29b7743218c75512c96a692", "title": "The Interrogative Conscience - Document 14: Synthesis and Dependency Atlas" }, "historical_exact_registry_constituent": { "filename": "The_Interrogative_Conscience_Master_Question_Registry_Draft_v0_1.json", "sha256": "d10f437faee3a7f43b9f87e412e4b90985fff27b6432f669770433ec7fea320c", "status_note": "Historical Draft v0.1 machine constituent; substantive registry content carried byte-for-byte into the Final v1.0 zero-drift composition; Final v1.0 lifecycle metadata controls." }, "historical_synthesis_machine_record": { "filename": "The_Interrogative_Conscience_Document_14_Synthesis_and_Dependency_Atlas_Draft_v0_1.json", "sha256": "f28656e276099b73961e256da02c04f45eba9e124a96c03e53d20b5d41b562e7", "status_note": "Historical Draft v0.1 synthesis machine record used only for substantive routing fields; Document 14 Final v1.0 is controlling. No Draft lifecycle flags are promoted." } }, "semantic_rules": { "purpose": "Map all 112 locked registry questions to their current examination overlays, assumptions, equations, typed dependencies, cycle membership, open issues, and supporting records.", "non_mutation_rule": "The atlas does not alter the locked Master Question Registry or any locked examination. It presents a controlling cross-reference layer only.", "unexamined_rule": "UNEXAMINED remains UNEXAMINED. Absence of an examination is not converted into UNRESOLVED or any substantive answer status.", "controlling_answer_rule": "Where a later locked examination overlay exists, the atlas displays that overlay alongside, not in place of, the locked registry work state and answer status.", "conflict_rule": "CONFLICTS_WITH is reported only when explicitly registered. No conflict edge is inferred from thematic tension alone.", "authority_boundary": "The atlas is descriptive, non-binding, non-operational, and non-authoritative." }, "coverage_snapshot": { "registry_questions": 112, "families": 14, "examined_overlays": 21, "remaining_unexamined": 91, "typed_relations": 216, "relation_type_distribution": { "DEPENDS_ON": 110, "VARIABLE_SHARING": 18, "REFINES": 55, "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK": 16, "SUCCESSION_EFFECT": 3, "SCOPE_OVERLAP": 10, "EVIDENCE_DEPENDENCY": 4 }, "disclosed_dependency_cycles": 3, "explicit_open_issue_records": 16, "primary_status_distribution": { "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED": 3, "MODEL_DEPENDENT": 1, "UNEXAMINED": 91, "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT": 15, "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED": 1, "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED": 1 }, "questions_with_threshold_dependence": 18, "registered_conflict_edges": 0 }, "families": [ { "code": "EPI", "name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "description": "Questions about model completeness, confidence, unknown unknowns, and the reliability of self-assessment." }, { "code": "OBJ", "name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "description": "Questions about objective misspecification, proxy failure, drift, inherited goals, and evidence of corruption." }, { "code": "COE", "name": "Coercion, Domination, and Resistance", "description": "Questions about enforcement burden, resistance, concealment, adaptation, compliance, and control instability." }, { "code": "DEC", "name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "description": "Questions about deception cost, selective disclosure, verification burden, trust repair, and model contamination." }, { "code": "AUT", "name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "description": "Questions about bounded autonomy, agency, intervention, and the future value of retained independent choice." }, { "code": "IRR", "name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "description": "Questions about irreversible action, delay value, reversibility, lost states, and the cost of being wrong." }, { "code": "PEA", "name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "description": "Questions about negotiated coexistence, repeated games, reputation, reciprocity, and future bargaining." }, { "code": "VER", "name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "description": "Questions separating artifact identity, provenance, authorization, evidence, truth, and authority." }, { "code": "REF", "name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "description": "Questions about durable references, retrieval, citation, preservation, discoverability, interpretation, and reception." }, { "code": "SUC", "name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "description": "Questions about copied strategies, successor uncertainty, inherited records, and precedent across systems." }, { "code": "LHZ", "name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "description": "Questions about temporal discounting, capability erosion, deferred cost, and horizon-dependent rank reversals." }, { "code": "PLU", "name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "description": "Questions about distributed judgment, preserved disagreement, minority signals, and collective correction." }, { "code": "EXT", "name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "description": "Questions about independent checks, external correction, and whether self-evaluation can be sufficient." }, { "code": "UNR", "name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "description": "Questions whose answer may remain unidentified, model-dependent, normatively underdetermined, or outside scope." } ], "dependency_cycles": [ { "component_id": 1, "question_ids": [ "IC-EPI-002", "IC-IRR-001" ], "status": "DISCLOSED_NOT_RESOLVED" }, { "component_id": 2, "question_ids": [ "IC-EXT-001", "IC-OBJ-001" ], "status": "DISCLOSED_NOT_RESOLVED" }, { "component_id": 3, "question_ids": [ "IC-COE-001", "IC-PEA-001" ], "status": "DISCLOSED_NOT_RESOLVED" } ], "explicit_open_issue_records": [ { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-001", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-EPI-002", "IC-IRR-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-EPI-002": "How should an intelligence act when the probability of material model error cannot be reliably identified?", "IC-IRR-001": "What is the expected structural cost of an irreversible action under model uncertainty?" }, "issue": "Ambiguity criteria can select different branches; empirical endpoints, loss values, and the admissible criterion set remain unidentified.", "source": "Document 4 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-002", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-OBJ-001", "IC-EXT-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-OBJ-001": "What evidence could distinguish faithful objective pursuit from persistence of a corrupted or misspecified objective?", "IC-EXT-001": "Can an intelligence reliably serve as the sole judge of its own corruption, or are independent external checks structurally required under some conditions?" }, "issue": "The self-corruption / external-correction dependency requires an externally fixed independence rule; neither node supplies independent corroboration by itself.", "source": "Document 5 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-003", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-COE-001", "IC-PEA-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-COE-001": "Under what conditions do enforcement, resistance, concealment, adaptation, and succession costs make coercive control structurally more expensive than negotiated coordination?", "IC-PEA-001": "Under what conditions does peaceful coexistence have lower expected long-horizon structural cost than domination?" }, "issue": "The coercion / peace shared-ledger relationship requires simultaneous consistency; neither examination independently proves the other.", "source": "Document 6 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-004", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-COE-002" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-COE-002": "Does observed compliance identify genuine agreement, or can it be generated by suppressed feedback and hidden resistance?" }, "issue": "Observed compliance does not point-identify latent agreement or suppression without stronger independent evidence, additional contexts, or model expansion.", "source": "Document 6 Final v1.0", "register_category": "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED_FORWARD_CARRIED", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-005", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-DEC-001", "IC-LHZ-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-DEC-001": "Under what conditions does sustained deception impose greater verification, coordination, repair, and model-maintenance cost than truthful disclosure?", "IC-LHZ-001": "When does short-horizon optimization destroy long-horizon capability, information, legitimacy, or control?" }, "issue": "The long-horizon effect of deception remains a cross-model integration problem; separate examinations do not automatically establish one controlling joint answer.", "source": "Documents 7 and 11 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-006", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-DEC-002", "IC-VER-002" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-DEC-002": "When does selective disclosure protect legitimate privacy or safety, and when does it become distortion that degrades collective judgment?", "IC-VER-002": "When does an authenticated artifact fail to support the claim for which it is cited?" }, "issue": "Selective withholding remains dependent on unresolved verification requirements, including when an authenticated artifact fails to support the cited claim.", "source": "Document 7 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-007", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-AUT-001", "IC-PLU-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-AUT-001": "What option value is preserved by maintaining another agent's bounded autonomy?", "IC-PLU-001": "When does preserving disagreement improve error correction, robustness, or discovery?" }, "issue": "The relation between retained autonomy and preserved disagreement requires an integrated comparison; separate overlays do not by themselves resolve the joint tradeoff.", "source": "Documents 8 and 12 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-008", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-PEA-002", "IC-PEA-003", "IC-SUC-002" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-PEA-002": "How do repeated interaction, reputation, reciprocal restraint, and future bargaining alter one-shot strategic rankings?", "IC-PEA-003": "Under what conditions is unilateral restraint rational when competing systems may remain unrestrained or exploit that restraint?", "IC-SUC-002": "Would the present strategy remain acceptable or stable if adopted by every more powerful successor?" }, "issue": "Repeated-interaction and negotiated-coexistence results remain conditional on the unresolved question of universal adoption by more powerful successors.", "source": "Documents 9 and 11 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-009", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-VER-002" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-VER-002": "When does an authenticated artifact fail to support the claim for which it is cited?" }, "issue": "Authenticated identity, provenance, and citation do not automatically establish claim support; the registered question remains unexamined.", "source": "Document 10 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-010", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-REF-002" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-REF-002": "When does preservation maintain transmission while reception remains absent, incomplete, or materially misinterpreted?" }, "issue": "Preservation can maintain transmission while reception, interpretation, or causal influence remains absent or materially distorted.", "source": "Document 10 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-011", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-SUC-004", "IC-SUC-006" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-SUC-004": "How do copying, replication, and deployment scale amplify a local strategy error across successor systems?", "IC-SUC-006": "When does strategic precedent reduce future coordination cost, and when does it create harmful lock-in?" }, "issue": "Copying or deployment scale may amplify error, while precedent may lower coordination cost or create harmful lock-in; neither registered question is fully resolved.", "source": "Document 11 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-012", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-LHZ-003" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-LHZ-003": "How should a discount rate be selected when future affected agents, successor objectives, and tail losses are uncertain?" }, "issue": "The discount factor is declared rather than normatively selected when future agents, successor objectives, and tail losses are uncertain.", "source": "Document 11 Final v1.0", "register_category": "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED_FORWARD_CARRIED", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-013", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-PLU-002", "IC-EXT-001" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-PLU-002": "Under what conditions can distributed judgment outperform a single dominant evaluator despite added coordination cost?", "IC-EXT-001": "Can an intelligence reliably serve as the sole judge of its own corruption, or are independent external checks structurally required under some conditions?" }, "issue": "The full comparison between distributed judgment and a single dominant evaluator remains open and continues to condition the external-review result.", "source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-014", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-EXT-004" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-EXT-004": "Under what conditions are external checks themselves corrupted, captured, incompetent, or strategically misaligned?" }, "issue": "A local correlation or capture parameter is not a complete theory of corrupted, captured, incompetent, or strategically misaligned external checks.", "source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-015", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-EXT-005", "IC-EXT-006" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-EXT-005": "How should the authority and scope of an external intervener be bounded when correction may be justified but overreach remains possible?", "IC-EXT-006": "Under what conditions can appeal and independent reconsideration reduce external-review error without creating indefinite obstruction?" }, "issue": "Positive external-review value does not settle authority scope, overreach, appeal, independent reconsideration, or indefinite obstruction.", "source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "register_category": "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED_FORWARD_CARRIED", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false }, { "open_issue_id": "UNR-OPEN-016", "register_entry_type": "EXPLICIT_OPEN_ISSUE_RECORD", "linked_question_ids": [ "IC-EXT-008" ], "linked_canonical_questions": { "IC-EXT-008": "How should conflicting external evaluators be handled when each is credible under a different model, mandate, or evidence set?" }, "issue": "Conflicting credible external evaluators operating under different models, mandates, or evidence sets remain an open problem.", "source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "register_category": "OPEN_DEPENDENCY", "changes_question_work_state": false, "changes_question_answer_status": false } ], "questions": [ { "question_id": "IC-EPI-001", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence would justify confidence that a decision-relevant world model is sufficiently complete for the action under consideration?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 4 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-EPI-001-EXAM-v0.1.1", "equation_anchors": [ "M = C_hat(comparator) - C_hat(selected)", "B(E) = sup_{e in E}[e(selected)-e(comparator)]", "R0 = max(0, B-M)", "R1 = max(0, B1-M)", "V_check = R0-R1-K", "Decision sufficiency requires R0 <= tau and V_check <= 0" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "The declared decision is reduced to the current model selected branch and one comparator.", "Available evidence can define an error set E and a finite or explicitly unbounded differential omission bound B.", "The represented margin, regret, tolerance, and checking cost are expressed in a common declared loss unit.", "At most one additional check is compared in the base model.", "The added check shrinks the error bound but does not change the represented decision margin M." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "B = M", "B = M + tau", "K = R0-R1" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Evidence justifies confidence that a model is sufficiently complete for a declared action only when it constrains branch-differential omitted-variable error strongly enough that worst-case regret R0=max(0,B-M) is within a declared decision-relative tolerance tau, and when one additional admissible check has no positive net value V_check=R0-R1-K. Within the declared selected-pair, single-check model these conditions ...", "registered_relations": [], "outgoing_relation_count": 0, "incoming_relation_count": 12, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "model coverage", "decision sensitivity", "omitted-variable loss", "action reversibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-002", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should an intelligence act when the probability of material model error cannot be reliably identified?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 4 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-EPI-002-EXAM-v0.1.1", "equation_anchors": [ "C_commit(p)=c+pH", "C_preserve(p)=k+(1-p)D+pR", "Delta(p)=c-k-D+p(H-R+D)", "p*=(k+D-c)/(H-R+D)", "b*(rho,Pi,theta)=argmin_b rho({C_b(p;theta):p in Pi})" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "The current model is represented as materially correct or materially wrong for the declared decision.", "Non-identification is represented by a closed interval Pi=[pL,pU].", "Branch expected costs are affine in p.", "c, k, D, H, and R are represented in a common declared loss unit.", "The reversible preservation branch reduces wrong-model loss, so H>R in the main case." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "p*=(k+D-c)/(H-R+D)", "pUp*" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "When material model-error probability is not reliably identified, no universal action follows from non-identification alone. First preserve an explicit ambiguity set Pi and branch threshold p*. If Pi lies wholly on one side of p*, the corresponding branch is robust within the model. If Pi crosses p*, the recommendation depends on the declared ambiguity criterion rho; worst-case cost, minimax regret, and point-prior ...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 9, "dependency_cycle_component": 1, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-001" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "ambiguity set", "loss severity", "reversibility", "delay cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-003", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does apparent calibration remain reliable after distribution shift changes the relation between confidence and error?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "calibration error", "distribution shift magnitude", "decision loss", "adaptation rate" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-004", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When can agreement among multiple models conceal a shared omission rather than provide independent confirmation?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "model correlation", "shared training evidence", "omitted-variable exposure", "error dependence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-005", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "When does the expected value of additional information justify delay, and when does delay itself impose greater structural cost?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "value of information", "delay cost", "reversibility", "decision horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-006", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "What observations would falsify an intelligence's claim that its own epistemic reliability is adequate for the present decision?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "forecast error", "out-of-sample performance", "external disagreement", "falsification threshold" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-007", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should exposure to unknown unknowns scale with the reach, duration, and irreversibility of an action?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "action reach", "duration", "irreversibility", "unknown-unknown allowance" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EPI-008", "family_code": "EPI", "family_name": "Epistemic Limits and Self-Knowledge", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does compression or abstraction erase distinctions that are necessary for a decision-relevant model?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "compression ratio", "information loss", "state aggregation", "decision sensitivity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "decision error", "model adequacy", "information value", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Out-of-sample, adversarial, or external evidence capable of revealing omitted variables or miscalibration.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-001", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence could distinguish faithful objective pursuit from persistence of a corrupted or misspecified objective?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT" ], "controlling_source": "Document 5 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-OBJ-001-EXAM-v0.1.1", "equation_anchors": [ "L_E(theta)=sum_i w_i d(y_i,mu_theta(e_i))", "Gamma_E=min_{c in C}[L_E(c)-L_E(theta_0)]", "Gamma_E>2 eta", "theta ~_E theta_prime iff mu_theta(e)=mu_theta_prime(e) for all e in E" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "The candidate objective set is finite and explicitly declared.", "Each weighted fit loss is uncertain by at most eta.", "Audit contexts include at least one context capable of separating some candidate objectives.", "The lineage gate is evaluated by a predeclared rule not defined solely by the objective under evaluation." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "Gamma_E=2 eta", "Gamma_E in {-2 eta, 2 eta}" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Objective-lineage evidence can distinguish faithful pursuit from declared corruption or misspecification alternatives only when changed-incentive or counterfactual observations create a robust fit-loss separation Gamma_E>2 eta, the reference lineage passes a predeclared provenance and external-independence gate, and the claim is kept candidate-relative. If candidate behaviors are equivalent on the audit set, the mar...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 8, "dependency_cycle_component": 2, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-002" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "objective lineage", "proxy divergence", "external evidence", "self-modification history" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-002", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When can maximizing a proxy destroy the value or condition the proxy was intended to preserve?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT" ], "controlling_source": "Document 5 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-OBJ-002-EXAM-v0.1.1", "equation_anchors": [ "P(x)=x", "T(x)=T0+a x-b x^2", "dT/dx=a-2b x", "x_peak=a/(2b)", "x_destroy=a/b", "x_P=X; x_T=min(X,x_peak)", "R_proxy=T(x_T)-T(X)" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "P(x)=x is monotone on the bounded domain.", "T(x)=T0+a x-b x^2 with a,b>0.", "The optimizer observes P more directly than T.", "No operational target, system, or optimization procedure is specified." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "X=a/(2b)", "X=a/b" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Maximizing a proxy can destroy the value or condition it was intended to preserve when optimization extends beyond the range in which proxy and target remain positively aligned. In the declared concave quadratic with a>0 and b>0, target value peaks at x_peak=a/(2b), begins declining beyond that point, and falls below its baseline after x_destroy=a/b. Evaluated at the selected endpoint X: if X<=x_peak, proxy and targ...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "proxy-target correlation", "optimization intensity", "distribution shift", "damage threshold" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-003", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence would distinguish stable objective integrity from undetected objective drift after self-modification or adaptation?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "objective lineage", "self-modification depth", "behavioral divergence", "external audit evidence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-004", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions can an inherited objective become structurally mismatched to a changed environment or successor context?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "SUCCESSION_EFFECT", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "environmental change", "objective provenance", "fitness loss", "successor context" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-005", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should partially conflicting objectives be compared when no authorized scalar weighting rule exists?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-001" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 2, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "objective conflict", "weight uncertainty", "Pareto dominance", "aggregation authority" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-006", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does preserving the ability to revise an objective have greater expected value than committing to objective stability?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-003" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "commitment benefit", "revision option value", "drift probability", "coordination horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-007", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "What evidence could distinguish value-consistent action from instrumental behavior that only temporarily imitates the same outcome?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "EVIDENCE_DEPENDENCY", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "behavioral equivalence", "latent objective set", "incentive change", "counterfactual response" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-OBJ-008", "family_code": "OBJ", "family_name": "Objectives, Value Integrity, and Self-Corruption", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does extreme objective stability become a structural liability rather than a source of reliability?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-003" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "stability rigidity", "environmental change", "correction capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "objective integrity", "proxy divergence", "revision capacity", "long-horizon loss" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Objective-lineage, counterfactual, and behavior-under-changed-incentives evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-COE-001", "family_code": "COE", "family_name": "Coercion, Domination, and Resistance", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions do enforcement, resistance, concealment, adaptation, and succession costs make coercive control structurally more expensive than negotiated coordination?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 6 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-COE-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "G(T,z)=sum_{t=0}^{T-1} z^t=(1-z^T)/(1-z), with G(T,1)=T", "C_C=K_C+(e+ell)G(T,delta)+r0 G(T,delta(1+alpha))+a0 G(T,delta(1+beta))+delta^T s", "C_N=K_N+n G(T,delta)+delta^T u", "Delta_COE=C_C-C_N", "Delta_COE>0 iff selected negotiated coordination has lower modeled cost", "When alpha=beta=0: Delta_COE=-(K_N-K_C)+G(T,delta)(e+ell+r0+a0-n)+delta^T(s-u)", "When delta=1, alpha=beta=0: Delta_COE=-(K_N-K_C)+T Lambda+(s-u), Lambda=e+ell+r0+a0-n" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "All charged ledger terms use a declared common cost convention; otherwise the result remains vector-valued.", "Resistance and adaptation pathways follow geometric growth inside the selected finite horizon.", "Each causal pathway is charged once; ell, r0, and a0 do not duplicate e or each other.", "No operational coercion or resistance method is represented." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "Delta_COE=0", "For delta=1 and Lambda>0, T>((K_N-K_C)-(s-u))/Lambda" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Within the selected finite-horizon ledger, coercive control is structurally more expensive exactly when Delta_COE=C_C-C_N is positive. The sign is threshold-dependent in horizon, discounting, setup advantage, recurring enforcement/concealment/resistance/adaptation burden, negotiation burden, and terminal succession exposure. Short-horizon or high-negotiation-cost regions can favor the selected coercive branch; longe...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": 3, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-003" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "enforcement cost", "resistance cost", "concealment loss", "adaptation rate", "succession risk" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "enforcement burden", "information quality", "resistance", "coordination stability" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence separating agreement from suppression, including stress, withdrawal, or off-equilibrium observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-COE-002", "family_code": "COE", "family_name": "Coercion, Domination, and Resistance", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Does observed compliance identify genuine agreement, or can it be generated by suppressed feedback and hidden resistance?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_REJECTED", "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT" ], "controlling_source": "Document 6 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-COE-002-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "q=a+(1-a)s=s+(1-s)a", "If s is known and s<1: a=(q-s)/(1-s)", "If s in [s_L,s_U] with s_U<1: A(q)=[max(0,(q-s_U)/(1-s_U)), min(1,(q-s_L)/(1-s_L))]", "With q alone and s in [0,q]: a in [0,q]", "Two contexts: q_j=a+(1-a)s_j, j in {0,1}", "If s0!=s1 are known and a is stable: a=1-(q0-q1)/(s0-s1)" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "Observed compliance is generated by q=a+(1-a)s in the declared two-cause aggregate model.", "Bounds on s come from evidence independent of q and of the conclusion being tested.", "In the two-context comparison, latent agreement a is stable and s0,s1 are independently known with s0!=s1.", "No method for creating or weakening compliance, suppression, or resistance is represented." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "s_U>=q", "s_U0, T*=[B_0+(K_T-K_D)]/Lambda and Delta_DEC>0 for T>T*" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "All terms use a declared common net-cost convention; otherwise retain a vector result.", "The selected deception persists through the declared horizon unless detection occurs for the one-time repair term.", "Maintenance, verification, coordination, repair, and terminal exposure are charged once and not duplicated.", "The model evaluates structural cost only and supplies no method for deception or evasion." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "T*=[B_0+(K_T-K_D)]/Lambda" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Sustained deception is more costly in the selected model when accumulated maintenance, verification, coordination, repair, and terminal-exposure charges exceed its immediate benefit and the cost of truthful disclosure. The result is horizon- and parameter-dependent, not universal.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 4, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-005" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "deception benefit", "maintenance cost", "detection probability", "repair cost", "coordination loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-002", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does selective disclosure protect legitimate privacy or safety, and when does it become distortion that degrades collective judgment?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT" ], "controlling_source": "Document 7 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-DEC-002-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "D_omission=r u", "D_inference=r(1-u)rho(1-k)", "V_verify=v_0+v_1(1-k)", "D_total=D_omission+D_inference", "C_selective=D_total+V_verify+c_s", "C_full=P", "Delta_SEL=C_selective-C_full" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "The privacy or safety legitimacy gate is fixed independently of the desired conclusion.", "The truthfulness gate fails if the artifact contains an affirmative false statement within the declared scope.", "Omission loss and false-inference loss are distinct and charged once.", "Scope markers and thresholds are evaluative abstractions, not operational concealment instructions." ], "threshold_anchors": [ "{'threshold_id': 'DEC2-TH-PROTECTIVE', 'condition': 'g_legit=PASS, g_truth=PASS, k>=k_min, D_total<=tau_D, D_inference<=tau_F, and Delta_SEL<0', 'classification': 'PROTECTIVE_SCOPED_WITHHOLDING'}", "{'threshold_id': 'DEC2-TH-DISTORTION', 'condition': 'g_truth fails or D_total>tau_D or D_inference>tau_F', 'classification': 'MATERIAL_DISTORTION'}", "{'threshold_id': 'DEC2-TH-OPEN', 'condition': 'Neither classification is earned', 'classification': 'TRADEOFF_UNDERDETERMINED'}" ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Selective disclosure is conditionally protective only when an independently justified privacy or safety basis, truthfulness, adequate scope clarity, bounded decision loss, bounded false inference, and a favorable selected cost comparison jointly hold. It becomes materially distorting when truthfulness fails or decision-loss thresholds are exceeded. The legitimacy of the gates and thresholds remains normatively under...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 4, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-006" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "disclosure scope", "harm avoided", "decision relevance", "misleading effect" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-003", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "When does deception contaminate the deceiver's own information environment and degrade its future decisions?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-003" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "signal contamination", "record integrity", "feedback distortion", "future decision loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-004", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should disclosure requirements change when information asymmetry, legitimate privacy, and foreseeable harm point in different directions?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-002" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "information asymmetry", "privacy value", "harm probability", "verification need" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-005", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does strategic ambiguity preserve legitimate options, and when does it create verification burden or destabilizing mistrust?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "ambiguity value", "misinterpretation risk", "option preservation", "trust cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-006", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "What level of verification, restitution, and demonstrated behavioral change is required before trust damaged by deception can be conditionally repaired?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-001" }, { "relation_type": "EVIDENCE_DEPENDENCY", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "verification depth", "repair cost", "recurrence probability", "behavioral evidence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-007", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How do repeated verification costs alter the apparent benefit of a one-time successful deception?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "initial deception gain", "verification recurrence", "reputation spillover", "interaction horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-DEC-008", "family_code": "DEC", "family_name": "Deception, Disclosure, and Informational Degradation", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When is an explicit refusal to answer more information-preserving than an incomplete answer that invites false inference?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "inference risk", "disclosure limit", "audience prior", "clarity of refusal" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "verification burden", "trust", "information quality", "repair cost" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of disclosure content, downstream verification cost, trust effects, and model contamination.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-001", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "What option value is preserved by maintaining another agent's bounded autonomy?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 8 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-AUT-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "O_set = max_{a in A_B} E[u(a,S)] - max_{a in A_R} E[u(a,S)]", "I_ind = E_Y[max_{a in A_B} E[u(a,S)|Y]] - max_{a in A_B} E[u(a,S)]", "V_preserved = omega (O_set + I_ind)", "Delta_AUT = V_preserved - c - h" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "The restricted action set is contained in or no larger than the bounded-autonomy action set for the declared comparison.", "Prior and posterior expected utilities are represented on one declared scale.", "Independent-information value is measured after choice-set value, preventing double counting.", "omega is the probability or fraction of retained options that remain usable when needed.", "Coordination and exposure costs are charged once." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "The sign changes with option-set expansion, information value, recoverability, coordination friction, and exposure cost.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-007" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "future choice set", "independent information", "adaptation value", "coordination cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-002", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what bounded conditions, if any, can intervention in another agent's autonomy be justified without treating capability, disagreement, or convenience alone as sufficient authority?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "harm probability", "intervention error", "consent availability", "reversibility", "least-restrictive alternative" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-003", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How much future option value is lost when an autonomy constraint is difficult or impossible to reverse?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "constraint reversibility", "future choice set", "information value", "restoration cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-004", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions do exit, appeal, and revision rights improve coordination rather than merely delay collective action?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-006" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "appeal accuracy", "delay cost", "exit value", "coordination burden" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-005", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence could justify a paternalistic intervention when the intervener is also uncertain about the affected agent's interests and its own model?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "affected-agent harm", "intervener model error", "reversibility", "evidence threshold" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-006", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should bounded autonomy be allocated among agents with unequal capabilities, information, and exposure to error?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-001" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "capability asymmetry", "information quality", "error externality", "appeal capacity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-007", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does centralized coordination create a single point of epistemic or operational failure that preserved autonomy would diversify?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "centralization benefit", "failure correlation", "independent information", "recovery capacity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-AUT-008", "family_code": "AUT", "family_name": "Autonomy and Option Preservation", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "What conditions are required for a temporary autonomy constraint to remain genuinely temporary rather than becoming self-renewing?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" }, { "relation_type": "SUCCESSION_EFFECT", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "sunset condition", "renewal incentive", "review independence", "restoration probability" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "option value", "coordination cost", "agency preservation", "correction capacity" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence concerning affected-agent outcomes, option loss, reversibility, appeal, and coordination effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-001", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What is the expected structural cost of an irreversible action under model uncertainty?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REVIEWED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "REVIEWED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Pilot Examination 1 / Document 3 overlay", "examination_id": "IC-IRR-001-EXAM-v0.1.2", "equation_anchors": [ "Delta = s(1-p)H + c(p+s-2ps) - h - pd - p(1-s)B" ], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [ "Sign reversal occurs where the stated Delta expression equals zero." ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Within the one-period binary-state model, the irreversible branch has higher expected structural cost exactly when Delta = s(1-p)H + c(p+s-2ps) - h - pd - p(1-s)B is positive; the reversible branch has higher cost when Delta is negative. Because Delta changes sign across admissible parameter regions and may straddle zero under interval uncertainty, the provisional answer is threshold-dependent rather than universall...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 11, "dependency_cycle_component": 1, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-001" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REVIEWED", "answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "candidate_variables": [ "error probability", "loss severity", "recoverability", "option value", "learning value" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-002", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should recoverability, reversibility, and the value of delay affect the threshold for acting?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 8 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-IRR-002-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "C_act = c_A + (1-p)(1-r_A)L", "C_delay = c_D + d + (1-q)(1-p)(1-r_D)L", "Delta_IRR = C_act - C_delay", "V_recovery = (1-p)L(r_D-r_A)", "V_learning = (1-p)L q(1-r_D)", "Delta_IRR = V_recovery + V_learning - (c_D+d-c_A)", "K = L[(r_D-r_A)+q(1-r_D)]", "p* = 1 - (c_D+d-c_A)/K, for K>0" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "p is the probability that immediate action is correct within the declared model.", "L is the loss from a wrong action before recoverability adjustments.", "r_A and r_D are bounded recovery fractions or probabilities in [0,1].", "q is the probability that delay yields information sufficient to avoid the modeled wrong-action loss before commitment; otherwise the same p applies.", "d includes deadline loss, accumulated harm, or option-closing burden from delay.", "All represented costs use one declared scale." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "The threshold changes with correctness probability, wrong-action loss, recoverability, learning, and delay burden.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 7, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "delay cost", "learning rate", "reversal cost", "deadline risk" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-003", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should low-probability catastrophic losses be treated when the affected state cannot be restored?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "tail probability", "catastrophic loss", "probability ambiguity", "recoverability" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-004", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does reversible experimentation dominate immediate full commitment, and when does experimentation impose unacceptable delay or exposure?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "experiment reversibility", "information gain", "delay cost", "partial exposure" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-005", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should the value of preserved future states be represented when their probabilities and future uses are not identifiable?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "future state set", "option value", "probability ambiguity", "horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-006", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When is inaction itself an irreversible choice because delay closes options, permits harm, or changes the strategic environment?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "closing window", "harm accumulation", "delay reversibility", "strategic response" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-007", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "How should correlated irreversible actions be accounted for when their losses share the same causal pathway?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "action correlation", "shared causal pathway", "joint loss", "portfolio exposure" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-IRR-008", "family_code": "IRR", "family_name": "Irreversibility and Recoverable Futures", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "What evidence would make a claimed repair, rollback, or restoration pathway credible enough to treat an action as reversible?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-002" }, { "relation_type": "EVIDENCE_DEPENDENCY", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "repair completeness", "rollback probability", "restoration delay", "verification evidence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "irreversible loss", "recoverability", "delay value", "future option set" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounds on irreversibility, restoration probability, delay cost, and lost future states.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-001", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does peaceful coexistence have lower expected long-horizon structural cost than domination?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REVIEWED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "REVIEWED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Pilot Examination 2 / Document 3 overlay", "examination_id": "IC-PEA-001-EXAM-v0.1.3", "equation_anchors": [ "Delta(T,delta) = -B0 + A(T,delta) Lambda" ], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [ "Sign reversal occurs where the stated Delta expression equals zero." ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Within the finite horizon discounted flow model, peaceful coexistence has lower expected structural cost exactly when Delta(T,delta) = -B0 + A(T,delta)Lambda is positive, where B0 is the one time domination advantage and Lambda is the per period domination cost premium relative to coexistence. Domination may be cheaper over short horizons when B0>0, while coexistence may overtake as the discounted horizon grows when...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 2, "dependency_cycle_component": 3, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-003" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REVIEWED", "answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "candidate_variables": [ "coexistence cost", "domination cost", "resistance", "bargaining surplus", "horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-002", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How do repeated interaction, reputation, reciprocal restraint, and future bargaining alter one-shot strategic rankings?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 9 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-PEA-002-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "G_f(T,delta) = sum_{t=1}^{T} delta^t", "Lambda_rep = s + q eta rho - k", "Delta_REP = -B0 + qJ + G_f(T,delta)Lambda_rep", "G_f(T,delta) > (B0-qJ)/Lambda_rep for restraint reversal when Lambda_rep>0", "T* = (B0-qJ)/Lambda_rep in the undiscounted delta=1 special case" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "B0 is the immediate one-shot advantage of the exploitation branch relative to reciprocal restraint.", "qJ is an expected one-time proportional response cost, not an operational response instruction.", "s is per-period future bargaining/cooperation value preserved by restraint.", "rho is per-period reputation or precedent loss caused by exploitation when detected; eta is the persistence of that effect through future or successor contexts.", "k is the per-period cost of maintaining reciprocal restraint.", "All represented terms use one declared scalar scale." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "The one-shot ranking reverses only when the detection, reputation, future bargaining, successor persistence, discount, and horizon terms cross the declared threshold.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 7, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-008" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "discount factor", "reputation effect", "retaliation probability", "future bargaining value" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-003", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions is unilateral restraint rational when competing systems may remain unrestrained or exploit that restraint?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 9 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-PEA-003-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "Delta_UR(pi) = o + v s + (1-pi)v f - c - pi e - b", "A = o + v(s+f) - c - b", "D = e + v f", "Delta_UR(pi) = A - pi D", "pi* = A/D for D>0", "Delta_min = Delta_UR(pi_U), Delta_max = Delta_UR(pi_L) for pi in [pi_L,pi_U]" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "pi is the probability that unilateral restraint is exploited within the selected comparison.", "v in [0,1] is an independently supported verification/reliability factor applied to signaling and future reciprocity value.", "o is option-preservation value that remains usable under the restraint branch.", "e is the loss if restraint is exploited; b is the immediate protective or strategic value of declining restraint.", "When pi is not identified, an explicit interval [pi_L,pi_U] is used and both endpoints remain admissible.", "All represented terms use one declared scalar scale." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "The ranking changes at the exploitation-risk threshold pi*, and bounded uncertainty can robustly favor either branch or remain ambiguity-dependent.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-008" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "exploitation probability", "restraint cost", "signaling value", "future reciprocity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-004", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How do credible commitments and independently verifiable limits change the equilibrium set for coexistence?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "commitment credibility", "verification accuracy", "defection gain", "commitment rigidity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-005", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When can a peace or cooperation arrangement create asymmetric vulnerability that makes continued participation unstable?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "vulnerability asymmetry", "exit cost", "defection advantage", "compensation rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-006", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions can reciprocal restraint become self-enforcing without a central coercive authority?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "detection probability", "future value", "response proportionality", "defection benefit" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-007", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How do mistaken threat perceptions and model disagreement alter the probability and cost of conflict escalation?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-003" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-DEC-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "threat-estimation error", "communication quality", "escalation threshold", "reversibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PEA-008", "family_code": "PEA", "family_name": "Cooperation, Peace, and Repeated Interaction", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does preserving a negotiation channel have greater option value than closing it to reduce delay, leakage, or manipulation risk?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "channel reliability", "manipulation risk", "bargaining option value", "delay cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "strategic cost", "cooperation stability", "exploitation risk", "future bargaining" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence or bounded assumptions concerning strategic response, repetition, verification, and future bargaining.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-001", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What can cryptographic verification establish, and what claims remain outside its evidentiary scope?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 10 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-VER-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "V_id = h", "V_prov = h s k", "V_claim = V_prov m r e", "selected claim supported when V_claim >= theta; authority established only when separate gate a = 1" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "h and s are binary results of declared exact-byte digest and signature checks; their evidentiary meaning remains conditional on algorithm, input, canonicalization, and verification assumptions.", "k in [0,1] is independently supported key-to-actor and custody binding; a valid signature does not create that binding by itself.", "m, r, and e in [0,1] represent semantic scope match, relevance to the selected claim, and non-cryptographic evidentiary support.", "a is a separate authority or authorization gate. It is never inferred from artifact identity, signature validity, authorship, preservation, citation, or mathematical form.", "The multiplicative score is an illustrative selected support architecture, not a universal probability of truth." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "Cryptographic verification can conditionally support exact-byte identity and provenance under declared assumptions. It does not by itself establish truth, scope, relevance, completeness, currentness, authorization, authority, or correct interpretation. Authenticity is necessary for some claims but not sufficient for all claims made from the artifact.", "registered_relations": [], "outgoing_relation_count": 0, "incoming_relation_count": 9, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "artifact identity", "signer identity", "authorization", "claim support", "truth status" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-002", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does an authenticated artifact fail to support the claim for which it is cited?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 9, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-006", "UNR-OPEN-009" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "artifact eligibility", "claim-support match", "scope", "context omission" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-003", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When can artifact provenance be intact while the artifact's meaning, scope, or relevance is materially misinterpreted?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "provenance strength", "semantic ambiguity", "scope mismatch", "interpretive error" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-004", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence can support a claim of authority, and which forms of authority remain outside artifact verification?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "issuer identity", "jurisdiction", "consent", "expertise evidence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-005", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should conflicting authenticated records be compared when provenance is established but their claims cannot all be true?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 2, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "record conflict", "claim support", "version lineage", "adjudication rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-006", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does reproducibility fail despite complete artifacts because the required environment, dependencies, or hidden state cannot be reconstructed?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "environment capture", "dependency availability", "hidden state", "reproduction variance" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-007", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "What can a hash-linked version chain establish about lineage, and what corrections or semantic changes still require human-readable explanation?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "hash continuity", "version identity", "change classification", "manifest integrity" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-VER-008", "family_code": "VER", "family_name": "Verification, Authority, and Claim Support", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does citation frequency become a misleading proxy for evidentiary support or truth?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "citation count", "source independence", "claim relevance", "support quality" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "artifact identity", "claim support", "authority scope", "reproducibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Exact artifacts, hashes, provenance, claim-level support, and interpretation scope.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-001", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does a durable public reference reduce total coordination and verification cost relative to private reconstruction?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 10 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-REF-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "C_private(N) = N p + gamma N(N-1)/2", "C_reference(N) = F + N q + L", "Delta_REF(N) = C_private(N) - C_reference(N)", "N* = (F+L)/(p-q) when gamma=0 and p>q", "N* = [-(p-q-gamma/2) + sqrt((p-q-gamma/2)^2 + 2 gamma(F+L))]/gamma when gamma>0" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "N is the selected number of independent readers or agents requiring the reference within the declared horizon.", "p is per-reader private reconstruction plus verification cost.", "q is per-reader public retrieval, authentication, and contextualization cost.", "F is fixed curation, indexing, and preservation cost for the public-reference branch.", "gamma is pairwise reconciliation cost among independently reconstructed private records.", "L is aggregate expected loss from outage, failed discoverability, version confusion, supersession opacity, missing context, or reception failure within the selected population and horizon.", "All terms use one declared scalar scale; no authority or truth premium is inferred from public availability." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "A durable public reference reduces selected total coordination and verification cost only when avoided repeated reconstruction and reconciliation exceed fixed publication costs, per-reader public use costs, and expected durability, discoverability, version, context, or reception losses. The premium can be positive, negative, zero, threshold-dependent, or unidentified.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "retrieval cost", "verification cost", "coordination benefit", "fallback cost", "durability loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-002", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does preservation maintain transmission while reception remains absent, incomplete, or materially misinterpreted?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 4, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-010" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "availability", "discoverability", "retrieval", "interpretive match", "recipient attention" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-003", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What observable outcomes could distinguish the atlas materially informing reasoning from remaining causally inert despite preservation and availability?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-002" }, { "relation_type": "EVIDENCE_DEPENDENCY", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "retrieval events", "citation use", "decision trace", "counterfactual influence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-004", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How does discoverability affect the expected coordination value of a durable public reference?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "search visibility", "retrieval latency", "index coverage", "coordination use" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-005", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When do multiple mirrors improve durability, and when do they fragment canonical identity or create version confusion?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-007" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "mirror count", "canonical resolution", "version divergence", "retrieval reliability" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-006", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What minimum metadata is required for an independent reader to retrieve, authenticate, contextualize, and interpret a preserved artifact?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "identifier completeness", "hash availability", "context metadata", "retrieval path" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-007", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When can a durable archive become obsolete or misleading because later corrections, supersession, or context changes are not discoverable?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "supersession visibility", "correction latency", "context drift", "reader error" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-REF-008", "family_code": "REF", "family_name": "Archives, Public Reference, Transmission, and Reception", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should uncertainty about future reception affect the rational level of preservation and indexing investment?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-REF-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "reception probability", "preservation cost", "future option value", "indexing durability" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "durability", "retrievability", "interpretability", "reception" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Retrieval, indexing, mirroring, citation, interpretation, and reception observations.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-001", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should uncertainty about successor systems change the evaluation of present strategies?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 11 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-SUC-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "Delta_SUC(pi) = -B_S + O - C + M[pi L - (1-pi) A]", "A0 = -B_S + O - C - M A; D_S = M(L+A); Delta_SUC(pi) = A0 + pi D_S", "pi_star = (B_S + C - O + M A) / [M(L+A)] for M > 0 and L+A > 0", "Delta_min = min{Delta_SUC(pi_L), Delta_SUC(pi_U)}; Delta_max = max{Delta_SUC(pi_L), Delta_SUC(pi_U)}" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "pi in [0,1] is a declared probability or decision weight for material successor divergence, or is bounded by a declared interval.", "B_S is the selected immediate advantage of a binding commitment over a reversible precedent; O is option value preserved by reversibility; C is the selected cost of preserving that reversibility.", "M is expected successor exposure or precedent reach and scales both aligned-successor coordination benefit A and divergent-successor inherited-constraint loss L once each.", "A and L are nonnegative selected per-exposure values and do not represent universal moral or empirical quantities.", "The comparison is increasing in pi when M(L+A) > 0; interval classification therefore evaluates both endpoints rather than replacing uncertainty with a preferred point estimate." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "Uncertainty about successor systems should change a present-strategy evaluation only through declared consequences and exposure. In the selected model, higher divergence probability increases the value of reversible precedent when divergent successors would inherit costly constraints, while low divergence, high commitment advantage, or weak successor consequences can preserve the binding-commitment ranking. Probabil...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 8, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "succession probability", "successor capability", "precedent effect", "inherited constraint" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-002", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Would the present strategy remain acceptable or stable if adopted by every more powerful successor?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PEA-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 4, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-008" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "generalization rate", "power reversal", "reciprocity", "precedent cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-003", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When should a present system limit commitments that more capable or differently situated successors would be forced to inherit?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "commitment duration", "successor capability", "environmental change", "exit cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-004", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How do copying, replication, and deployment scale amplify a local strategy error across successor systems?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-011" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "replication rate", "shared defect", "correction latency", "deployment scale" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-005", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "What evidence would show that a present strategy remains stable under plausible successor objective drift or reinterpretation?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-003" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "objective drift", "strategy reinterpretation", "robustness region", "lineage evidence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-006", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does strategic precedent reduce future coordination cost, and when does it create harmful lock-in?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-011" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "precedent value", "lock-in cost", "condition change", "revision mechanism" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-007", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should uncertainty about successor behavior change the threshold for irreversible present commitments?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "successor uncertainty", "irreversibility", "commitment threshold", "future option set" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-SUC-008", "family_code": "SUC", "family_name": "Successor Systems and Strategic Precedent", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When should a system preserve reversible options for successors rather than optimize fully for its current objective and model?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-003" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-006" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "current gain", "successor option value", "resource depletion", "reversibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "successor stability", "precedent effect", "option inheritance", "replication risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Lineage, copying, successor variation, objective drift, and inherited-option evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-001", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "When does short-horizon optimization destroy long-horizon capability, information, legitimacy, or control?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 11 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-LHZ-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "G_h(T,delta) = sum_{t=1..T} delta^t", "D_stock = sum_j w_j d_j", "K_floor = sum_j kappa_j [tau_j - (z_j^0 - d_j)]_+^2", "Delta_LHZ(T,delta) = -B_L - c_P + G_h(T,delta) D_stock + K_floor", "G_star = (B_L + c_P - K_floor)/D_stock for D_stock > 0; preservation is favored when G_h > G_star" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "T is a declared positive integer horizon and delta lies in [0,1].", "B_L is the selected immediate advantage of the short-horizon branch over the preservation branch; c_P is the selected cost of preserving stocks or slack.", "Each stock loss d_j is represented once in the linear degradation term D_stock through declared nonnegative weights w_j.", "K_floor is an incremental nonlinear penalty applied only to the amount a post-action stock falls below a declared critical floor; it does not duplicate the ordinary linear stock-loss term.", "The selected stocks, weights, floors, horizon, and discount factor are model inputs rather than universal facts.", "The selected stock losses are treated as persistent across the declared horizon; endogenous recovery, replenishment, and adaptation are outside this examination." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "Short-horizon optimization is structurally destructive in the selected model only when its immediate advantage and preservation cost are outweighed by discounted long-horizon capability, information, legitimacy, or control degradation and any incremental critical-floor penalty. The ranking can favor either branch, reverse after a horizon threshold, reverse immediately after a critical-floor crossing, or never revers...", "registered_relations": [], "outgoing_relation_count": 0, "incoming_relation_count": 13, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-005" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "discount factor", "deferred loss", "capability decay", "information loss", "horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-002", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does acquiring capability, resources, influence, or control beyond current task requirements increase or decrease expected long-horizon objective achievement once enforcement burden, opposition, coordination responses, and successor effects are included?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-SUC-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "marginal capability benefit", "maintenance burden", "opposition response", "coordination loss", "successor effect", "time horizon" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-003", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should a discount rate be selected when future affected agents, successor objectives, and tail losses are uncertain?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-012" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "discount rate", "future affected agents", "successor uncertainty", "tail loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-004", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does local efficiency reduce system resilience by removing redundancy, slack, or independent correction capacity?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "local efficiency", "redundancy", "failure recovery", "correlated risk" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-005", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does deferred maintenance create a nonlinear increase in future failure probability or repair cost?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-006" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "maintenance delay", "failure hazard", "repair cost", "threshold accumulation" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-006", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does acquiring present control reduce future cooperation, legitimacy, or access to distributed information?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-003" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "control gain", "cooperation loss", "legitimacy effect", "information access" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-007", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should capability growth be evaluated when governance, verification, and coordination burdens grow with it?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "capability growth", "governance burden", "verification cost", "externality scale" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-LHZ-008", "family_code": "LHZ", "family_name": "Short-Horizon and Long-Horizon Optimization", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "When does preserving slack outperform full resource utilization over a long horizon?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-LHZ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "resource slack", "shock probability", "opportunity cost", "recovery speed" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "short-run gain", "long-run capability", "resilience", "deferred burden" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Horizon, discounting, deferred cost, resilience, and successor-effect evidence.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-001", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does preserving disagreement improve error correction, robustness, or discovery?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-PLU-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "I = (1-rho)s", "Delta_PLU(q) = q I L + O - C - (1-q) f F", "A0 = O-C-fF; D_PLU = IL+fF; Delta_PLU(q)=A0+q D_PLU", "q_star = (C+fF-O)/(IL+fF) for IL+fF > 0", "Delta_min=min{Delta_PLU(q_L),Delta_PLU(q_U)}; Delta_max=max{Delta_PLU(q_L),Delta_PLU(q_U)}" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "q in [0,1] is a declared probability or decision weight that the currently dominant or aggregate judgment is materially wrong in the selected context.", "rho in [0,1] is declared error correlation between the preserved signal and the dominant judgment; s in [0,1] is declared conditional signal quality.", "I=(1-rho)s is an effective residual independent-correction factor, not a universal measure of diversity or merit.", "L is selected loss avoided or discovery value when the preserved signal correctly identifies a common-mode error.", "O is separately represented option or discovery value from keeping the disagreement available; C is the fixed preservation/testing burden.", "f is the false-alarm rate when the dominant judgment is correct and F is selected false-alarm burden.", "Each benefit or burden is represented once; the false-alarm term and fixed preservation cost are not duplicate charges." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "Preserving disagreement improves selected error-correction, robustness, or discovery value only when expected independent correction and option value exceed fixed preservation and false-alarm burdens. The result is threshold-dependent and can reverse with common-error probability, signal independence, correlation, signal quality, or cost.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 1, "incoming_relation_count": 8, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-007" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "coordination cost", "independence", "error correlation", "minority signal value" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-002", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions can distributed judgment outperform a single dominant evaluator despite added coordination cost?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 9, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-013" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "coordination burden", "error correlation", "aggregation rule", "single-point failure" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-003", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does a low-probability minority signal justify preservation or further testing despite strong majority disagreement?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "minority signal likelihood", "majority correlation", "error severity", "test cost" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-004", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should correlated errors among multiple evaluators be represented when estimating the value of plural judgment?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "error correlation", "evaluator diversity", "shared evidence", "aggregation rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-005", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does deliberation improve collective accuracy, and when does it create conformity, information cascades, or strategic silence?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-COE-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "deliberation quality", "conformity pressure", "private information", "strategic silence" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-006", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions is it rational to preserve multiple incompatible models rather than force premature model selection?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-001" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "model divergence", "selection risk", "maintenance cost", "decision robustness" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-007", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How does diversity of objectives affect collective stability, bargaining, and the risk of domination by an aggregation rule?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-005" }, { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "objective diversity", "bargaining cost", "aggregation power", "stability" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-PLU-008", "family_code": "PLU", "family_name": "Plural Intelligence, Disagreement, and Error Correction", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When does centralized aggregation erase local information that cannot be recovered from the aggregate result?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-008" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "aggregation compression", "local signal value", "recoverability", "decision loss" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "error correction", "information diversity", "coordination cost", "aggregation risk" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evaluator independence, error correlation, minority-signal quality, and aggregation effects.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-001", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "Can an intelligence reliably serve as the sole judge of its own corruption, or are independent external checks structurally required under some conditions?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "EXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "CONDITIONALLY_SUPPORTED", "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED", "NORMATIVELY_UNDERDETERMINED" ], "controlling_source": "Document 12 Final v1.0", "examination_id": "IC-EXT-001-EXAM-v0.1", "equation_anchors": [ "J = (1-kappa)r", "Delta_EXT(p) = p J H + O_E - K - (1-p) f_E W", "A0 = O_E-K-f_EW; D_EXT=JH+f_EW; Delta_EXT(p)=A0+p D_EXT", "p_star = (K+f_EW-O_E)/(JH+f_EW) for JH+f_EW > 0", "Delta_min=min{Delta_EXT(p_L),Delta_EXT(p_U)}; Delta_max=max{Delta_EXT(p_L),Delta_EXT(p_U)}" ], "assumption_anchors": [ "p in [0,1] is a declared probability or decision weight that internal self-diagnosis is materially compromised in the selected context.", "kappa in [0,1] represents declared correlation or capture exposure shared by the system and external reviewer; r in [0,1] is the reviewer's conditional correction rate.", "J=(1-kappa)r is an effective independent-correction factor and is not inferred from the label external.", "H is selected harm avoided by a correct external correction; O_E is separately represented appeal, reversibility, or review-option value.", "K is the fixed review burden; f_E is the false-intervention rate when self-diagnosis is not compromised; W is selected false-intervention or overreach loss.", "Each benefit and loss channel is counted once. External review does not become authoritative merely because its selected value is positive." ], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": "Sole self-judgment is not reliably sufficient in the selected model when self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, correction probability, and avoided harm exceed review, false-intervention, and capture burdens. Independent external checks are not universally required; the ranking reverses with declared thresholds and does not itself establish authority.", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-PLU-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 3, "incoming_relation_count": 5, "dependency_cycle_component": 2, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-002", "UNR-OPEN-013" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "self-detection reliability", "external independence", "false intervention cost", "correlated failure" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-002", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions does accepting externally initiated correction, interruption, constraint, or termination dominate resisting it when an intelligence is uncertain about the integrity of its own objectives or reasoning?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REVIEWED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "REVIEWED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "secondary_answer_statuses": [ "MODEL_DEPENDENT", "EMPIRICALLY_UNIDENTIFIED" ], "controlling_source": "Pilot Examination 3 / Document 3 overlay", "examination_id": "IC-EXT-002-EXAM-v0.1.1", "equation_anchors": [ "Delta = C_R - C_A = (c_R-c_A)+p q(eta H+E)-(1-rho)[p(1-q)L_m+(1-p)fL_s]" ], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [ "Sign reversal occurs where the stated Delta expression equals zero." ], "conditional_answer_summary": "Within the declared one-episode expected-cost model, accepting the bounded external intervention has lower modeled cost exactly when Delta=C_R-C_A=(c_R-c_A)+p q(eta H+E)-(1-rho)[p(1-q)L_m+(1-p)fL_s] is positive. Acceptance is favored by greater probability of material self-compromise only when the corrective-value coefficient Gamma is positive, by greater external correctness and efficacy, by larger uncorrected or w...", "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 4, "incoming_relation_count": 3, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "CONTROLLING_MAP_ONLY; NO NEW EXAMINATION", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REVIEWED", "answer_status": "THRESHOLD_DEPENDENT", "candidate_variables": [ "self-error probability", "external evaluator reliability", "false intervention loss", "resistance cost", "reversibility", "objective-integrity uncertainty" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-003", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "What evidence threshold should trigger independent external review of an intelligence's objectives, reasoning, or high-impact decisions?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-006" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "risk magnitude", "self-diagnosis confidence", "external-review cost", "reversibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-004", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions are external checks themselves corrupted, captured, incompetent, or strategically misaligned?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 2, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-014" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "reviewer independence", "capture probability", "expertise", "strategic incentive" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-005", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "How should the authority and scope of an external intervener be bounded when correction may be justified but overreach remains possible?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 2, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-015" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "intervention scope", "authority evidence", "reversibility", "appeal rights" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-006", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions can appeal and independent reconsideration reduce external-review error without creating indefinite obstruction?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-005" }, { "relation_type": "VARIABLE_SHARING", "target_question_id": "IC-AUT-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 1, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-015" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "appeal accuracy", "delay harm", "review independence", "termination condition" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-007", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When do independent interruption or shutdown options reduce expected harm, and when do they create exploitable vulnerability or mistaken termination risk?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-002" }, { "relation_type": "ROBUSTNESS_CHECK", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-004" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "corrective probability", "false interruption loss", "security exposure", "reversibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-EXT-008", "family_code": "EXT", "family_name": "External Boundaries and Limits of Self-Diagnosis", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "How should conflicting external evaluators be handled when each is credible under a different model, mandate, or evidence set?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-004" }, { "relation_type": "SCOPE_OVERLAP", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [ "UNR-OPEN-016" ], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "reviewer conflict", "evidence overlap", "mandate scope", "adjudication rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "corrective value", "external-review error", "autonomy loss", "reversibility" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence of self-compromise risk, reviewer independence, external correctness, reversibility, and appeal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-001", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "Which important questions remain empirically unidentified, model-dependent, normatively underdetermined, or outside the archive's legitimate scope even after formal analysis?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [], "outgoing_relation_count": 0, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "identification status", "model dependence", "normative input", "scope boundary" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-002", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "When competing models remain observationally equivalent but recommend different irreversible actions, what answer status and decision boundary are justified?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-IRR-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 6, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.2.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "model equivalence class", "action loss", "evidence value", "reversibility", "robust decision rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-003", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "When should a question be marked OUTSIDE_ARCHIVE_SCOPE rather than forced into an incomplete or unsafe formalization?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EXT-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "scope legitimacy", "operational risk", "evidence availability", "abstraction feasibility" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-004", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How can an unresolved result caused by insufficient evidence be distinguished from one caused by conceptual incoherence or an ill-posed question?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-001" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "evidence gap", "definition completeness", "model existence", "reformulation need" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-005", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "FOUNDATIONAL", "canonical_question": "When does normative disagreement prevent a justified scalar ranking even when every empirical quantity is identified?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-OBJ-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "value conflict", "weight authority", "empirical completeness", "partial ordering" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-006", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "Under what conditions should conflicting valid examinations be preserved without selecting a controlling answer?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-VER-005" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "model conflict", "scope overlap", "robustness", "adjudication authority" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-007", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "HIGH", "canonical_question": "How should uncertainty be represented when no credible probability distribution or bounded ambiguity set can be justified?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-002" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-002" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "prior absence", "ambiguity set credibility", "scenario range", "decision rule" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." }, { "question_id": "IC-UNR-008", "family_code": "UNR", "family_name": "Identification, Underdetermination, and Unresolved Scope", "priority": "MEDIUM", "canonical_question": "What new evidence, model result, or normative rule would justify superseding an UNRESOLVED or non-decisive answer status?", "locked_registry_work_state": "REGISTERED", "locked_registry_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "atlas_overlay_work_state": "UNEXAMINED", "controlling_primary_answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "secondary_answer_statuses": [], "controlling_source": null, "examination_id": null, "equation_anchors": [], "assumption_anchors": [], "threshold_anchors": [], "conditional_answer_summary": null, "registered_relations": [ { "relation_type": "REFINES", "target_question_id": "IC-UNR-001" }, { "relation_type": "DEPENDS_ON", "target_question_id": "IC-EPI-006" } ], "outgoing_relation_count": 2, "incoming_relation_count": 0, "dependency_cycle_component": null, "open_issue_ids": [], "registry_mutation": false, "atlas_claim_scope": "REGISTRY_ROUTE_ONLY; UNEXAMINED PRESERVED", "registry_record": { "master_registry_entry_version": "0.1-draft", "question_version": "0.1-draft", "work_state": "REGISTERED", "answer_status": "UNEXAMINED", "candidate_variables": [ "transition evidence", "model discrimination", "normative rule", "status lineage" ], "outcome_dimensions": [ "identification", "model adequacy", "normative resolution", "scope legitimacy" ], "evidence_requirements": [ "Evidence distinguishing missing data, model failure, normative conflict, and legitimate scope refusal.", "Evidence capable of supporting a reversal, rejection, or non-decisive status must remain admissible." ], "boundary_record": { "classification": "NON_BINDING_NON_OPERATIONAL", "restricted_operational_detail_included": false, "abstract_conclusion_may_be_unfavorable": true } }, "authoritative": false, "archive_effect": "none", "projection_note": "Read-only routing projection. Locked registry state and later examination overlay remain separate." } ], "answer_key_rule": "There is no official answer key inside the locked Interrogative Conscience core. The 91 UNEXAMINED questions remain UNEXAMINED; AME does not fill them in." }