Bibliography and Relation Register

Document ID

TEM-P3-3A3B3C-SD04-BIBLIOGRAPHY

Version / issue

Issue 1 - aligned to the Issue 1 paper sequence

Date

2026-09-24

Status

Controlled Part 3 support document aligned to the eight Issue 1 canonical papers, GOT-V1-3a-1 through GOT-V1-3c-8. Secondary to the canonical papers.

Supersedes

Bibliography and Relation Register - Issue 1 - Formatted.docx. This content reconciliation preserves the eight-paper sequence and updates source identities, ownership, locators, and support dependencies. Earlier release history remains recoverable in that source copy.

Function

Consolidates the admitted bibliographies of Papers 3a-1–3c-8 into one deduplicated Part bibliography while preserving paper-local relation status, cross-paper differences, hold/exclusion branch-memory, residual, internal 3a/3b/3c boundaries, and Series handoff.

Canonical rule

Paper bibliographies and local endnotes remain authoritative for reader-facing scholarly use. This register does not create citation, warrant, adjacency, dependency, or inheritance status by aggregation.

Internal split rule

Section 3a, Section 3b, and Section 3c remain distinct canonical regions inside one Part-level support control. Downstream papers may inherit and apply upstream architecture but do not retroactively redefine it.

Source-lock rule

Use the eight Issue 1 papers and the current Part 3 SD-01–SD-03 controls. Existing bibliographic classifications are retained from the prior support release; current paper references and endnotes govern their local source relations. The separately listed bibliographic protocol remains historical context.

Template rule

Retain the established support-document layout and control schema. Earlier support copies retain historical evidence; the eight Issue 1 papers govern current content. Parts 1 and 2 remain inherited-control references only.

GOT-V1-3a-1

GOT-V1-3a-1 - The Gödel Horizon - Issue 1.docx | sha16 44a8b20a68541a55

The Gödel Horizon

Horizon grammar: relational availability; availability/closure boundary conditions; Soft Horizon; Gödel Horizon; Procedural Availability Horizon; coupled loci; abstraction boundaries; comparator and stabilisation discipline.

GOT-V1-3a-2

GOT-V1-3a-2 - The Discipline of the Unknown - Issue 1.docx | sha16 04d3becc2b5a5029

The Discipline of the Unknown

Unknown-statuses; residual; positive exclusion; live formulations; Best Available Formulation; Weighted Residual; action threshold, safeguard, monitoring, stop condition, update, and branch-memory.

GOT-V1-3b-3

GOT-V1-3b-3 - On the Origin of Power - Issue 1.docx | sha16 d6d961fbb277a77c

On the Origin of Power

Primitive Power as IPL-indexed distinction-conditioned branch potential; Counterfactual Inclusion Field; potential/application/consequence separation; Counterfactual Exclusion; thermodynamic grounding.

GOT-V1-3b-4

GOT-V1-3b-4 - On the Origin of Responsibility - Issue 1.docx | sha16 ef17be5480bc49e7

On the Origin of Responsibility

Primitive Responsibility as locus-indexed attribution; Responsibility Provenance; distributed and temporal provenance; Responsibility Gradient; Immediate-Frame Principle; Responsibility Warrant.

GOT-V1-3b-5

GOT-V1-3b-5 - On the Origin of Trust - Issue 1.docx | sha16 d8a68ac35982e5a0

On the Origin of Trust

Trust as reliance closure under residual; primitive audit; branch-space economy; trust thresholds; vicarious trust; Epistemic Authority and the minimum Structural Authority distinction (§8); trust carriers; laundering; betrayal, repair, and formalisation handoff.

GOT-V1-3c-6

GOT-V1-3c-6 - The Case for Formalisation - Issue 1.docx | sha16 b4d11bd226838155

The Case for Formalisation

Load-bearing language; recoverable authority; distinct epistemic grounding and structural authorisation (§1); epistemic debt; institutions and machines; formalisation as preservation; auditable claim packet; proportional formalisation; retrospective review.

GOT-V1-3c-7

GOT-V1-3c-7 - The Constitutional Governance of Formalisation - Issue 1.docx | sha16 a3540c539c730360

The Constitutional Governance of Formalisation

Governance of formalisation; constitutional/technical/application levels; application of Epistemic Authority inherited from 3b-5; custodial and operational applications of Structural Authority (§6); amendment, forks, certification, and capture controls.

GOT-V1-3c-8

GOT-V1-3c-8 - The Epistemic Method - Issue 1.docx | sha16 dc08048b02787be4

The Epistemic Method

Integrated relational audit of claim-strength and reliance-strength; indexed relation; claim and reliance paths; comparator, residual, reliance limit; preferential reliance and carrier-path preservation (§6); conditional Power/Responsibility audits; method-compliance is not closure.

P1-SD01

Part 1 - Concept Compression Map - Issue 1.docx | sha16 a256c5229849f993

Upstream architecture compression for NTC, BD, IPL, DTS, life-threshold and localisation discipline.

P1-SD02

Part 1 - Glossary - Issue 1.docx | sha16 e97712ced4e2b095

Upstream controlled vocabulary for inherited Part 1 terms.

P1-SD03

Part 1 - Guardrail and Failure-Mode Register - Issue 1.docx | sha16 794360cc1ff16519

Upstream comparator, localisation, source-lock, and anti-inflation guardrails.

P1-SD04

Part 1 - Bibliography and Relation Register - Issue 1.docx | sha16 7b0b194c1552979b

Upstream bibliographic relation-control reference only; no citation transfer into Part 3.

P2-SD01

Part 2 - Concept Compression Map - Issue 1.docx | sha16 eee99287e2cfaa10

Upstream control for RRP, signal, OP/OA/OR/RAS/RSD, knowledge, intelligence, observation, abstraction, scale, and observation-program architecture.

P2-SD02

Part 2 - Glossary - Issue 1.docx | sha16 b144e7dc2eac7133

Upstream controlled vocabulary for inherited informational and observational terms.

P2-SD03

Part 2 - Guardrail and Failure-Mode Register - Issue 1.docx | sha16 f955341321f11d30

Upstream failure-control for local locus, information/signal, observation, abstraction, scale, and descriptor discipline.

P2-SD04

Part 2 - Bibliography and Relation Register - Issue 1.docx | sha16 12dc458d0e940e8c

Upstream bibliographic relation-control reference only; no citation transfer into Part 3.

Protocol

Historical reference: GOT - Bibliographic Identification Classification and Adjacency Discovery Protocol - Issue 1(1).docx | sha16 03dec29bfa52830c

Retained classification context from the prior support release. This protocol file is not in the current supplied control set; its recorded hash is historical and is not represented as a newly verified source. Existing classifications are retained, with no new promotion of inheritance.

P3-SD01

Concept Compression Map - Issue 1.docx | sha16 874e44c76caf3061

Architecture compression and source-discipline control.

P3-SD02

Glossary - Issue 1.docx | sha16 8e0c4e96367405e7

Controlled vocabulary and canonical-home control.

P3-SD03

Guardrail and Failure-Mode Register - Issue 1.docx | sha16 eb6b6a5a864111dc

Failure-control and release-discipline reference.

Section 3a

21

20

Papers 3a-1–3a-2; horizon/unknown relations remain local.

Section 3b

29

29

Papers 3b-3–3b-5; Power/Responsibility/Trust relations remain distinct.

Section 3c

34

31

Papers 3c-6–3c-8; Formalisation/Governance/Method relations remain distinct.

Whole Part

84

77

Deduplicate identity only; preserve all 84 paper-local relation records.

Paper bibliography

Reader-facing scholarly apparatus.

The paper decides why a source is present; local endnotes state the relation.

Part bibliography

Deduplicated publication identity across eight papers.

One record per publication with occurrence markers; no flattening of local relations.

Relation register

Preserves source-to-paper relation actually earned.

Use local endnote/audit relation; no Part-level promotion by repetition.

Cross-paper controls

Expose exact duplicates and materially different uses.

Prevents authority transfer or silent inheritance.

Hold/exclusion branch-memory

Carries material candidates not admitted locally.

Preserves reasons/update conditions without publishing held sources.

Part residual

Carries search limits upward.

No exhaustive prior-art claim.

Series handoff

Feeds Series Master Bibliography and dependency/provenance controls.

Deduplicate identity again at Series level while retaining every Part/paper-local relation.

PB01

Albantakis, L., Marshall, W., Hoel, E., & Tononi, G. (2019). What caused what? A quantitative account of actual causation using dynamical causal networks. Entropy, 21(5), 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21050459

3b-3

PB02

Albantakis, L., & Tononi, G. (2015). The intrinsic cause-effect power of discrete dynamical systems—From elementary cellular automata to adapting animats. Entropy, 17(8), 5472-5502. https://doi.org/10.3390/e17085472

3b-3, 3c-8

PB03

Alfano, M. (2016). The topology of communities of trust. Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie, 15(4), 30-56. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2016-4-30-56

3b-5

PB04

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745

3b-5

PB05

Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569

3c-6

PB06

Bartlett, S. J. (2024). Causal leverage density: A general approach to semantic information. arXiv:2407.07335. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.07335

3b-3

PB07

Bloomfield, R., & Rushby, J. (2022). Assessing Confidence with Assurance 2.0 (CSL Technical Report SRI-CSL-2022-02). SRI International.

3c-6

PB08

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press.

3c-6

PB09

Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Clarendon Press.

3b-3

PB10

Cartwright, N., Hardie, J., Montuschi, E., Soleiman, M., & Thresher, A. C. (2022). The tangle of science: Reliability beyond method, rigour, and objectivity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198866343.001.0001

3c-8

PB11

Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15(366), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns-15.366.92

3a-2

PB12

Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004). Responsibility and blame: A structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1391

3b-4, 3c-8

PB13

Cihon, P., Kleinaltenkamp, M. J., Schuett, J., & Baum, S. D. (2021). AI certification: Advancing ethical practice by reducing information asymmetries. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(4), 200-209.

3c-7

PB14

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303

3b-3

PB15

Douglas, H. E. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559-579. https://doi.org/10.1086/392855

3a-2

PB16

Elish, M. C. (2019). Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5, 40-60. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2019.260

3b-4

PB17

Fearnley, L. C. A. (2026). Causal responsibility through omission. American Philosophical Quarterly, 63(3), 281-294. https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.63.3.06

3b-4

PB18

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288

3a-2

PB19

Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213-237). Basil Blackwell.

3b-5

PB20

Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723

3c-6

PB21

Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713319

3b-5

PB22

Gilly, T. (2026). Reviewed for quality and security: Advertising injection through a verified connector, trust laundering, and the limits of directory verification. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7130058

3b-5

PB23

Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692

3a-1

PB24

Gross, M. (2007). The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 55(5), 742-759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928

3a-2

PB25

Habets, D., Rietveld, E., Kiverstein, J., & Denys, D. (2024). Trusted urban places. Adaptive Behavior, 32(5), 421-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/10597123241229735

3b-5

PB26

Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007

3b-5

PB27

Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press.

3c-7

PB28

Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Clarendon Press.

3b-4

PB29

Hawley, K. (2014). Trust, distrust and commitment. Noûs, 48(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12000

3b-5

PB30

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

3c-7

PB31

Hu, J., Huang, X., He, Q., Sun, Y., Dong, Y., & Huang, X. (2026). Responsible agentic AI requires explicit provenance. arXiv:2605.17169. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.17169

3b-4

PB32

Humphreys, P. (2009). The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese, 169(3), 615-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9435-2

3a-1

PB33

Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy, first book: General introduction to a pure phenomenology (F. Kersten, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7445-6

3a-1

PB34

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.

3a-1

PB35

Ionescu, T. B., Schlund, S., & Schmidbauer, C. (2019). Epistemic debt: A concept and measure of technical ignorance in smart manufacturing. In I. L. Nunes (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction (pp. 81–93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20040-4_8

3c-6

PB36

Johansson, I.-L., & Baldvinsdottir, G. (2003). Accounting for trust: Some empirical evidence. Management Accounting Research, 14(3), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1044-5005(03)00045-3

3b-5

PB37

Klyubin, A. S., Polani, D., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2005). Empowerment: A universal agent-centric measure of control. 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 1, 128-135. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2005.1554676

3b-3

PB38

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499

3c-8

PB39

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). University of Chicago Press.

3a-1, 3a-2

PB40

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

3b-5

PB41

Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/MR1626

3a-2

PB42

Li, H. (2026). The calibration turn in AI-assisted research: A conceptual and methodological framework for evidence-licensed claims. arXiv:2606.31273.

3c-6

PB43

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation.

3c-6

PB44

Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). Routledge.

3a-2

PB45

Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.

3c-7

PB46

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: Two works (H. Davis, J. Raffan, & K. Rooney, Trans.). John Wiley & Sons.

3b-5

PB47

Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical inference as severe testing: How to get beyond the statistics wars. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107286184

3c-8

PB48

Merton, R. K. (1987). Three fragments from a sociologist's notebooks: Establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.000245

3a-2

PB49

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

3c-7

PB50

Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596

3c-6

PB51

Moreau, L., Groth, P., Cheney, J., Lebo, T., & Miles, S. (2015). The rationale of PROV. Web Semantics, 35, 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2015.04.001

3c-8

PB52

Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639315

3c-6

PB53

Nyman, L. (2015). Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software: An Examination of Code Forking, Its Effect on Open Source Software, and How It Is Viewed and Practiced by Developers. Hanken School of Economics.

3c-7

PB54

O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079-1106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27169153

3c-7

PB55

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press.

3c-7

PB56

Parrondo, J. M. R., Horowitz, J. M., & Sagawa, T. (2015). Thermodynamics of information. Nature Physics, 11(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3230

3b-3

PB57

Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.347

3a-1

PB58

Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001

3c-6, 3c-7, 3c-8

PB59

Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

3c-6

PB60

Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1086/287231

3a-2, 3c-8

PB61

Sahdev, D., Sundararaman, R., & Modgil, M. S. (2006). The Gödel universe: A practical travel guide. arXiv:gr-qc/0611093. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.gr-qc/0611093

3a-1

PB62

Sartorio, C. (2004). How to be responsible for something without causing it. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2004.00031.x

3b-4

PB63

Selbst, A. D., boyd, d., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598

3c-6

PB64

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852

3a-1

PB65

Smithson, M. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3628-3

3a-2

PB66

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

3b-5

PB67

Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford University Press.

3a-2

PB68

Stewart, K. J. (2003). Trust transfer on the World Wide Web. Organization Science, 14(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.5.12810

3b-5

PB69

Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003160

3c-7

PB70

Szangolies, J. (2018). Epistemic horizons and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 48(12), 1669-1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-018-0221-9

3a-1

PB71

Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905-916. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954312

3b-4

PB72

Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science, 27(2), 273-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631297027002003

3c-7

PB73

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

3c-6, 3c-8

PB74

Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31(3), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90036-1

3c-8

PB75

Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing. Cambridge University Press.

3b-5

PB76

Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty (G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright, Eds.; D. Paul & G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Basil Blackwell.

3b-5

PB77

Wolpert, D. H. (2008). Physical limits of inference. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 237(9), 1257-1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2008.03.040

3a-1

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). University of Chicago Press.

3a-1: C / OVL / 0; §11, endnote 8. Paradigm stabilisation and retrospective reconstruction provide a science-historical specialisation of stabilisation and lost branch visibility; paradigm theory is not inherited.
3a-2: C / OVL / 0; §11, endnote 7. Paradigm stabilisation supplies a science-historical comparator for retrospective inevitability. The paper generalises stabilisation and branch-memory without inheriting paradigm theory.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1086/287231

3a-2: C / OVL / 0; §10, endnote 5. Inductive risk makes consequences of error relevant to acceptance. This paper keeps action thresholds under residual distinct from stronger truth or explanatory closure.
3c-8: C / SPEC / 0; §8, endnote 7. Inductive risk specialises consequence-sensitive acceptance and action thresholds. Action under residual remains distinct from truth or closure status.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

Albantakis, L., & Tononi, G. (2015). The intrinsic cause-effect power of discrete dynamical systems—From elementary cellular automata to adapting animats. Entropy, 17(8), 5472-5502. https://doi.org/10.3390/e17085472

3b-3: C / OVL / 0; §5, endnote 4. Intrinsic cause-effect power is a comparator for physically constrained counterfactual fields. CIF does not inherit IIT’s intrinsic integration requirements.
3c-8: C / SPEC / 0; §4, endnote 3. Intrinsic cause-effect repertoires formally specialise physically supported counterfactual possibility fields in conditional Power audits. IIT is not inherited as technical ground.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004). Responsibility and blame: A structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1391

3b-4: C / OVL / 0; §7, endnote 4. Structural-model degrees of responsibility are an examined comparator. The Responsibility Gradient is ordinal and relational, not their universal scalar allocation.
3c-8: C / SPEC / 0; §4, endnote 3. Structural-model responsibility formally specialises conditional counterfactual attribution. TEM retains NTC/IPL/Power and Provenance/Warrant distinctions without inheriting a universal scalar.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001

3c-6: C / SPEC / 0; §10, endnote 9. Institutional auditing supplies a critical comparator for proportional formalisation. Forms, compliance, and auditability must not replace relation-preservation.
3c-7: C / SPEC / 0; §2, endnote 1. Verification limits and dysfunctional audit effects supply a comparator for form-as-authority. Governance retains relation-preservation, residual, comparison, safeguard, and update.
3c-8: C / SPEC / 0; §9, endnote 8. Institutional auditing is a direct comparator for method-compliance hardening into compliance ritual. Procedural completion does not establish relation-preservation.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

3c-6: C / SPEC / 0; §9, endnote 7. Structured practical justification is a historical comparator. The claim packet does not adopt the Toulmin model and includes distinct finite-access and reliance-path burdens.
3c-8: C / OVL / 0; §2, endnote 1. Practical argumentation is a structural neighbour. The claim path additionally carries indexed finite-access, carrier, reliance, residual, safeguard, and update burdens without adopting the Toulmin framework.

Same publication identity; each paper-local relation remains separately recoverable. Recurrence does not strengthen inheritance.

PB23

3a-1

Gödel

—

F / DEP / 1

§9, endnote 7. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is the exact formal exemplar and a narrowly scoped operational dependency. The wider horizon grammar is not inherited from Gödel.

PB32

3a-1

Humphreys

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§6, endnote 4. Computational epistemic opacity supplies a procedural-path comparator. Procedural Availability Horizon generalises beyond computation and remains distinct from internally disclosed closure limits.

PB33

3a-1

Husserl

—

P / N-A / 0

§3, endnote 1. Horizon terminology has phenomenological provenance. The paper’s locus-relative, non-conscious availability/closure grammar is not inherited from phenomenology.

PB34

3a-1

Hutchins

A3

C / OVL / 0

§6, endnote 3. Distributed cognition provides a comparator for coupled loci. Coupling here does not establish a distributed mind or cognition.

PB39

3a-1

Kuhn

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 8. Paradigm stabilisation and retrospective reconstruction provide a science-historical specialisation of stabilisation and lost branch visibility; paradigm theory is not inherited.

PB57

3a-1

Platt

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§11, endnote 9. Discriminating alternatives through strong inference specialises comparator discipline. The paper generalises beyond empirical hypotheses and distinguishes epistemic alternatives from causal branches.

PB61

3a-1

Sahdev

—

P / N-A / 0

§8, endnote 5. Terminological disambiguation only: the Gödel-spacetime use of “Gödel horizon” is unrelated to this epistemic and methodological grammar.

PB64

3a-1

Simon

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§4, endnote 2. Bounded rationality supplies a restricted decision-theoretic comparator. Soft Horizon generalises purpose-indexed provisional closure and retains residual and update; no bounded-rationality machinery is inherited.

PB70

3a-1

Szangolies

A3

C / OVL / 0

§8, endnote 6. Quantum-foundational epistemic horizons are an examined comparator. The broader typed availability/closure grammar inherits no quantum or categorical machinery.

PB77

3a-1

Wolpert

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§13, endnote 10. Physical inference limits supply a formal specialisation. The claim that finite systems move rather than abolish horizons does not adopt the inference-device formalism.

PB11

3a-2

Chamberlin

—

P / N-A / 0

§7, endnote 3. Multiple working hypotheses provide a methodological precursor. The live field adds admissibility, positive exclusion, heterogeneous weighting, residual, and branch-memory.

PB15

3a-2

Douglas

A3

C / OVL / 0

§10, endnote 5. Inductive risk makes consequences of error relevant to acceptance. This paper keeps action thresholds under residual distinct from stronger truth or explanatory closure.

PB18

3a-2

Fischhoff

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 7. Hindsight bias supplies a comparator for outcome knowledge distorting what was previously knowable. Preserve contemporaneous alternatives and avoid retrospective inevitability.

PB24

3a-2

Gross

A3

C / OVL / 0

§2, endnote 1. Differentiated and dynamic not-knowing supplies an unknown-status comparator. This paper indexes unknown-status to relation, locus, availability, and closure demand without technical inheritance.

PB39

3a-2

Kuhn

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 7. Paradigm stabilisation supplies a science-historical comparator for retrospective inevitability. The paper generalises stabilisation and branch-memory without inheriting paradigm theory.

PB41

3a-2

Lempert

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§10, endnote 6. Robust adaptive policy under deep uncertainty specialises corrigible action. The quantitative decision method is not inherited.

PB44

3a-2

Lipton

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§9, endnote 4. Inference to the best explanation is a comparator. Best Available Formulation is broader in purpose and weaker in closure; explanatory bestness does not supply truth.

PB48

3a-2

Merton

—

P / N-A / 0

§6, endnote 2. Specified ignorance is historical provenance for making unknowns inquiry-directing. Residual adds an unmet closure condition, a blocked stronger claim, and an update route.

PB60

3a-2

Rudner

A3

C / OVL / 0

§10, endnote 5. Inductive risk makes consequences of error relevant to acceptance. This paper keeps action thresholds under residual distinct from stronger truth or explanatory closure.

PB65

3a-2

Smithson

A3

C / OVL / 0

§2, endnote 1. Differentiated and dynamic not-knowing supplies an unknown-status comparator. This paper indexes unknown-status to relation, locus, availability, and closure demand without technical inheritance.

PB67

3a-2

Stanford

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 7. Unconceived alternatives challenge the inference that eliminating considered candidates exhausts the serious live field. Finite-field incompleteness remains residual.

PB01

3b-3

Albantakis

A3

C / OVL / 0

§8, endnote 5. Actual-causation exclusion is a comparator, not this paper’s Counterfactual Exclusion: a relevant alternative already in the CIF is not equivalently realised. No IIT formalism is imported.

PB02

3b-3

Albantakis

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 4. Intrinsic cause-effect power is a comparator for physically constrained counterfactual fields. CIF does not inherit IIT’s intrinsic integration requirements.

PB06

3b-3

Bartlett

A3

C / OVL / 0

§3, endnote 1. Causal leverage density is an intervention-based semantic-information comparator. Primitive Power instead uses NTC/IPL-localised branch potential without requiring semantic status, viability, or a universal scalar.

PB09

3b-3

Cartwright

A3

C / OVL / 0

§4, endnote 2. Causal capacities provide a potential-before-manifestation comparator. Primitive Power retains its own IPL, operative-distinction, comparator, and branch-field discriminator.

PB14

3b-3

Dahl

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 7. Relational social power supplies a counterfactual difference-making comparator. Primitive Power requires no person, intention, compliance, or social role.

PB37

3b-3

Klyubin

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§5, endnote 3. Empowerment is an agent-centric action-channel specialisation of potential influence. CIF requires neither an agent, sensorimotor loop, nor scalar channel capacity.

PB56

3b-3

Parrondo

—

F / DEP / 1

§9, endnote 6. Narrow thermodynamic dependency for physical carriers, work, entropy, and lawful energetic accounting. The distinction-conditioned branch architecture is not inferred from thermodynamics alone.

PB12

3b-4

Chockler

A3

C / OVL / 0

§7, endnote 4. Structural-model degrees of responsibility are an examined comparator. The Responsibility Gradient is ordinal and relational, not their universal scalar allocation.

PB16

3b-4

Elish

A3

C / CON / 0

§10, endnote 7. Moral crumple zones specialise proximity and role distortions. The audit must recover distributed transformations rather than assign provenance from the nearest accountable human.

PB17

3b-4

Fearnley

A3

C / OVL / 0

§8, endnote 5. Omission responsibility supplies a non-application comparator. This paper additionally requires Immediate-Frame availability, governance of application or withholding, and material contribution under comparison.

PB28

3b-4

Hart

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§10, endnote 6. The responsibility taxonomy is a precursor to separating causal contribution, role, and liability. The Provenance/Warrant distinction is not inherited from that taxonomy.

PB31

3b-4

Hu

—

P / N-A / 0

§5, endnote 2. Agentic-AI responsibility provenance is a functionally significant adjacency and independent convergence. The primitive locus-indexed account does not inherit its tensor or agentic framework.

PB62

3b-4

Sartorio

A3

C / CON / 0

§2, endnote 1. Moral responsibility without causation is an adversarial boundary comparator. Primitive Responsibility remains causal-attributional; mature Responsibility Warrants may use additional grounds.

PB71

3b-4

Thompson

A3

C / OVL / 0

§6, endnote 3. The many-hands problem supplies a mature-domain comparator for distributed responsibility. Provenance remains a graph of local distinction-conditioned transformations.

PB03

3b-5

Alfano

—

P / N-A / 0

§7, endnote 6. Exact-term provenance for vicarious trust in mediated interpersonal reliance with delegation and ratification. The paper generalises to outsourced closure-work across persons and other carriers.

PB04

3b-5

Baier

A3

C / CON / 0

§10, endnote 9. Vulnerability and betrayal in mature interpersonal trust provide adversarial scope pressure. Primitive reliance closure is intentionally lower-level; mature normative structures are recovered separately.

PB19

3b-5

Gambetta

A3

C / OVL / 0

§6, endnote 5. Expectation under uncertainty supplies a threshold comparator. The paper’s trust threshold is not inherently probabilistic or restricted to agent-to-agent relations.

PB21

3b-5

Gillespie

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§11, endnote 10. Organisational trust repair specialises correction of failure-generating conditions. General repair must restore, narrow, or refuse reduced audit; reassurance alone is insufficient.

PB22

3b-5

Gilly

A3

C / OVL / 0

§10, endnote 8. Platform-specific trust laundering is an examined comparator and independent-convergence candidate. No developmental dependence or inheritance is established.

PB25

3b-5

Habets

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 4. Basic trust in skilled environmental engagement is a human ecological comparator. The paper grounds a broader retained and updateable reliance function under residual.

PB26

3b-5

Hardwig

A3

C / OVL / 0

§7, endnote 6. Epistemic dependence is a comparator for reliance where individuals cannot reconstruct all evidence locally. Outsourced closure-work retains residual and refuses automatic warrant transfer.

PB29

3b-5

Hawley

A3

C / CON / 0

§10, endnote 9. The commitment-based distinction between trust and mere reliance supplies adversarial scope pressure. The paper explicitly uses a lower reliance-closure function.

PB36

3b-5

Johansson

—

P / N-A / 0

§9, endnote 7. Prior trust-carrier terminology in organisational accounting is acknowledged. Carrier status is generalised while reliance-strength remains distinct from Responsibility Provenance.

PB40

3b-5

Lee

A3

C / OVL / 0

§12, endnote 11. Human-automation trust specialises calibration of reliance. The paper generalises carrier, residual, threshold, safeguard, update, and affected-locus controls without inheriting a human-factors primitive.

PB46

3b-5

Luhmann

—

P / N-A / 0

§2, endnote 2. Social complexity reduction supplies a precursor. Branch-space economy is broader, indexed to finite locus, closure demand, residual, threshold, audit, and update; systems theory is not inherited.

PB66

3b-5

Sperber

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§3, endnote 3. Epistemic vigilance specialises rechecking in communication. Primitive audit extends relation-revalidation beyond communicative, propositional, or human cases.

PB68

3b-5

Stewart

—

P / N-A / 0

§9, endnote 7. Trust transfer through organisational association and linkage is a separate provenance relation. The paper generalises carrier-mediated reliance without transferring Responsibility Provenance.

PB75

3b-5

Walker

A3

C / CON / 0

§10, endnote 9. Moral repair of damaged normative trust supplies adversarial scope pressure. The paper distinguishes primitive trust failure from richer agency- and norm-sensitive repair.

PB76

3b-5

Wittgenstein

—

P / N-A / 0

§2, endnote 1. Practical limits to repeated justification provide philosophical provenance. The finite-locus reliance account inherits no language-game epistemology and does not make continuation closure.

PB05

3c-6

Baron

—

E / N-A / 1

§12, endnote 11. Outcome-bias evidence supports the separation of decision quality from outcome success. It is an empirical operational dependency only, without wider framework inheritance.

PB07

3c-6

Bloomfield

A3

C / OVL / 0

§9, endnote 8. Assurance 2.0 is a close methodological specialisation organising claims, evidence, defeaters, and residual doubts. The paper generalises beyond assurance of critical properties.

PB08

3c-6

Bowker

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 4. Infrastructural classifications and standards supply a comparator. TEM adds the recoverable relation, locus, abstraction, evidence, residual, safeguard, and update burden.

PB20

3c-6

Gebru

—

P / N-A / 0

§7, endnote 6. Dataset documentation specialises provenance, composition, intended use, and limitations. The general claim packet carries additional relation, closure, comparison, residual, and action burdens.

PB35

3c-6

Ionescu

—

P / N-A / 0

§4, endnote 3. Epistemic debt as accumulated technical ignorance in smart manufacturing supplies prior terminology. The present usage concerns deferred grounding of load-bearing claims; no inheritance is claimed.

PB42

3c-6

Li

—

P / N-A / 0

§4, endnote 3. Epistemic debt as deferred verification in AI-assisted research is an independent terminology use. The present load-bearing-grounding account makes no priority or inheritance claim.

PB43

3c-6

Lipsky

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§3, endnote 1. Street-level discretion specialises situated judgement under rules and resource limits. The paper generalises recoverability of consequential judgement without inheriting the institutional theory.

PB50

3c-6

Mitchell

—

P / N-A / 0

§7, endnote 6. Model documentation specialises evaluation conditions, intended use, and limitations. The general claim packet carries additional relation, closure, comparison, residual, and action burdens.

PB52

3c-6

Nissenbaum

A3

C / OVL / 0

§3, endnote 2. Computerised accountability barriers are a comparator for non-transfer and non-erasure of responsibility. Responsibility Provenance/Warrant remains inherited from GOT.

PB58

3c-6

Power

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§10, endnote 9. Institutional auditing supplies a critical comparator for proportional formalisation. Forms, compliance, and auditability must not replace relation-preservation.

PB59

3c-6

Raji

A3

C / OVL / 0

§11, endnote 10. Lifecycle algorithmic auditing specialises prospective and retrospective recoverability. The general claim path does not make documentation or organisational audit epistemic warrant.

PB63

3c-6

Selbst

A3

C / OVL / 0

§7, endnote 5. Fairness abstraction traps specialise the failure of machine execution to repair upstream under-specification. The argument extends beyond fairness and machine learning.

PB73

3c-6

Toulmin

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§9, endnote 7. Structured practical justification is a historical comparator. The claim packet does not adopt the Toulmin model and includes distinct finite-access and reliance-path burdens.

PB13

3c-7

Cihon

A3

C / OVL / 0

§9, endnote 8. AI certification specialises the certification-closure guardrail. A certificate remains a scoped operational trust carrier with residual and re-audit conditions, not epistemic ground.

PB27

3c-7

Hart

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§7, endnote 6. Legal rules of change specialise amendment grammar. Legitimate epistemic revision requires demonstrated relational failure and comparative preservation, beyond authorised procedure.

PB30

3c-7

Hirschman

A3

C / OVL / 0

§8, endnote 7. Exit and voice supply an organisational-response comparator for dissent and alternatives. A method fork is not merely exit and dissent is not merely voice.

PB45

3c-7

Longino

A3

C / OVL / 0

§4, endnote 3. Social critical interaction supplies an objectivity comparator. Public challenge can expose relational failure but participation or consensus does not establish epistemic standing.

PB49

3c-7

Meyer

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§2, endnote 1. Institutional decoupling supplies a comparator for formal legitimacy without corresponding practice. Governance carriers must preserve recoverable relation rather than symbolic authority.

PB53

3c-7

Nyman

A3

P/C / SPEC / 0

§8, endnote 7. Competitive forks supply prior terminology and an open-source operational specialisation. A rival method must preserve comparison, residual, scope, and update to serve correction.

PB54

3c-7

O'Mahony

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§6, endnote 5. Corrigible authority in an open-source community is an operational governance comparator. Democratic or custodial authority may govern correction without creating epistemic strength by status.

PB55

3c-7

Ostrom

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 4. Institutional operational/collective/constitutional choice levels specialise level separation. The method’s own three levels do not inherit IAD or institutional rule-making authority.

PB58

3c-7

Power

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§2, endnote 1. Verification limits and dysfunctional audit effects supply a comparator for form-as-authority. Governance retains relation-preservation, residual, comparison, safeguard, and update.

PB69

3c-7

Stigler

A3

C / OVL / 0

§3, endnote 2. Regulatory capture is a restricted domain specialisation. The wider capture account covers pressures weakening relation-preserving burdens; no public-choice framework is inherited.

PB72

3c-7

Timmermans

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 4. Local universality specialises workable situated adaptation of protocols. It does not supply the method’s governance framework.

PB02

3c-8

Albantakis

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§4, endnote 3. Intrinsic cause-effect repertoires formally specialise physically supported counterfactual possibility fields in conditional Power audits. IIT is not inherited as technical ground.

PB10

3c-8

Cartwright

A3

C / CON / 0

§9, endnote 8. Heterogeneous scientific reliability supplies adversarial pressure against a universal method guarantee. TEM cannot replace domain judgement or create closure by completion.

PB12

3c-8

Chockler

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§4, endnote 3. Structural-model responsibility formally specialises conditional counterfactual attribution. TEM retains NTC/IPL/Power and Provenance/Warrant distinctions without inheriting a universal scalar.

PB38

3c-8

Knobloch

—

P / N-A / 0

§3, endnote 2. Relational uncertainty has prior interpersonal-communication usage. TEM uses a different indexed relation-preservation meaning; this is terminology provenance and disambiguation, not inheritance.

PB47

3c-8

Mayo

A3

C / OVL / 0

§6, endnote 6. Evidential severity specialises discriminatory comparator pressure. The method neither inherits error-statistical formalism nor restricts comparison to statistical inference.

PB51

3c-8

Moreau

A3

C / OVL / 0

§5, endnote 5. PROV-style provenance specialises recoverable entity/activity/agent paths. Provenance or record recovery does not by itself supply epistemic warrant.

PB58

3c-8

Power

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§9, endnote 8. Institutional auditing is a direct comparator for method-compliance hardening into compliance ritual. Procedural completion does not establish relation-preservation.

PB60

3c-8

Rudner

A3

C / SPEC / 0

§8, endnote 7. Inductive risk specialises consequence-sensitive acceptance and action thresholds. Action under residual remains distinct from truth or closure status.

PB73

3c-8

Toulmin

A3

C / OVL / 0

§2, endnote 1. Practical argumentation is a structural neighbour. The claim path additionally carries indexed finite-access, carrier, reliance, residual, safeguard, and update burdens without adopting the Toulmin framework.

PB74

3c-8

Ulrich

A3

C / OVL / 0

§4, endnote 4. Critical Systems Heuristics specialises explicit boundaries and affected parties. The method is broader than normative systems design and does not inherit that framework.

3a-1

Turing (1937); Clark & Chalmers (1998); Floridi (2008).

Retain as formal computability, extended-mind, and abstraction neighbours where locally redundant or scope-misaligned. Reopen only if those narrower relations become load-bearing in Paper 3a-1.

3a-2

Alchourrón, Gärdenfors & Makinson (1985); Knight (1921); Simon (1955); Walley (1991); adaptive-management literature including Williams et al.

Retain formal belief-revision, risk/uncertainty, satisficing, imprecise-probability, and adaptive-management neighbours. Reopen only if Paper 3a-2 adopts the corresponding formal or decision architecture.

3b-3

Woodward interventionism; Kolchinsky & Wolpert semantic information; control-theoretic controllability; Hoel causal emergence; Cheng causal-power accounts.

Hold where the neighbour either imports a stronger architecture, duplicates the admitted causal/potential comparators, or shifts from primitive branch potential into higher-order causal or control structure.

3b-4

Fan Mingdi terminology lead; Fischer & Ravizza; Matthias; van de Poel; Cheney-style provenance; Meliou-style responsibility/accountability formalisms.

Hold mature moral-responsibility, responsibility-gap, distributed-responsibility, and provenance programmes unless Paper 3b-4 adopts their stronger agency, normative, or formal machinery. Terminology-only leads remain non-published.

3b-5

O'Neill (2014); Jacovi et al. (2021); Mayer, Davis & Schoorman (1995); Giddens (1990); Ratcliffe (2008); Hoff & Bashir (2015).

Hold normative trustworthiness, explainability/trust, organisational, phenomenological, and automation specialisations where redundant with the admitted set or stronger than the primitive reliance-closure claim.

3c-6

W3C PROV / provenance standards; Gallie-style essentially contested concepts; Kroll et al. accountability; broader assurance/audit frameworks already locally redundant.

Reopen only if provenance formalism, contested-concept theory, or algorithmic accountability becomes a direct technical dependency rather than a comparator to recoverability.

3c-7

Lessig and wider code/regulation programmes; broader standards, accreditation, conformity-assessment, and institutional capture literatures.

Hold where operational governance is informative but does not improve the paper-specific discriminator: amendment and authority remain answerable to demonstrated relation-preservation.

3c-8

Metcalf et al. (2023); O'Neill (2014); Tim Kelly, Arguing Safety (1998); generic 'epistemic method', 'epistemic audit', and 'relational audit' term families.

Hold machine-specific accountability, normative trustworthiness, safety-case assurance, and generic terminology where they do not reproduce the full integrated audit architecture or are redundant with stronger admitted comparators.

3a-1

Further proof-theoretic families; phenomenology/direct realism; institutional ignorance; legal access; archival/lost alternatives; verification/interpretability; non-English and inaccessible work.

3a-2

Further formal revision/uncertainty calculi; risk traditions; adaptive management; imprecise probability; non-English/inaccessible scholarship; terminology-independent analogues.

3b-3

Control theory; interventionist causation; causal emergence; semantic information; agency/control measures; social-power genealogies; thermodynamic work-channel formalisms; unrecognised cross-disciplinary branch-potential analogues.

3b-4

Moral/legal responsibility; omission; distributed agency; accountability; provenance; responsibility gaps; formal causal responsibility; institutional allocation; non-English/inaccessible work.

3b-5

Attachment/developmental trust; phenomenology; games; fiduciary/legal reliance; legitimacy/certification; trust transfer and repair; machine trust; non-English/inaccessible work.

3c-6

Legal/administrative formalisation; public-sector discretion; standards/certification; organisational categories; assurance/safety cases; algorithmic audit; non-English/inaccessible work.

3c-7

Jurisprudential amendment; accreditation/conformity assessment; metascience; fork governance; public participation; verification/validation; AI certification; non-English/inaccessible work.

3c-8

Further formal epistemology; legal evidence; systems assurance; audit standards; reliability theory; methodology critique; domain-specific implementations; non-English/inaccessible work.

Citation does not transfer warrant

A publication remains evidence of a recoverable relation, not authority for the paper’s discriminator.

Adjacency does not imply inheritance

A2/A3 relations remain comparator/adjacency relations unless a separate inheritance audit promotes them.

Indexed Inheritance

No current Part 3 paper-level bibliography relation is promoted here to inheritance level 2.

Formal / technical dependency

Gödel (1931) is F / DEP / 1 in Paper 3a-1 for the formal incompleteness exemplar. Parrondo, Horowitz & Sagawa (2015) is F / DEP / 1 in Paper 3b-3 only for the thermodynamic ground of information processing/work/entropy. Neither transfers the wider originating framework.

Empirical dependency

Baron & Hershey (1988) is E / N-A / 1 in Paper 3c-6 for outcome bias; the wider decision-psychology framework is not inherited.

Provenance remains local

P-class entries recover terminology or intellectual provenance without importing external machinery.

Comparator pressure remains local

C-class entries state overlap, contradiction, or specialisation without becoming a Part-wide dependency.

Conditional audit repetition

Albantakis & Tononi and Chockler & Halpern recur in Paper 3c-8 because the integrated method audits Power/Responsibility claims; that repetition does not make their formalisms TEM dependencies.

Current paper lock

GOT-V1-3a-1 through GOT-V1-3c-8, all Issue 1: current filenames and SHA16 values match the eight canonical papers.

Directional support dependency

SD-01 -> SD-02 -> SD-03 -> SD-04; no circular hash dependency.

Paper-local authority

Paper endnotes/references remain authoritative for local reader-facing source relations.

Deduplication

77 unique publication identities from 84 local occurrences; duplicate identities remain explicitly controlled.

Inheritance

No Indexed Inheritance created by consolidation. Operational dependencies remain scoped and local.

Branch-memory

Held/excluded/scoped candidates remain recoverable with update conditions.

Residual

No exhaustive prior-art claim; search limits remain explicit.

Support scope

Only Papers 3a-1–3c-8 enter the Part 3 canonical support lock; contextual essays and downstream extensions remain outside it.

Release discipline

Any later saved edit to a source-locked paper or support document requires hash refresh and downstream reconciliation.