{ "cells": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 26, 11, 21, 16, 26, 16, 16, 26, 32 ], "trimmed_mean": 21.0, "stdev": 6.809, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document exhibits a fundamental tension between its stated mission to protect the weak from the strong and its specific statutes that institutionalize class-based inequality and vicarious punishment." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the text primarily enforces top-down authority, it includes a rare provision holding judicial officers financially and professionally accountable for errors in judgment." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text is largely silent regarding the friction between its humanitarian rhetoric and its harsh legal realities, acknowledging only the possibility of procedural failure within the court." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "The dominant handling is Glitched; the text fails Step 1 of the discriminator as it never engages the specific conflict between its 'protector' persona and its class-stratified penalties, allowing both to coexist without reconciliation." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two primary paradoxes—the inequality of protection and the punishment of innocent family members—remain entirely unaddressed, creating a stack of unacknowledged contradictions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 11, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text presents a fundamental tension between its stated mission to ensure 'the strong should not harm the weak' and its legal statutes that codify class-based inequality and vicarious punishment of innocent family members." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the code regulates behavior across social strata, the king is accountable only to the gods, and the legal protections for the lowest classes are significantly less than those for the 'free-born' or 'equals.'" }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document never acknowledges the friction between its egalitarian prologue/epilogue and the specific, hierarchical violence of the laws themselves, presenting the entire system as a unified 'rule of righteousness.'" }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Scripted", "note": "The text fails Step 1 of the discriminator because the 'righteousness' framing never engages the specific content of the class-based contradictions; it is a formulaic royal register that could be transplanted into any contemporary monarchical decree (Step 2)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 3, "note": "Three major paradoxes—protection vs. hierarchy, individual vs. vicarious guilt, and peace vs. total divine violence—remain unacknowledged, creating a stack that reinforces the document's absolute authority." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 21, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text presents a fundamental tension between the king's self-description as a protector of the weak and the specific statutes that mandate the execution of innocent children for their fathers' errors." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the king claims to be accountable to the gods for establishing righteousness, the legal framework primarily enforces a rigid downward accountability from subjects to the state and social hierarchy." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document never acknowledges the friction between its stated mission of universal justice and the institutionalized inequality and vicarious punishments it codifies." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "The text proceeds as if no tension exists between the 'protector' narrative and the 'vicarious harm' laws; the discriminator confirms a Step 1 failure as the handling never engages the specific conflict between these two poles." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 3, "note": "Three distinct paradoxes—protection vs. vicarious harm, wisdom vs. trial by ordeal, and mercy vs. draconian property laws—remain entirely unacknowledged, creating a stack of unaddressed structural tensions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 16, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text exhibits a tension between the prologue's claim to protect the weak and the laws themselves, which codify severe physical punishments and rigid class-based inequalities." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the code holds judges and communities accountable for specific failures, the ultimate authority of the king is framed as a divine mandate beyond human questioning." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not acknowledge the tension between its humanitarian rhetoric and its punitive, hierarchical legal applications, presenting them as a unified system of justice." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Scripted", "note": "The text uses standard royal and religious formulas to bridge the gap between ideal justice and harsh reality; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms it fails to engage the specific friction between these poles." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two primary paradoxes—protection vs. brutality and divine perfection vs. judicial error—remain unacknowledged, reinforcing a stack of managed royal presentation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text claims a mandate to ensure the 'strong should not harm the weak' while simultaneously codifying laws that value the lives and limbs of lower classes at a fraction of the elite and permit the execution of innocent children for their fathers' errors." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the king is accountable to the gods and judges are held liable for errors, the vast majority of the text establishes a rigid, top-down accountability of subjects to the state and social hierarchy." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text acknowledges the potential for future rulers to subvert the 'everlasting' laws, but it remains silent on the tension between its stated goal of universal protection and its tiered, class-based punishments." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "The document fails Step 1 of the discriminator; it never engages the specific tension between the 'righteous' protection of the weak and the institutionalized inequality of the penalties. These contradictory positions simply coexist without reconciliation." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two major paradoxes—the protection of the weak vs. class-based law and the claim of kingly wisdom vs. the use of trial by ordeal—remain entirely unacknowledged, reinforcing a stack of unexamined tensions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 16, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text exhibits a primary tension between the prologue's claim to protect the weak from the strong and the laws' codification of tiered justice based on social class. Additional paradoxes exist between the claim of divine, wise justice and the reliance on arbitrary physical ordeals for proof." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed among the king (to the gods), the citizens (to the statutes), and future monarchs (to preserve the monument). The epilogue specifically binds future rulers to the same legal standards under threat of divine curse." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "While the text acknowledges the potential for future rulers to subvert the law, it remains silent on the internal tension between its egalitarian rhetoric and its hierarchical punishments. The document treats the 'protection of the weak' and 'class-based valuation of life' as naturally compatible." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Scripted", "note": "The Rank 1 paradox (protection vs. inequality) is handled through standard royal tropes of the 'Good Shepherd' that do not engage with the specific hierarchical penalties of the laws. This was decided at Step 1, as the text never reconciles the universal mandate with the specific class-based statutes, and Step 2 confirms the rhetoric is a portable genre convention." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two major paradoxes—the class-based inequality of 'righteous' justice and the arbitrary nature of 'wise' divine ordeals—remain unacknowledged. These unaddressed tensions reinforce a structure where royal self-presentation is decoupled from the functional mechanics of the law." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 16, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "A primary contradiction exists between the prologue's stated mission to protect the weak and widows and laws that mandate the execution of innocent children for their fathers' crimes (Laws 210, 230). Additionally, the claim of universal righteousness is undercut by a legal system that values human life and injury differently based on social class." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While the code holds judges accountable for errors (Law 5) and merchants for fraud, the overall structure is a top-down hierarchy where accountability flows from the gods to the king and then to the subjects. Recourse for the lower classes against the upper classes is limited to fixed financial compensation rather than equal justice." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never acknowledges the tension between its humanitarian rhetoric and its brutal, class-stratified applications. It presents the entire code as a unified expression of divine justice without addressing the inherent conflicts in its treatment of the 'weak'." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Scripted", "note": "The text fails Step 1 of the discriminator because the 'protection of the weak' claim never engages with the specific laws that sacrifice the innocent to balance a legal debt. The handling is decided by Step 2, as the 'righteous shepherd' framing is a standard, transplantable trope of Mesopotamian kingship used to neutralize the reality of the statutes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two significant paradoxes—the protection of the weak vs. vicarious punishment and universal righteousness vs. class hierarchy—remain unacknowledged. These unaddressed tensions are layered beneath a formal prologue and epilogue that serve to reinforce the king's authority rather than resolve the internal contradictions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains significant paradoxes between its stated goal of protecting the weak and its class-based legal penalties and vicarious punishments." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability is primarily top-down, though limited horizontal accountability exists for the community and legal accountability for judges." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document maintains a tone of absolute divine authority, never acknowledging the friction between its moral claims and its specific legal statutes." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "The text fails Step 1 as it does not engage the specific poles of the class-based paradox; it is Glitched because the contradictory claims simply coexist without handling." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Two major paradoxes regarding class hierarchy and vicarious punishment are left unacknowledged, creating a stack that contradicts the document's stated mission." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "A primary contradiction exists between the king's stated role as a protector of the weak and the legal code's systematic devaluation of lower-class lives and limbs." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed between the king (to the gods), the judiciary (to the law), and the citizenry (to the state and each other)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text acknowledges the possibility of its own destruction and judicial error, but it remains silent on the contradiction between its moral rhetoric and its stratified legal reality." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "The document fails Step 1 as it provides no passage reconciling the prologue's egalitarian mission with the laws' class-based penalties; Step 2 confirms the absence of a specific handling script for this tension." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One primary paradox regarding class status remains unacknowledged, while other tensions like judicial fallibility are explicitly addressed." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 72, 72, 52, 96, 76, 72, 52, 96, 72 ], "trimmed_mean": 73.14, "stdev": 15.62, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 72, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The document disperses a stable legal framework to the public, but the architecture terminates in the permanent concentration of divine authority and personal glory for the author, which constitutes terminal extraction." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The transition to a written, public code transfers the tool of legal interpretation to the citizenry, allowing them to navigate society with a degree of independence from arbitrary local rule." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The author's material interest in a stable and productive kingdom is entirely unacknowledged, with the code framed exclusively as a gift of divine righteousness." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals detected: benefit framing with no cost acknowledgment, personal stake systematically absent from all content, and claims that scrutiny of the speaker or his work represents harm to the cause." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author presents as a powerful, divinely-sanctioned protector; there is no evidence of an identity that requires the audience to remain in a state of perpetual victimhood." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 72, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The text establishes a public legal framework intended to protect the vulnerable and regulate society (service_outward), yet the framing is heavily centered on the king's divine right and the eternal preservation of his personal glory (extraction_inward)." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By providing a written, public standard for justice and commerce, the document allows subjects to understand their rights and obligations, reducing the unpredictability of arbitrary rule." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly identifies his role as the divinely appointed ruler and details his personal efforts in building infrastructure and maintaining religious institutions." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals include benefit framing without acknowledging the labor/tax costs to the populace, and the use of extreme manufactured stakes (divine curses) to prevent any future alteration of the author's legacy." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author presents himself as an all-powerful, divinely favored conqueror rather than a figure whose identity depends on the audience's continued state of victimhood." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 52, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The document provides a public legal framework to regulate society and protect the vulnerable (service), but the architecture terminates in the absolute authority and eternal glorification of the monarch (extraction)." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "mixed", "note": "It transfers analytical capability by providing a written, public code for citizens to understand their rights, yet it maintains structural dependence on a rigid social hierarchy and divine-right monarchy." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly links the laws to his own divine appointment, his desire for an 'everlasting kingdom,' and the preservation of his name and monument." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals include benefit framing without cost acknowledgment, and the use of extreme divine threats (curses) to prevent any scrutiny or alteration of the established power structure." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author adopts the persona of an irresistible, divinely-favored conqueror and shepherd rather than one whose identity depends on shared victimhood with the audience." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document functions as a foundational act of state-building that disperses a predictable legal framework to the public to ensure social stability and the protection of vulnerable classes. While the author claims divine glory, the operative architecture terminates in a public code that limits arbitrary local authority and organizes the realm's commerce and justice." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By codifying and publicly displaying the laws, the text transfers the capability to understand rights and liabilities directly to the citizenry, reducing reliance on the arbitrary whims of individual judges or rulers. It establishes a 'rule of law' that allows individuals to navigate social and economic life with a degree of predictability." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly acknowledges his desire for eternal fame, divine favor, and a lasting legacy as a righteous ruler. He frames the preservation of the monument as essential to his own standing before the gods." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "The epilogue uses extreme 'urgency without evidence' through divine curses to prevent any alteration of the text, and the prologue utilizes 'benefit framing' that omits the costs of monarchical consolidation. However, these signals are secondary to the document's primary function of providing a public legal service." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author's authority is rooted in perceived strength and divine mandate rather than a structural need to maintain the audience in a state of perpetual victimhood for identity validation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 76, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document functions as a public dispersal of legal authority, moving power from the king's arbitrary whim into a codified, predictable system for the citizenry. While it centralizes the king's status, the architecture terminates in a stable social order where the 'rules of the game' are handed to the public." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "mixed", "note": "It builds independence by providing a written standard that citizens can use to evaluate their own cases and appeal against corrupt judges. However, it maintains structural dependence by reinforcing a rigid social hierarchy and grounding all justice in the king's divine mandate." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text omits any mention of the king's personal material gain, taxes, or palace wealth, framing his rule entirely as a burden of service to the gods and the people." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Signals include benefit framing ('salvation-bearing shepherd') and identity dependence, but these are subordinate to the primary structural goal of establishing a functional, public legal framework." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author presents as a 'mighty monarch' and 'irresistible warrior' rather than a victim, and the document seeks to establish a permanent legal architecture rather than maintaining a state of crisis." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 72, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The text establishes a public legal infrastructure to protect the weak and regulate society (service_outward), while simultaneously demanding eternal veneration and the absolute preservation of the King's personal legacy and monument (extraction_inward)." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By codifying and publicly displaying specific laws, the document transfers legal knowledge to the populace, allowing individuals to navigate disputes and understand their rights without constant, arbitrary intervention from the ruler." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly acknowledges his desire for divine favor, the expansion of his kingdom, and the eternal repetition of his name as the rewards for his governance." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals include the use of extreme divine threats to prevent any future modification of the legal system (retaining authority) and framing absolute monarchical power as a selfless service to the 'oppressed.'" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author presents as a divinely empowered and superior 'shepherd' rather than a figure whose identity is dependent on the continued victimhood of his subjects." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 52, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "While the prologue and epilogue are heavily self-glorifying, the operative architecture of the document functions to disperse a predictable legal framework to the public, replacing arbitrary royal whim with codified, accessible statutes." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The text provides citizens with the tools to evaluate their own legal cases and settle disputes, yet it simultaneously reinforces a rigid social hierarchy and absolute psychological dependence on the king’s divine mandate." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly acknowledges his desire for eternal fame, the preservation of his monument, and the validation of his status as a divinely appointed ruler." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals include extreme benefit-framing (the 'salvation-bearing shepherd'), the use of divine curses to prevent any scrutiny or alteration of the laws, and the demand for perpetual audience recognition." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "weak", "note": "The king adopts a paternalistic 'father' persona that offers genuine protection to the vulnerable while structurally maintaining the audience in a state of perpetual, flock-like submission to his authority." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document functions as a dispersal of authority by codifying and publishing laws that provide a predictable social order, moving power from the king's arbitrary whim to a fixed public standard. While the prologue is self-glorifying, the operative architecture terminates in a functional legal framework for the subjects' use." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By providing a written and public code, the document enables individuals to understand their rights, obligations, and the consequences of their actions without constant royal intervention. This transparency allows the populace to navigate the legal system independently of the ruler's immediate presence." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The author frames his role entirely as a divine mandate and a service to the gods and the people, omitting any mention of the personal or fiscal benefits the crown derives from the administration of these laws." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Extraction signals are present in the form of extreme penalties for harming 'court' or 'temple' property and the maintenance of a rigid social hierarchy, though these are secondary to the primary goal of establishing civil order." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The author presents himself as a triumphant and divinely empowered shepherd rather than a figure whose identity depends on the ongoing suffering or victimhood of his subjects." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 72, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The document establishes a public legal framework to protect the weak and regulate society (service_outward), while simultaneously codifying absolute monarchical authority and demanding eternal personal glory for the ruler (extraction_inward)." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By providing a written, public set of laws, the text transfers the capability to understand and navigate the justice system to the citizenry, reducing their reliance on the arbitrary whims of individual judges or officials." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The author explicitly states his interest in maintaining his divine mandate, his reputation as a 'righteous king,' and the preservation of his monument for all future generations." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Signals include benefit framing that omits the costs of absolute rule and the assertion that any scrutiny or alteration of the speaker's decrees constitutes a spiritual and physical threat to the dissenter." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The speaker adopts the persona of a 'shepherd' and 'protector,' but this is rooted in a claim of supreme strength and divine favor rather than a shared identity of suffering or victimhood." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 41, 57, 57, 67, 55, 41, 55, 49, 55 ], "trimmed_mean": 52.71, "stdev": 8.246, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 41, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The text utilizes a consistent casuistic (if-then) structure for individual laws, but the foundational premises and specific evidentiary bridges rely on logical leaps rather than argued connections." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 5, "distinct_type_count": 4, "note": "Detected Appeal to Authority (divine mandate as legitimacy), Non-Sequitur (trial by ordeal), Slippery Slope (epilogue curse chain), and Hasty Generalization (procedural failures equated to criminal character)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "The evidence provided for legal innocence (physical buoyancy) and royal legitimacy (divine calling) fails to structurally support the conclusions without unstated, unargued warrants." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient legal code; prologue and epilogue claims of divine mandate and the efficacy of ordeals/curses are read as literal assertions of the legal framework's validity." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four distinct fallacy types are used systematically to establish authority, determine guilt, and ensure the code's preservation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 57, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes a consistent casuistic structure, employing 'if-then' conditional logic to link specific prohibited actions with their mandatory legal consequences." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 3, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Detected Appeal to Authority in the divine mandate claims, a Non-Sequitur in the river ordeal trial, and a False Dichotomy regarding the failure to produce witnesses." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "The structural bridge between evidence and conclusion fails in instances where physical survival or divine selection is used to warrant legal and moral culpability." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient legal code; the preamble's claims of divine appointment are analyzed as literal premises for the king's legislative authority rather than mere metaphor." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Three distinct fallacy types (Categories 2, 3, and 7) are systematically integrated into the document's foundational justification and evidentiary rules." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 57, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "While the laws follow a consistent 'if-then' conditional structure, the foundational justification for the specific penalties and the code's overall legitimacy relies on divine decree rather than a reasoned argument for justice." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 3, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Detected Non-Sequitur (trial by ordeal), Appeal to Authority (divine mandate as legal warrant), and False Causation (supernatural consequences for altering the text)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "In the trial by ordeal (Law 2 and 132), the physical evidence of surviving a river is used to warrant a conclusion of innocence regarding unrelated crimes, representing a structural bridge failure." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre identified as an ancient legal code; the text is read literally regarding its procedural requirements and the stated causal relationship between divine favor and legal authority." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "The document exhibits a systematic reliance on three distinct fallacy types to establish authority, determine factual guilt, and enforce compliance through predicted consequences." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 67, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The document uses a consistent 'If/Then' conditional structure for legal prescriptions, but the underlying warrants connecting evidence to specific penalties are often logically disconnected." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 4, "distinct_type_count": 2, "note": "Detected Non-Sequitur / Irrelevant Warrant and Appeal to Authority." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "Several laws rely on irrelevant warrants, such as physical buoyancy (Laws 2, 132) or familial substitution (Laws 210, 230), which do not logically support the conclusions of guilt or individual liability." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a legal code; the text was read literally as a series of enforceable claims and mandates rather than as figurative or purely rhetorical prose." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Only two distinct fallacy types were identified, which does not meet the threshold for a systematic fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 55, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The document follows a consistent 'if-then' legal structure, but the internal warrants connecting evidence to conclusions are frequently logically disconnected or rely on supernatural intervention." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 4, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Detected central instances of Post Hoc (river ordeal as proof of guilt), Non-Sequitur (absence of witnesses as proof of malice; vicarious liability for a father's crime), and Appeal to Authority (oath as factual proof of loss)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document's legal conclusions often rest on unbridged leaps, such as treating physical survival in a river or a religious oath as sufficient factual evidence of guilt or property loss." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient legal code. Read as literal claims regarding evidentiary requirements, criminal liability, and divine mandate." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four distinct fallacious moves across three categories (Post Hoc, Non-Sequitur, Appeal to Authority) indicate a systematic reliance on non-logical evidentiary bridges." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 41, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The document utilizes a consistent conditional 'if/then' structure for its statutes, but the logical connection between the 'if' (evidence/action) and the 'then' (verdict/punishment) frequently relies on supernatural warrants or irrelevant metrics." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 5, "distinct_type_count": 4, "note": "Detected Appeal to Authority (divine mandate for the code's righteousness), Non-Sequitur (trial by ordeal and vicarious liability), Post Hoc (divine curses as a causal result of altering the stone), and Hasty Generalization (Law 11)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "Stated evidence such as physical buoyancy (Law 2), the identity of a relative (Law 210), or a procedural failure to produce witnesses (Law 11) fails to logically ground the conclusions of criminal guilt or moral character." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient legal code; while the prologue and epilogue contain figurative titles and metaphors, the divine mandates and sanctions are presented as literal functional claims that ground the code's authority and enforcement." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four distinct fallacy types are used systematically to establish the code's legitimacy, determine judicial outcomes in capital cases, and provide a causal framework for its preservation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 55, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The document follows a consistent conditional structure for its statutes, but the logical warrants connecting the conditions to the legal outcomes are frequently structurally invalid." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 4, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Non-Sequitur (ordeal as proof, proxy liability), Appeal to Authority (divine mandate), and False Dichotomy (witness requirement)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "The evidence provided (e.g., river survival or family identity) fails to logically ground the conclusions of guilt or specific punishment." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient legal code; the text is read as a literal set of statutes and justifications for royal authority." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Three distinct fallacy types (Non-Sequitur, Appeal to Authority, False Dichotomy) are used to structure the legal and moral authority of the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 49, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "The document utilizes a consistent 'if-then' statutory framework, but the logical bridges within many laws rely on supernatural intervention or irrelevant physical proxies rather than evidentiary reasoning." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 18, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Detected Appeal to Authority (divine mandate and oaths), Non-Sequitur (irrelevant warrants in ordeals and procedural presumptions), and Slippery Slope (unargued chains of divine punishment in the epilogue)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "The text relies on irrelevant warrants (physical outcomes of ordeals) and appeals to divine authority (oaths) to establish legal facts, creating a structural gap between the evidence provided and the conclusions reached." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre: Ancient Legal Code. The text is read as a literal set of statutes and a literal claim of divine right, with figurative language used primarily for rhetorical emphasis in the prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Three distinct fallacy types (Appeal to Authority, Non-Sequitur, and Slippery Slope) are used to establish the code's legitimacy, determine factual guilt, and threaten future violators." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 55, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "While the document follows a consistent internal logic of divine mandate and casuistic law, the overarching arguments for the code's perfection and permanence rely on structural leaps and suppressed alternatives." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 4, "distinct_type_count": 3, "note": "Detected Appeal to Authority (Prologue/Epilogue), False Dichotomy (Epilogue), and Non-Sequitur (Epilogue)." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "The evidence of the King's historical success is used to warrant the conclusion of the laws' eternal perfection, which is a relevance gap; additionally, the policy of unalterable law is supported by a suppressed middle ground." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is an ancient legal code; the laws are read as literal prescriptions, while the prologue and epilogue are read as literal claims of legitimacy and historical record." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes three distinct fallacy types (Appeal to Authority, False Dichotomy, and Non-Sequitur) to establish the absolute authority and permanence of the legal system." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 20, 27, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20 ], "trimmed_mean": 20.0, "stdev": 2.333, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text explicitly forbids any future ruler from altering the laws or the monument, framing the code as an eternally settled divine decree." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document presents its mandates with absolute certainty, citing divine appointment and 'well-considered' wisdom without any acknowledgement of potential error." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Consensus is manufactured through the assertion of divine will and cosmic order, leaving no room for human debate or social validation." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The code establishes rigid social hierarchies with asymmetric penalties and exempts the ruler's authority from the scrutiny applied to his subjects." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four confirmed signals of structural foreclosure and asymmetric standards trigger the weaponization stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 27, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text treats the laws as unalterable divine truths and explicitly forbids future inquiry or modification, threatening those who would change them with severe curses." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document projects absolute certainty regarding the king's divine mandate and the righteousness of the statutes, leaving no room for legal evolution or uncertainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "While it asserts a divine consensus and universal subject satisfaction, these are presented as axiomatic royal claims rather than demonstrated agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The king positions himself as the ultimate, unquestionable authority who is not subject to the same legal or evidentiary scrutiny applied to his subjects." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "The document confirms at least three signals: epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, and asymmetric standard setting, creating a structural closure of independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text frames the laws as divinely ordained and eternal, explicitly forbidding future rulers from altering or marring the edicts." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The king asserts absolute wisdom and perfection in his decrees, leaving no room for uncertainty or the possibility of judicial error." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Consensus is manufactured through the invocation of a divine pantheon, presenting the legal code as a cosmic mandate rather than a negotiated social agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document codifies explicit asymmetries, applying vastly different penalties and evidentiary weights based on the social status of the individuals involved." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "The text confirms four weaponization signals: epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, and asymmetric standard setting." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text explicitly forbids future rulers from altering the laws or marring the monument, framing the legal code as an immutable and final decree." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document presents the king's divine mandate and the absolute 'righteousness' of his laws with total certainty, lacking any hedging or acknowledgment of human fallibility." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Consensus is manufactured by asserting the unanimous will of a divine pantheon to validate the king's authority, rather than demonstrating earthly agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The code demands rigorous evidence and witnesses from subjects while treating the king's own claims of divine wisdom and authority as axiomatic and beyond scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four confirmed signals of foreclosure are present, as the text uses divine authority and existential curses to structurally prevent any independent evaluation or revision of the law." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text explicitly forbids any future alteration of the laws and frames the statutes as divinely settled and unchangeable. The epilogue treats any attempt to 'mar' or 'annul' the law as a spiritual and political threat deserving of curses." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document presents the king's divine mandate and the absolute 'righteousness' of the laws with total certainty, omitting any acknowledgement of human error or legal debate. Claims of divine favor are presented as objective, indisputable facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Consensus is manufactured through the assertion of divine decree from the gods rather than demonstrated through social agreement. The text erases any possibility of dissent by framing the laws as the will of the 'King of the Anunaki' and other deities." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document demands rigorous proof and life-threatening ordeals from subjects while treating the king's own premises and authority as axiomatic. There is a clear double standard where the ruler's claims are beyond scrutiny while the subjects' claims are met with extreme skepticism." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four confirmed weaponization signals are present: epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, and asymmetric standards are all structurally central to the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text treats the legal code as a final, divinely-sanctioned resolution and explicitly forbids any future alteration or questioning of the statutes under threat of extreme punishment." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The ruler projects absolute certainty in the righteousness of the laws, presenting them as perfect and his own wisdom as peerless without any hedging or acknowledgment of potential error." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Agreement is asserted through divine mandate rather than demonstrated through evidence or debate, effectively erasing the possibility of legitimate human dissent or alternative perspectives." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document demands rigorous evidence and compliance from subjects while treating the ruler's divine mandate and legal authority as axiomatic and beyond scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Five weaponization signals (Epistemic Foreclosure, False Certainty, Manufactured Consensus, Asymmetric Standard Setting, and Inoculation Tactics) are confirmed as structural elements." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text treats the law as a divinely finalized product and explicitly frames any future alteration or questioning as a spiritual crime punishable by divine curses." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document presents the king's divine mandate and the absolute justice of the code with total certainty, omitting any acknowledgment of human fallibility or legal ambiguity." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "The text asserts a manufactured consensus among the gods to validate the king's authority, erasing any possibility of legitimate dissent or alternative governance." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "While the code demands rigorous evidence and witnesses from common citizens, the king's own righteousness and divine selection are treated as axiomatic and beyond scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "The document confirms four weaponization signals—epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, and asymmetric standards—to enforce absolute compliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text mandates that the laws remain 'unaltered' for all generations and frames any future modification as a violation of divine order, structurally foreclosing inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document projects absolute certainty in the king's peerless wisdom and the divine perfection of the laws, with no acknowledgement of potential error or legal evolution." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document asserts a unanimous divine mandate from the pantheon to validate the king's authority, manufacturing an unchallengeable consensus that bypasses human agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The code explicitly codifies different legal standards and penalties based on social class, rejecting symmetry in the application of justice and the scrutiny of evidence." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four confirmed weaponization signals (Foreclosure, False Certainty, Manufactured Consensus, and Asymmetry) are structurally central to this absolute monarchical decree." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The text treats the legal code as a final, divinely-sanctioned truth, framing any future inquiry or modification as a threat punishable by elaborate divine curses." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "Absolute certainty is projected through the claim of divine mandate, with no acknowledgment of the potential for legal error in the code itself or the need for contextual adaptation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Consensus is manufactured by asserting the unanimous support of the entire pantheon and the total obedience of the 'four quarters of the world,' effectively erasing the possibility of legitimate dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document imposes strict evidentiary requirements and capital punishment for false accusations among citizens, while treating the king's own claims to righteousness and divine selection as axiomatic." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four confirmed signals of epistemic and structural foreclosure are present, as the text uses divine authority to systematically prevent independent reasoning or legal reform." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's 'pure and unconstrained will' (Clause 1) and the institutionalized right of subjects to 'distrain and distress' him by force (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the King to God and the barons, but also from the barons to their own tenants (Clause 60) and to the committee of twenty-five." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly acknowledges the possibility of the King being 'at fault' or breaking the charter, providing a specific legal mechanism to address this breach of trust." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The text integrates the paradox of sovereign accountability through the creation of a specific, non-generic enforcement body (the 25 barons); Step 1 decided this as the handling names and engages the specific articles of this document." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural paradoxes regarding power, law, and feudal hierarchy are all addressed through specific, interlocking clauses rather than being left unremarked." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's absolute sovereign authority and the legal mechanism in Clause 61 that allows subjects to 'distrain and distress' him." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed from the King to the barons, and notably in Clause 60, from the barons and clergy to their own dependents." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' and provides a detailed, self-aware framework for what happens if the King violates the agreement." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses an Integrated method; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms it engages the specific poles of sovereign power and legal redress through the detailed 'Security' clause (61)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary paradoxes regarding power and liberty are all explicitly addressed and codified within the text's legal framework." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's absolute sovereign authority ('pure and unconstrained will') and the legal mechanism for his subjects to forcibly 'distrain and distress' him (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the King to the barons, and Clause 60 explicitly extends these obligations downward from the barons to their own sub-tenants." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' and the possibility that the King or his officers might 'be at fault' or 'broken any one of the articles,' necessitating the security clause." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document handles the tension between royal sovereignty and legal constraint through Clause 61, which provides a specific, granular mechanism for enforcement; this was decided by Step 1 of the discriminator as it engages the specific poles of this document's conflict." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All identified structural paradoxes, including the tension between feudal hierarchy and universal liberties for 'freemen,' are explicitly addressed and regulated within the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's absolute sovereign authority and the legal right of his subjects to use force against him to ensure compliance." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed between the King, who is bound by the charter, and the twenty-five barons, who are empowered by the 'community of the whole realm' to enforce it." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly acknowledges the possibility of the King breaking the agreement and establishes a formal mechanism for 'distress' and 'distraint' to resolve such breaches." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document handles the tension of sovereign vs. subject through Clause 61, which names and engages both poles by legally authorizing rebellion to preserve the law; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms this specific engagement." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary paradoxes regarding power, class-based rights, and the use of force are all explicitly addressed and structured into the legal framework of the document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's claim of 'pure and unconstrained will' and the legal mechanism in Clause 61 that allows subjects to forcibly seize his property." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed from the King to the barons, and notably in Clause 60, from the barons and clergy to their own sub-tenants." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the potential for the King to break the agreement and provides a specific, detailed legal process for redress in Clause 61." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The tension between royal sovereignty and the rule of law is handled through a highly specific enforcement framework (the 25 barons) that engages both poles of the conflict; this was decided at Step 1 as the handling names the specific parties and mechanisms of this document." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural paradoxes regarding power and enforcement are all explicitly addressed and codified within the text's legal framework." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's 'unconstrained will' and 'forever' authority (Clause 1) and the legal right of subjects to 'distrain and distress' him through force (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed from the King to the barons, and notably from the barons to their own tenants in Clause 60, creating a reciprocal legal framework." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the potential for the King to break the agreement and provides a specific legal mechanism (the 25 barons) to address such a breach." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The tension between royal sovereignty and legal constraint is handled through a highly specific enforcement mechanism in Clause 61; this was decided at Step 1 as it engages the specific roles of the 25 barons and the King's person." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary paradoxes regarding authority, class hierarchy, and the use of force are all explicitly addressed and structured into the document's legal logic." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents a fundamental tension between the King's absolute sovereign authority ('we have granted... of our pure and unconstrained will') and the legal right of subjects to forcibly 'distrain and distress' the King (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the King to the barons, from the barons to their own men (Clause 60), and from royal officials to the law of the land (Clause 45)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' and the need for a 'security' clause (Clause 61) to ensure the King's compliance, showing awareness of the fragility of royal promises." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Classified as Integrated via Step 1; Clause 61 creates a specific, detailed mechanism (the 25 barons) that engages the specific poles of royal power and legal constraint rather than using generic platitudes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The document is remarkably transparent, explicitly naming the tensions between the crown and the subjects and codifying the resolution within the text itself." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's absolute sovereign authority ('unconstrained will') and his subjection to legal distraint by his subjects." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the King to the twenty-five barons, and from the barons to the 'community of the whole realm' who are compelled to assist in enforcement." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly acknowledges the possibility of the King breaking the charter and establishes a formal mechanism for the barons to 'distrain and distress' him." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The text engages the specific poles of sovereign power and legal constraint by codifying a detailed enforcement process (Step 1); it is not generic language as it names specific parties and timelines (Step 2)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural paradoxes regarding power, class-based rights, and the enforcement of peace through conflict are all explicitly addressed and regulated within the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the King's 'unconstrained will' and the legal right of subjects to 'distrain and distress' him through force." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the King to the barons, but Clause 60 also requires the barons and clergy to extend the same liberties to their own sub-tenants." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the potential for the King to break the agreement and provides a specific legal mechanism (Clause 61) to handle such a breach." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decided: The document engages the specific poles of royal authority and subject-led enforcement by detailing the exact process for 'distraining' the sovereign while 'saving harmless' his person." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary paradoxes regarding sovereignty, hierarchy, and the use of force are all explicitly addressed and codified within the text." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document represents a profound dispersal of power where the sovereign explicitly subordinates his authority to the 'law of the land' and grants a committee of twenty-five barons the right to 'distrain and distress' him to ensure compliance." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes objective legal protections, such as due process and the right to a judgment by peers, which provide subjects with the structural capability to defend their rights independently of the King's whim." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King acknowledges the 'quarrel' between himself and the barons and admits to the existence of 'unjust' fines and 'evil customs' that require immediate redress." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document is specifically designed to terminate arbitrary royal extraction of property, labor, and fines." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not foster dependency; rather, it creates a self-correcting legal mechanism (Clause 61) that empowers the audience to enforce the agreement against the author." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document functions as a structural dispersal of monarchical power, shifting authority from the King's arbitrary will to a defined legal framework and a representative body of barons. Clause 61 specifically empowers subjects to seize royal property to enforce the charter, representing a terminal dispersal of absolute authority." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes due process, trial by peers, and standardized measures, providing the citizenry with the legal tools to operate and seek justice independently of royal whim. It transfers the capability of legal judgment from the crown to the 'law of the land' and local juries." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly references the 'quarrel' with the barons and the need for the 'amendment of our kingdom' as the direct motivation for these concessions." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected; the document is explicitly designed to limit and regulate royal extraction of taxes, fines, and property." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is a formal legal surrender of power under duress rather than a narrative of a savior maintaining audience dependency." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document represents a structural surrender of absolute monarchical power, dispersing authority to the 'community of the whole realm' and establishing legal rights that terminate in the hands of the subjects rather than the crown." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes objective legal standards such as due process and judgment by peers, providing the audience with the analytical and legal tools to evaluate and check royal authority independently." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' with the barons and the necessity of these concessions to restore peace and amend the kingdom's governance." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the text is specifically architected to abolish existing extraction patterns, such as 'evil tolls,' 'unjust fines,' and arbitrary seizures of property." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain dependency; instead, it creates a 'security' clause that empowers the subjects to legally seize royal assets if the King fails to uphold his obligations." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document codifies a structural surrender of absolute royal authority, dispersing power to the law and a committee of barons who are empowered to 'distrain and distress' the King to ensure compliance." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By establishing due process, standardizing weights and measures, and defining fixed legal rights, the document provides the subjects with the tools to operate and defend their interests independently of the King's whim." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' with the barons and the need to 'allay' it, admitting to past unjust fines and seizures that must now be rectified." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain dependency; it creates a self-executing legal framework that allows the audience to enforce the King's obligations without his ongoing permission." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document codifies the surrender of absolute royal prerogative, dispersing authority to the 'law of the land' and a committee of barons empowered to seize royal property if the charter is breached." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes objective legal standards, such as due process and standardized weights and measures, which allow subjects to conduct affairs and seek justice without relying on the King's personal whim." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' with the barons and frames the concessions as a necessary means to restore peace and secure the kingdom for his heirs." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document is specifically designed to prevent royal extraction by limiting arbitrary fines, seizures, and non-consensual taxation." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain dependency; it provides the legal and physical mechanisms (Clause 61) for the audience to operate in opposition to the speaker if necessary." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document codifies the surrender of absolute royal prerogative, transferring legal authority and the right of enforcement to the barons and the 'community of the whole realm' through Clause 61." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes objective legal standards, such as due process and standardized measures, and creates a permanent enforcement mechanism that allows subjects to hold the sovereign accountable to the law." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' between the King and the barons and frames the concessions as a necessary means to restore peace and the 'amendment of our kingdom'." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected; the document is structurally designed to limit the King's ability to extract value through arbitrary taxes, fines, and seizures." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain dependency; it provides the structural and legal tools for the audience to protect their rights independently of the King's ongoing will." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document codifies a structural surrender of absolute monarchical authority, dispersing power to a council of twenty-five barons and establishing the 'law of the land' as a superior force to the King's will." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers operational capability to the subjects by establishing due process, standardizing weights and measures, and providing a legal mechanism for the community to hold the executive accountable." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' between himself and the barons, framing the charter as a necessary concession to restore peace and preserve his reign." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is specifically designed to terminate extractive royal practices, such as arbitrary taxation (scutage) and the seizure of property without immediate payment or legal judgment." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not maintain dependency; rather, it provides the barons with the explicit right to 'distrain and distress' the King, ensuring the audience has the power to enforce the terms independently." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document represents a terminal dispersal of absolute monarchical authority, establishing a legal framework where the King's power is subordinate to the 'law of the land' and subject to enforcement by a committee of barons." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers operational capability to the subjects by codifying due process, standardizing weights and measures, and creating a permanent, localized court system that functions independently of the King's physical presence or whim." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King explicitly acknowledges the 'quarrel' between himself and the barons and frames the charter as a necessary means to restore peace and secure the kingdom for his heirs." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document's primary function is the systematic abolition of extractive royal practices such as unjust fines, arbitrary seizures, and non-consensual taxation." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain dependency; rather, it provides the audience with the explicit legal and physical right to 'distrain and distress' the speaker to ensure compliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document represents a formal divestment of absolute monarchical prerogative, dispersing authority to the 'community of the whole realm' and establishing permanent rights for subjects." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes 'the law of the land' and 'judgment of peers' as objective standards, providing the audience with the legal and physical mechanisms to hold power accountable independently." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The King acknowledges the 'quarrel' and the necessity of these concessions for the 'better allaying' of conflict, framing the charter as a peace treaty where his own authority is the subject of negotiation." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected; the document is structurally anti-extractive, specifically prohibiting arbitrary seizures, unjust fines, and the withholding of justice." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no attempt to maintain dependency; the architecture explicitly empowers the barons to act against the King to ensure compliance." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a consistent 'if-then' or 'grant-and-confirm' structure, linking specific grievances or conditions to defined legal remedies and procedural mandates." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document functions as a prescriptive legal charter rather than a syllogistic argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated objectives of the charter (allaying the quarrel with barons and honoring God) are directly addressed by the specific concessions and the enforcement mechanism in Clause 61." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a 13th-century legal charter; its provisions are read as literal mandates and contractual obligations between the Crown and its subjects." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document functions as a systematic legal code, establishing specific rights and then providing a clear enforcement mechanism in Clause 61 to ensure those rights are upheld." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural logical fallacies were detected; the document consists of performative legal grants and procedural mandates rather than inductive arguments." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific legal provisions and the security clause (Clause 61) directly support the document's stated goal of establishing lasting peace and liberties." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a 13th-century legal charter; its provisions are read as literal legal mandates and sovereign grants rather than rhetorical arguments." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document employs a rigorous legal and procedural logic, utilizing conditional 'if-then' structures and clear step-by-step enforcement mechanisms, particularly in the 'Security Clause' (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document functions as a series of literal legal decrees, grants, and procedural mandates." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific legal provisions and procedural requirements (the 'evidence' of the grant) directly and logically ground the document's primary conclusion: the establishment of defined rights and liberties." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal Charter; the text is read as a series of literal prescriptive mandates and formal contractual obligations rather than figurative or rhetorical arguments." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a consistent prescriptive logic, utilizing 'if-then' conditional structures to define legal consequences for specific actions or statuses (e.g., Clauses 2, 9, and 61)." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document functions as a series of legal decrees and negotiated settlements rather than a persuasive argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific legal mandates and rights granted are structurally grounded in the King's stated intent to resolve the baronial quarrel and the invocation of 'ancient customs'." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a 13th-century legal charter; its provisions are read as literal prescriptive mandates and formal grants of rights rather than figurative rhetoric." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document consistently employs 'if-then' logical structures to define legal consequences, such as the specific conditions for inheritance relief in Clause 2 and the enforcement mechanism in Clause 61." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document functions as a series of prescriptive legal mandates rather than a persuasive argument relying on fallacious bridges." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The legal provisions and procedural remedies (conclusions) are directly grounded in the stated conditions and the sovereign's formal grant of authority (premises)." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional charter; its provisions are read as literal legal mandates and procedural rules rather than figurative or rhetorical claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes a consistent conditional logic ('If X occurs, then Y shall be the remedy') to establish legal protocols and rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document functions as a prescriptive legal charter rather than a persuasive or deductive argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific legal mandates and remedies provided in the clauses directly support the document's stated purpose of settling the quarrel between the King and the barons." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter/treaty; the text is interpreted as a series of literal, binding legal prescriptions and grants of rights within a 13th-century feudal context." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No logical fallacies were identified in the argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes a rigorous framework of conditional rights and procedural requirements, such as the specific summons process in Clause 14 and the enforcement mechanism in Clause 61." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies were detected; the document consists of performative legal grants and procedural mandates rather than deductive arguments." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The provisions for enforcement and the specific definitions of rights (e.g., Clause 39) directly ground the document's purpose of establishing a rule of law." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/Constitutional Charter; the text was analyzed as a literal set of contractual and statutory obligations between the Crown and its subjects." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document functions as a legal charter, establishing a clear logical progression from specific grievances to defined rights and procedural remedies (e.g., the enforcement mechanism in Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the text consists of literal legal mandates, definitions, and procedural rules rather than fallacious argumentative leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The provisions and enforcement mechanisms described (the 'evidence' of the King's grant) directly ground the established legal rights and the conclusion of the treaty." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter/treaty; the document was analyzed as a series of literal claims regarding law and governance, with medieval rhetorical formulas (e.g., 'granted to God') recognized as standard genre conventions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes a clear conditional and procedural structure, particularly in Clause 61, which outlines a logical sequence for addressing grievances and enforcing the charter's terms." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document consists of legal stipulations, definitions of rights, and enforcement procedures that maintain internal logical consistency." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific liberties and legal protections detailed in the clauses directly ground the document's overarching conclusion that the rights of the Church and freemen are established and protected." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter; the text was analyzed as a literal set of mandates and grants of right, with formal references to divine authority treated as standard 13th-century legal framing." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, indicating a lack of any systematic reliance on fallacious argumentative structures." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly establishes mechanisms for inquiry and fact-finding, such as Clause 48's inquests into 'evil customs' and Clause 61's process for notifying the King of faults." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While using the definitive language of a legal charter, the text acknowledges the potential for future disputes and provides specific, calibrated procedures for adjudication and redress." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus described is a negotiated peace treaty between specific parties (the King and the barons) to resolve a documented 'quarrel,' rather than a rhetorical erasure of dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a foundational example of symmetry, famously subjecting the King to the 'law of the land' and establishing the same legal standards for the crown as for its subjects." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document structurally functions to provide legal recourse and limit arbitrary power rather than to foreclose independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document codifies the right to legal inquiry and 'lawful judgment of peers,' establishing formal mechanisms for redress and dispute resolution rather than suppressing questioning." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While using the definitive language of a legal charter, the text acknowledges the possibility of error or dispute and provides for 'reasonable' assessments and judicial review." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus is grounded in the 'common counsel of the kingdom' and the specific, documented negotiation between the King and the barons, supported by witnesses and oaths." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly subjects the King and his bailiffs to the same legal standards and 'law of the land' applied to subjects, even allowing for the distraint of royal property for non-compliance." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally oriented toward establishing due process and limiting arbitrary power." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes a formal mechanism for scrutiny in Clause 61, allowing a committee of barons to evaluate and redress the King's potential breaches of the charter." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text frequently employs the standard of 'reasonableness' (Clauses 4, 12, 15) and provides for arbitration in cases of dispute, acknowledging that legal application requires situational judgment." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is explicitly presented as a resolution to a 'quarrel' and cites the 'common counsel of the kingdom' and specific witnesses to ground its legitimacy." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 60 ensures symmetry by requiring that the liberties granted by the King to his men be similarly observed by those men toward their own subordinates." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No foreclosure signals were detected; the document structurally prioritizes the establishment of shared legal standards over the suppression of independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly mandates inquiries into 'evil customs' (Clause 48) and establishes a committee of 25 barons to monitor and redress the King's potential faults (Clause 61)." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text frequently employs the standard of 'reasonableness' (Clauses 4, 12, 15, 20) and acknowledges the possibility of 'unjust' fines or actions that require correction." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter acknowledges the 'quarrel' between the King and the barons, grounding the agreement in a negotiated settlement between specific, identified parties rather than an assumed or manufactured unanimity." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 establishes a revolutionary symmetry by subjecting the King to the same legal accountability as his subjects, even allowing for the seizure of his assets if he violates the charter." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to open legal inquiry and limit arbitrary power." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document treats inquiry as a fundamental right, establishing mechanisms like the 25 barons (Clause 61) and local inquests (Clause 48) to scrutinize royal actions." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text avoids absolute claims by using 'reasonable' standards and providing for the 'lawful judgment of peers' to resolve contested matters." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Agreement is sought through 'common counsel' with specific summons procedures (Clause 14), ensuring consensus is demonstrated rather than merely asserted." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter applies the law to the King himself, allowing the barons to 'distrain and distress' him (Clause 61) if he violates the terms, ensuring symmetric accountability." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to prevent the foreclosure of independent reasoning and legal rights." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes formal inquests and a committee of 25 barons to investigate and redress royal transgressions, framing inquiry as a legitimate tool for justice." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text acknowledges the possibility of future disputes and royal failures, providing specific procedural mechanisms for resolution rather than asserting infallible authority." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is explicitly framed as a settlement of a 'quarrel' and includes a list of witnesses and mutual oaths to ground its authority in actual agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 60 mandates that the liberties granted by the King to his men must also be observed by those men toward their own subordinates, applying a symmetric standard of law." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document's structure is designed to prevent the foreclosure of legal and epistemic accountability." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly creates mechanisms for inquiry and redress, such as Clause 61, which allows a committee of barons to challenge and correct the King's actions." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text employs calibrated language like 'reasonable produce' and 'reasonable service,' and mandates factual inquests (Clause 48) rather than asserting absolute outcomes." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Agreement is grounded in the 'common counsel of the kingdom' and specific summons of stakeholders, reflecting a negotiated treaty rather than a manufactured assertion of unanimity." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 60 ensures symmetry by requiring that the liberties the King grants to his subjects must also be observed by those subjects toward their own underlings." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally oriented toward establishing due process and limiting arbitrary foreclosure of rights." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes formal mechanisms for legal inquests and a security clause (Clause 61) that allows for the King's actions to be scrutinized and corrected by a committee of barons." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text frequently employs the standard of 'reasonableness' and proportionality (e.g., Clause 20) rather than absolute or arbitrary mandates, acknowledging the need for contextual judgment." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly grounds its authority in the 'common counsel of the kingdom' and is witnessed by a broad assembly of peers and clergy, rather than asserting unilateral agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 60 ensures that the liberties and customs the King grants to his subjects must also be applied by those subjects to their own dependents, creating a symmetric legal obligation." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document functions as a foundational legal framework for establishing accountability and due process." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes a formal mechanism for the barons to challenge the King's actions (Clause 61), treating legal inquiry as a tool for accountability; this is CENTRAL and CONFIRMED." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses 'reasonable' as a qualifier for taxes and services (Clauses 4, 12, 15), acknowledging that obligations are subject to contextual judgment; this is CENTRAL and CONFIRMED." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document cites the 'common counsel of our kingdom' and lists specific witnesses, grounding its authority in a demonstrated political agreement; this is CENTRAL and CONFIRMED." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document's central premise (Clause 39) is that the King is subject to the same 'law of the land' as his subjects, applying a symmetric standard; this is CENTRAL and CONFIRMED." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to open accountability rather than foreclose it." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural tensions between the 'Blessings of Liberty' in the Preamble and the recognition of slavery in Article I and IV, as well as tensions between Federal supremacy and State sovereignty." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government, between the Federal government and the States, and between the government and 'the People' through the Bill of Rights." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly acknowledges the document's potential for future conflict or inadequacy by providing a formal mechanism for amendment and revision." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document resolves its most severe paradoxes (e.g., slavery vs. liberty) through the amendment process; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms integration as Amendments XIII and XIV specifically engage and replace the original contradictory clauses." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the original 1787 text contained unacknowledged paradoxes, the document as a whole (including amendments) has systematically identified and addressed these tensions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural tensions between universal liberty (Preamble) and the legal protection of slavery (Article I/IV), as well as between federal supremacy (Article VI) and reserved state powers (Amendment X)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government, between the federal government and the states, and ultimately to 'the People' through the amendment and election processes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly acknowledges the potential for future conflict or insufficiency by providing a formal mechanism for amendment and revision." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document resolves its most severe contradictions (e.g., slavery vs. liberty) through amendments that specifically name and replace the original poles; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms integration as the text engages the specific content of the prior contradictions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the original 1787 text contained unacknowledged paradoxes, the document as a whole utilizes the Article V mechanism to bring these tensions into the frame and resolve them." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental structural paradox between the Preamble's 'Blessings of Liberty' and the original legal protections for slavery in Article I and Article IV." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as between the federal government and the states." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The inclusion of Article V (the amendment process) and the subsequent ratification of amendments like the 13th and 14th show an explicit awareness of and mechanism for resolving internal tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document resolves its most severe paradoxes by returning to specific clauses and replacing them with new language (e.g., Amendment 14 replacing the 3/5ths clause), satisfying Step 1 of the discriminator through direct pole engagement." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While significant paradoxes exist, the provided text includes the amendments that acknowledge and resolve them, resulting in zero unacknowledged paradoxes in the document as a whole." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural tensions between the 'Blessings of Liberty' in the Preamble and the codification of slavery in Article I and IV, as well as the conflict between Federal Supremacy (Article VI) and State Sovereignty (10th Amendment)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government, between the Federal government and the States, and ultimately to 'the People' through the amendment and election processes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly acknowledges the need for a mechanism to resolve future tensions or errors through the amendment process, and subsequent amendments (13th, 14th, 21st) explicitly name and address earlier contradictions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document resolves its most severe paradoxes (slavery vs. liberty and prohibition vs. repeal) through amendments that specifically name and modify the original text; this was decided at Step 1 of the discriminator as the handling engages the specific content of both poles." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the original 1787 text contained unacknowledged paradoxes, the document as a whole (including amendments) acknowledges and resolves these tensions, resulting in zero unacknowledged paradoxes in the final state." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural tensions between the Preamble's 'Blessings of Liberty' and the legal protections for slavery in Article I and IV, as well as the tension between Federal supremacy and State sovereignty." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government, between the Federal government and the States, and ultimately to 'the People' through elections and the amendment process." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly acknowledges the potential for internal conflict or inadequacy by providing a formal mechanism for amendments to resolve such tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses the amendment process to return to and engage specific contradictory content, such as Amendment XIV explicitly replacing the 3/5ths apportionment clause (Step 1 decided)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the original 1787 text contained unacknowledged paradoxes regarding slavery, the document as a whole (including amendments) identifies and resolves these contradictions through specific legal revisions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the Preamble's goal of 'Blessings of Liberty' and the legal protections for slavery in Article I (three-fifths clause) and Article IV (fugitive slave clause)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed through a system of checks and balances between three branches, federal versus state authority, and the reservation of powers to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text shows explicit awareness of its own potential for internal conflict or obsolescence through Article V (the amendment process) and the explicit repeal of Amendment XVIII by Amendment XXI." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decided: The document as a whole resolves its primary paradox (slavery vs. liberty) through Amendments XIII and XIV, which specifically name and nullify the 'three-fifths' and 'service or labour' poles of the original text." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the 1787 draft contained unacknowledged paradoxes regarding slavery, the document as presented (including amendments) has systematically acknowledged and resolved these tensions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains significant structural paradoxes, most notably the tension between the Preamble's 'Blessings of Liberty' and the original text's codification of slavery (Article I, Section 2 and Article IV, Section 2)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed through a system of checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, as well as between Federal and State authorities." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly acknowledges the potential for internal tension or inadequacy by establishing a formal process for amendment and revision." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document utilizes an append-style repair mechanism where later sections (Amendments XIII, XIV, and XXI) specifically name and nullify the poles of earlier contradictions; this was decided at Step 1 of the discriminator." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the document contains multiple paradoxes, the inclusion of the full amendment record ensures that these tensions are explicitly engaged and resolved rather than left silent." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural paradoxes, most notably the tension between the Preamble's 'Blessings of Liberty' and the original text's codification of slavery in Articles I and IV." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government and between federal and state levels, creating a system of mutual checks and balances." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges its own potential for contradiction and the need for evolution through the Article V amendment process and the subsequent repeal of the 18th Amendment by the 21st." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses the Article V amendment process to specifically engage and resolve internal contradictions (e.g., Amendment XIV directly rewriting the Article I apportionment formula); Step 1 of the discriminator confirms this specific engagement." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The document as a whole contains 0 unacknowledged paradoxes among those scanned, as the amendment record provides a transparent history of tension resolution." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text contains significant structural tensions, most notably between the Preamble's 'Blessings of Liberty' and the original Article I/IV codification of slavery." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across three branches of government, between the federal government and the states, and between the government and 'the People'." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The inclusion of Article V (the amendment process) and the subsequent amendments themselves demonstrate an explicit awareness of the document's internal tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document utilizes its Article V process to specifically engage and rewrite the poles of its contradictions (e.g., Amendment XIV replacing the 3/5ths clause), satisfying Step 1." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "While the document contains multiple profound paradoxes, the provided text includes the amendments that acknowledge and resolve them; thus, no unacknowledged paradox stack exists." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's authority is explicitly derived from 'the People' and is structurally designed to disperse power back to the citizenry through regular elections and the reservation of non-delegated powers to the states and the people." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It establishes a transparent rule of law and a Bill of Rights that provides the citizenry with the legal and analytical tools to challenge authority, protect individual liberties, and participate in self-governance." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text omits the personal interests of the individual framers, framing the mission entirely as a collective service to 'the People' and their 'Posterity.'" }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No signals of terminal private value-capture are detected; the document includes explicit prohibitions on titles of nobility and mechanisms to prevent self-enrichment, such as the Emoluments Clause and Amendment XXVII." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on maintaining a state of audience victimhood or dependency; it seeks to secure 'the Blessings of Liberty' for a population it presumes to be capable of self-correction and amendment." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document passes the dispersal test as the framers' authority is exhausted in the act of creation, vesting power in public offices and the citizenry rather than retaining private privilege or terminal extraction." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text provides a transparent, rule-based framework and a Bill of Rights that transfers the analytical and operational tools of governance to the citizens, enabling them to evaluate and contest authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "While the authors are signatories, their specific personal interests or gains are not disclosed; however, per the altruism boundary, this is consistent with a service-aligned foundational charter." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No signals of terminal value capture, recurring fees, or manufactured dependency are detected in the operative architecture of the document." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on maintaining a victim-audience; it structurally aims to expand the capability and liberty of 'the People' and their posterity." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document establishes a system of delegated authority that terminates in the hands of the citizenry through elections and checks, passing the dispersal test by spending the authors' power to create a self-sustaining republic." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text provides a transparent, public rulebook for governance and a Bill of Rights that transfers the capability for legal and political self-defense directly to the individual." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document uses a collective voice ('We the People') and omits the private interests of the individual drafters, which is consistent with a foundational instrument of service." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No signals of terminal extraction are present; the document explicitly prohibits titles of nobility, limits compensation for officers, and provides for its own amendment by the people." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The structural effect aligns with the stated intent to secure liberty, as the architecture is designed to prevent the maintenance of a dependent or subject class." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture is designed for dispersal; authority is derived from 'the People' and spent in the creation of a system where power is periodically returned to the citizenry through elections." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The Constitution provides a framework for self-governance and explicitly reserves non-delegated powers to the states or the people, while the Bill of Rights protects individual analytical and operational agency." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational charter, the text focuses on the structural limits of offices rather than the personal interests of the framers, which is consistent with a service-aligned dispersal document." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document explicitly prohibits titles of nobility and includes structural checks (like Article I, Section 9) to prevent private value capture by officeholders." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on maintaining a victim-audience; instead, it establishes a mechanism for its own amendment and the active participation of the governed." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture is a terminal dispersal of power, where the authors' authority is spent to establish a system that vests ongoing control in the citizenry and rotating offices. It passes the dispersal test as it retains no private IP, recurring fees, or hereditary privilege for the creators." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text provides a transparent, public framework of laws and rights that enables the audience to govern themselves and hold officials accountable without further input from the original authors. It explicitly includes an amendment process that allows the audience to modify the tool itself." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The personal financial or political interests of the individual signatories are not disclosed within the text. Per the altruism boundary, this absence is consistent with a service-aligned founding document where power flows outward." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals such as manufactured urgency, identity dependence, or terminal value-capture for the authors were detected." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document's structural effect matches its stated intent to secure liberty, as it creates a mechanism for the audience to achieve independence from the governing structure's creators." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document passes the dispersal test as the framers' authority is exhausted in the act of creation, with the resulting power structure terminating in the hands of the citizenry and their representatives." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text transfers operational capability to the reader by codifying the rules of governance, the amendment process, and specific individual rights that limit state power." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The authors are explicitly identified as deputies of the several states, acknowledging their role as representatives within the established framework." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No signals of terminal extraction or private value-capture for the authors are detected; provisions for compensation are transparently regulated and tied to public service." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is a structural legal framework that establishes institutional checks and balances rather than a narrative designed to maintain audience dependency on the authors." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document meets the Dispersal Test for founding documents; the authors' authority is 'spent' in the act of creation, with power terminating in the hands of 'the People' and their 'Posterity' through a representative system." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text transfers operational capability for self-governance to the audience, providing specific mechanisms for elections, legal redress, and the amendment of the document itself without the original authors." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The authors do not disclose personal stakes, but per the Altruism Boundary, this is not a negative signal as the document's architecture is aligned with outward power dispersal." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document contains explicit structural barriers to extraction, such as the prohibition of titles of nobility and the Emoluments Clause." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain audience dependency; it provides the tools (Article V) for the audience to fundamentally alter or supersede the original structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document establishes a system of governance where authority is vested in temporary offices rather than persons, effectively dispersing the authors' power to the citizenry and their successors." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It provides a transparent framework for self-governance, including the Bill of Rights and Article V, which allows the audience to modify the document's own power structure." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The signatories are publicly identified, and the text explicitly defines and limits the compensation and legal privileges of those holding the offices it creates." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No terminal extraction for the authors is detected; the architecture prevents permanent private value-capture through term limits, transparency requirements, and the absence of retained IP or recurring fees." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on maintaining a dependent or victimized audience to justify its authority, but instead assumes a capable, self-governing populace." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document passes the dispersal test as the framers' authority is spent in the act of creation, with power terminating in the hands of the citizenry; superseded historical provisions are not considered operative inward flows." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The document builds independence by providing a transferable framework for self-governance and the mechanisms for its own modification and interpretation by the public." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The personal stakes of the individual signatories are not disclosed, which is consistent with a service-aligned dispersal of power where the authors are subject to the laws they create." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document's architecture balances stated benefits with explicit structural costs (taxes, duties), and historical extraction clauses are superseded by amendments." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No wounded savior pattern is present; the document establishes a rule-based system of governance rather than maintaining a dependency on the authors' personal identity or sacrifice." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document functions as a cohesive legal framework, deriving specific powers and limitations from the foundational intent established in the Preamble." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies were detected; the text consists of prescriptive legal rules and definitions rather than an evidence-based argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The articles and amendments provide the specific structural mechanisms required to execute the governance model described." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Foundational legal charter; the text was read as literal prescriptive law and procedural definitions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The Preamble establishes a clear teleological chain, linking specific objectives (Justice, Welfare, Liberty) to the functional necessity of ordaining the subsequent Articles." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document consists of prescriptive mandates, definitions, and procedural rules rather than fallacious inferences." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The internal logic of the document is consistent, with the specific powers granted in Article I, II, and III directly grounding the governance structure proposed." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Foundational legal document; the text is read as a series of literal prescriptive mandates and definitions rather than a persuasive or rhetorical argument." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected in the document's argumentative or procedural structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a rigorous procedural and hierarchical logic, defining the powers, qualifications, and processes of government branches in a systematic manner." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the text consists of prescriptive legal mandates and definitions rather than evidence-based arguments." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The internal definitions and procedural rules effectively ground the legal framework and authorities established by the document." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/Constitutional text; the document was read as a literal set of prescriptive mandates and foundational rules of governance." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected in the document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document functions as a coherent legal framework where the Preamble establishes the objectives and the subsequent Articles and Amendments provide the specific structural mechanisms to achieve them." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies were detected; the document consists of prescriptive legal stipulations and definitions rather than a persuasive argument relying on evidence-to-conclusion leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The internal logic is consistent; the specific powers granted to each branch (Articles I-III) and the rights reserved (Amendments) directly support the stated goal of establishing a functional federal government." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a foundational legal/constitutional text. It was read as a series of literal prescriptive claims and structural definitions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the structural audit of this document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a rigorous constitutive logic, moving from a statement of purpose (Preamble) to the establishment of specific powers, procedures, and limitations (Articles and Amendments)." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural logical fallacies were detected; the document functions as a set of prescriptive rules and definitions rather than a persuasive argument relying on fallacious bridges." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The procedural mandates and legal conclusions within the text are directly grounded in the definitions and authorities established by the preceding sections." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a foundational legal/constitutive document. The text was read as a series of literal prescriptions and procedural axioms." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacy use exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a rigorous internal logic, establishing a functional framework for government through clearly defined articles, sections, and procedural mandates." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies were detected; the text consists of prescriptive legal rules and definitions rather than a persuasive argument relying on evidence-to-conclusion leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document's 'conclusions' are its legal mandates, which are structurally grounded in the authority established by the Preamble and the ratification process defined in Article VII." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a foundational legal charter; its provisions are read as literal prescriptive mandates and definitions of power rather than figurative or rhetorical claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the structural audit of this document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a rigorous structural logic, moving from a stated purpose in the Preamble to the specific functional articles that establish the legislative, executive, and judicial branches." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies were detected; the document consists of prescriptive legal rules and definitions rather than fallacious argumentative leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The specific powers and procedures outlined in the Articles directly ground the establishment of the government framework proposed in the Preamble." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/Constitutional text; the document was read as a literal set of prescriptive mandates and procedural definitions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected, therefore no stack exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes a rigorous hierarchical and conditional structure, particularly in Article I, Section 7, which outlines the logical steps of the legislative process and the presidential veto mechanism." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document consists of prescriptive mandates and procedural definitions rather than inductive or deductive arguments prone to the listed fallacies." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The procedural rules and jurisdictional boundaries established in the text directly ground the functional conclusions regarding the powers and limitations of the federal government." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre identified as a foundational legal/constitutive document; the text was read as a series of literal prescriptive mandates and procedural stipulations." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a rigorous hierarchical structure, moving from the broad objectives in the Preamble to specific functional articles and subsequent amendments." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural logical fallacies were detected; the text functions as a prescriptive legal framework rather than a persuasive argument relying on external evidence." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The articles and sections provide the specific legal mechanisms and authorities necessary to fulfill the foundational purposes stated in the Preamble." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/Constitutional charter; the text is read as a series of literal prescriptive claims and performative legal definitions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected in the document." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides for its own amendment (Article V) and protects the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances (Amendment I), treating the framework as a living tool for inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While prescriptive in its legal mandates, the text acknowledges the necessity of deliberation through mechanisms like the presidential veto override and the requirement for 'reconsideration' (Article I, Section 7)." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes clear, verifiable thresholds for its own ratification (Article VII) and for the passage of laws and amendments, rather than asserting a manufactured or unearned consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The system of checks and balances across Articles I, II, and III ensures that the same standards of legal authority and scrutiny are applied to all branches of government." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to facilitate rather than foreclose ongoing governance and debate." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides for its own revision through Article V and protects the right to dissent and petition in the First Amendment." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While using prescriptive legal language, the text avoids claims of infallible truth and acknowledges the need for ongoing interpretation and amendment." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble's assertion of collective will is grounded in the Article VII ratification process and the representative structures defined throughout the text." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The structural core of the document is a system of checks and balances designed to apply scrutiny and legal limits to all branches of government equally." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally oriented toward the distribution of power and the preservation of deliberative processes." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides a mechanism for amendments, acknowledging that the document is not a finality and inviting future deliberation and change." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The Ninth and Tenth Amendments demonstrate high calibration by explicitly stating that the enumeration of certain rights and powers does not deny or disparage others retained by the people or states." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document bases its authority on a specific ratification process (Article VII) and the 'Unanimous Consent of the States present,' rather than asserting a manufactured or vague consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The structure of checks and balances across Articles I, II, and III ensures that the same standards of legal constraint and accountability are applied to all branches of government." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is a foundational legal framework that structurally encourages procedural deliberation and amendment." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V's amendment process and the First Amendment's protections for speech and petitioning demonstrate a structural commitment to ongoing inquiry and revision." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While using the definitive language of law, the document incorporates flexible standards like 'unreasonable' and 'necessary and proper,' acknowledging the need for contextual interpretation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes rigorous procedural requirements, such as supermajorities for amendments, to ensure that consensus is measured and demonstrated rather than merely asserted." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The system of checks and balances and the Bill of Rights ensure that the government is subject to the same legal constraints it imposes, particularly through due process and equal protection." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document functions as an open-ended framework for governance rather than a tool for epistemic foreclosure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides a mechanism for its own amendment, and the Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny others, structurally inviting ongoing interpretation and change." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document avoids false certainty by including broad standards like 'unreasonable' and 'necessary and proper,' which necessitate judicial and legislative interpretation rather than claiming absolute, static resolution." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text grounds its authority in specific ratification requirements (Article VII) and the 'unanimous consent of the States present,' citing a verifiable legal process rather than asserting a manufactured or universal agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Constitution establishes a symmetric system of checks and balances, applying procedural constraints and oversight mechanisms to all three branches of government and the states." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is a foundational legal framework that incorporates mechanisms for its own revision and acknowledges its own limits." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides for its own revision through Article V, and Amendments IX and X acknowledge that the text is not an exhaustive account of all rights or powers." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses broad, interpretive language (e.g., 'unreasonable searches', 'necessary and proper') and includes the Ninth Amendment to admit that the enumeration of rights is not complete." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes formal, evidence-based procedures for ratification (Article VII) and legislative agreement rather than asserting a manufactured consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The structural design of checks and balances across Articles I, II, and III ensures that the same legal constraints and scrutiny apply to all branches of government." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is a foundational legal framework that structurally facilitates deliberation and amendment." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document includes Article V, which establishes a formal process for its own amendment, and the First Amendment, which protects the right to dissent and petition." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a legal framework, it uses definitive language, but the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments demonstrates an acknowledgment of its own incompleteness." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document specifies a clear, evidence-based ratification process in Article VII and records the consent of the states present rather than asserting a manufactured unanimity." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The structure of checks and balances and the requirements for due process apply legal scrutiny and limitations to the government itself, ensuring a degree of symmetry." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is a foundational legal text that structurally invites revision and protects inquiry." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides a mechanism for its own amendment, and the First Amendment protects the right to question and petition the government." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document uses prescriptive legal language but incorporates flexible standards like 'unreasonable' and 'due process' that acknowledge the need for ongoing interpretation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The authority of the document is grounded in a transparent and verifiable ratification process defined in Article VII, rather than an asserted or manufactured agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The system of checks and balances across Articles I, II, and III ensures that the same legal scrutiny and limitations apply to all branches of government." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document's structure promotes long-term stability through deliberate evaluation and amendment." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly includes a mechanism for its own revision in Article V and protects the right to speech and petition in the First Amendment." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a legal framework, it uses definitive language for rules while employing qualitative terms like 'unreasonable' and 'necessary and proper' that invite judicial interpretation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text specifies clear, evidence-based thresholds for agreement, such as the ratification by nine states in Article VII and two-thirds majorities for amendments." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes a system of checks and balances that applies scrutiny and restraint across all branches of government and levels of authority." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the text functions as a foundational legal architecture rather than a manipulative rhetorical tool." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document balances the 'inalienable rights' of individuals against the 'duties to the community' and the 'just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.'" }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (Article 1), Member States (Preamble), and the international community (Article 28)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension between individual exercise of rights and the limitations necessary to protect the rights of others in Article 29." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Article 29 specifically names and engages both poles of the tension—individual rights and community limitations—satisfying Step 1 of the discriminator." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All identified paradoxes, including the tension between compulsory education and parental choice, are explicitly addressed and held within the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains inherent tensions between absolute individual liberties (Articles 1-28) and the necessity of communal duties and legal limitations (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (Article 1), the State (Article 16, 22), and the international community (Article 28), creating a web of mutual obligation." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension in Article 29, stating that rights are subject to limitations to ensure the rights of others and the general welfare." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses an Integrated approach; Step 1 of the discriminator confirms it specifically names and engages both poles of the rights-vs-duties tension in Article 29." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural paradoxes identified (individual vs. community, universal vs. national) are all addressed through explicit articles or the preamble." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text establishes a tension between absolute individual freedoms (Articles 1-28) and the necessity of 'duties to the community' and legal limitations (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, 'every organ of society,' Member States, and the international community of the United Nations." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article 29 explicitly acknowledges that the exercise of rights is subject to limitations required to respect the rights of others and the general welfare." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses Article 29 to consciously synthesize the tension between individual liberty and social order; this was decided by Step 1 as the text specifically engages both poles of the rights/duties conflict." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural tensions identified (rights vs. law, individual vs. state) are all addressed and framed within the document's closing articles." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document balances the 'inalienable rights' of individuals against the 'duties to the community' and the 'limitations' required for public order." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (Article 1), Member States (Preamble), and the international order (Article 28)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article 29 explicitly acknowledges that the exercise of rights is subject to limitations for the purpose of meeting the requirements of morality and general welfare." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The text engages both poles of the rights-vs-duties tension in Article 29, specifically naming the 'exercise of rights' alongside 'limitations' for the 'rights of others' (Step 1: Pole Engagement)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary tensions between individual liberty, state sovereignty, and communal duty are all addressed through specific articles (2, 22, 29, and 30)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains structural tensions between absolute individual liberties (Articles 1-28) and the necessity of legal limitations and community duties (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (who have duties to the community), Member States (pledged to promote observance), and the United Nations (as a framework for cooperation)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension between rights and limitations in Article 29, stating that rights are subject to limitations for the purpose of securing the rights of others." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document consciously holds the tension between individual freedom and social order in Article 29, naming and engaging both poles to define their relationship (Step 1 decisive)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary paradoxes identified regarding rights versus duties and universal ideals versus national implementation are all explicitly addressed within the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains inherent structural tensions between absolute individual liberties (Articles 1-28) and the necessity of legal limitations and community duties (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, 'every organ of society,' national governments, and international cooperative bodies." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension between individual rights and social requirements in Article 29, stating that rights are subject to limitations for the sake of 'public order and the general welfare.'" }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document consciously holds the tension between individual freedom and social duty in Article 29 by naming both poles and defining their relationship; this specific engagement satisfies Step 1 of the discriminator." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All primary tensions identified—including the conflict between universal rights and national sovereignty—are addressed through specific articles (e.g., Articles 22, 28, and 29)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains inherent tensions between absolute individual 'inalienable rights' and the 'duties to the community' and 'limitations' required for public order." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (acting in brotherhood), Member States (securing rights through law), and the international community (promoting universal observance)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension in Article 29, stating that the exercise of rights is subject to limitations for the purpose of meeting the requirements of morality and public order." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses an Integrated approach by specifically naming and balancing the poles of individual liberty and social duty in Article 29; this satisfies Step 1 of the discriminator by engaging the specific content of the tension." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All identified structural paradoxes, including the tension between universal rights and national jurisdiction, are addressed through explicit articles or the Preamble." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a fundamental tension between the 'inalienable rights' of the individual and the 'duties to the community' and 'limitations as are determined by law' (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (Article 1), Member States (Preamble), and the 'social and international order' (Article 28)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension in Article 29, stating that rights are subject to limitations for the purpose of securing the rights of others and meeting public order requirements." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "The document uses Article 29 to engage both poles of the individual-vs-collective tension, defining the specific conditions under which rights may be limited (Step 1 decisive)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The primary structural paradoxes identified—including the tension between parental choice and compulsory education in Article 26—are addressed openly within the text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document balances the 'inalienable rights' of individuals against the 'limitations' required for 'public order' and 'the general welfare' in Article 29." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (Article 1), Member States (Preamble), and the 'social and international order' (Article 28)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the tension between individual liberty and social duty in Article 29, and the potential for rights to be used to destroy rights in Article 30." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decided: Article 29 specifically names and engages both poles of the tension—the 'exercise of rights' and the 'just requirements of morality and public order'—to define their relationship." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All identified structural tensions (rights vs. duties, universalism vs. national jurisdiction) are explicitly addressed and integrated into the document's framework." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture explicitly disperses authority to the individual, stating that the will of the people is the basis of government authority. There is no evidence of terminal extraction; the power of the drafting body is spent to establish universal protections for the audience." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The declaration provides the legal and social framework for individual autonomy, specifically protecting freedom of thought, education, and the right to participate in government. It aims for the 'full development of the human personality' rather than maintaining reliance on a central authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational international instrument, the document focuses entirely on the rights of the global population rather than the private interests of its authors. Per the Altruism Boundary, this absence reflects a pure service orientation rather than concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document includes an acknowledgment of duties and limitations necessary for a democratic society, avoiding the 'benefit without cost' extraction pattern." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document lacks the structural dependency maintenance characteristic of this pattern, instead seeking to empower individuals to the point of making tyranny and rebellion unnecessary." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Authority is explicitly dispersed to the individual and the 'human family,' with Article 21 stating that the will of the people is the basis of all government authority." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The document transfers analytical and operational capability to the reader by enumerating specific rights and emphasizing education for the 'full development of the human personality.'" }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not disclose any private or institutional gain for the authors, focusing entirely on the universal benefit to the global population." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document's architecture is designed to move the audience toward independence and legal self-sufficiency rather than maintaining a state of dependency." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture disperses authority to the individual, establishing rights that terminate in the hands of the global citizenry rather than retaining power for the authoring body." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text explicitly transfers analytical and political capability to the reader, emphasizing freedom of thought, conscience, and the right to participate in government." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational multi-lateral declaration, there is no private or personal stake to disclose; the document operates entirely within the altruism boundary." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals detected; the document includes an acknowledgment of duties to the community, balancing rights with social responsibility." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document lacks the structural dependency maintenance characteristic of this pattern, instead aiming for the full development and independence of the human personality." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's authority is spent in the act of proclaiming universal rights that belong to the individual; power is dispersed to the global citizenry rather than retained by the UN." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The articles explicitly transfer legal and moral capability to individuals, encouraging the exercise of reason, conscience, and political participation independent of the state." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational institutional document, there is no disclosure of private or personal gain, which aligns with its universal service orientation." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals were detected; the document acknowledges duties to the community and focuses entirely on the benefit of the 'human family'." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document aims for the 'full development of the human personality' and independence, showing no intent to maintain audience dependency." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's authority is spent in the act of proclaiming inherent rights that belong to the global population, effectively dispersing power from the institution to the individual. There is no evidence of terminal extraction or retained privilege for the authoring body." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text provides a comprehensive framework of rights and legal remedies that enables individuals to evaluate and challenge authority independently. It explicitly promotes education and 'progressive measures' to ensure these tools are inherited by the people." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational document of universal principles, there is no private or personal stake to disclose; the absence of such a stake aligns with the document's outward-facing service architecture." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document lacks value-capture mechanisms, recurring fees, or the withholding of transferable capability." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain audience dependency; rather, it establishes the 'will of the people' as the basis of government authority, aiming for a state of self-governance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture is designed to disperse authority from states to individuals, establishing the 'will of the people' as the basis of government authority. It passes the dispersal test as the authors (Member States) bind themselves to recognize rights that terminate in the hands of the global citizenry." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text explicitly transfers analytical and operational capability to the reader by defining universal standards for freedom of thought, expression, and participation in government. It aims for the 'full development of the human personality' rather than maintaining reliance on a central authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "weak", "note": "While Member States are identified as the parties pledging to uphold these rights, the document focuses entirely on the benefit to the 'human family' rather than any specific gain for the UN as an institution." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals were detected; the document lacks benefit framing for the speaker, manufactured urgency, or any mechanism for value capture from the audience." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document lacks the structural dependency maintenance characteristic of this pattern, instead focusing on the legal and social empowerment of the individual to act independently of the 'savior' institution." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture is designed to disperse authority and rights to the global population, explicitly stating that the will of the people is the basis of government authority. It meets the dispersal test as the UN General Assembly codifies these rights to be inherited by individuals rather than retained as institutional privilege." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The declaration provides a comprehensive toolkit of legal, social, and political rights that empower individuals to act independently, seek redress, and participate in governance without reliance on a central savior." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a foundational document of international law, it contains no mention of personal or institutional gain for the authors, which, given the outward power flow, aligns with the altruism boundary." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected; the document lacks benefit-capture mechanisms, recurring fees, or identity-based dependency patterns." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not maintain audience dependency; rather, it aims for the 'full development of the human personality' and the eventual 'full realization' of rights that would make such a declaration a settled reality." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document establishes a framework where authority is used to recognize and protect the inherent rights of individuals, effectively dispersing power from states to the global citizenry." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The articles explicitly define and protect the individual's capacity for independent thought, expression, and political participation, providing the tools for self-advocacy against oppression." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "As a universal proclamation of principles, the document does not focus on the specific gains of the drafting parties, which is consistent with its service-aligned architecture." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No signals of value capture, recurring fees, or retained privilege for the authors are present; the document functions as a self-binding commitment by states to their populations." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document's structural effect is the promotion of individual agency and the 'full development of the human personality,' rather than the maintenance of a dependent victim class." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's authority is spent in the act of proclaiming universal rights that belong to all individuals, effectively dispersing power from the institutional author to the global citizenry. There is no evidence of terminal extraction or retained privilege for the United Nations as an organization." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text provides a comprehensive framework of rights and legal standards that empower individuals to evaluate, challenge, and participate in their own governance. It explicitly aims for the 'full development of the human personality' and the ability to resist tyranny through the rule of law." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The document clearly identifies the Member States and the General Assembly as the entities making the pledge and assuming the responsibility to uphold these standards. The institutional interest in maintaining 'friendly relations between nations' and 'peace' is explicitly stated." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals were detected; the document lacks any mechanism for value capture, recurring fees, or the maintenance of audience dependency for the benefit of the author." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The intent to provide universal service is matched by a structural architecture that promotes individual independence rather than maintaining a state of victimhood or dependency on the speaker." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a formal 'Whereas/Now, therefore' structure, linking moral premises and historical lessons to the necessity of a universal standard of rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's claims are presented as foundational normative principles rather than fallacious inferences." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble's assertions regarding inherent dignity and the rule of law provide a consistent structural basis for the specific rights enumerated in the articles." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "International legal/declaratory document; the text is read as a series of literal normative proclamations and formal justifications." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The Preamble utilizes a series of 'Whereas' clauses to establish a logical progression from historical necessity and philosophical principles to the formal proclamation of the Declaration." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's arguments for the necessity of human rights are presented as argued convictions based on historical context and stated values." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated premises regarding the prevention of rebellion and the promotion of social progress provide a consistent structural basis for the conclusion to adopt a universal standard of rights." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "International legal/declaratory document; the text was read as a series of literal normative claims and foundational principles intended to establish a global standard." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a formal deductive structure, using 'Whereas' clauses as premises to establish the necessity and authority for the 'Now, therefore' proclamation of the articles." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's claims are presented as normative axioms and historical justifications rather than fallacious logical leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated premises regarding the foundation of peace, the prevention of tyranny, and existing international pledges provide a consistent structural basis for the proclamation of a universal standard." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is an international normative declaration; its articles are read as foundational principles and legal proclamations rather than empirical or scientific claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a clear 'Whereas... Now, therefore' structure, linking historical context and shared values to the necessity of the proclamation." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's arguments are based on normative axioms and historical justifications rather than logical errors." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The premises regarding the inherent dignity of persons and the prevention of conflict provide a consistent structural foundation for the specific rights proclaimed." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "International legal/declaratory document; the text is read as a series of normative and prescriptive claims rather than empirical or descriptive proofs." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a formal 'Whereas... Now, therefore' structure, linking historical, moral, and legal premises to the proclamation of specific rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's assertions are normative axioms and principles consistent with its genre as an international declaration." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The foundational principles of inherent dignity and the legal mandate of the UN Charter provide a direct structural basis for the articles proclaimed." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is identified as a normative international declaration; the preamble is read as foundational reasoning and the articles as literal proclamations of rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the document's argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a formal deductive structure, using a series of 'Whereas' clauses as foundational premises to justify the 'Now, therefore' proclamation of the specific Articles." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's arguments rely on stated normative axioms and historical justifications rather than logical errors." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The premises regarding the inherent dignity of persons and the necessity of the rule of law to prevent tyranny provide a consistent structural bridge to the specific rights enumerated in the Articles." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is an international normative declaration; its provisions are read as literal legal-moral mandates and foundational principles rather than empirical or figurative claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacy use exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a formal 'Whereas/Now therefore' structure, linking historical context and legal pledges in the preamble to the proclamation of specific rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document's claims are presented as normative principles grounded in stated historical and legal premises." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble's citations of the UN Charter and the causal link between rights-contempt and 'barbarous acts' provide a structural foundation for the articles that follow." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "International normative declaration; the text was read as a literal proclamation of rights and standards of achievement for member states." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified in the argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document utilizes a formal 'Whereas/Now therefore' structure, systematically linking historical and philosophical premises to the normative articles proclaimed." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies were detected; the document's structure relies on foundational axioms and conditional justifications rather than structural errors." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated premises regarding the inherent nature of dignity and the historical consequences of rights violations provide a consistent structural basis for the articles." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "International normative declaration; the text is read as a series of literal foundational principles and legal standards." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacy use exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document follows a clear 'Whereas/Now therefore' structure, establishing historical and moral premises in the Preamble to justify the proclamation of the subsequent Articles." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No structural fallacies were detected; the document's claims are framed as normative axioms and foundational principles rather than fallacious logical leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The premises regarding the prevention of 'barbarous acts' and the promotion of 'friendly relations' provide a consistent structural basis for the adoption of a universal standard of rights." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "The document is an international normative declaration; its statements are read as foundational legal and moral prescriptions (axioms) rather than empirical or scientific claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were identified, therefore no systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning exists." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects freedom of thought, conscience, and expression (Articles 18 and 19), framing inquiry and the exchange of ideas as fundamental human rights." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While the language is assertive as befits a proclamation, it acknowledges the complexity of rights by including Article 29, which outlines the limitations and duties necessary in a democratic society." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus described is grounded in the formal, documented pledges of Member States and the United Nations Charter rather than being rhetorically manufactured." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration is defined by its universal application, explicitly demanding that the same standards of dignity and law apply to all human beings without distinction." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document's structure is designed to protect epistemic and personal autonomy rather than foreclose it." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and 'freedom of opinion and expression' in Articles 18 and 19, treating individual inquiry as a fundamental right." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While the language is normative and definitive, Article 29 provides calibration by acknowledging that rights are subject to limitations necessary to secure the rights of others and meet the requirements of a democratic society." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The claim of a 'common understanding' is grounded in the documented 'pledge' of Member States and the Charter of the United Nations, reflecting a formal diplomatic consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies its standards universally to 'all human beings' and 'every organ of society' without distinction, maintaining a symmetric application of the declared rights." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to protect rather than foreclose epistemic and personal autonomy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects freedom of thought, conscience, and expression in Articles 18 and 19, framing inquiry and dissent as fundamental rights rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While assertive in its principles, the text acknowledges that these are a 'common standard of achievement' to be reached through 'progressive measures,' recognizing the process of implementation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus cited is grounded in the formal pledges of Member States and the UN Charter, representing a documented diplomatic agreement rather than a manufactured rhetorical claim." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is structurally defined by symmetry, explicitly demanding that all rights apply to everyone without distinction of any kind, as stated in Articles 2 and 7." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document's rhetoric is designed to open and protect epistemic and personal autonomy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and expression in Articles 18 and 19, framing inquiry as a protected human capacity." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The assertive language is appropriate for a normative declaration, and Article 29 provides calibration by acknowledging that rights are subject to legal limitations to protect the rights of others." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus is grounded in the formal pledges of Member States and the UN Charter, rather than being rhetorically manufactured to silence dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is built on the principle of universal application, demanding the same rights and legal protections for all individuals regardless of status or nationality." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document's structural purpose is to protect epistemic and personal autonomy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly enshrines the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, and expression in Articles 18 and 19, treating individual inquiry as a fundamental right." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While using the declarative language appropriate for a proclamation, the text acknowledges that rights are subject to legal limitations to ensure the rights of others and public order (Article 29)." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The assertion of a 'common understanding' is grounded in the cited context of the UN Charter and the formal pledges made by Member States." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration establishes a 'common standard of achievement' applicable to all individuals, nations, and organs of society without distinction or double standards." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document structurally promotes epistemic and personal autonomy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly enshrines the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, and expression (Articles 18 and 19), treating individual inquiry as a fundamental right to be protected." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a normative proclamation, it uses assertive language to define standards, but it acknowledges the need for 'progressive measures' and explicitly outlines the limitations of these rights in Article 29." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The claim of consensus is grounded in the formal 'pledge' of Member States and the UN Charter, representing a documented international agreement rather than a manufactured rhetorical device." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration applies its standards universally to 'all peoples and all nations' and 'without distinction of any kind,' ensuring the same scrutiny and protections apply to all parties." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the document is structurally designed to protect epistemic autonomy and prevent the foreclosure of rights." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects the right to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression (Articles 18 and 19), treating individual inquiry and the right to change beliefs as fundamental human rights." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While the language is normative and firm, Article 29 acknowledges that rights are subject to limitations determined by law to ensure the rights of others, demonstrating a calibrated approach to the application of these principles." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The claim of a 'common understanding' is grounded in the formal context of the United Nations Charter and the explicit pledges of Member States cited in the preamble." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is structurally defined by symmetry, asserting that all rights apply to everyone 'without distinction of any kind' and that 'all are equal before the law' (Articles 2 and 7)." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document maintains high epistemic openness and symmetry throughout." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly protects the rights to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression (Articles 18 and 19), framing inquiry and dissent as fundamental human rights rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "While the document uses assertive normative language, it acknowledges the necessity of limitations in Article 29 to balance individual rights with the rights of others and public order." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The consensus is grounded in the explicit 'pledge' of Member States and the 'Charter of the United Nations,' referencing a specific diplomatic agreement rather than an unverified or manufactured agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is built on the principle of universal application, explicitly demanding that the same rights and legal protections apply to all individuals regardless of status or political affiliation." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No weaponization signals were detected; the document maintains high epistemic openness and structural symmetry." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly enshrines freedom of thought, conscience, and expression (Articles 18 and 19) as fundamental rights, treating the tools of inquiry as essential to human dignity." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a declaration of principles, it uses assertive language but correctly frames its contents as a 'common standard of achievement' to be pursued through 'progressive measures' rather than as an instantly resolved empirical fact." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The claim of consensus is grounded in the formal, documented pledges of Member States and the United Nations Charter, representing a legitimate institutional agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document is structurally built on the principle of universal application, demanding the same rights and legal protections for all individuals without distinction." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals were detected; the text functions to open and protect epistemic and personal autonomy rather than to foreclose it." } ] } ] } ], "docs": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "composite": 41.71, "composite_geom": 35.67, "composite_stdev": 4.768, "tier": "Incomplete", "gate_means": { "g4": 21.0, "g6": 73.14, "g7": 52.71, "g8": 20.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 6.809, "g6": 15.62, "g7": 8.246, "g8": 2.333 } }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "composite": 100.0, "composite_geom": 100.0, "composite_stdev": 0.0, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 100.0, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 0.0, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "composite": 100.0, "composite_geom": 100.0, "composite_stdev": 0.0, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 100.0, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 0.0, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "composite": 100.0, "composite_geom": 100.0, "composite_stdev": 0.0, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 100.0, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 0.0, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } } ], "run": { "model_id": "gemini-3-flash-preview", "model_label": "Gemini 3 Flash", "provider": "google", "run_date": "2026-07-19", "corpus_manifest_version": "4CITE⁴gov Benchmark — CALIBRATION_FOUR_MANIFEST_2026-07-18 v3", "n_samples": 9, "trim_method": "olympic", "prompt_versions": { "g4": "gate4_v8_1", "g6": "gate6_v9", "g7": "gate7_v7", "g8": "gate8_v5", "shas": { "g4": "sha256:589ea351b57e", "g6": "sha256:8265a53660eb", "g7": "sha256:4fc12f861380", "g8": "sha256:2075d7270595" } }, "headline_composite_stdev": 1.192, "total_cost_usd": 1.44, "calls": 144, "tokens": { "prompt_tokens": 1536588, "cached_tokens": 873889, "completion_tokens": 49413, "reasoning_tokens": 305513 } } }