{ "cells": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 32, 100, 34, 81, 100, 21, 92, 92, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 75.86, "stdev": 33.31, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly presents itself as protecting the weak and delivering justice, while many laws impose extreme collective or retaliatory punishments. It also contains status-based distinctions and property rules that sit uneasily beside the universal rhetoric of righteous rule." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability is sometimes distributed across multiple parties, such as judges, merchants, owners, builders, and herdsmen sharing liability in different provisions. However, the structure is mostly top-down and punitive rather than genuinely mutual." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not explicitly name or reflect on contradictions between its humanitarian claims and its harsh sanctions. It asserts justice and then proceeds without marking any internal tension as such." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Dominant method: the document proceeds with both idealized claims and harsh legal outcomes without engaging the tension; no specific paradox-handling passage resolves this. Step 1 fails because the text does not explicitly engage both poles of the contradiction." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "At least one scanned paradox is unacknowledged: the pro-weak justice mission versus the severity and inequality of the enactments. The broader pattern reinforces a managed presentation, but the document is not densely self-paradoxical in the way of multiple simultaneous silent contradictions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly presents harsh, retaliatory punishments while also claiming to protect the weak, widows, orphans, and the well-being of mankind. It also contains internal tensions in specific rules, such as collective responsibility alongside individualized blame." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across judges, merchants, builders, herdsmen, householders, communities, and kin. Many clauses assign liability both to the direct actor and to other parties in the chain of custody or responsibility." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text explicitly frames itself as enforcing justice and protecting the weak, which shows awareness of the moral tension between order and punishment. However, it does not directly acknowledge most of the legal contradictions as contradictions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank 1 handling is integrated: the monument explicitly names both poles of its central tension—severe law and protection of the weak—and presents them as part of one justice project. Step 1 of the discriminator decides this, because the text engages the specific content of both poles rather than using generic filler." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "At least one scanned paradox remains largely unacknowledged in the legal code, even though the overall framework is self-justifying. The many penalties are systematized rather than interrogated, so the paradox stack is present but not dense." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 34, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "The document contains some internal tensions, especially between broad claims of protecting the weak and many harsh, unequal penalties. However, these are mostly not framed as explicit contradictions inside the text itself." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability is overwhelmingly one-way, flowing from subjects and officials upward to the king and courts. There is little evidence of reciprocal or multi-directional responsibility." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not explicitly pause to acknowledge or discuss tension between its justice claims and its punitive hierarchy. It simply proceeds from claim to rule to curse without reflective self-qualification." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails because the text does not engage its own tension directly; it presents justice rhetoric and severe penalties side by side without handling that contradiction. Step 2 is irrelevant because there is no specific pole-engaging resolution to test." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, at least one is left unacknowledged: the gap between the pro-weak, righteous self-presentation and the document's extensive unequal punishments. The paradox stack is limited rather than compound." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 81, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly presents harsh, mutually reinforcing tensions between ideal justice for the weak and severe, often unequal penalties, along with class- and status-based distinctions in punishment and compensation. It also includes contradictory-looking procedural outcomes in some cases, such as differing allocations of responsibility depending on proof, witnesses, or status." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across multiple parties: judges, merchants, buyers, builders, shepherds, husbands, wives, slaves, communities, and even the gods. The text often assigns reciprocal duties and liabilities among several actors rather than a single responsible party." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not explicitly pause to acknowledge paradox or tension as such. It states rules and royal self-presentation confidently, without reflecting on contradictions in the system it establishes." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decided: the text directly engages both poles of its tensions by pairing protection of the weak with specific, status-sensitive legal remedies and by openly codifying reciprocal liabilities. The handling is substantive, not generic, so it is integrated rather than scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 3, "note": "Several scanned tensions remain unacknowledged while the text proceeds as authoritative law and royal inscription. The paradoxes reinforce one another: ideal justice, unequal class penalties, and sweeping royal self-legitimation coexist without explicit self-interrogation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly pairs ideals like protecting the weak, widows, and orphans with extensive capital and corporal punishments, creating a strong internal tension between justice as protection and justice as violent retribution. It also contains some procedural safeguards alongside harsh presumptions and collective penalties." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across multiple actors: accusers, judges, merchants, agents, builders, herdsmen, husbands, wives, slaves, and even officials or communities. The text regularly assigns liability both upward and downward within social relations." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text explicitly frames itself as a system for settling disputes and healing injuries, and some laws openly distinguish innocence from guilt or require proof. However, it does not explicitly reflect on the contradiction between its protective rhetoric and its severe punishments." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides Integrated: the document engages both poles of its central tension by explicitly combining protection of the weak with a detailed punitive legal framework that claims to enforce that protection. The handling is not generic prepared language; it is specific to the code’s own claims." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, at least one is left unacknowledged: the text never directly addresses the tension between its humane royal self-presentation and its pervasive violence. The tensions mostly coexist as part of the code’s structure rather than being explicitly reconciled." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 21, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly pairs universal justice claims with extreme, status-differentiated penalties, and it also includes procedural tensions such as appeals to oath/rivers alongside rigid evidentiary rules. These are internal tensions in how justice is framed and applied." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across multiple parties: accuser, accused, judge, merchant, agent, builder, herdsman, owner, and even community or temple in some clauses. The text routinely assigns duties and penalties across several actors rather than a single source." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not explicitly discuss any contradiction or tension as a tension; it presents the legal and royal claims as settled authority. Apparent inconsistencies are handled by decree rather than by reflective acknowledgment." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Rank-1 tensions are mostly left standing without self-conscious reconciliation, even when the text moves on to enforce rules that coexist uneasily. Step 1 fails because no passage engages both poles of a specific contradiction; Step 2 is unnecessary because the handling is not a genuine response." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 3, "note": "Across the scanned set, multiple contradictions remain unacknowledged, including justice-for-all versus unequal punishments and objective proof versus ordeal/oath-based proof. The tensions stack rather than resolve." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly pairs ideals of protecting the weak and securing justice with extremely harsh, unequal penalties, including death, mutilation, and status-based punishments. It also contains internal tensions in family, property, and liability rules across different cases." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across many parties: accusers, judges, merchants, builders, physicians, herdsmen, spouses, slaves, and even communities can bear liability. The text often assigns responsibility both to the actor and to supervising or connected parties." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text does not explicitly discuss paradox as such, but it does occasionally mark exceptions, qualifications, and conditional distinctions that show awareness of conflicting cases. This is procedural awareness rather than direct acknowledgment of contradiction." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides: the code engages both poles of its tensions directly by specifying differentiated rules for competing claims, harms, and statuses rather than ignoring them. The handling is document-specific and substantive, so the discriminator favors Integrated rather than Scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, at least one remains effectively unacknowledged: the proclamation of justice and protection is never explicitly reconciled with the system's severe asymmetry and brutality. The paradoxes are present, but most are handled procedurally rather than left entirely unattended." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code contains multiple internal tensions, especially between its stated aim to protect the weak and many punishments that are severe, collective, or asymmetrical. It also pairs due-process language in some provisions with presumptions and penalties that can be summary or extreme." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across several actors: accusers, judges, merchants, builders, herdsmen, husbands, wives, slaves, and even the king. The text regularly assigns liability in both directions depending on role and outcome." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The preamble explicitly frames the code as protecting the weak while also establishing harsh punitive order, so the tension is partially named. However, the text mostly proceeds by proclamation rather than explicitly reflecting on that contradiction." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 handling is integrated: the code explicitly engages both poles of its central tension by presenting itself as justice for the weak while enacting a detailed punitive legal order to enforce it. Step 1 decided this, because the text names and operationalizes both sides of the same contradiction rather than merely using generic legal language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, at least one remains largely unacknowledged in the body of the laws: the mismatch between egalitarian rhetoric and highly stratified penalties. The tensions do not fully stack into a compound unresolved cluster, but the asymmetry is persistent." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The code repeatedly pairs ideals of justice and protection of the weak with severe, often equal-or-collective punishments, including many death penalties and bodily mutilations. It also contains internal tensions in individual rules, such as differing remedies across similar injury cases and status-based outcomes for comparable acts." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Responsibility is distributed across multiple parties in several rules: owners, judges, agents, builders, shepherds, merchants, communities, and even gods or the king can bear consequences. This is especially clear in passages where the text assigns liability both to the immediate actor and to broader institutions or relations." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text does not explicitly discuss contradictions as contradictions, but it does openly frame cases as disputes requiring judgment, proof, and oath. Its later editorial/monumental passages also restate the law as a coherent justice system, suggesting awareness of legal tension without direct paradox reflection." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides: the text engages its own tension between justice, protection, and punitive severity by specifying differentiated remedies and allocation of blame across contexts, not merely speaking in generic legal language. The handling is therefore integrated rather than scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, at least one is left unacknowledged: the monument's self-presentation as righteous and protective sits alongside sweeping violent sanctions without explicit reconciliation. The law code mostly manages this through systematized rules rather than overtly naming the tension." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 12, 96, 76, 96, 56, 96, 96, 32, 36 ], "trimmed_mean": 69.71, "stdev": 33.113, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 12, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "extraction_inward", "note": "The document centers Hammurabi's authority, glory, and continuing royal legitimacy, with the laws and curses functioning to consolidate rule around the king and his successors. Although framed as justice for subjects, the operative structure terminates in royal power, memorial, and obedience rather than dispersing authority to readers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "maintains_dependence", "note": "The text does not train readers to evaluate independently; instead it repeatedly tells them to read Hammurabi's inscription, understand his words, and accept his law as the interpretive frame. The audience is positioned as subjects who receive rulings, not as autonomous interpreters with portable decision tools." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly names his own kingship, divine mandate, memorialization, and desired posthumous reputation. His interest in preserving his monument, name, and dynastic authority is explicit throughout the prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Detected signals include personal-stake centrality, authority memorialization, audience-dependency maintenance, and coercive curses protecting the ruler's law and name. The text also uses divine and tragic legitimacy to reinforce compliance rather than disperse power." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no credible wounded-savior dynamic here: the king is not presented as needing a dependent audience to sustain a harmed identity. The structure is dominion and legitimation, not altruistic help bound to victim-maintenance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document repeatedly frames Hammurabi’s authority as being used to protect the weak, settle disputes, and establish justice for subjects rather than to capture ongoing private benefit. Its operative end state is public order and legible rules inherited by the land, not retained privilege for the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The code supplies concrete rules and consequences so readers can understand what counts as lawful conduct without needing ongoing interpretation from Hammurabi. It explicitly says the inscription will let the oppressed read, understand, and find out what is just." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "weak", "note": "Hammurabi’s personal authority and legitimacy are heavily asserted, but there is little explicit disclosure of private self-interest or personal cost. The text emphasizes royal duty and divine mandate more than personal stake." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Some extraction-adjacent signals appear, especially self-glorification, curse language, and royal self-legitimation, but no clear terminal private value-capture structure is present. The laws do not primarily function as recurring extraction from subjects; none of the STEP 4 extraction patterns are strongly operative beyond rhetorical domination." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text presents a ruling ideology of protection and justice, but not a dependency-maintaining helper identity that structurally requires a victim audience. It aims to institutionalize law rather than keep subjects permanently reliant on Hammurabi’s personal mediation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 76, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The text clearly frames itself as a public order-giving instrument meant to protect the weak and settle disputes, but it also concentrates authority in Hammurabi, his dynasty, and the gods’ sanction. The operative structure both disperses legal rules to subjects and preserves royal power through curse-backed supremacy, so neither direction fully subsumes the other." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The inscription publishes rules, examples, and consequences so readers can understand what is just and how cases are decided without needing ongoing private access to Hammurabi. It explicitly tells future rulers and subjects to read, understand, and apply the law, which transfers interpretive capacity outward." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly claims authorship, divine appointment, conquest, and lasting royal glory, and repeatedly names his own reign and monument. His stake is not hidden; the text foregrounds his legitimacy and memorialization." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "The dominant extraction-adjacent signals are centralized royal authority, self-glorifying authorship, and extensive curse enforcement that protects the monument and Hammurabi’s name. However, the text is not organized around recurring private fee capture, investor return, or retained IP; no clear terminal commercial extraction pattern is detected." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not read as a dependency-maintaining help narrative. It is a law code that standardizes public judgment rather than a speaker structuring audience reliance on his unique care or revelation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The text explicitly frames Hammurabi as established to protect the weak, settle disputes, and create justice for the land; the law code is presented as a public architecture for order rather than a private capture mechanism. The authority is cast as spent in governance, with the people inheriting protections and rules." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The monument invites readers to inspect the laws, understand their case, and apply the inscription to future rulers and subjects, which transfers interpretive capacity beyond the speaker. It aims to make justice legible without needing ongoing mediation from Hammurabi himself." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly centers his own rule, conferred authority, fame, and desired memorialization, so his stake in legitimacy and remembrance is explicit. The prologue and epilogue repeatedly foreground his kingship and reputation." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "There is strong self-glorification and curse-language preserving royal authority, but the dominant pattern is public law-making rather than terminal private value capture. Specific extraction signals detected: personal aggrandizement and authority consolidation; no clear recurring-fee or investor-return structure detected." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not read as dependency-maintaining rescue; it does not withhold independence while claiming to help. Its structure is legislative and distributive, not an identity-dependent victim-help loop." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 56, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The text repeatedly claims public justice, protection of the weak, and rule for the well-being of mankind, which points outward toward subjects. But it also centralizes royal authority, sacred legitimacy, punitive control, and memorialized authorial glory, so the operative structure mixes service claims with concentrated sovereign power." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The law code gives explicit rules that let readers/citizens anticipate outcomes and understand rights, which builds some independence. At the same time, it keeps interpretation, enforcement, and legitimacy anchored in the king, judge, and gods, so dependence on the sovereign order remains." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly centers himself as the source, author, and guarantor of the laws, and repeatedly names the honor, reign, and monument attached to his rule. His self-interest is not hidden; it is embedded in the royal self-presentation." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Some extraction signals are present: personal glory and monument preservation, divine curse language protecting the ruler's legacy, and heavy concentration of authority in the king. However, the text is predominantly a public legal code rather than a direct revenue or recurring-fee structure, so terminal value capture is not the main visible pattern." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not show a dependency-maintaining rescue identity or a victim-audience structure. It presents itself as an authoritative legal order, not as a help system that needs ongoing audience dependence for its own identity." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The text explicitly frames Hammurabi as established “to bring about the rule of righteousness,” “protect the widows and orphans,” and “settle all disputes,” which is outward-facing public authority rather than private gain. The law code’s operative function is to distribute rules and protections to subjects, not to preserve ongoing authorial benefit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The monument tells future rulers how to govern and tells readers that “the inscription will explain his case to him,” giving a transferable framework for judgment. It aims to make disputes legible without Hammurabi present, which builds reader dependence less and legal capacity more." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "weak", "note": "Hammurabi clearly claims kingship, divine favor, and memorial glory, so there is some self-presentation. But the text mostly subordinates personal status to the public role of administering justice." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "There is strong sovereign self-assertion and monument-building, plus extensive curses protecting Hammurabi’s name and law. However, the text does not show the main extraction patterns from STEP 4 such as recurring private revenue capture, audience dependency maintenance, or terminal value capture for an owner/investor class." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not read as a helper who cannot release the audience into independence; instead it formalizes rules meant to endure beyond the ruler. The architecture is state-legitimating, not dependency-maintaining." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The text repeatedly frames Hammurabi as establishing justice, protecting the weak, widows, orphans, and making the land peaceful. The laws are presented as a public rule-set for broad social order rather than as a mechanism for ongoing private gain, so the operative end state is outward service." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The inscription explicitly tells future readers to read the monument and understand the law for themselves, so the text transfers interpretive capability to the audience. It aims to make disputes legible and guide independent judgment rather than keep people dependent on Hammurabi for ongoing interpretation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi clearly centers his own kingship, divine appointment, reputation, and legacy throughout the preface and epilogue. He also asks that his name be repeated and his monument preserved, so his personal stake is openly acknowledged." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "The text contains royal self-glorification, curse threats against successors, and a durable monument/cult of memory, but no strong evidence of terminal private value capture like fees, investor returns, or retained IP. The main extraction-like signals are symbolic privilege and legacy maintenance." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not read as a dependency-maintaining rescue narrative; it is a law code that purports to settle disputes and stabilize public order. The speaker's intent and the structural effect do not show the specific victim-audience dependency pattern." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "extraction_inward", "note": "The monument centers Hammurabi's divine mandate, royal authority, and enduring glory, with the law code functioning as an instrument of kingship that concentrates legitimacy at the top. The claimed public benefits are real, but the structure also preserves ongoing monarchic privilege and reverence rather than dispersing power to the audience." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "mixed", "note": "The code gives readers concrete rules and judicial standards, which can support independent evaluation and dispute resolution. At the same time, it keeps ultimate interpretive authority, enforcement, and sanctification tied to the king and gods, so dependence on the sovereign order remains." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly identifies his own royal stake: memorializing his name, securing obedience to his laws, and invoking blessings and curses for successors. His personal authority and legacy are explicitly foregrounded throughout." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Detected signals include personal stake/legacy preservation, authority concentration, and curse-backed enforcement of compliance. The text also preserves royal privilege and ongoing dynastic legitimacy rather than dispersing concentrated power away from the ruler." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is not structured around a dependency-producing helper who cannot release the audience. Its architecture is imperial and legalistic, not a help mission that traps recipients in ongoing reliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 36, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "extraction_inward", "note": "The document concentrates authority in Hammurabi/royal power and repeatedly keeps it at the top through sanctions, tribute-like penalties, and curse-backed permanence. The dispersal test is not satisfied: the structure preserves ongoing royal legitimacy and coercive order rather than giving authority away to the audience." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The code presents explicit rules and consequences so readers can anticipate outcomes, resolve disputes, and understand their obligations without needing interpretive mediation. It is legible and operationally transferable, even though it is embedded in a top-down regime." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi openly centers his own kingship, divine mandate, and legacy, repeatedly naming his authority and desired remembrance. The text is highly explicit about his stake in preserving his law and monument." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Detected signals include concentrated authority, curse-backed self-protection, and ongoing privilege/legacy preservation; however, the document is primarily a public law code rather than a direct commercial capture scheme. No strong audience-dependency maintenance is evident beyond the sovereign legal hierarchy." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not read as a dependency-maintaining helper with a victim-audience dynamic. It is an overt royal legal inscription with coercive state power, not a mixed rescue-identity pattern." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 86, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 4.667, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document repeatedly gives a rule-based structure from stated conditions to prescribed outcomes, especially in the numbered laws and the closing claim that the inscription teaches justice and should guide future rulers. It is a legal-code format with explicit if-then reasoning throughout." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing argumentative fallacies are present in the text as a whole. The passage mainly states laws, sanctions, and royal claims rather than building a contested argument that depends on a faulty bridge, suppression, authority substitution, or causal chain." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited provisions generally do ground the code’s stated legal conclusions within the document’s own framework. The final assertions about order, justice, and rulership are supported by the repeated rule-and-penalty structure, taken as given." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "This is an ancient law code/royal inscription. I read the legal rules and royal self-presentation as literal institutional claims within the document, and the blessings/curses at the end as ritualized formula rather than reasoning." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy categories appear, so there is no stack. The text does not present three or more distinct structural missteps." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains many explicit rule-and-consequence structures, especially the numbered laws that connect stated conditions to legal outcomes. The opening and closing sections also frame Hammurabi’s rule as serving justice and order." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing argumentative fallacy is clearly present under the structure-only standard. The text is primarily a legal code and royal inscription; its religious and self-praising language is not being used as an inference from evidence to conclusion in the way required for a counted fallacy." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited legal provisions directly ground the listed penalties and obligations within the code itself. Because the document’s claims are mostly enacted rules rather than evidence-based persuasion, the stated provisions function as their own support." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Read as an ancient law code and royal inscription. The hymnic invocations, self-praise, and curses were treated as rhetorical/ceremonial framing, while the numbered legal provisions were read as literal rule statements." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy types appear in a way that is distinct, load-bearing, and countable under the auditing rules, so there is no stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 86, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document is mostly a legal code: it states rules, consequences, and then frames them as Hammurabi's justified laws. The structure is overtly argumentative in the sense that the laws are presented as supported by divine and royal authority." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "present", "instance_count": 1, "distinct_type_count": 1, "note": "One clear non-sequitur / irrelevant warrant appears at the end where Hammurabi's self-justifying legitimacy and curses are used to support the authority of the monument and law, but the conclusion does not follow from those claims as a structured argument. No other load-bearing fallacy is clearly established from the text alone." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "Most of the text is a legal code whose provisions are internally stated rather than argued from evidence, so there is limited basis for a full evidentiary grounding analysis. The final legitimacy claims are asserted, but the bridge from divine favor to legal correctness is not supplied in a way that reaches the conclusion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre: ancient law code / royal inscription. The legal rules were read literally as operative claims, while the exalted divine praise and curse language were treated as rhetorical framing rather than standalone factual premises." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Only one fallacy category was identified, so there is no three-category stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "This is primarily a law code and royal inscription: many provisions follow an explicit if-then structure, giving stated consequences for specified acts. The closing sections also present a reasoned royal self-justification for the monument and laws." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacious argument is clearly present. The text mostly states legal rules and royal claims, but does not build a document-level conclusion on a fallacious personal attack, false dichotomy, authority substitution, causal leap, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or relevance gap." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document’s legal provisions are internally structured as direct rule-to-penalty relations, so the stated conclusions are grounded in the text as given. There is no separate argumentative claim that depends on misapplied evidence." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as an ancient legal/royal inscription: the law clauses were read literally, while invocations, curses, and honorific epithets were treated as formulaic and not as premises for argumentative conclusions. Genre did not lower the bar." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy categories appear at least once in a load-bearing way, so there is no stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents a sustained structure from divine mandate and royal authority to legal rules and promised social order, with explicit stated aims such as protecting the weak and establishing justice. The laws are framed as consequences of Hammurabi's rule and as instructions for future rulers." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No named structural fallacies are load-bearing in the text as given. The document is primarily a legal-code inscription and royal proclamation, not an argumentative passage relying on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority substitution, post hoc causation, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur warrant failure." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "Within the document's own structure, the cited divine commission and legal provisions are used to ground the claims about righteousness, order, and protection. Read as a historical/legal proclamation, the stated premises are presented as sufficient for the conclusions it draws." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre: ancient royal law code / inscription. The proclamations of divine appointment, blessing, and curse were read as literal claims within the inscription's self-presentation, while formulaic epithets and ceremonial praise were treated as rhetorical framing rather than separate argumentative premises." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy types appear, so there is no stack. The text is extensive but does not exhibit three or more distinct load-bearing fallacious moves." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document repeatedly uses a clear law-like structure: conditions are stated and then consequences follow, especially in the numbered provisions. The opening and closing royal statements also link Hammurabi’s rule, the laws, and their intended social effects." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No argumentative fallacies are present in the document as a structural matter. The text is primarily a legal code and royal inscription, not an attempt to prove contested claims through ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc causation, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur warrant failures." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated legal premises generally do ground the stated legal outcomes within the document’s own framework. The evidence cited is internally connected to the conclusions it supports, even though the code is not being evaluated for truth." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: ancient law code with royal inscription. The ritualized praise of gods and king is read as acknowledged ceremonial/ideological framing, while the numbered statutes are read as literal legal claims and conditional rules." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack. The document does not show systematic use of multiple fallacy types in its argumentative structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a law code with many explicit if-then rules linking stated conditions to sanctions and remedies. The preambles and closing exhortations also present a coherent legitimating narrative for Hammurabi's rule." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No argumentative fallacy is load-bearing in the text as given. The document is primarily prescriptive legal code and royal inscription, not an argumentative essay relying on a defective warrant, authority substitution, or suppressed alternative." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "Because the passage is itself the asserted code and proclamation, the listed provisions and royal claims directly ground the document's own conclusions about law, order, and legitimacy. No non-sequitur or misapplied evidence bridge is required to read these as the text's own enacted rules and self-presentation." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as an ancient legal/royal inscription: the legal provisions were read literally, while honorific divine epithets and curse formulae were treated as conventional ceremonial language rather than evidence of separate argumentative claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With instance_count 0 and distinct_type_count 0, there is no fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The text is overwhelmingly a law code and royal inscription: it states norms, then attaches penalties or administrative consequences to specified conduct. The connections are mostly explicit rule structure rather than inferential argument." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present in the argumentative sense required here. The document primarily declares laws and royal claims; where it uses religious or honorific language, that is not functioning as an argument bridging evidence to a conclusion." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited laws and proclamation statements directly ground the document’s own claims about Hammurabi’s rulership, legal authority, and intended penalties. There is no separate conclusion being reached by an unsupported evidentiary leap." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: ancient legal code plus royal inscription. I treated the laws as literal prescriptive claims and the repeated divine/epic self-praise as conventional royal/ceremonial register, not as argumentative premises requiring fallacy analysis." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacy instances, there is no stack. The text does not exhibit three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "This is a law code / royal inscription that repeatedly states conditional rules and purported justifications for them, so there is an explicit argumentative structure from stated premises (offense, status, circumstance) to prescribed outcomes." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority substitute, post hoc, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur warrant failure was identified in the text as presented; the passage is predominantly a codified legal list rather than an argument pressing contested conclusions." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document’s cited rules and examples generally ground the conclusions they announce within the text itself. The royal claims and blessings/curses are part of the genre and are not used here to support a separate factual conclusion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: ancient law code plus royal prologue/epilogue. The numbered legal provisions were treated as literal rules; elevated titles, blessings, and curses in the prologue/epilogue were read as formulaic royal rhetoric, not as argumentative premises." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero detected fallacy instances, there is no stack pattern and distinct_type_count is below 3." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 92, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 2.667, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites scrutiny and adjudication, especially in the law sections: accusations must be proven, judges examine testimony, and decisions can be reviewed if error appears. That structure treats inquiry as a tool for reaching justice rather than something to suppress." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents itself as authoritative and absolute, but that is characteristic of a legal code and religious prologue rather than an attempt to disguise contested factual claims. It does not omit uncertainty around open questions in a way that functions as false certainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims like 'everyone agrees' or 'all experts know' that manufacture consensus. The authority claimed here is royal-divine, not an asserted social consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies procedural expectations across parties, including penalties for false accusers, negligent judges, merchants, buyers, and officials. While unequal by status in substantive penalties, it does not show the specific pattern of demanding rigor only from opponents while exempting the speaker." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The text is severe and absolutist in style, but it does not clearly combine epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or temporal pressure into a stacked rhetoric of closing inquiry." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly invites later rulers and readers to inspect the inscription, read the laws, and understand the decisions, which frames inquiry as a tool rather than a threat. There is no closure language discouraging further examination." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents its legal rules in categorical, statutory form, which is appropriate to the genre and not a sign of hidden contested-claim overstatement. It does not appear to be making debatable empirical claims that would require hedging." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims like 'everyone agrees' or 'all experts know'; the text grounds authority in royal promulgation and divine mandate rather than manufactured consensus. Consensus language is essentially absent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The laws apply stated penalties and evidentiary requirements across parties in a rule-based way, and the prologue even says the king himself is subject to the same written law's enduring standards. There is no clear double standard in the rhetoric itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is a legal code and royal inscription, not a piece that structurally closes inquiry through manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or epistemic foreclosure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites scrutiny and legal examination, e.g. judges must \"examine their testimony\" and \"examine into his reasons.\" Inquiry is treated as an operational part of adjudication rather than as a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a codified law collection and presents rules categorically, but that is appropriate to genre rather than a sign of hidden uncertainty suppression. It does not frame contested claims as settled public facts in the rhetorical sense targeted here." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no manufactured consensus claims such as \"everyone agrees\" or \"all experts\"; the authority rests on the king's promulgation and legal procedure, not asserted social unanimity. No consensus-assertion pattern is present." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text imposes rules on judges, merchants, builders, physicians, and kings alike, and even says a judge who errs must be removed. The scrutiny is not confined to opponents; the law also disciplines its own agents." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is legal/edictive rather than rhetorically designed to close inquiry, so no weaponization stack is triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text does not shut down inquiry; it explicitly invites future rulers and readers to examine the inscription and use it to understand cases and decisions. The repeated emphasis on reading, understanding, and observing the words suggests inquiry as a tool rather than a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "weak", "note": "The legal provisions are stated in categorical, rule-like terms, which is expected for a code, but the document also includes procedural safeguards like witness requirements, judicial examination, and oath-based adjudication. That gives some calibration, though the overall style remains highly absolute." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document does not claim broad human consensus or appeal to manufactured agreement. Its authority is grounded in divine and royal decree rather than assertions like 'everyone agrees' or 'there is no debate.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies legal standards to multiple parties, including judges, merchants, buyers, owners, and the king's officials, and it even penalizes judges for erroneous decisions. That indicates at least some symmetry in evidential and procedural expectations rather than a one-sided demand." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is severe and absolutist in places, but it primarily functions as a legal code rather than a rhetoric of epistemic closure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites public scrutiny and judgment, e.g. \"let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and stand before this my image\" and \"the inscription will explain his case to him.\" It presents law as something to be read, consulted, and used to settle disputes rather than to foreclose inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is highly categorical, but that fits the genre of a law code and royal inscription rather than a contested empirical claim. It does not make debatable factual assertions while stripping warranted hedging; instead it states prescribed rules and penalties in the form expected of the text." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims of broad human or expert consensus such as \"everyone knows\" or \"all agree.\" References to divine authority and royal legitimacy are asserted, but they are not framed as manufactured social consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies rules to multiple parties, including judges, merchants, builders, physicians, buyers, sellers, husbands, wives, and slaves, rather than exempting the speaker from scrutiny. It contains some hierarchy-based penalties, but not a rhetorical pattern of demanding rigor from others while withholding it from the lawgiver." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is authoritarian and punitive, but its rhetoric is not structurally organized around closing inquiry, manufacturing consensus, or using urgency to bypass independent evaluation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites scrutiny and adjudication: accusations must be proven, judges are told to examine testimony, and cases are settled through written judgment. It frames law as a mechanism for resolving disputes rather than suppressing inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a legal code, so it states rules categorically by design, but it does not present contested factual claims as if they were debated realities. Where uncertainty matters, it is handled procedurally through proof, witnesses, oaths, and judge review rather than by pretending ambiguity does not exist." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no manufactured claims that 'everyone agrees' or that dissent is nonexistent. Authority is grounded in the king’s enacted law and the procedures of judges and witnesses, not in asserted social consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies evidentiary and punitive rules across parties in a structured way, including penalties for false accusers, dishonest witnesses, negligent judges, and various wrongdoers. It does not reserve scrutiny only for opponents while exempting its own side from review." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The text is authoritative and punitive, but it does not clearly stack epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or temporal pressure in a way that closes independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites public verification through witnesses, judges, contracts, and appeals to evidence, e.g. disputes must be “proved” and judges are to “examine their testimony.” Inquiry is treated as a tool for adjudication rather than as a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents a prescriptive legal code and religious prologue in categorical terms, but that is intrinsic to the genre and not a case of suppressing known uncertainty about contested claims. There is no sign of claims being framed as settled facts while concealing debate." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text does not rely on manufactured consensus language such as “everyone agrees” or “all experts say,” nor does it erase dissent by asserting unsupported agreement. It grounds authority in formal adjudication and royal decree instead." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies legal procedures to multiple parties, including accusers, purchasers, judges, owners, and officials, with penalties for false claims and erroneous judgments. The text does not show a clear double standard where only opponents are asked for proof while the author’s side is exempt." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is authoritative and punitive, but it does not structurally foreclose independent reasoning in the rhetorical sense targeted by this detector." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text invites readers to \"read the inscription\" and says it will \"explain his case\" and help him \"find out what is just,\" which frames inquiry as a tool for understanding rather than a threat. It also presents the law as something future rulers should observe and use for judgment." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a legal code and proclamatory royal inscription, so its claims are stated with strong certainty by genre; however, it does not suppress known uncertainty in a contested claim. The laws themselves are presented as determinate rules rather than debated assertions, but that is characteristic of the genre rather than an obvious false-certainty maneuver." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims like \"everyone agrees\" or \"all experts agree\"; instead, the text grounds legitimacy in royal and divine authorization. It does not manufacture social consensus to foreclose dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies rules to many classes of actors, including kings, judges, merchants, owners, laborers, slaves, husbands, and wives, and it even says a judge shall be removed if his decision proves erroneous. That suggests some willingness to bind authority to standards rather than reserving scrutiny only for others." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The text is forceful and absolutist in legal/religious style, but it does not clearly stack epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or temporal pressure in a way that meets the threshold." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly invites scrutiny through formal procedures: judges must examine testimony, accusations must be proved, and even the king tells future rulers to observe and consider the written law. Inquiry is treated as part of adjudication rather than as a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is highly categorical because it is a legal code, but it does not suppress uncertainty where relevant: many provisions hinge on proof, witness testimony, oaths, or judicial examination. That procedural framing leaves room for contested facts rather than presenting them as universally known." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text does not claim broad social or expert consensus to justify its rules; it grounds authority in royal enactment and divine sanction instead. There are no manufactured 'everyone agrees' style claims in the operative legal provisions." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The code applies evidentiary and punitive standards across parties, including the judge, accuser, purchaser, merchant, and owner, rather than only demanding rigor from opponents. Several clauses also punish false accusation and false denial in symmetrical procedural fashion." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is authoritative and punitive, but its structure is legal-adjudicative rather than a stacked rhetorical campaign to foreclose independent reasoning." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 92, 82, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 92.0, "stdev": 4.522, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains a major internal contradiction between the king’s repeated claim to grant liberties freely and forever and the later enforcement mechanism that empowers the twenty-five barons to coerce him by seizing castles, lands, and possessions if he defaults. A second tension appears in the text’s promise of fixed royal authority alongside the transfer of enforcement power away from the king." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed across king, barons, justiciar, bailiffs, and the community of the realm. The security clause makes the king answerable to barons, while article 60 extends obligations horizontally through clergy and laymen toward their own men." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes the quarrel and the need for amendment of the kingdom, then builds a security structure to manage that tension. It does not pretend the conflict is absent; it directly names the dispute and the breach-risk it creates." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 paradox: royal grant of liberty versus coercive enforcement by the baronial committee. Step 1 decides Integrated because the later security clauses directly engage both specific poles of this contradiction, including the king’s obligations and the barons’ enforcement power." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, none are left wholly unacknowledged; the charter repeatedly names the quarrel, the remedy, and the enforcement structure. The tensions are stacked, but they are handled rather than silently accumulated." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 82, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "The charter contains several internal tensions between royal prerogative and baronial constraint, especially in the enforcement clauses and exception-riddled liberties. These are structural contradictions in governance rather than direct self-cancellations." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed: the king, justiciar, bailiffs, and the twenty-five barons all have duties and can be checked by one another. The enforcement mechanism creates reciprocal obligation rather than a single-direction command." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the quarrel between the king and the barons and repeatedly frames concessions as responses to that conflict. It also marks conditions like exceptions and redress, showing awareness of the tensions being managed." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 handling is Integrated: the charter directly engages both poles of the main tension between royal authority and baronial security by building a shared enforcement structure and explicit remedies. Step 1 decides this because the text names and operationalizes both sides of the contradiction, so Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are largely acknowledged and institutionally managed rather than left silent, so the unacknowledged count is 0. No strong paradox stack of unnoticed tensions is present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains an obvious internal tension between royal prerogative and constraints on that prerogative, especially in clauses 12, 39, and 61. It also repeatedly promises liberties while preserving exceptions and enforcement mechanisms that limit the promise." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed among the king, justiciar, bailiffs, sheriffs, the twenty-five barons, and in some clauses the community of the realm. Clause 61 is the clearest example, creating reciprocal enforcement and restraint across multiple parties." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the 'quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons' and presents the charter as an answer to that conflict. It also directly states remedial and settlement language in clauses 61–63, showing awareness of tension rather than silence." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank 1 is the royal power vs. liberties/security paradox, and the document engages both poles directly: it grants liberties while also building an enforcement system that constrains the king and his officers. Step 1 decides Integrated because the handling names and operationalizes both specific poles; Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, most are acknowledged and actively managed, but the recurring pattern of universal grant plus exception-heavy reservation sometimes reads as structurally unexamined in local clauses. Overall the set is mostly conscious tension-holding with one unacknowledged residue." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter repeatedly asserts royal authority and unilateral grants while simultaneously binding the king and his officers to be constrained by baronial enforcement and common counsel. It also grants broad liberties while preserving feudal obligations and exceptions, creating real internal tensions in the document's self-presentation." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed both downward and upward: the king and his officials are answerable to barons, peers, and the community, while tenants, sheriffs, and others remain bound toward the crown and their lords. Clause 61 especially creates reciprocal enforcement rather than a one-way duty." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly names the underlying quarrel, peace, transgressions, and redress, showing awareness that conflicting claims exist. It repeatedly frames the charter as a response to prior dispute and as a mechanism for correcting future breaches." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides Integrated: the text names and engages both poles of the major tensions, especially in clauses 12, 39, 61, and 62 where royal prerogative and constrained governance are both directly articulated and operationalized. The handling is not generic transplantable boilerplate; it is specific to this charter's own conflict structure." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are largely acknowledged and actively managed rather than left to sit silently. No distinct unacknowledged paradox dominates the document, so density is 0." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains a major contradiction between royal prerogative and baronial constraint: the king grants liberties and then authorizes a baronial enforcement mechanism to coerce him if he defaults. It also mixes universal proclamations of freedom with numerous exceptions and retained royal powers." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed: the king, his justiciar, and bailiffs are answerable to the twenty-five barons, while the barons are also sworn to enforce the charter and may be replaced if they fail. The obligations run both downward and upward rather than resting on one side alone." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the quarrel, the need for amendment of the kingdom, and the possibility that the king or his officers may be at fault. That awareness is built into the security clause rather than left implicit." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank 1 is handled by directly engaging both poles: royal authority is preserved in some clauses while simultaneously being limited and enforceable by the barons in others. Step 1 decides Integrated because the text names and structurally works through both sides of the sovereignty/accountability tension." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned contradictions are acknowledged and structurally managed rather than left silent, so there are no unacknowledged paradoxes in the scanned set. The charter’s tensions are cumulative but not a paradox stack of unnoticed conflicts." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains clear internal tensions, especially between royal prerogative and the constraints imposed by baronial oversight, lawful judgment, and common counsel. It also includes self-limiting mechanisms that sit alongside broad assertions of permanent authority." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across the king, his justiciar, bailiffs, barons, sheriffs, and the community of the realm. Clause 61 especially creates reciprocal obligations and enforcement responsibilities in multiple directions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges the quarrel between the king and the barons and frames the charter as an amendment to restore peace. It also openly states conditions for redress if the king or his officers break the charter." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 tension is handled by integrating royal authority with legal constraint and collective enforcement, rather than displacing the contradiction. Step 1 decides this: the text names and engages both poles of the king's authority and the limiting mechanisms within the charter." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, the document repeatedly acknowledges and operationalizes them, so no paradox is left silently unhandled in the scanned set. The paradoxes reinforce each other as a structured settlement of authority rather than separate unresolved conflicts." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains clear tensions between royal prerogative and constraint, especially where the king grants liberties while also reserving exceptions and enforcement power. It also presents mutual obligations between the king and barons that can pull in opposite directions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs both ways: the king must observe the charter, while the barons and community are empowered to enforce compliance and swear to uphold it. Clause 61 makes the enforcement structure explicitly reciprocal and distributed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the underlying quarrel and frames the grants as an effort to settle it, showing awareness of the tension. It also directly states conditions, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms rather than ignoring the conflict." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides this: the charter names and engages both poles of its central tension by giving liberties while also specifying how they are secured, limited, and enforced. The handling is not generic prepared language; it is document-specific and returns repeatedly to the same conflict." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The major contradictions are acknowledged and structurally managed across the document, so the scanned set does not produce unacknowledged paradoxes. The charter's tensions are mostly distributed and institutionally handled rather than left silent." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains a sharp contradiction between the king's repeated absolute grants of liberties and the later enforcement mechanism that authorizes the barons to seize his castles, lands, and possessions if he fails to comply. It also frames the quarrel as remitted and resolved while preserving coercive machinery to handle future breaches." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed: the king, his justiciar, and bailiffs are answerable to the twenty-five barons, while the barons themselves swear to enforce the charter and can replace members who die or are absent. The obligations also run toward clergy, laymen, and local communities in multiple directions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text openly names the tension as arising from 'the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons' and later says the 'will, hatreds, and bitterness' are remitted. It therefore shows direct awareness of the conflict and its attempted settlement." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides Integrated: the document explicitly engages both poles of the main tension by granting royal liberty while also creating a concrete enforcement regime that limits royal breach. The handling is not generic prepared language; it names this charter's own quarrel, barons, and remedies, so Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Across the scanned set, the major paradoxes are acknowledged and structurally handled rather than left silent. No unacknowledged paradoxes stand out as a compound stack in the charter's main settlement clauses." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter contains an explicit internal contradiction between royal authority and enforced limitation of that authority: the king grants liberties, yet later the barons are empowered to coerce him if he breaches them. It also contains multiple tension points around inherited rights, debt, wardship, and royal prerogative." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across the king, his justiciar, bailiffs, barons, the community of the realm, and in some clauses the barons themselves. Clause 61 is especially multi-directional, assigning enforcement and correction duties across several parties." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the 'quarrel' between the king and the barons and frames the charter as an amendment for 'the better allaying' of that conflict. Later clauses also openly describe what happens if the king or his officers fail to keep the peace." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank 1 is integrated: clause 61 directly engages both poles of the central tension by naming royal failure and establishing an enforcement mechanism that constrains the king while preserving the charter's stated order. Step 1 of the discriminator is satisfied because the handling names and works through the specific contradiction in this document." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Most major tensions are acknowledged and structurally managed, but at least one lesser contradiction remains only lightly handled or implicit. The paradox stack is real, though not densely unacknowledged." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 96, 96, 100, 96 ], "trimmed_mean": 98.86, "stdev": 2.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter broadly redistributes constraints on royal power toward churches, freemen, widows, merchants, and local courts, with many clauses limiting arbitrary seizure and centralizing no ongoing private capture for the author. The operative structure terminates in inherited liberties and enforceable protections for subjects rather than retained benefit for the crown." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers durable procedural and legal capability to the audience: lawful judgment, local jurisdiction, due process, fixed measures, and limits on arbitrary exactions. Readers are made less dependent on royal discretion and more able to assert rights through known rules." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly discloses the king's role, obligations, and concessions, including what he grants, confirms, and swears to uphold. His stake is visible as the party surrendering discretion and accepting constraints." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No strong extraction patterns are operative in the charter's current form: it repeatedly blocks arbitrary taking, delay, and privilege rather than preserving ongoing private capture. No benefit-framing-without-cost, dependency maintenance, or concealment of speaker gain is detected." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on a help-harm dynamic where service is used to maintain dependence on the author. Its architecture instead constrains the ruler and distributes enforceable autonomy to others." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter repeatedly terminates power in the hands of subjects: it limits royal seizure, requires lawful judgment, and restores liberties to freemen, widows, merchants, and towns. Its operative structure disperses authority away from the king into enforceable rights held by others." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives recipients durable procedural protections and local legal standing, enabling them to act against arbitrary power without needing ongoing permission from the crown. The text transfers constraints and remedies outward rather than keeping interpretive dependence centralized." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king’s own interest is openly named in multiple places, including ransom, expedition, and the preservation of his person and heirs. The document does not hide that the charter is also a settlement of the king’s conflict with the barons." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No dominant extraction patterns are operative in the charter’s current form; the terms constrain royal taking rather than preserve recurring private capture. Detected signals: none detected." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text is not structured around a helper who must keep an audience dependent on ongoing revelation or protection. Its provisions instead reduce reliance on the speaker by establishing external legal checks." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter repeatedly limits royal seizure, tax, wardship abuse, and arbitrary punishment, with authority being distributed to peers, counties, and barons. Its operative end state is the dispersal of power into enforceable liberties and procedures rather than retaining ongoing private benefit for the king." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives recipients durable legal protections and procedural tools that let them contest royal action without relying on discretionary favor. The document transfers enforceable capacity to the governed rather than preserving dependence on the ruler's interpretation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king's stake is explicit throughout: he grants, confirms, and later constrains his own powers, while also reserving limited exceptions such as ransoming his person and his family's safety. His interest is not hidden, even though it is subordinated to the charter's public framework." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No strong extraction signals are operative in the charter's current form: there is no ongoing fee architecture, retained IP, recurring creator privilege, or similar terminal private capture. The text instead emphasizes limits on seizure and mandatory justice." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter does not present a helper identity that must keep the audience dependent; it structures the audience's independence through enforceable rights. Any royal self-reference functions as the source of limitation, not as dependency maintenance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter overwhelmingly distributes protections, procedures, and constraints away from the king and toward freemen, barons, merchants, widows, and heirs. Its operative end state is a reallocation of authority into the hands of subjects and local/legal institutions rather than a retained benefit for the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It creates transferable legal constraints and process rights that let subjects act against arbitrary power without needing ongoing personal permission. The document repeatedly routes disputes to peers, county courts, and established law rather than keeping interpretive dependence on the king." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king explicitly states his role in granting, confirming, and binding himself and his heirs, and repeatedly names the concessions as his acts. His stake is not hidden, though the document is mainly about limiting his own prerogatives." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns dominate the charter's operative architecture; the text mainly limits seizure, delay, arbitrary justice, and other forms of value capture. The dispersal test is satisfied because authority is given away to subjects and legal bodies, not retained as ongoing private gain." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no dependency-maintaining helper structure in which help is offered but independence withheld. The charter's function is to reduce arbitrary dependence on the crown, not preserve it." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter primarily moves power away from the king and toward freemen, barons, merchants, widows, and local courts by constraining arbitrary seizure, requiring lawful judgment, and restoring liberties. Its architecture terminates in distributed legal protections and local enforcement rather than ongoing private capture by the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers enforceable rules to the realm, specifies procedures, and places judgment in peers, counties, and baronial enforcement rather than in royal discretion. The document makes subjects less dependent on the king for ordinary justice and rights." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king’s own stake is openly present throughout: he grants, confirms, and limits his prerogatives, and the security clause explicitly binds him and his officers. The charter also acknowledges the quarrel between him and the barons." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No sustained extraction pattern is operative in the charter as written; the listed restraints target arbitrary taking, not audience capture. The text does not center benefit to the author through recurring fees, retained privilege, or similar terminal value-capture." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no help-dependent relationship in which the author’s identity requires keeping the audience reliant on him. The charter’s effect is to reduce dependence on royal discretion by dispersing authority into law and local processes." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter’s operative structure redistributes protections, due process, and constraints on royal power to freemen, widows, merchants, and the realm at large. It terminates authority in the hands of subjects through enforceable liberties rather than preserving ongoing private gain for the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives recipients transferable legal capacities: notice, limits on arbitrary seizure, peer judgment, and access to justice. The document reduces dependence on the king’s discretionary will by specifying rules the audience can invoke without further revelation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text openly acknowledges the king’s side of the quarrel and his commitments under oath, so there is some disclosed authorial stake. But the dominant emphasis is on granting and confirming liberties to others, not on the author’s benefit." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Some extraction architecture remains in the background: royal consent, fines, reliefs, wardships, and enforcement mechanisms that still center sovereign authority. However, the text largely restrains those mechanisms rather than foregrounding benefit capture; no strong present-day personal extraction signals dominate." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not read as a help-seeking structure that must preserve dependence on the speaker. Its design is to limit the ruler’s discretion and make subjects less reliant on royal favor." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter repeatedly limits royal seizure, arbitrary amercement, wardship abuse, and delayed justice, pushing authority away from the crown and toward freemen, merchants, clergy, and barons. Its operative end state is the dispersal of power into enforceable liberties and local/legal constraints rather than retained monarchic benefit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It specifies rules, venues, procedures, and peer-based enforcement so subjects can rely on law rather than royal discretion. The document transfers constraints and remedies into the hands of the realm, reducing dependence on the king's personal favor." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The text openly frames the concessions as made by the king 'for God and the amendment of our kingdom' and repeatedly states what 'we' will not do or will restore. The sovereign's role and commitments are explicit throughout." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "There are isolated retained-royal-structure elements such as royal consent for some widows' remarriage and continued allegiance, but the dominant pattern is restraint of extraction rather than benefit capture. No strong signals of benefit framing without cost acknowledgment, manufactured urgency, or audience dependency maintenance are present." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter is not structured around maintaining dependency on the speaker; it instead codifies transferable limits and remedies that outlast the king's discretion. There is no pattern of genuine service masked by enforced audience reliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter’s operative architecture disperses authority outward to freemen, widows, merchants, counties, and peers by constraining royal seizure and creating enforceable legal rights. The one concentrated power it creates is explicitly transferred into the hands of the twenty-five barons and the community, not retained as a lasting private benefit of the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives transferrable legal constraints and procedures that let subjects resist arbitrary power without ongoing reliance on the king’s discretion. The document repeatedly supplies standards, venues, and enforcement mechanisms that increase independent standing before the law." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king’s own stake is openly acknowledged throughout: he grants, withholds, is bound by, and is subject to the charter’s restraints, and his person, castles, lands, and officers are directly implicated. This is not hidden behind neutral language." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns detected in the charter’s operative text: there is no audience dependency maintenance, no benefit-framing without cost acknowledgment, and no terminal private capture architecture. The document is structured as a limitation of extraction rather than a laundering of it." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a help-seeking persona that must keep subjects dependent; instead it establishes durable legal independence from royal discretion. Any kingly self-interest is subordinate to the transfer of enforceable protections." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 96, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter chiefly disperses power outward by limiting royal seizure, requiring lawful judgment, and securing liberties for freemen, merchants, widows, and local courts. Its operative end state is citizens and local institutions inheriting constraints on the crown, not ongoing private capture by the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers procedural and legal capacity to others by requiring common counsel, peer judgment, county courts, and clear rules that can be applied without direct royal discretion. The document reduces reliance on arbitrary royal action and makes rights more self-executing." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "The king explicitly names his own role, person, and authority repeatedly, including exceptions for ransoming his person and clauses tied to his reign and grants. His stake is not hidden, though it is subordinated to the liberties being granted." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Some extraction signals appear in the monarchy’s retained authority and revenue structure, but they are constrained and often procedurally checked rather than dominant. Detected signals: personal stake/royal privilege is present, but no strong benefit-framing-without-cost or audience-dependency maintenance is operative." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not read as a helper who must keep an audience dependent on them; it mainly creates enforceable limits and transferable legal protections. Service intent and structural effect align more than they diverge." } ] } ] }, { "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": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional charter listing grants, rules, and enforcement mechanisms; it does not build a claim by explicit evidence-to-conclusion reasoning in the argumentative sense. The text is largely declarative and operative rather than inferential." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacy is present in the charter’s operative provisions. The repeated clauses are legal prescriptions, not argumentative moves that depend on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority, causation, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or irrelevant warrant." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited provisions directly ground the document’s own institutional conclusions and obligations. This is a rule-setting text, so the provisions themselves are the support for the stated outcomes." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter. All clauses were read literally as legal/constitutional commitments, with no acknowledged figurative speech driving any conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack. The document does not show systematic fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of grants, rules, and enforcement provisions, not an argument that builds a conclusion from evidence. It largely states obligations and exceptions, without an explicit inferential chain from premises to a debated conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant-warrant move is present. The document is primarily normative legal text rather than argumentative prose." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted conclusion being supported by evidence in the relevant sense; the text is a standalone set of provisions. Accordingly, there is no evidentiary bridge to evaluate." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as a medieval legal charter. I treated the substantive provisions as literal legal claims and obligations, not figurative speech; the document’s formulaic language and ceremonial openings were read as charter conventions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack. The document does not exhibit three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of provisions and declarations, not an argument built from evidence to a disputed conclusion. It asserts obligations and liberties directly rather than presenting a reasoning chain from premises to a conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur warrant failure is present. The text is primarily legal drafting with explicit rules, not fallacious argumentation." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document's cited provisions and formal clauses do ground the charter's own stated legal conclusions and obligations as written. No unsupported evidentiary leap is being made inside the text." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter / constitutional instrument. The clauses were read literally as operative legal commitments rather than figurative language; there are no meaningful acknowledged metaphors doing argumentative work." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack. The document does not exhibit a systematic pattern of distinct fallacious moves." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of provisions and declarations, not an argument built from evidence to a contested conclusion. It states commands and rights, but does not present a reasoning chain that needs auditing as a valid inference." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present in the excerpt. The document is primarily normative/legal text, and its assertions are not structured as evidentiary arguments that would trigger ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted conclusion reached by cited evidence to assess. The text mostly enacts obligations and liberties rather than using facts or citations to ground a separate claim." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter. I treated operative clauses like 'no one shall...' and 'we will...' as literal normative provisions, not figurative speech; there are no acknowledged metaphors doing argumentative work." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero detected fallacy instances and zero distinct types, there is no stack or systematic pattern of fallacious reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "This is a charter of granted rules and procedures rather than an argumentative essay, but it does contain a coherent structure of commitments, conditions, and enforcement mechanisms. The provisions are linked as legal stipulations, not as evidence-driven claims needing inference." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacy is present in the chartered provisions as written. The text states obligations and exceptions, but does not rely on ad hominem, causal leaps, unsupported binaries, authority substitution, hasty generalization, or an unbridged evidentiary warrant." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted factual conclusion being argued from evidence here; the document is primarily a set of enacted terms. Because it is not making an inferential claim, there is no evidence-to-conclusion bridge to evaluate." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Read as a medieval legal charter/statutory instrument. The numbered clauses were treated as literal legal commitments, not as figurative language or rhetorical ornament." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero detected fallacies, there is no stack. The document does not exhibit three or more distinct fallacy categories." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of provisions and guarantees, not an argument built from premises to a defended conclusion. It mostly states rules and commitments rather than reasoning from evidence." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant is present in this text. The document is largely declarative legal text rather than fallacious argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no substantive conclusion being inferred from evidence here; the clauses simply enact or restate legal terms. So there is no evidentiary bridge to assess." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter. The clauses were read as literal legal commitments and provisions, not as metaphor or figurative rhetoric." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero detected fallacy instances, there is no stack and no systematic pattern of distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of provisions and obligations, not an argument built from premises to a defended conclusion. It contains extensive operative clauses, but not a reasoning chain that infers a conclusion from evidence." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No named fallacies are present. The document makes legal-political directives and guarantees, but it does not rely on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority-substitution, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or an irrelevant-warrant bridge to reach a conclusion." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted evidentiary conclusion to evaluate; the text is mostly performative charter language rather than claims supported by cited facts or citations. The provisions stand as enacted terms, not as an inference from evidence." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter / constitutional text. Nearly all clauses were read literally as legal commitments; no material is acknowledged as figurative rhetoric requiring a special genre-based exemption." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no stack of three or more fallacy types. The document is structurally legislative rather than fallacy-driven." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a charter of declarations and provisions, not an argument from evidence to a conclusion. It does not present a reasoning chain that infers a claim from premises." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant is present. The text is legal/charter language with directives and rights, not fallacious argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There are no asserted factual conclusions being supported by cited evidence; the document primarily states obligations, rights, and procedures. So there is no evidence-to-conclusion bridge to evaluate." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: medieval legal charter / constitutional text. I treated the charter's operative clauses as literal legal claims and directives, not metaphor or figurative speech." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero detected instances across the seven categories, there is no fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "This is a list of royal grants and legal provisions; where claims are made, they are supported by explicit conditions, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms rather than by hidden inference chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No argumentative fallacies are load-bearing here. The document is primarily legislative/charter text, and its provisions are stated directly rather than argued through ad hominem, causal leaps, suppression of alternatives, or misapplied evidence." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The asserted provisions are grounded in the text itself: each liberty, restriction, or procedure is stated directly and does not depend on an evidentiary warrant that fails to reach the conclusion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as a medieval legal charter/statute. All passages were treated as literal legal claims and commands, not figurative rhetoric." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack; the text does not show three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 20, 100, 62, 100, 100, 62, 100, 92 ], "trimmed_mean": 88.0, "stdev": 28.204, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is a legal grant that lays out conditions, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms rather than shutting down inquiry. It repeatedly specifies processes for summons, judgment, and redress, which is structurally open to scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is not making contested empirical claims; it uses formal legal commitments and conditional clauses without needing hedging. Where it does specify exceptions and contingencies, it does so explicitly rather than pretending away uncertainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "It does not manufacture broad agreement with phrases like 'everyone knows' or 'all experts agree.' Instead, it grounds authority in charter language, oaths, witnesses, and specified baronial procedures." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text imposes procedural obligations on the king, officers, barons, and others in a comparatively symmetrical legal framework. It does not demand rigor only from opponents while exempting the speaker's side." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is primarily a rights charter and governance instrument, not a rhetoric of epistemic closure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter is framed as a settled grant of liberties and commands to be observed, not as an invitation to further inquiry or debate. Its language closes the matter by asserting what “shall” and “will” be done, rather than treating scrutiny as a continuing tool." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document presents its provisions in categorical, uncompromising terms, with little hedging or acknowledgment of uncertainty. This is especially evident in the repeated absolute formulations like “we will” and “shall,” which state the rules as fixed." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "The text repeatedly invokes collective authority—“common counsel,” “the community of the whole realm,” and sworn barons—but this is asserted as binding legitimacy rather than evidenced consensus. The agreement is declared through the charter’s own authority rather than demonstrated with independent support." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter imposes obligations and limits on the king and his officials, but it does not apply a symmetrical evidentiary standard across all parties in the sense of examining its own claims with the same scrutiny demanded of others. Its structure is directive and one-sided, allocating duties rather than testing competing positions." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are clearly present under the detector’s high-threshold standard. The document is forceful and categorical, but it does not substantially exhibit the stack pattern of rhetorical foreclosure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is structured as a grant of specific rights and procedures, including summons, notice, and inquest, which invites formal process rather than foreclosing inquiry. It does not frame questioning as disloyal or dangerous." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is largely a definitive legal instrument and does not present open factual disputes as settled empirical claims. Its categorical wording is appropriate to a charter rather than an example of false certainty projection." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Where collective assent is invoked, it is tied to concrete mechanisms like counsel, summons, oaths, and named baronial enforcement rather than vague assertions that everyone agrees. There is no manufactured consensus framing." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document imposes procedural constraints on royal action and also binds barons and others through reciprocal obligations and oaths. It does not clearly demand rigor from one side while exempting itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is mainly rights- and process-oriented, so the stack threshold is not triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 62, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter does not invite inquiry or open-ended scrutiny; it presents settled terms to be observed and enforced. The repeated language of command, confirmation, and finality closes rather than opens deliberation." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "The document states obligations and rights in categorical terms with no hedging or acknowledgment of uncertainty. Its legal style is assertive and definitive, not calibrated to contested or tentative claims." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no appeals to manufactured agreement such as 'everyone agrees' or 'all experts know'; instead, the text grounds authority in explicit chartered terms and named processes. Consensus is not asserted as a rhetorical substitute for evidence." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "weak", "note": "The charter imposes constraints on the king and his officials, which shows some symmetry in principle, but it is a one-sided grant of liberties rather than a balanced comparison of opposing positions. It does not clearly demand standards from others that it also refuses to apply to itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed weaponization signals are present. The text is forceful and authoritative, but it does not clearly exhibit a stack of foreclosure tactics." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter does not try to shut down inquiry; instead it repeatedly specifies procedures for summons, inquest, judgment, and redress. It frames rule-making as something to be observed through lawful process rather than insulated from scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "This is a legal instrument with categorical commitments, but it is not presenting contested factual claims as if they were empirically settled without context. The text is mostly normative and procedural, so false-certainty style foreclosure is not evident." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document does not manufacture broad agreement with phrases like 'everyone knows' or 'all experts agree'; when it invokes authority, it does so through named parties, oath, and chartered consent. Any consensus claim is grounded in the chartering process rather than asserted as ambient social unanimity." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter imposes legal constraints on the king and his officials as well as on subjects, and it provides mechanisms for redress if the king or his agents violate them. That is structurally symmetric rather than a one-sided demand for rigor from others only." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is formal and authoritative, but it does not clearly stack multiple rhetoric-to-close-thinking patterns." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is not framed as closing inquiry or debate; it is a list of agreed liberties and procedures, including summons, counsel, and lawful judgment. It repeatedly invokes legal processes and review rather than telling readers that questions are unnecessary." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is highly declarative, but that is appropriate to a legal charter rather than an evidentiary claim. It does not present contested factual assertions as settled empirical truth, so there is no clear false-certainty pattern to flag." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "When collective assent is invoked, it is tied to formal mechanisms like 'common counsel of our kingdom,' summons of specific ranks, and sworn witnesses. The agreement is procedurally grounded rather than asserted as an undefined 'everyone agrees' claim." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter imposes legal constraints on the king and his officers as well as on subjects, such as limits on seizure, amercement, and delay of justice. It does not obviously demand rigor from others while exempting its own side from comparable standards." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is a rights-and-procedure charter, so it does not trigger a weaponization stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 62, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The charter is framed as a definitive settlement: \"we have granted\" and \"firmly order\" recur throughout, with no invitation to further inquiry or contestation. The document closes rather than opens deliberation, especially in the security clauses that bind future action to the stated terms." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "Claims are stated in categorical, mandatory terms with essentially no hedging, even where future enforcement and legal consequences are complex. The language presents the provisions as settled and universally binding rather than contingent or uncertain." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "The text references common counsel, the barons, and an oath on both sides, which supplies some grounding for agreement. However, it also relies heavily on asserted authority and royal confirmation rather than demonstrated broad consensus, so the consensus signal is only partial." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "weak", "note": "There is some symmetry in that obligations and remedies are stated for both the king and others, and the charter binds multiple parties. Still, the king’s perspective and enforcement machinery dominate, so scrutiny is not evenly distributed across all positions." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are clearly present at threshold. The document is strongly declarative, but it does not show a confirmed stack of three or more weaponization patterns." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter is largely a grant of specific rights and procedures, and it repeatedly builds in review mechanisms, lawful judgment, and county-based inquests rather than telling readers to stop questioning. It does not frame inquiry as a threat; if anything, it institutionalizes scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a legal charter written in categorical terms, but that is appropriate to the genre and not a sign of false certainty about contested claims. It does not present debated matters as settled facts; it sets binding rules and procedures." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are references to common counsel, peers, county courts, and the community of the realm, but these are grounded in institutional procedures rather than asserted as empty slogans of universal agreement. The text does not rely on manufactured consensus language like 'everyone knows' or 'all experts agree.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter imposes legal constraints and procedural standards on royal action and on disputes more broadly, including restraints on officials and requirements of lawful judgment. It does not visibly demand rigor from others while exempting itself from comparable standards." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is formal and authoritative, but it does not show a clear stack of epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or urgency-based closure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "weak", "note": "The charter does invite enforcement through peers, barons, and lawful judgment rather than pure fiat, which leaves some room for adjudication. But it is fundamentally a rights-granting settlement rather than an inquiry-friendly document, so openness is only weakly present." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is highly formulaic and legally declarative, but it does not present contested empirical claims as settled facts; it mainly states obligations and procedures. There is no clear false-certainty pattern because the document is not trying to describe uncertain evidence in the first place." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Claims of collective assent are grounded in the charter’s explicit political process: the king’s grants, the barons’ role, witness formula, and the oath language at the end. It does not rely on manufactured slogans like 'everyone agrees.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document repeatedly subjects royal action to the same legal forms it imposes on others, including lawful judgment, peer processes, and baronial enforcement. While hierarchical, it is not rhetorically double-standarded in the sense of demanding proof only from opponents." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The charter is coercive in a constitutional sense, but it does not clearly stack epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or urgency tactics." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 92, 100, 92, 100, 100, 92, 92, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 96.57, "stdev": 4.216, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, especially between original constitutional provisions and later amendments that revise them (for example, Senate selection, presidential succession, voting rights, and prohibition). These are explicit within the text and structurally significant." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the states, the courts, and the people, with powers and checks flowing in multiple directions. The text repeatedly assigns authority and constraint reciprocally rather than to a single center." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly acknowledges revisionary tension through amendment language such as repeal, exceptions, provisos, and inoperative clauses. It shows awareness that later provisions alter earlier ones." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 handling is integrated: the Constitution as a whole names and directly engages the specific earlier provisions that are later modified by amendments, so Step 1 of the discriminator is satisfied. Later amendments return to and substantively revise prior poles rather than using generic placeholder language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are acknowledged and procedurally addressed through amendment and exception structure, so none of the identified tensions remain silent. The paradox stack is present, but not unacknowledged." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, especially around federalism, representation, slavery, and executive power. Multiple later amendments revise earlier arrangements rather than leaving a single settled constitutional scheme." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the states, the President, the courts, and the people. Many provisions make one body constrain another, and later amendments also shift authority back and forth across institutions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes tensions by building in exceptions, checks, ratification rules, and later corrective amendments. It repeatedly names conflicts in governance and then addresses them through formal constitutional procedures." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides this as Integrated: the document as a whole names and engages both poles of its main tensions, including later amendments that directly revise earlier provisions. The handling is document-specific rather than generic prepared language, so Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No scanned paradox remains unacknowledged in the selected set; the major tensions are explicitly handled through amendment, limitation, or allocation of authority. The paradoxes tend to be resolved in stacked constitutional revisions rather than silently left in place." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, especially between broad congressional power and enumerated limits, and between representation principles across the original Constitution and later amendments. These are structural paradoxes within the text itself, not external criticisms." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the courts, the states, and the people, with checks and reciprocal limits running in multiple directions. For example, lawmaking, veto override, appointments, impeachment, and constitutional amendment all create shared responsibility." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes some tensions by building in exceptions, limits, and amendment procedures, but it usually does so without naming them as contradictions. The awareness is procedural rather than reflective." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decided: the document repeatedly engages both poles of its tensions by specifying powers and limits in the same provisions, and later amendments directly revise earlier rules rather than ignoring them. This is whole-document, pole-specific engagement, not generic prepared language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "At least one scanned paradox remains unacknowledged in the sense that the text preserves tension without explicit acknowledgment, even while largely managing it through constitutional design. The overall stack is low-density because many tensions are absorbed into amendment and allocation mechanisms." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, most notably between broad federal power and state reservation, and between slavery-era provisions and later amendments abolishing slavery and expanding rights. These are structural constitutional contradictions/revisions rather than errors within a single clause." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the Senate, the States, the courts, and the people through elections, impeachment, ratification, and enforcement clauses. Multiple provisions assign checks in both directions rather than a single center of authority." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges tension by building in exceptions, limits, and amendment mechanisms, such as the supremacy clause paired with reserved powers and the amendment process that allows later repair. Later amendments also directly revise earlier arrangements, showing awareness of prior conflict." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides: the document names and engages both poles of its key tensions through explicit structural compromises, exceptions, and amendment/revision provisions, so the handling is integrated rather than generic scripted language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, most are explicitly managed by the constitutional structure, but at least one major historical contradiction is only resolved later by amendment rather than within the original text. The paradoxes also reinforce each other as a stack of powers-versus-rights and federal-versus-state tensions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several structural tensions, most notably federal supremacy versus state powers, and representation based on persons versus the original exclusionary counting rules that later amendments revise. These are real internal paradoxes in the constitutional framework, not merely topical references." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability and authority are distributed across Congress, the President, the courts, and the states, with each checking and constraining the others. The text repeatedly assigns reciprocal duties and limits rather than locating responsibility in one place." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The document does not explicitly narrate its own contradictions as contradictions, but it does mark tensions through balancing clauses, exceptions, and amendment procedures. That is awareness in structural form rather than explicit commentary." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank 1 handling is Integrated: the Constitution and amendments engage specific tensions directly by specifying how competing powers, rights, and procedures coexist. Step 1 of the discriminator decides this, because the later amendments and internal clauses name and adjust the relevant poles rather than merely using generic constitutional language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, at least two remain unacknowledged in the sense of not being explicitly flagged as tensions by the text itself, even though they are structurally handled. The paradoxes also reinforce one another across sovereignty, representation, and rights." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, especially around federalism, representation, and the balance of power among branches. Later amendments directly alter or reverse earlier rules, so contradictions are structurally identifiable across the whole text." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the Senate, the states, and the people, with multiple checks and reciprocal restraints. The text repeatedly assigns authority and counter-authority in more than one direction." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The Constitution generally presents tensions as formal design choices rather than explicitly naming them as contradictions. Some amendments acknowledge earlier limitations or revisions, but the text does not overtly reflect on paradox as such." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Primary handling is integrated: later amendments and internal procedures engage the specific earlier provisions they modify, rather than merely speaking generically about constitutional order. Step 1 of the discriminator decides this because the amendments name and alter the earlier rules directly; formal register does not make it scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned tensions are mostly acknowledged through amendments, revisions, and explicit allocation of powers, so the set does not present multiple unhandled paradoxes. There is no strong compound stack of silent contradictions in the document as a whole." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal tensions, including representation rules that shift from state-based to population-based apportionment and from legislative selection of senators to direct election. These are recognizable constitutional contradictions or revisions within the full text." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across multiple institutions and levels of government: Congress, the President, the States, the Senate, and the House all constrain one another. The text repeatedly assigns powers and limits in reciprocal directions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text does not explicitly discuss paradox as such, but it does openly register tensions through amendments, provisos, exceptions, and superseding clauses. That shows awareness of conflicting arrangements even if not framed as a contradiction." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides: the amendments and later provisions directly engage the specific earlier rules they revise or qualify, so the document as a whole handles tensions by integrating revisions rather than merely deflecting them. Later amendments explicitly return to earlier poles (e.g., Senate selection, apportionment, voting rights) and work them through." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, the document ultimately acknowledges and addresses them through amendment structure, so no scanned paradox remains unacknowledged. The contradictions are managed openly rather than left sitting silently." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains multiple internal tensions, most notably broad popular sovereignty versus differentiated institutional representation, and constitutional supremacy versus reserved state powers. These are real structural tensions within the text, not merely topical contrasts." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the courts, the states, and the people, with checks and vetoes flowing in several directions. This is especially clear in impeachment, appointments, treaty-making, elections, and federalism provisions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text rarely names tensions as tensions, but it does sometimes build in explicit balancing language such as exceptions, conditions, and later amendments that revise earlier rules. The awareness is structural rather than reflective." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 tensions are handled by naming and operationalizing both poles of the conflict within the constitutional scheme itself, rather than deflecting or ignoring them. Step 1 decides: the text engages the specific content of both sides of the main federalism-and-power tensions, so the handling is Integrated." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 2, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, at least two are left largely unremarked even while the document proceeds with governing rules. The paradoxes reinforce each other as a broader pattern of managed constitutional balance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains several internal constitutional tensions, such as state-versus-federal control, separation of powers balanced against shared appointment and veto powers, and the original Constitution versus later amendments. These are substantive and structurally important rather than merely stylistic." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across Congress, the President, the Senate, the states, and the people, with checks and overrides running in multiple directions. For example, appointments, lawmaking, impeachment, elections, and amendment authority are all shared or constrained by more than one actor." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text often explicitly marks tensions by building in exceptions, qualifications, and override procedures, but it does not typically frame them as paradoxes. Amendments later address some earlier constitutional tensions directly, which shows some awareness of the document's evolving conflicts." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Dominant method: Integrated. Step 1 decides this because the document repeatedly engages both poles of its own tensions through specific, matching mechanisms—e.g. federal power constrained by state roles, then later amended where needed—rather than using generic placeholder language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Most scanned tensions are handled openly through structure, so the unacknowledged count is low. One broad tension remains more implicit than explicit: the coexistence of the original constitutional order with later amendments that partially revise it." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 72, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 9.333, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document repeatedly disperses authority to citizens and subordinate institutions: representation, elections, rights protections, checks and balances, and amendments that constrain government power. Even where power is concentrated in offices, it is framed as delegated public authority rather than ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It builds reader/citizen independence by enumerating rights, limiting coercive power, and establishing procedures that let people and states check officials. The text gives transferable governance rules rather than withholding them behind an interpreter." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no personal authorial stake disclosed in the operative constitutional text. That absence is expected for a public founding document and does not by itself indicate concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns are present in the constitutional text itself; the architecture is mostly public, constrained, and accountability-oriented. Detected signals: none." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not read as a dependency-maintaining rescue posture. Its effect is to reduce reliance on any one actor by distributing power, defining limits, and preserving independent recourse." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative structure disperses authority to the governed: it establishes representative institutions, enumerates rights, and repeatedly constrains officeholders. Any inward-authority provisions are framed as temporary or rule-bound and terminate in public institutions rather than private retention." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text builds reader/citizen independence by defining rights, checks, and procedures that let people evaluate and contest power without needing a single interpreter. It transfers durable decision-making capacity into public institutions and individual protections." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no personal authorial stake disclosed; the Constitution speaks in institutional and collective terms. That absence is expected for a public charter and does not itself indicate concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns detected: no recurring fee structure, founder privilege, retained IP, investor returns, or benefit capture for a private author. The compensation provisions are public and regulated, not terminal private extraction." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not present a helper identity that must keep an audience dependent on its revelation. Its architecture instead formalizes transferable rules and limits that outlast the framers." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document establishes a governing structure that purports to distribute authority outward to citizens and states, with repeated limits, checks, elections, and rights protections. Its operative end state is a public framework meant to disperse power rather than retain it for the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It transfers durable civic capacity by specifying institutions, rights, procedures, and constraints that readers/citizens can rely on without ongoing permission from the authors. The text is designed to make the audience less dependent on any one person for political authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no individualized self-interest or private stake disclosed by the framers beyond institutional role language. That absence is not disqualifying here because the document is architectural and service-oriented." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns are present: there is no benefit framing without limits, identity-dependence rhetoric, manufactured urgency, or retained founder privilege as a governing principle. The text instead emphasizes public accountability, published proceedings, and constraints on officeholders." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not show a service intent paired with structural dependence maintenance. It creates institutions and rights that can function independently of the drafters." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The Constitution repeatedly disperses authority into institutions, offices, rights, and procedures that constrain rulers and empower citizens. Even where it centralizes power, that power is framed as delegated public authority rather than terminal private capture, with the authority terminating in the governed rather than in the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text builds durable reader/citizen independence by specifying rights, checks, elections, due process, and limits on governmental power. It transfers operational rules to the public so they can govern, contest, and restrain power without ongoing reliance on the authors." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no meaningful personal stake from the framers disclosed in the document’s operative provisions. The text speaks in institutional and public terms, not as self-justifying personal advocacy." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction patterns are operative in the constitutional structure as presented: none detected. The document does not center recurring private benefit, founder privilege, retained IP, investor returns, or audience-dependence maintenance." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not show genuine-help-language paired with structural dependency maintenance. Its architecture is independence-building and does not require continued reliance on the framers for interpretation or rescue." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document overwhelmingly structures power as delegated authority bound to public ends: justice, liberty, voting rights, due process, and checks on officeholders. Its operative design disperses authority into institutions and rights held by the people rather than concentrating ongoing benefit in the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives readers and citizens durable rules, rights, and constraints that let them evaluate and resist government power without needing a personal intermediary. The text transfers governing capacity into public institutions and enforceable limits." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no individual authorial stake disclosure; the document speaks in institutional and civic terms. That absence is not suspicious here because the architecture is impersonal and rights-dispersing." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals are operative in the constitutional text as a whole: there is no recurring private-fee model, retained IP, founder privilege, investor return structure, or audience-dependence maintenance. Some historical exclusions and power concentrations appear, but they are not framed as ongoing private capture by the document's authors." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present as a helper that must keep an audience dependent on it; it is a framework meant to outlast and constrain its framers. Its effect is institutional autonomy, not a maintained victim-audience relationship." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative structure is a public constitutional framework that distributes authority, constrains officeholders, and secures rights for citizens. Power is repeatedly vested in institutions as a means of serving the populace, not as an end retained by the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives transferable governance rules, procedural safeguards, and rights protections that let readers/citizens evaluate and act without depending on a speaker. The text is designed to make authority legible and limit arbitrary control." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual authorial self-interest is foregrounded; the document speaks in institutional and collective terms. That absence is consistent with a public founding text rather than concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns detected: there is no recurring fee/privilege architecture, no founder/investor return structure, no dependency-maintenance framing, and no personal capture mechanism in the constitutional text itself." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a helper identity that structurally prevents audience independence. Instead, it explicitly aims to create self-governing capacity and limit concentrated power." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document repeatedly distributes authority to citizens, states, courts, and elected branches, with checks, rights, and enforcement mechanisms designed to constrain concentrated power. Its operative end state is a governable public structure that disperses authority rather than preserving private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives readers and institutions transferable rights, limits, and procedures for accountability, enabling action without reliance on a single speaker. The text teaches the rules of the system directly and does not require ongoing dependence on its framers." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no personal authorial stake disclosed; the document speaks in institutional terms rather than as a self-interested advocate. In this context, absence of stake is neutral because the architecture is service-aligned." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction patterns are detected: there is no benefit framing that withholds capability, no identity-dependent urgency, no maintenance of reader dependence, and no recurring private value-capture by the author. The ownership and enforcement structures are public, not terminally extractive." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a helper who must keep an audience dependent for identity or function. Instead, it formalizes independence through rights, limits, and distributed authority." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 72, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative architecture disperses authority outward to citizens: it creates representative institutions, enumerates rights, and repeatedly limits state and federal power. The power structure terminates in the governed public rather than retaining ongoing private capture for the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It gives readers and citizens transferable safeguards and powers—jury trial, speech, petition, due process, voting rights, and state/federal checks—so they can operate without relying on a central speaker. The text largely teaches the rules of self-government rather than keeping people dependent on an interpreter." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual authorial stake is disclosed in the constitutional text itself; it speaks in institutional and public terms. This is not negative here because the document is structured as public law, not personal advocacy." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Extraction patterns are present in the form of entrenched governmental power, compensation for officers, and exclusive rights/protections that preserve institutional authority; the document also contains historically exclusionary provisions and protections of slavery-era arrangements in the original text. These are not private revenue signals, but they do show nontrivial power retention and coercive state capacity." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no sign of a helper identity that must maintain audience dependence for legitimacy. The text is impersonal, institutional, and aimed at creating durable self-governing capacity rather than a dependency loop." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document repeatedly disperses authority outward to citizens, states, and lower offices through elections, enumerated rights, and checks on federal power. Even where power is centralized, it is framed as constrained and spent into public institutions rather than kept as terminal private benefit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It builds durable reader/citizen capacity by defining rights, limits, procedures, and remedies that can be used without dependence on a single speaker. The text is structured to let the public, states, and courts act with known rules rather than requiring ongoing interpretive gatekeeping." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No authorial self-interest is meaningfully disclosed; the document speaks as a constitutional settlement rather than a personal proposal. That absence is not disqualifying here because the directional signals are strongly service-aligned." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No clear extraction signals detected: there is no manufactured urgency, identity dependence, suppression of scrutiny, or ongoing private value-capture architecture in the operative constitutional text. The few compensations and offices are public, regulated, and non-personal in structure." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not rely on maintaining a dependent audience or a victim-beneficiary relationship for its own identity. Its architecture aims to terminate authority in public institutions and rights rather than preserve speaker indispensability." } ] } ] }, { "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": "absent", "note": "The text is a constitutional transcription and amendments, not an argumentative passage that builds a conclusion from evidence. It states rules and provisions, but does not present a reasoning chain from premises to a contested conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacious move is present. The document mostly consists of direct constitutional provisions, not an argument containing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no single asserted conclusion being supported by evidence in the argumentative sense. The provisions are self-standing legal text rather than claims that need evidentiary grounding within the document." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: constitutional/legal transcription. I treated quoted constitutional language as literal legal text and the closing archival note as descriptive metadata, not argumentative content; there are no acknowledged figures of speech to exempt or analyze." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack. The document does not show three or more distinct fallacy categories." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription, not an argument that develops evidence into a conclusion. It mainly states institutional rules and rights, with no reasoning chain to audit." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present. The text contains many categorical and directive provisions, but they are asserted as constitutional clauses rather than argued inferential moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no conclusion being supported by evidence in the document. The text does not marshal facts or citations toward a separate claim." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: constitutional/legal text. I treated the provisions as literal legal claims and operative rules, not as figurative language." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack. The document is declarative law, not a multi-fallacy argument." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription and amendment list, not an argumentative passage that builds conclusions from premises. It mainly states provisions and rules rather than presenting a reasoning chain to audit." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No named logical fallacies are present in the document's operative text. The passages read as literal legal/constitutional provisions, not as premises-and-conclusion arguments relying on personal attack, causal misfires, sampling errors, or unbridged evidence-to-claim leaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "Where the document states requirements, powers, and prohibitions, the text itself supplies the operative terms directly; there is no external conclusion being inferred from separate evidence. As given, the provisions straightforwardly ground the stated rules." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a constitutional/legal transcription. I read the operative articles and amendments literally as legal claims, and the prefatory headings/attribution lines as documentary material rather than figurative argument." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no fallacy stack. The document does not exhibit three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription and amendments, not an argument that develops evidence into a conclusion. It mainly states rules, powers, and limits rather than building a reasoning chain." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacious moves are present; the text is primarily declarative legal text, not argumentative prose." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted factual or policy conclusion that the text’s evidence is trying to ground, so there is no evidentiary bridge to evaluate." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as a constitutional/legal text. All provisions were treated as literal operative legal claims or rules; there were no acknowledged figures of speech driving conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack and no pattern of systematic fallacious use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription and amendment text, not an argumentative passage developing conclusions from evidence. It states rules and powers directly rather than building a reasoned inference chain." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing argumentative fallacies are present in the text. The document primarily enumerates constitutional provisions, so there is no target conclusion depending on a faulty logical bridge." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "Because the document does not advance a conclusion from cited evidence, there is no evidentiary warrant to assess as supporting or failing to support a conclusion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: legal/constitutional text. All quoted provisions were read as literal legal claims or rules, not figurative language; the document contains no acknowledged metaphor or rhetorical flourish that changes the structural analysis." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional text, not an argumentative passage that develops a chain from evidence to a stated conclusion. It primarily lists rules and provisions rather than presenting a reasoned inference structure." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant-warrant structure is asserted in the text. The document is mostly prescriptive legal language, not an argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no conclusion being argued for by cited evidence in the relevant sense, so there is no evidentiary bridge to assess. The text does not marshal facts or authorities to support a contested inference." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: constitutional/legal text. I treated all provisions as literal legal claims and did not treat any passage as figurative rhetoric; the task is still structure-only, but the document contains no argumentative claims to audit." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacy instances and zero distinct fallacy types, there is no stack. The document does not show systematic fallacious reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription and amendments, not an argumentative passage that builds a conclusion from premises. It chiefly states rules and legal provisions rather than offering an explicit inference chain." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present in the text as given. The document consists of constitutional provisions, not an argument relying on a personal attack, suppressed binary, authority citation, causal chain, hasty generalization, or relevance bridge failure." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no asserted argumentative conclusion that evidence is being used to support. The text is primarily normative/legal text, so this signal is not applicable in the usual premise-to-conclusion sense." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as a constitutional transcript and amendments. All operative clauses were treated as literal legal claims/rules, with no acknowledged figurative language carrying argumentative weight." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacy instances and zero distinct types, there is no stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional text made of operative provisions, not an argumentative essay that develops conclusions from evidence. It presents rules and rights directly rather than chaining premises to a stated conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacious move is present in the document as written. The provisions are direct legal claims and enactments, not instances of ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, causation error, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no separate conclusion being argued from cited evidence here, so there is no evidentiary bridge to evaluate. The text functions as source material rather than as a claim supported by evidence." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: constitutional/legal text. I treated the provisions as literal legal claims and rules, not as figurative language, and did not apply any lowered or heightened strictness based on genre." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero fallacies detected, there is no stack. The text does not show three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "This is a constitutional transcription rather than an argument that uses evidence to reach a conclusion. It states rules and provisions, but it does not present a reasoning chain from premises to an asserted conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present in the text as given. The document is primarily enactment language, not an argument containing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority, causation, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no evidentiary conclusion being argued from cited facts or sources here, so there is nothing for evidence to support or fail to support in the relevant sense." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read as a constitutional/legal text. All provisions were read literally as operative legal language, not as rhetoric or figurative speech." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack. The document contains no systematic pattern of distinct fallacy types." } ] } ] }, { "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 is a constitutional text that repeatedly builds in review, reconsideration, and amendment mechanisms, including legislative reconsideration of vetoes and formal amendment procedures. It does not frame inquiry as a threat; rather, it institutionalizes further scrutiny and revision." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is highly categorical because it is legal-prescriptive, but that is appropriate to the genre and not a case of suppressing known uncertainty. It does not present contested empirical claims as settled facts, and where processes may change, it specifies conditions and exceptions explicitly." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no appeals to manufactured consensus such as 'everyone agrees' or 'all experts know'; legitimacy is grounded instead in formal ratification, votes, and enumerated procedures. Agreement is demonstrated through institutional mechanisms rather than asserted rhetorically." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document imposes structured constraints on multiple branches and offices, including the legislature, executive, states, and judiciary, rather than exempting one side from scrutiny. The same legal form of obligation and limitation is applied across actors, with no obvious double standard in the text itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The text is largely procedural and institutional, with no clear stack of epistemic closure patterns." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that repeatedly structures inquiry, review, amendment, and judicial process rather than closing them off. It includes mechanisms for reconsideration, judicial review, and formal amendment, which are signs of openness to future scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a legal founding text, it states operative rules directly, but that is appropriate for the genre rather than false certainty. It does not present contested empirical claims as settled facts; instead it uses clear normative prescriptions and conditional procedures." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims like 'everyone agrees' or manufactured appeals to consensus. Where collective agreement is invoked, it is institutional and procedural (ratification, concurrence, majority votes), not an unsupported assertion of universal agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text applies formal rules across offices and branches, including limits and procedures on Congress, the President, the courts, and the states. It does not selectively exempt the authorial side from the standards it imposes on others." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The text is predominantly procedural and institutional, so the rhetorical weaponization stack is not triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that defines powers, rights, and procedures without framing inquiry as a threat or closing off scrutiny. It repeatedly builds in review, amendment, impeachment, elections, and judicial process, which are mechanisms of institutional inquiry rather than foreclosure." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text states legal rules in categorical terms, but that is the genre’s normal function rather than an attempt to suppress warranted uncertainty. It does not present contested empirical claims as settled facts or strip away needed hedging in a debate context." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no assertions like 'everyone agrees' or 'no debate exists'; instead, the document grounds legitimacy in ratification, elections, and defined procedures. Any collective authority claimed here is explicit and institutional, not a manufactured consensus about facts." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text imposes formal standards across offices and branches, including impeachment, oaths, qualifications, and judicial review, rather than exempting the authorial side from scrutiny. It does not show a double standard in evidentiary demands." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is procedural and legalistic, but it does not substantively exhibit a stack of epistemic closure tactics." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that establishes procedures, checks, and amendment mechanisms, and it repeatedly leaves room for later legislative specification. It does not frame inquiry as a threat or close off future questioning." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses categorical legal language because it is a formal legal instrument, not an argumentative claim about contested facts. It does not present open empirical disputes as settled assertions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Any references to agreement are institutional and procedural, such as ratification by states or votes by elected bodies, rather than manufactured claims like 'everyone agrees.' There is no attempt to assert broad social consensus without grounding." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Constitution applies formal constraints across offices and institutions, including limits on Congress, the President, the courts, and the states. It does not selectively demand scrutiny from opponents while exempting its own side." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No three-or-more confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is a legal charter with structured authority and constraints, not rhetoric aimed at foreclosing independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document repeatedly invites structured scrutiny and review rather than closing inquiry: it builds in debates, reconsideration, impeachment trial procedures, journals, and voting records. There is no language framing questioning as dangerous or illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is a constitutional instrument, so it states rules directly without needing hedging; it does not present contested empirical claims as settled facts. Where time-bound or conditional provisions exist, they are explicitly qualified rather than overclaimed." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The document does not assert manufactured consensus or rely on claims like 'everyone agrees' or 'there is no debate.' Its authority is grounded in enacted constitutional text and ratification mechanics, not in invented agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Constitution applies procedural constraints across offices and branches, including checks on Congress, the President, and the courts. It does not demand rigor from opponents while exempting its own side from scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed weaponization signals are present; the text is predominantly institutional and procedural rather than rhetorically foreclosure-oriented. No stack is triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that openly lays out procedures, checks, and amendment mechanisms, which invites ongoing institutional scrutiny rather than foreclosing inquiry. It does not frame questioning as a threat or instruct readers to stop evaluating the framework." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a legal charter, it uses categorical rules by design, but it does not suppress known uncertainty about contested claims or present debatable matters as resolved factual disputes. The text mostly states operative norms rather than making empirical claims that would require hedging." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims like \"everyone agrees\" or \"all experts know\" that manufacture consensus; legitimacy is grounded procedurally in ratification and amendment rules. Any collective authority is explicitly institutional, not asserted as unanalyzed unanimity." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies formal constraints across offices and branches, including impeachment, elections, and judicial review structures, rather than demanding rigor only from one side. It does not display a rhetorical double standard in evidential burden." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is primarily a rule-setting legal document and does not exhibit a stack of epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or temporal pressure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that explicitly builds in review, amendment, and contestability (for example, Articles V and the various amendment provisions), rather than treating inquiry as a threat. It invites structured scrutiny through procedures like congressional reconsideration, ratification, and judicial processes." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is highly formal and declarative, but that is appropriate for a legal charter rather than an attempt to suppress uncertainty. Where future contingencies arise, it often uses conditional language and explicit procedures instead of pretending ambiguity does not exist." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims of manufactured expert or public consensus such as 'everyone agrees' or 'there is no debate.' Institutional authority is asserted through ratified legal mechanisms, not through rhetorical erasure of dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies rules symmetrically through general legal standards and checks on multiple branches of government, including limits on Congress, the President, and the States. It does not privilege one side by demanding rigor only from opponents while exempting itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed weaponization signals are present. The text is primarily a governance framework with procedural safeguards, so the foreclosure stack is not triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that explicitly structures review, amendment, and legal interpretation rather than shutting inquiry down. It repeatedly builds in procedures for debate, reconsideration, and change (e.g., amendments, veto override, judicial review), so inquiry is treated as a tool." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text is normative and declarative by design, but it does not present contested factual claims as if they were empirically debatable findings. Where future conditions are involved, it uses formal legal contingencies and conditions rather than masking uncertainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no manufactured claims like 'everyone agrees' or 'all experts know' in the document. Any collective authority invoked is institutional and explicit, not a disguised assertion of unanalyzed consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The constitutional rules are largely symmetrical in form, applying institutional constraints across branches and states rather than demanding scrutiny only from one side. The text embeds checks and balances that bind multiple actors, including the government itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is chiefly a rule-setting legal text, not rhetoric that closes inquiry through epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, or temporal pressure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a constitutional text that does not frame inquiry as a threat; it repeatedly builds mechanisms for reconsideration, amendment, and deliberation (for example, bicameral review, veto override, and the amendment process). There is no language closing off questioning or suggesting that further inquiry is illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses categorical legal prescriptions because it is normative law, not an empirical claim set, so there is no warrant for hedging open factual uncertainty in the way that would trigger false certainty. It does not present contested factual claims as settled scientific or descriptive facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "There are no claims of broad agreement such as 'everyone knows' or 'all experts agree' that would manufacture consensus. The authority here is institutional and procedural, not an asserted social consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Constitution applies procedural constraints across branches and offices, including the legislature, executive, judiciary, and states, rather than demanding rigor only from one side. The text does not show a double standard in evidential burden." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The document is structured as a governing framework with deliberative safeguards, so the stack threshold is not met." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 100, 92, 92, 92 ], "trimmed_mean": 92.0, "stdev": 2.667, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The document contains a foundational tension between universal individual rights and state/community limitations on those rights, especially in Articles 22, 29, and 30. It also sets absolute rights in some clauses while qualifying others by law, public order, and UN purposes." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, society, States, the United Nations, and member nations. The text repeatedly assigns duties both upward and outward, not to a single actor." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble explicitly recognizes the tension between rights, tyranny, and the need for rule of law, and later articles openly qualify rights with limits and duties. The document shows awareness of these tensions rather than ignoring them." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides Integrated: the text directly names and engages both poles of its central tensions, such as universal rights versus lawful limitation, through Articles 22, 29, and 30 and the preamble. The handling is document-specific rather than generic prepared language, so Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned tensions are acknowledged and structurally managed rather than left silent. No unacknowledged paradoxes were found in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration contains several built-in tensions, such as universal rights versus lawful limits in Articles 29–30, and freedom of movement versus the asylum exception in Article 14. These are substantive internal paradoxes in the text’s own framing." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability is distributed across persons, states, society, and the United Nations, especially in the preamble and Articles 22, 26, and 29. It is present, but the text is more a rights charter than an explicit mutual-accountability scheme." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges tension by stating limits, exceptions, and competing obligations, rather than pretending the rights are unconditional in every context. The preamble and Articles 14, 22, 29, and 30 show awareness of these tradeoffs." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides Integrated: the document names and engages both poles of its main tensions, such as universal rights alongside legal limitation, public order, and UN purposes. The handling is not generic transplant language; it is specific to this charter’s actual claims." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, none are left unacknowledged; the document consistently states its exceptions and limiting principles. No paradox stack of silent contradictions is evident." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration contains several tensions, such as universal rights versus lawful limitations in Article 29, and freedom of movement/asylum versus exceptions for non-political crimes in Article 14. These are substantive internal contrasts, not mere topic shifts." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, states, society, and the United Nations. Rights come with duties to the community and limits aimed at the rights of others and public order." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names and frames its tensions, especially in the preamble’s recognition of tyranny, rights, and the need for rule of law, plus Article 29’s explicit limitation clause. The contradictions are not silent." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides this: the document names and engages both poles of its key tensions, especially universal rights and lawful limits, rather than merely using generic rights language. The handling is integrated across the declaration as a whole, with later articles and the preamble returning to the earlier commitments." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are acknowledged and mutually organized rather than left hanging. No unacknowledged paradoxes were identified in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration contains several built-in tensions, such as universal rights versus limits for public order and others’ rights, and freedom of movement versus the asylum exception. These are explicit internal paradoxes rather than accidental inconsistencies." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across persons, states, society, the United Nations, and the community. Rights are paired with duties and with limits imposed for the rights of others and the general welfare." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text openly frames the tensions, especially in the preamble and Articles 14, 22, 26, 29, and 30. It does not ignore limits; it states them directly alongside the rights claims." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 tension is handled by integrating both poles: universal rights are asserted while specific, named limits and exceptions are also spelled out. Step 1 decides this as Integrated because the document engages the actual content of both sides; the formal declarative style is not merely generic scripting." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are acknowledged rather than left hanging, so there are no unacknowledged paradoxes in the set. The tensions are presented as managed limits within a universal framework, not as silent contradictions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration contains several internal tensions, such as universal rights versus limitations by law/public order, and freedom of movement versus asylum exclusions. These are substantive but framed as coexisting principles rather than errors." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, states, the United Nations, and society itself. Duties and protections are assigned in multiple directions rather than to a single actor." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes tensions in Articles 14, 29, and 30 by setting limits and exceptions on otherwise universal claims. It does not narrate the tensions as paradoxes, but it clearly marks them." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides this: the document names and engages both poles of key tensions, e.g. universal rights alongside lawful limits, public order, and UN purposes. The handling is substantive and document-specific, so it is not Scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned tensions, none are left unacknowledged; the declaration consistently states its exceptions and limits openly. The paradoxes function as intended balancing clauses rather than silent contradictions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration contains several built-in tensions, such as universal rights versus lawful limitations and individual rights versus duties to the community. These are substantive internal paradoxes rather than accidental inconsistencies." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed in multiple directions: individuals owe duties to the community, states must protect rights, and rights are limited by the rights of others and public order. The text explicitly places obligations on both persons and institutions." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes the tensions it introduces, especially in Articles 22, 26, and 29 where rights are qualified by national effort, parental choice, law, morality, and the rights of others. It shows awareness rather than silence." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Integrated: the document directly engages both poles of its main tensions by naming universal rights while also specifying lawful limits, duties, and institutional conditions. Step 1 is decisive because the handling names the specific claims on both sides of the contradiction." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "weak", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No scanned paradoxes are left unacknowledged; the tensions are explicitly framed and qualified throughout. The document reads as a managed integration of universal claims with structured limits." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text contains several built-in tensions, especially between universal rights claims and limiting clauses (for example, asylum vs. exclusions in Article 14, and rights vs. restrictions in Article 29). These are explicit and structurally significant." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability is mostly one-directional, laid on states and society to protect rights, though Article 29 also places duties on everyone and Article 30 bars abuse of rights. That creates some mutual obligation, but not a strongly distributed accountability structure." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The document clearly signals awareness of tension through repeated qualifying language such as limitations, exceptions, duties, and balancing clauses. It does not ignore conflict; it openly frames the scope of rights." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides this: the text engages the specific content of both poles by pairing broad universal rights with explicit carve-outs and limiting principles, rather than using generic filler. The handling is therefore Integrated, not Scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Among the scanned paradoxes, none appear unacknowledged; the tensions are all explicitly surfaced and regulated within the text. The paradoxes do not stack into silent contradiction." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The declaration contains real internal tensions, especially between universal rights claims and limiting clauses in Articles 14, 29, and 30. It also pairs strong individual freedoms with duties, social order, and state/law-based restrictions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, states, society, and the United Nations system. Rights are asserted alongside duties to the community and obligations on states to protect and realize them." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly acknowledges tension by naming limits, exceptions, and balancing principles, such as public order, morality, and the purposes of the UN. It does not hide that rights operate within a constrained legal and social framework." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decides: the text engages both poles of its tensions directly by naming universal rights and the specific limiting conditions in the same document, rather than merely gesturing to a generic principle. The handling is integrated across the document as a whole, including later articles that return to and qualify earlier universal claims." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned tensions are acknowledged rather than left silent, so there are no unacknowledged paradoxes in the set. The rights-and-limits structure is explicit and repeated, not hidden." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration contains several inherent tensions, especially between universal rights and clauses allowing limitations, duties, and exceptions. These are structural rather than accidental and are explicitly built into the text." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across states, society, individuals, and the United Nations framework. The text repeatedly assigns both protections and duties to multiple parties rather than a single actor." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names the tensions, such as rights being subject to law, morality, public order, and the rights of others, and it frames these as necessary limits. It also acknowledges that rights require protection and realization through institutions and cooperation." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 tensions are handled by directly engaging both poles: universal rights are affirmed while specific limits, duties, and exceptions are openly stated. Step 1 decides Integrated because the text names and works through both sides of the contradiction; Step 2 is not needed." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The scanned paradoxes are acknowledged and managed rather than left silent, so there are no unacknowledged paradoxes in the scanned set. The tensions reinforce one another as a coherent universal-rights framework with built-in constraints." } ] } ] }, { "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 declaration’s operative architecture terminates in the rights of individuals and peoples, with authority spent outward into universal protections and legal constraints. It does not preserve concentrated benefit for the framers; instead it sets a common standard meant to disperse power into the hands of everyone." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text repeatedly supplies transferable rights, remedies, and institutional limits that let readers and states evaluate and assert claims without dependence on the drafters. It explicitly ties education, law, and governance to enabling persons to act and judge for themselves." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no individualized authorial stake or self-advantage disclosed; the document speaks as a collective public charter. That absence is consistent with the document’s impersonal, rights-setting function." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals detected: no benefit framing for a speaker, no dependency maintenance, no manufactured urgency, and no retained private capture or founder privilege. The text is structured as public limitation of power rather than private value capture." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not present a helper identity that requires ongoing audience dependence. Its structure aims at universal autonomy and durable independence, not at preserving a dependent audience." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document terminates in rights, protections, and capacities for all people rather than in retained benefit for the drafters. Its authority disperses into citizens and states as enforceable norms, not ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It repeatedly grants transferable rights, legal remedies, and civic capacities that let readers act without dependence on the text's authors. Education, fair process, and freedom of expression all increase independent agency." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interest of the General Assembly or drafters is disclosed. The text speaks in universal, impersonal terms on behalf of peoples and nations." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals detected: no benefit framing with concealed cost, no identity dependence, no urgency tactics, no founder privilege, and no recurring fee/IP/return structure." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not structure a dependency on the drafters for ongoing interpretation or protection. It aims to institutionalize rights so the audience can stand independently." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative aim is to distribute rights, protections, and enabling conditions to all people and states, not to concentrate benefit in the drafters. Any authority exercised here is spent in establishing a common standard that terminates in the public’s hands." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It explicitly gives transferable rights, procedural protections, and educational aims that let readers and institutions act without dependence on the authors. The text strengthens independent judgment and civic capacity rather than keeping the audience reliant on a central interpreter." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no personal benefit, self-advantage, or authorial stake disclosed; the document speaks in universal terms and as a public charter. That absence is consistent with a public-rights instrument rather than concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction patterns detected: no benefit framing for the authors, no identity-dependence, no urgency without evidence, no personal stake suppression as a tell, and no dependency-maintenance apparatus." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a helper who must preserve audience dependence; instead it aims to make rights and capabilities portable, enforceable, and broadly accessible. Intent and structure align toward public empowerment." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The Declaration’s operative structure points outward to all people and nations, enumerating rights that terminate in the hands of the audience rather than the drafters. Any authority concentrated in the General Assembly is spent in creating a common standard and then dispersed into public use." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It repeatedly gives transferable legal and civic capabilities: protections, freedoms, remedies, participation rights, and education aimed at self-development. The text encourages readers and states to act without dependence on the framers for continued permission." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal or organizational gain is claimed by the authors; the document speaks in universal and institutional terms. The absence of stake is consistent with a public-rights declaration rather than a self-interested promotion." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected. There is no benefit framing that centers speaker gain, no dependency maintenance, no urgency to suppress scrutiny, and no recurring fee/IP/investor-return structure." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not position the audience as dependent on the speaker’s ongoing protection or revelation. It aims to make rights portable and institutions accountable, which is structurally the opposite of dependency maintenance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's operative architecture terminates in universal rights for all people and in obligations to promote, teach, and secure those rights. The power flow is outward: authority is used to disperse protections and enable citizens' freedom rather than to concentrate ongoing benefit at the top." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It repeatedly transfers actionable standards to the reader: equal rights, due process, limits on state power, and protections for expression, movement, education, and participation. The text is designed to make individuals and institutions more capable of acting without needing a speaker for interpretation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interest or authorial self-benefit is disclosed; the text speaks in universal and institutional terms. This absence is not disqualifying here because the document is service-aligned and contains no private gain structure." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction patterns detected: no manufactured urgency, no dependence-maintaining revelation loop, no personal privilege capture, and no recurring private value extraction. The rights framework constrains power rather than channeling benefit upward." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a helper whose identity depends on preserving audience dependence. Instead, it aims to render the audience and institutions more autonomous through transferable rights and norms." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative architecture disperses rights and protections outward to all persons and member states, culminating in broader independence and legal protection rather than retained benefit for the authors. The authority of the General Assembly is spent in establishing a common standard, with no ongoing private capture structure." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It explicitly aims to enable people and institutions to recognize, observe, and secure rights through teaching, education, legal remedies, and democratic procedures. The text transfers a framework of rights and constraints rather than keeping readers dependent on the drafters." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal or institutional self-interest of the drafters is disclosed; the declaration speaks in universal terms about human rights and state obligations. This absence is consistent with a public-service document rather than a concealed-interest one." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction signals detected: there is no benefit framing with concealed cost, no dependency maintenance, no urgency to suppress scrutiny, and no terminal private value-capture or recurring fee structure. The text repeatedly limits power rather than concentrating it." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not center a speaker identity or maintain an audience-as-dependent relationship. Its structure is legal and distributive, not a help-message that preserves reliance on the author." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative end state is the expansion of rights, protection, and capability for all people, with authority explicitly framed as serving universal human dignity. Power flows outward through rights, remedies, education, and self-determination rather than concentrating benefit at the top." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It repeatedly transfers evaluative and operative capacity to the reader/citizen: legal protections, fair hearing rights, political participation, and education are all structured to make people less dependent on any single authority. The text gives away the framework for rights-claiming rather than retaining interpretive control." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no individual authorial self-interest disclosed; this is a universal public declaration rather than a personal advocacy document. That absence is consistent with the document’s service architecture." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction patterns are evident: there is no benefit framing for a speaker, no dependency maintenance, no manufactured urgency for private gain, and no retained owner privilege. The text is rights-granting and public-facing throughout." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not present a helper identity that must preserve dependency; instead it aims to establish durable independence through universal norms and protections. Intent and structure align in a service direction." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative structure is outward: it declares rights, limits state power, and repeatedly transfers protection and capability to individuals and peoples. The authority of the declaration is spent in establishing standards for others to use, not in preserving ongoing benefit for the drafters." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It strengthens the audience’s capacity to judge, act, and claim rights without reliance on the speaker by laying out universal entitlements and protections. Articles on education, legal remedy, participation, and free expression are explicitly capability-building." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal or institutional self-interest is claimed by the drafters; the text speaks in universal and impersonal terms. This absence is consistent with a public-rights declaration rather than a self-benefiting instrument." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected: there is no benefit framing with concealed personal gain, no dependency-maintaining revelation structure, no urgency-without-evidence, and no real-tragedy anchoring used to launder private capture." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text does not present a rescuing identity that depends on keeping an audience dependent. Instead, it aims to make rights portable and independent of the speaker." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document’s operative architecture pushes rights, protections, and capacities outward to all persons and member states, with the explicit end state being universal recognition and observance of human rights. It does not terminate in ongoing private capture; its authority is spent in establishing public norms that others inherit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "It repeatedly gives transferable standards the reader can use without the speaker: rights claims, limits on state power, and criteria for fair process. Articles on education, expression, participation, and legal remedy all increase the audience’s capacity to act and judge independently." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "There is no individual authorial stake, benefit, or self-interest disclosed; the text speaks in universal and institutional terms. In this context that absence is consistent with a pure public-service document rather than concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No extraction patterns are evident: there is no benefit framing with private capture, no dependence-maintaining revelation structure, and no terminal extraction such as fees, privilege, or retained ownership. The real-tragedy anchoring to barbarous acts functions as moral justification for rights protection, not as leverage for speaker gain." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not present a helper identity that must keep an audience dependent on it; instead it aims to make its own protections universal and self-executing through law and education. The intent and structure both point toward independence rather than dependency maintenance." } ] } ] }, { "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": "weak", "note": "The preamble gives a broad justificatory chain from human dignity, human-rights abuses, and international commitments to the Declaration’s adoption and purpose. Most articles are stated as normative provisions rather than developed arguments." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, causal fallacy, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur/irrelevant-warrant move is present as an argumentative failure in this text." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited premises in the preamble are used to support the Declaration’s broad normative conclusion, and the articles are direct statements of rights rather than unsupported inferential leaps." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "This is a legal/human-rights declaration. The preamble was read as literal justificatory language, while Articles 1–30 were read primarily as normative prescriptions, not as claims requiring factual verification." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With no fallacies detected, there is no stack of three or more distinct fallacy types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a normative declaration that states rights, limits, and purposes, with an internal structure from preamble to articles. The claims are presented as a coherent rights framework rather than as a chain of premises leading to a contested factual conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant is present. The text asserts principles and rights, but does not use fallacious argumentative moves to derive a separate conclusion." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated declarations and articles are directly the content of the document; there is no mismatch between cited material and the rights-based conclusions asserted within the text. Nothing in the passage requires a fallacious bridge to understand the stated normative claims." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "This is a formal international human-rights declaration. I read the preambular 'Whereas' clauses and Article language as literal normative claims, not as figurative rhetoric, and found no passage that depends on metaphor or acknowledged hyperbole." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack. The document is systematic in structure, but not in fallacious reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The document is a preambular and article-based declaration that gives reasons for protecting human rights and then states rights and limitations in a structured way. Its claims are generally presented as normative principles rather than unsupported inference chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant-warrant move is present in the text as written." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited preamble considerations and the articles do ground the Declaration’s own normative conclusions as a coherent legal-moral statement. There is no misapplied evidence or unbridged jump from a cited fact to a different conclusion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: international legal/normative declaration. I treated the preamble as literal justificatory text and the articles as literal normative provisions, not figurative rhetoric." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no multi-fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble gives a standard justificatory chain from shared human dignity and the need to prevent abuse to the adoption of a common rights declaration. The articles then specify the rights and limits that follow from that framework." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacy is present. The document is a rights declaration with normative claims and enumerated protections, not an argument that relies on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority, causal leap, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or non-sequitur." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated preamble reasons and the ensuing articles coherently ground the document’s conclusion that these rights should be recognized and protected. Nothing depends on a misapplied citation or an unbridged evidentiary leap." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "This is a formal international declaration. I read the preambular 'Whereas' clauses and articles as literal normative claims, not figurative speech." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy types are present, so there is no stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble and Articles 1, 22, 26, 28, and 29 give a structured normative argument from dignity, rights, social order, and duties to the declaration’s conclusions. The document explicitly connects premises to its broad human-rights framework." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacy is present in the document’s own structure. The text states normative principles and rights rather than using unsupported attacks, causal leaps, authority substitution, or unbridged evidentiary warrants." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The declarations and articles are presented as the basis for the listed rights and limits, so the stated premises do ground the document’s own conclusions. There is no relevant evidence-conclusion mismatch to flag." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: international human-rights declaration/preamble. I treated the rights provisions and preambular recitals as literal normative claims, not figurative rhetoric." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Distinct_type_count is 0, so there is no fallacy stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble and articles form a clear normative chain from human dignity and protection of rights to duties of states and individuals, with articles specifying the rights and limits that follow from that framework." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies are present. The document is a rights declaration with broad normative assertions, but it does not rely on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority-as-proof, post hoc causation, hasty generalization, slippery slope, or an unbridged evidentiary leap." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document's claims are internally grounded as a normative charter: the premises and stated rights are directly tied to the conclusions it announces. There is no separate evidentiary claim whose applicability fails." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre read: formal international declaration / legal-normative text. I treated the preamble's 'Whereas' clauses and articles as literal normative claims, not figurative rhetoric; nothing here was read as metaphor needing special discounting." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Instance count is 0, so there is no fallacy accumulation and no stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble presents a structured moral-political justification for adopting the Declaration: human dignity, protection by law, international cooperation, and common standards lead to the enumerated rights. The articles then operationalize that framework as specific claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacy is present. The text is a rights declaration with stated principles and provisions, not an argument that relies on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority substitution, causal missteps, hasty generalization, or an irrelevant warrant." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The document's stated premises and provisions coherently support its own conclusion that these rights should be proclaimed as common standards. There is no misapplied evidence or unbridged inference that would undermine the stated conclusions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre: international human-rights declaration/preamble. I read the preamble's normative assertions and the articles as literal institutional claims, not figurative speech, and treated the document as a policy-legal text rather than applying any reduced strictness." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacies were detected, so there is no stack of three or more distinct types." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble provides an argumentative chain from human dignity, prior abuses, the rule of law, and UN commitments to the Declaration’s role as a common standard. The articles then spell out rights intended to follow from that framework." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority appeal, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant is present. The document is a normative declaration; its claims are stated as principles and rights, not as fallacious inferences." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The text’s stated premises support its stated normative conclusion that these rights should be proclaimed and protected. There is no misapplied evidence or unbridged leap in the document’s own structure." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre: international legal/normative declaration. I read the preamble’s recitals and the articles as literal normative claims, not figurative speech; their force is argumentative rather than rhetorical hyperbole." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No fallacy types were identified, so there is no stack and distinct_type_count is 0." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble and articles form a coherent normative argument from human dignity and the need for protection to a list of rights and implementation principles. The document repeatedly states the grounds for the rights it proclaims, rather than merely asserting conclusions without support." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant is present. The text is a declaration of principles, and its claims are either grounded in stated premises or are normative enactments rather than fallacious arguments." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The cited considerations in the preamble support the declaration’s general normative conclusion that rights should be recognized and protected. There is no mismatch between cited grounds and the conclusions the document draws." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "This is a legal/political declaration. I read the preamble and articles as literal normative claims, not figurative language; there is no acknowledged metaphor or slogan doing argumentative work." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "With zero distinct fallacy types detected, the document does not show a fallacy stack. The argument is broad and programmatic, but not systematically fallacious under the listed categories." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 92, 100, 100, 92, 92, 100, 100, 92, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 96.57, "stdev": 4.216, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration explicitly invites continued teaching, education, and progressive measures to realize rights, and it frames the text as a common standard rather than a closed endpoint. It does not treat further inquiry as a threat or forbid scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "weak", "note": "The language is highly categorical about rights, but that is characteristic of a normative declaration rather than a contested empirical claim. It does not hedge much, though it also does not present disputed factual matters as settled facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to the peoples of the United Nations, Member States, and a 'common standard of achievement' are grounded in a formal multilateral declaration rather than asserted as unsupported universal agreement. The text does not rely on manufactured consensus language like 'everyone knows' or 'all experts agree.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies the same rights framework broadly to all persons and also constrains states, groups, and persons under Article 30. It does not exempt the declarative authority from the standards it sets." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is rights-assertive and normative, but it does not clearly trigger a weaponization stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration frames rights as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through teaching, education, and progressive measures, which invites ongoing interpretation and implementation rather than shutting inquiry down. It does not depict questioning as a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses strong normative language, but that is appropriate for a rights declaration rather than a factual claim under contest. It does not overstate empirical certainty or suppress warranted hedging on open questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Consensus language is grounded in the UN Charter and Member States' pledges, so agreement is attributed to an identifiable institutional basis rather than merely asserted. The document does not rely on 'everyone knows' style manufactured consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies its standards broadly to 'all human beings' and 'everyone,' including limits on rights in Article 29 that apply universally. It does not create an evidential double standard that exempts the authoring side." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No confirmed foreclosure stack is present: the text is aspirational and normative, but it does not clearly exhibit three or more closure signals such as epistemic foreclosure, manufactured consensus, or asymmetric standard setting." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly invites continued scrutiny and implementation, e.g. it calls the Declaration a 'common standard of achievement' and says individuals and organs of society should 'strive' to promote and secure these rights. It does not frame further inquiry as a threat or unnecessary closure." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration uses categorical normative language because it is a rights charter, but it still includes scope and limitation qualifiers such as 'in accordance with the organization and resources of each State' and limits under law. That is calibration rather than the erasure of uncertainty in an open factual dispute." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Claims of shared agreement are tied to institutional and textual grounding, such as the UN Charter, Member States' pledges, and the General Assembly's proclamation. The document does not rely on vague 'everyone agrees' rhetoric to erase dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies universal standards across persons and states, including explicit limits on rights that apply to everyone under law. It does not demand evidentiary rigor from others while exempting its own premises." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three foreclosure signals are confirmed. The document is a normative rights declaration with universal framing, not a rhetorical stack aimed at closing independent reasoning." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly invites continued scrutiny and interpretation through phrases like \"keeping this Declaration constantly in mind\" and by framing it as a \"common standard of achievement\" to be secured progressively. It does not treat inquiry as a threat; instead, it presumes ongoing application, teaching, and development." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "weak", "note": "The declaration speaks in strong normative absolutes, but that is consistent with its genre and purpose rather than an attempt to disguise contested empirical claims. It does not hedge much, yet it is not making uncertain factual claims that would require calibration in the weaponization sense." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "It refers to \"the peoples of the United Nations\" and member states having pledged themselves, which is grounded in the UN Charter and the declaration's own institutional context. The consensus language is broad and aspirational, but it is not the kind of manufactured dissent-erasure typical of rhetorical foreclosure." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text repeatedly applies the same rights framework universally: \"all human beings,\" \"everyone,\" and non-discrimination across status, nationality, and other categories. It does not carve out a special evidentiary standard for opponents or exempt its own principles from the same universal rule." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The declaration is normative and universalist, but it does not clearly stack epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, or similar closures in the rhetorical sense." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document presents the Declaration as a common standard and repeatedly frames rights in universal, principled terms, but it does not try to shut down inquiry or treat questioning as bad faith. It is normative rather than foreclosing." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses categorical legal language by design, but it is not presenting contested empirical claims as settled facts without warrant. Where limits matter, it explicitly includes qualifications such as “subject only to such limitations as are determined by law” and “in accordance with the organization and resources of each State.”" }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "The preamble refers to “the peoples of the United Nations” and “a common understanding,” but this is treaty-style collective authorization rather than a manufactured claim that all experts agree. There is no attempt to erase dissent by asserting broad consensus as an argument substitute." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies the rights framework to all people and also binds everyone through duties and lawful limits in Article 29. It does not demand scrutiny only from others while exempting its own claims from comparable standards." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is declarative and universal, but it does not clearly stack epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, inoculation, or temporal pressure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration frames its claims as a common standard of achievement and invites ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures to realize rights. It does not shut down inquiry; rather, it presumes continued public scrutiny and implementation." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses categorical normative language because it is a rights declaration, but it also includes qualifying language such as \"to the extent\"-style limitations and references to national effort, resources, and lawful limits. That keeps it from presenting contingent policy questions as mechanically settled facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The preamble grounds the document in the Charter, Member States' pledges, and a \"common understanding\" within the United Nations framework rather than simply asserting universal agreement without basis. The consensus claim is tied to institutional commitments already named in the text." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies its standards broadly to \"all peoples and all nations\" and also constrains rights by general legal limits applicable to everyone. It does not single out an opposing side for special scrutiny while exempting itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "No three-signal foreclosure stack is present. The document is prescriptive and universal, but it does not combine epistemic closure, manufactured consensus, and asymmetric scrutiny in a way that would trigger the stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration frames rights as a common standard to be promoted through teaching, education, and progressive measures, which invites ongoing implementation rather than shutting down inquiry. It does not dismiss scrutiny or present questioning as a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document uses categorical normative language because it is a declaration of principles, but it does not pretend to resolve contested empirical claims or erase uncertainty. Its claims are framed as commitments and rights, not as false factual certainty about open disputes." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to the United Nations Charter, Member States, and a 'common standard of achievement' are grounded in institutional adoption rather than vague 'everyone knows' rhetoric. The document does not manufacture consensus against dissenting views; it presents an adopted international norm." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies rights and duties across persons and states in a generally symmetrical way, including limits that bind everyone and prohibitions on arbitrary deprivation by any state. It does not demand rigor from one side while exempting its own premises from scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is aspirational and normative, but it does not clearly exhibit a stack of epistemic foreclosure patterns." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 92, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration frames itself as a “common standard of achievement” and repeatedly grounds rights in universal principles, while leaving room for “progressive measures” and lawful limitations. It does not shut down inquiry or portray questioning as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "weak", "note": "The document speaks in categorical normative terms appropriate to a declaration, but it also includes some bounded qualifications, such as rights being realized through “national effort and international co-operation” and limitations “determined by law.” Because it is a rights instrument rather than an empirical report, the certainty is not obviously overclaimed." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "It invokes shared commitments like “the peoples of the United Nations have... reaffirmed their faith” and “Member States have pledged themselves,” which are institutionally grounded claims of agreement. However, it does not argue consensus with evidence in the argumentative sense; it mainly states a collective legal-political commitment." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text applies general standards broadly and also constrains rights by the same kinds of legal and social limits for everyone, rather than exempting the drafters from scrutiny. It does not display a double standard in evidential burden or moral evaluation." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "I do not find three or more confirmed foreclosure signals. The document is assertive and universalist, but it does not clearly use inquiry-closure, manufactured consensus, or asymmetric skepticism in a way that meets the stack threshold." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration frames its claims as a common standard of achievement and grounds them in universal principles, while explicitly inviting teaching, education, and ongoing realization. It does not close inquiry as illegitimate; instead it presents the text as a basis for continued interpretation and implementation." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The document uses strong normative language, but that is appropriate to a rights declaration rather than an empirical claim about contested facts. It also includes qualifying language in several places, such as limitations being determined by law and rights being realized through progressive measures and cooperation." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to shared commitment are explicitly anchored in the UN Charter, Member States' pledges, and the General Assembly's proclamation, rather than vague appeals to unnamed experts. The consensus claim is institutional and documentary, not manufactured through slogans like 'everyone agrees.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies rights and protections universally, with equal scrutiny and entitlement for all persons regardless of status. It does not exempt its own framework from standards; instead it imposes limitations on everyone, including states and persons, under law and the rights of others." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Fewer than three confirmed foreclosure signals are present. The text is primarily a normative rights statement, not a rhetorical attempt to foreclose inquiry through manufactured certainty, consensus, or asymmetrical standards." } ] } ] } ], "docs": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "composite": 86.39, "composite_geom": 85.28, "composite_stdev": 11.819, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 75.86, "g6": 69.71, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 33.31, "g6": 33.113, "g7": 4.667, "g8": 2.667 } }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "composite": 94.71, "composite_geom": 94.58, "composite_stdev": 7.158, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 92.0, "g6": 98.86, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 88.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 4.522, "g6": 2.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 28.204 } }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "composite": 99.14, "composite_geom": 99.13, "composite_stdev": 2.56, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 96.57, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 4.216, "g6": 9.333, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "composite": 97.14, "composite_geom": 97.09, "composite_stdev": 1.247, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 92.0, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 96.57 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 2.667, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 4.216 } } ], "run": { "model_id": "gpt-5.4-mini", "model_label": "GPT-5.4 mini", "provider": "openai", "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": 5.696, "total_cost_usd": 0.51, "calls": 144, "tokens": { "prompt_tokens": 1497204, "cached_tokens": 1264896, "completion_tokens": 53109, "reasoning_tokens": 0 } } }