{ "cells": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 26, 32, 26, 26, 26, 26, 32, 26, 26 ], "trimmed_mean": 26.86, "stdev": 2.646, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Prologue asserts that the strong should not harm the weak and that Hammurabi was sent to protect the oppressed; the body of laws repeatedly imposes class-differentiated penalties and protects property interests over persons in ways that favor the powerful." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows almost exclusively downward from gods/king to subjects; no reciprocal obligations or scrutiny of the ruler appear in the text." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document never signals awareness that its stated protective mission conflicts with the content or effects of the statutes it promulgates." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator finds no passage that names and engages both poles of the tension; the text simply juxtaposes the ideal and the statutes and proceeds (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One unacknowledged paradox (ideal of protection versus class-biased statutes) is present in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue and epilogue repeatedly claim the code protects the weak from the strong, widows, and orphans while establishing universal righteousness; the body of laws repeatedly applies class-differentiated penalties (free vs. freed vs. slave) and harsh corporal punishments that contradict those claims." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability flows primarily upward to the king and gods; a few laws invoke community or witness mechanisms, but these remain subordinate to royal/divine authority rather than creating balanced multi-party accountability." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never signals awareness of any tension between its universal-justice rhetoric and the status-based or retributive content of the statutes; both registers are simply juxtaposed." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: the handling passages never name or engage the specific content of both poles (protection of the weak vs. class-differentiated severity). The tension therefore remains unhandled; classify Glitched (dominant method on rank-1 paradox)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One unacknowledged paradox (universal-justice claim vs. class/status laws) was identified in the scanned set; no paradox stack is evident." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue repeatedly asserts that the laws exist 'so that the strong should not harm the weak' and to establish universal 'rule of righteousness,' yet the statutes themselves apply sharply differentiated penalties and remedies according to the social status of victim and offender (free-born, freed man, slave)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows in one direction only: subjects (and lower-status persons) are held strictly accountable to the king and gods; the king himself is presented as above scrutiny, with curses directed solely at future rulers who might alter the code." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never registers any tension between its egalitarian rhetoric and its stratified rules, nor between the king's self-deification and the prohibition on altering the laws; it proceeds as if the two are seamlessly consistent." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: the document never names or engages the specific content of both poles of the status-based justice tension. The handling is therefore Glitched; the contradiction simply sits unaddressed while the text asserts perfect coherence." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One unacknowledged paradox (status-stratified justice versus 'strong shall not harm weak') is present in the scanned set; no paradox stack is formed." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue asserts the code will ensure 'the strong should not harm the weak' and bring universal 'rule of righteousness,' yet the laws apply sharply differentiated penalties by class (free, freedman, slave) and impose death for many property or procedural offenses." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows almost exclusively upward to the king and gods; victims, communities, and lower classes have limited reciprocal claims, with no structural checks on royal or divine authority." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never signals awareness that its justice rhetoric conflicts with the stratified, retributive content of the statutes or the self-curse clauses in the epilogue." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: no passage names and engages both the universal-righteousness pole and the class-differentiated pole; the document simply juxtaposes them and proceeds (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One primary unacknowledged paradox (justice claim vs. stratified laws) is present in the scanned set; no reinforcing stack detected." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue and epilogue repeatedly claim the code protects the weak from the strong, delivers universal righteousness, and safeguards widows/orphans, while the laws themselves enforce strict class/status hierarchies and prescribe death or mutilation for many property offenses." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows almost exclusively upward to the king and gods; victims, communities, and lower classes have no reciprocal mechanisms to hold rulers or elites accountable." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never signals awareness that its protective rhetoric conflicts with the hierarchical and retributive content of the statutes." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of discriminator fails: no passage names or engages the specific content of both poles; the document simply juxtaposes the claims and the laws and proceeds (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One unacknowledged paradox scanned; the protective framing and the actual statutes sit side-by-side without any integrative or deflecting move." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue asserts the code exists 'so that the strong should not harm the weak' and to protect widows/orphans, yet the laws repeatedly impose class-differentiated penalties and vicarious punishments that structurally favor elites and the powerful." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows almost exclusively downward from king/gods to subjects or from higher to lower classes; no reciprocal mechanisms hold the ruler or elites accountable to the weak." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never registers any tension between its justice rhetoric and the content of the statutes; it presents the entire corpus as uniformly righteous." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: no passage names or engages both poles of the 'protect the weak' claim versus class-based harshness. The document simply proceeds as if the two are identical (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One primary unacknowledged paradox (protection rhetoric vs. stratified retribution) was identified in the scanned set; no paradox stack detected." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue and epilogue repeatedly frame Hammurabi as the divinely appointed bringer of righteousness who protects the weak from the strong and ensures justice for all; the body of laws simultaneously enacts class-stratified, retributive penalties (death for theft, eye-for-eye, harsher treatment of slaves) that contradict those stated ideals." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "weak", "note": "Accountability flows primarily downward from the king (and gods) to subjects; a few laws create reciprocal obligations (e.g., merchant-agent rules, judge liability) but these remain narrowly transactional and do not balance power across social strata." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never signals awareness that its lofty claims of universal righteousness sit in tension with the content of the statutes; both registers are simply juxtaposed." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: no passage names or engages the specific content of both poles. The document proceeds as though the ideal of protective justice and the enacted harsh, hierarchical rules are seamlessly consistent (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One primary unacknowledged paradox (ideal vs. actual law) is present; no reinforcing stack of additional paradoxes was identified within the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue asserts the strong must not harm the weak and Hammurabi rules to enlighten and protect, yet the body contains class-differentiated penalties, death for minor theft, and lex talionis that preserve hierarchy." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows one way from subjects to the divinely backed king; no mechanism holds the ruler or elites to the same standards applied to others." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never registers tension between its protective rhetoric and the severity or inequality of the statutes that follow." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of discriminator fails: no passage names and engages both poles of the protection-vs-punishment tension. Dominant method for rank-1 paradox is therefore Glitched." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Single unacknowledged paradox scanned; no stack detected." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 26, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The prologue and epilogue repeatedly assert that the code establishes impartial 'rule of righteousness' to protect the weak from the strong and bring well-being to all, yet the laws themselves embed class-based penalties and retributive severity that differentiate sharply by social status." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Accountability flows unidirectionally from the gods and king downward to subjects; no reciprocal obligations or scrutiny of royal or divine authority appear in the text." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The document never signals awareness of any tension between its universal justice rhetoric and the hierarchical, often brutal content of the statutes." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator fails: the text never names or engages the specific content of both poles. It simply juxtaposes the claims and proceeds (Glitched)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "One primary unacknowledged paradox was identified in the scanned set; the document treats the tension as nonexistent." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 12, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 29.333, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document's architecture terminates in a written legal code that disperses authority to citizens for their protection and independent adjudication; the king's role is framed as temporary instrument to establish enduring outward justice rather than ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The epilogue explicitly directs future readers and rulers to consult the inscription itself to resolve disputes and understand justice without requiring ongoing interpretation by Hammurabi or his successors." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly identifies himself by name and titles as the divinely chosen king who established the laws, framing his actions as fulfillment of a god-given mandate rather than concealment." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the code is presented as a permanent, transferable instrument of justice that enables citizens and future rulers to act independently of the author." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward through fixed public laws that protect the weak, establish order, and enable justice for inhabitants; the king's authority is spent in the act of codification and dispersal to subjects." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The written code transfers capability by making rules public and referenceable, reducing arbitrary power and allowing subjects to know and invoke their rights without ongoing personal interpretation by the ruler." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly and explicitly claims his divine appointment, role as shepherd-king, and authorship of the laws throughout the prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the code is presented as a completed, transferable instrument of justice rather than an ongoing personal revelation requiring the speaker's continued presence." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The code establishes fixed laws to protect the weak from the strong and enable justice for the oppressed; the architecture terminates in a public legal order that citizens can invoke, dispersing authority outward rather than concentrating ongoing private benefit with the author." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The inscription is explicitly presented so that any oppressed person may read the laws, understand their case, and obtain justice without further mediation; the rules are fixed, public, and transferable." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly names himself, recites his divine selection, conquests, and titles, and frames the entire monument as his personal legacy and act of kingship." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document does not cultivate ongoing personal dependence on Hammurabi; the laws are meant to stand as an independent, enduring system of justice." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward from gods through Hammurabi to the people via a fixed legal code intended to protect the weak and establish enduring justice; the document's architecture terminates in societal order rather than ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The written laws and epilogue instruction to read the inscription transfer a fixed, publicly accessible framework that allows future readers and rulers to evaluate and apply justice without constant recourse to the original speaker." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly names himself, his divine selection, conquests, and achievements throughout the prologue and epilogue, explicitly claiming credit and legacy." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text presents a ruler establishing an independent legal order rather than structurally maintaining audience dependence on his personal identity or ongoing revelation." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Authority originates with the gods and is dispersed through Hammurabi to the people via a fixed written code; the epilogue explicitly invites the oppressed to consult the monument for justice without ongoing mediation." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The laws are published as a public, citable reference that citizens can invoke directly; the text repeatedly instructs readers to consult the inscription themselves to determine their rights." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly names himself as the divinely chosen king who established the code, framing his role as service to the gods and protection of the weak." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The architecture supplies a permanent, transferable legal standard rather than positioning the ruler as an irreplaceable ongoing protector." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The operative architecture terminates in written public laws that constrain the strong and protect the weak; authority is spent in the act of codification so citizens inherit enforceable rules." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text explicitly instructs any oppressed person to read the inscription themselves to learn their rights and obtain justice without further mediation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly names himself as the divinely appointed author and guardian of the code throughout prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the code is designed to be self-contained and readable by the audience." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 12, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "extraction_inward", "note": "Value, attention, and authority flow inward to Hammurabi as the divinely chosen king whose glory, wisdom, and eternal monument are the center; the architecture terminates in his ongoing prestige and authority rather than dispersing power to the audience." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "maintains_dependence", "note": "The text positions Hammurabi and his inscribed monument as the permanent source of justice and interpretation; readers are directed to consult his words and revere him rather than gaining transferable tools for independent judgment." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly and explicitly claims his divine selection, conquests, and role as the 'king of righteousness' whose monument must be preserved." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Identity dependence on Hammurabi's divine mandate; manufactured urgency via curses on anyone altering the monument; real suffering (widows, orphans, the weak) used to legitimize his rule without scrutiny of his own gain." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No genuine service intent undermined by dependency maintenance; the document is overt royal self-legitimization with extraction as the primary architecture." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward from the gods through Hammurabi to the people via a public legal code whose stated purpose is to protect the weak, establish justice, and bring well-being to the land; the architecture terminates in societal order rather than ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The code is inscribed publicly so that any oppressed person may read the laws, understand their case, and obtain justice without further dependence on the king or intermediaries; fixed written rules replace arbitrary personal authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Extensive self-description of Hammurabi's divine selection, titles, conquests, and virtues appears in both prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural maintenance of audience dependency; the document instead disperses justice through permanent, readable law." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The operative architecture terminates in codified rules that protect the weak from the strong and establish predictable justice for subjects; the king's authority is spent in promulgating the laws rather than retained for ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The written laws and public monument transfer the capability to know and invoke specific rules without requiring ongoing personal appeal to the ruler; the epilogue explicitly directs readers to consult the inscription themselves to determine what is just." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "present", "note": "Hammurabi repeatedly names himself, his divine selection, his conquests, and his wisdom throughout the prologue and epilogue." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the code supplies fixed, publicly accessible rules rather than keeping the audience reliant on the speaker for ongoing interpretation or protection." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "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": "Document is a royal proclamation of statutes with no inferential chains from premises to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; laws are prescriptive rules, not arguments." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered for any asserted conclusions; authority is declared rather than bridged." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is ancient legal code framed as royal inscription; prologue, statutes, and epilogue read as literal claims of authority and enacted rules." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text is a prescriptive legal code framed by divine narrative rather than an evidence-to-conclusion chain; the prologue and epilogue assert authority without supplying inferential steps from facts to legal conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; the divine-authority framing is a foundational claim of the genre, not a fallacious bridge." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "The narrative of divine appointment is offered as warrant for the laws, but the text does not test or demonstrate applicability of that warrant to the specific statutes." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian law code with mythological prologue and epilogue; the divine commissioning passages are read as literal claims of authority within the genre, while the statutes themselves are prescriptive rather than figurative." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or even incidental use of fallacies." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of divine assertions, enumerated statutes, and self-praise; no chain of evidence-to-conclusion reasoning is supplied." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; all claims are declarative promulgation rather than argued inferences." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "Divine appointment is simply asserted as grounding the laws and Hammurabi's authority; no independent evidence is offered or needed within the genre." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient royal legal inscription / law code; prologue and epilogue read as literal claims of divine mandate, statutes read as binding rules." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy pattern present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of divine narrative framing plus prescriptive 'if-then' edicts; no chains of evidence-to-conclusion reasoning are supplied." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories appear." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No factual evidence or citations are offered to ground any asserted conclusions; authority is simply declared." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is ancient royal legal inscription (prologue + casuistic statutes + epilogue); all statutes and authority claims read as literal." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative legal rules and divine-authority framing with no chains of reasoning from evidence to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies of any of the seven categories; text is prescriptive rather than argumentative." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence or citations are offered to ground any conclusions; authority is asserted by divine appointment and royal decree." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian legal code (prose prologue + casuistic statutes + curse epilogue); all rules read as literal prescriptive commands, not figurative." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero distinct fallacy types; no systematic or incidental use of fallacious structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of divine assertions in prologue/epilogue plus prescriptive 'if-then' rules; no chains of evidence or reasoning are supplied to support conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No instances of the seven named fallacies; text does not employ ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to authority as evidence substitute, post hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or non-sequitur/irrelevant warrant." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No factual evidence or citations are offered to ground any conclusions; validity rests solely on asserted divine mandate." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian royal legal inscription; prologue/epilogue read as literal claims of divine authority, laws read as prescriptive commands rather than figurative speech." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental use of fallacies." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative legal prescriptions and self-authorizing framing; no evidence-to-conclusion chains are supplied." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; laws and framing are direct assertions rather than arguments from premises." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidentiary bridges are attempted; conclusions are enacted as law or divine mandate rather than derived from cited facts." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian legal code with religious prologue/epilogue; all statutes read as literal prescriptions, framing read as literal claims of divine authority." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text is a prescriptive legal code framed by divine-mandate declarations rather than any chain linking evidence to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of the seven fallacies; the prologue and epilogue assert divine appointment and righteousness without committing any of the listed structural errors." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "weak", "note": "The stated grounds (divine selection) are offered as warrant for the laws' authority, but the connection is asserted rather than bridged by any further reasoning." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian legal code; prologue and epilogue read as literal claims of divine commissioning, laws read as prescriptive rules." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental use of fallacies." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "The text presents laws as direct divine commands and royal decrees rather than conclusions reached via evidence-to-claim reasoning chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; the document is legislative and declarative, not argumentative." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No factual evidence or data is supplied to ground conclusions; legitimacy rests on asserted divine appointment rather than evidential support." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Ancient Mesopotamian legal code framed by religious prologue and epilogue; all statutes read as literal prescriptions and the divine-mandate passages read as literal claims of authority." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no pattern of systematic fallacy use exists." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20 ], "trimmed_mean": 20.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "Epilogue frames any alteration of the code or failure to obey its words as divinely punishable, treating further inquiry or modification as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All laws and Hammurabi's authority are asserted with absolute certainty via divine mandate, with no hedging or acknowledgment of possible error or debate." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine appointment and universal righteousness are asserted without evidence or demonstration of actual agreement among people or experts." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "Ruler's authority and code permanence are treated as axiomatic and above scrutiny, while subjects face strict enforcement with no reciprocal standards applied to the author." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue frame the laws as divinely ordained and unalterable, with explicit curses against modification or reinterpretation, treating any further inquiry as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All assertions of divine authority, legal perfection, and royal legitimacy are stated in absolute terms with no hedging or acknowledgment of uncertainty or debate." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine and popular consensus is repeatedly asserted via phrases such as 'the great gods have called me' without any grounding evidence or demonstration of actual agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The text demands absolute adherence to its own pronouncements while exempting its divine-origin claims from any scrutiny or evidential standard applied to other positions." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed absent (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY), triggering the stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue present the laws as divinely ordained and eternal; any alteration or questioning is met with curses, treating inquiry as illegitimate rather than a tool." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All assertions of divine authority, legal perfection, and consequences are stated in absolute terms with no hedging or acknowledgment of uncertainty or debate." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine and popular agreement is repeatedly asserted through self-description and godly endorsement without external evidence or demonstration." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The author's own authority and text are placed beyond scrutiny while strict, asymmetric standards and punishments are imposed on all others." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "Epilogue curses anyone altering the laws or monument, framing modification or challenge as punishable and treating inquiry as a threat to divine order." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All laws and divine mandates are stated as absolute facts with no hedging, despite contested applications across social classes." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Repeated assertions of divine selection and approval by multiple gods are made without evidence or demonstration of actual agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The text demands strict adherence to its rules while exempting its own authority and class-based standards from equivalent scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed absent (epistemic openness, certainty calibration, consensus authenticity, standard symmetry), triggering the stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue frame the laws as divinely ordained and unalterable; questioning or changing them is positioned as an offense against the gods, with curses invoked against any alteration." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All statutes and the king's authority are stated in absolute terms with no hedging, acknowledgment of debate, or allowance for uncertainty despite the contested nature of justice and punishment." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine and popular agreement is repeatedly asserted ('the great gods have called me') without evidence or demonstration; dissent is erased by threat of punishment rather than addressed." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "Hammurabi's claims to perfect righteousness and the code's permanence are treated as axiomatic; no equivalent scrutiny or evidentiary standard is applied to the speaker's own assertions or the laws themselves." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Three signals (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY) are confirmed absent, triggering the stack." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue frame the laws as divinely fixed and unalterable, invoking curses against any who question, modify, or disregard them." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All statutes and divine attributions are stated as absolute facts with no hedging, exceptions, or acknowledgment of possible debate." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Repeated assertions of unanimous divine endorsement (Anu, Bel, Marduk, Shamash, etc.) are made without evidence or demonstration beyond the speaker's claim." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The text demands strict obedience and evidentiary rigor from subjects while exempting its own foundational divine-authority claims from any scrutiny." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue present the laws as eternally fixed by divine mandate with explicit curses against alteration or reinterpretation, treating further inquiry as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All rules and divine-authority claims are stated in absolute terms with no hedging, qualifiers, or acknowledgment of interpretive uncertainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine endorsement and unique royal wisdom are asserted without evidence or demonstration; dissent is erased by the narrative framing." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "Class-based penalties create asymmetric standards, and the epilogue exempts the code itself from the scrutiny it demands of others." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed absent, exceeding the three-signal threshold for stack presence." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue frame the laws as eternal and divinely mandated with severe curses for any modification, treating alteration or questioning as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "Absolute language presents the code as complete and unquestionable, with no hedging or acknowledgment of interpretive limits or debates." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine appointment and self-praise assert authority without demonstrating actual agreement or evidence of consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The rhetoric demands strict adherence while exempting its own divine-royal authority from equivalent examination or challenge." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four signals confirmed (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY)." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 20, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "absent", "note": "The prologue and epilogue frame the laws as divinely ordained and final; alteration or questioning is positioned as evil deserving curses, treating further inquiry as a threat rather than a tool." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "All laws and claims of righteousness are stated in absolute terms with no hedging or acknowledgment of uncertainty or debate, despite the contested nature of justice across eras." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "absent", "note": "Divine and royal authority is asserted without evidence or demonstration of agreement; phrases like 'the great gods have called me' manufacture consensus rather than ground it." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "absent", "note": "The document applies no scrutiny to the king's own premises or laws while imposing severe penalties on others; the ruler's position is treated as axiomatic." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "present", "note": "Four foreclosure signals confirmed (EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS, CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION, CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY, STANDARD_SYMMETRY); stack is triggered." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 90, 100, 90, 100, 100, 100, 32, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 97.14, "stdev": 22.259, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text asserts grants made of the king's 'pure and unconstrained will' (cl. 1) while simultaneously establishing a baronial enforcement mechanism that directly limits royal power (cl. 61), creating an internal tension between sovereign grant and compelled limitation." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from the king to the barons (via the twenty-five), to the Church, to freemen, and to heirs; the barons in turn are bound to observe the same liberties toward their own men (cl. 60)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly recognizes the risk of royal transgression and constructs a detailed, ongoing redress procedure rather than leaving the tension implicit or unaddressed." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) is decisive: the handling in cl. 61 names and operationalizes both poles—the king's retained authority and the barons' right to distrain—within the specific content of this charter. The mechanism is not transplantable generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Only one substantive tension was identified in the Phase 1 scan; it is explicitly acknowledged and addressed, yielding an unacknowledged count of zero." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 90, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Tensions exist between the king's retained prerogatives (e.g., clauses 12, 14, 61) and the broad liberties granted to freemen and the church, but these are framed as negotiated concessions rather than logically contradictory claims." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 60 requires barons and clergy to extend the same liberties to their own men; clause 61 imposes enforcement obligations on the king and his officers while binding the twenty-five barons to act collectively." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly recognizes the risk that the king or his officers may breach the charter and prescribes a detailed, multi-stage redress process involving the twenty-five barons." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: clause 61 directly names both poles—the king's duty to observe the granted liberties and the barons' right to distrain if he fails—and constructs a concrete mechanism that engages both without deflection or generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes appear among the scanned tensions; the single primary tension is openly addressed in the security clause." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The text simultaneously asserts the king's unrestricted grant of liberties 'forever' (clauses 1, 63) while embedding a coercive enforcement regime by 25 barons that can seize royal assets (clause 61), creating a structural tension between sovereign authority and limited, enforceable rights." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Obligations run both ways: the king must observe the enumerated liberties and face distraint if he violates them, while barons, freemen, and the Church are bound to observe corresponding duties toward their own men and the crown (clauses 60-61)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "The preamble references the 'quarrel' with the barons and frames the charter as its settlement, yet the text never explicitly names or reflects on the underlying tension between royal supremacy and the new constraints it imposes." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator is satisfied: clause 61 directly engages both poles by naming the king's potential transgressions and authorizing the barons to distrain castles and lands while expressly saving the king's person, queen, and children. This is a substantive, document-specific mechanism rather than generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Only one primary tension was identified in the scanned clauses; it is handled explicitly rather than left unacknowledged." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 90, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "The document consists of a coherent series of specific legal concessions and procedural rules with no identifiable pairs of contradictory claims or positions held simultaneously." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs both from the king to the barons (clause 61 enforcement mechanism) and from subjects to the crown through the enumerated rights and remedies." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text never comments on or signals awareness of any tension between royal authority and the liberties being granted." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "none", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator finds no tension-handling passage because no contradictory poles are present; therefore no resolution method applies." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Zero paradoxes were identified in the Phase 1 scan, so the unacknowledged count is zero." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "The charter asserts perpetual royal grant of liberties while simultaneously authorizing baronial distraint and seizure of the king's assets if he violates its terms (Art. 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs from king to barons, freemen, church, and heirs, and reciprocally from barons to the community and to the king under the security clause." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes the risk of royal non-compliance and constructs the twenty-five barons mechanism to address it, showing awareness of the tension." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: Art. 61 directly names both the king's potential transgression and the barons' concrete remedy, engaging the specific content of both poles rather than deflecting or scripting." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single structural tension identified is explicitly acknowledged and addressed; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "One structural tension exists between the repeated royal grant of liberties 'forever' held of the king and his heirs (clauses 1, 60, 63) and the explicit baronial enforcement mechanism authorizing seizure of the king's castles and lands if he violates the charter (clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs from king to barons and freemen via the granted rights, from barons back to the king via the twenty-five-barons distraint procedure, and from all parties to the charter itself (clauses 60-61)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly recognizes the risk of royal violation and constructs the twenty-five-barons mechanism to address it, rather than leaving the tension unaddressed." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator decides: the handling passage (clause 61) names and engages the specific content of both poles—the royal grant of permanent liberties and the baronial right to use force against the grantor—within this single document." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single identified paradox is explicitly acknowledged; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Core tension exists between the king's sovereign grant of liberties (clauses 1, 63) and the creation of binding, enforceable limits on royal power itself (clause 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs from king to barons, freemen, Church, and heirs; clause 61 explicitly distributes enforcement power to the twenty-five barons while preserving the royal person." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 directly addresses the tension by establishing a formal mechanism for redress against the king or his officers, showing explicit awareness of the need to constrain the grantor." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: clause 61 names and engages both poles—the king's authority to grant and the barons' right to enforce—by creating a concrete, document-specific remedy rather than generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single scanned paradox is acknowledged; no additional unacknowledged paradoxes appear in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 32, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document asserts both sweeping grants of liberties and justice to freemen while preserving feudal hierarchies, status-based exceptions, and royal prerogatives in multiple clauses (e.g., 20, 39, 40, 61)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows from king to barons (clause 61 enforcement), church, freemen, and heirs; barons also bound to observe liberties toward their own men (clause 60)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "Text issues prescriptive grants without any reflective acknowledgment of tensions between royal authority and imposed limits." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Glitched", "note": "Step 1 fails: no passage names and engages both poles of the core tension; dominant method for rank-1 paradox (royal power vs. limitations) is therefore Glitched." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "present", "unacknowledged_count": 1, "note": "Single unacknowledged paradox scanned; no reinforcing stack detected." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Tensions exist between repeated grants of liberties 'forever' and the enforcement mechanism in clause 61 that anticipates royal violation; also between universal-sounding justice language (clauses 39-40) and numerous status-based exceptions and carve-outs." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability runs from king to barons (clause 61 distraint), barons to the realm, sheriffs/justices to the law (clause 45), and all parties to the Church and feudal custom." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Clause 61 explicitly recognizes the possibility of royal or official transgression and creates a standing procedure to address it, showing awareness of the tension between grantor and granted rights." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: clause 61 directly names both the king's grant of liberties and the risk of his violation, then engages both by authorizing distraint while preserving the king's person; the handling is specific to this document's poles rather than generic." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single primary tension is acknowledged and addressed; no additional unacknowledged paradoxes appear within the scanned set." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter disperses royal authority outward by granting permanent liberties, rights, and enforcement mechanisms (including the twenty-five barons' distraint clause) directly to barons, freemen, and the Church; the king's power is spent in the act of creation rather than retained for ongoing capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Clauses establish fixed legal protections (peer judgment, no arbitrary seizure, standardized measures, common counsel) that transfer capability to evaluate and constrain royal action without requiring ongoing royal interpretation or permission." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text contains no acknowledgment of the king's personal or dynastic interest; it is framed solely as concessions for the amendment of the kingdom and resolution of the baronial quarrel." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No savior narrative or identity-dependence structure is present; the document is a one-time legal settlement that constrains rather than sustains any party's ongoing protective role." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward from the king to the Church, barons, and freemen via permanent grants of liberties, rights, and enforcement mechanisms (clauses 1, 39, 61) that terminate in the audience's hands rather than retaining ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Establishes fixed legal procedures, due process by peers, independent courts, and standardized measures that transfer capability to evaluate and act without arbitrary royal intervention (clauses 17-20, 35, 39-40)." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No acknowledgment of the king's personal interest or stake appears; the text frames all provisions as grants to others in perpetuity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No pattern of genuine intent paired with structural dependency maintenance; the document disperses power through enforceable legal limits rather than preserving audience reliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter disperses royal authority permanently to barons and freemen via enumerated liberties, due-process protections, and enforcement by the council of 25 barons; the king's power is spent in the act of granting and is not retained for ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Fixed rules on reliefs, wardships, amercements, common pleas, and judgment by peers transfer legal capability to subjects and reduce their reliance on the king's personal discretion or interpretation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "weak", "note": "The king binds himself and his heirs to the concessions but does not articulate any personal benefit or cost beyond the stated purpose of settling the quarrel with the barons." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the document creates enforceable, transferable rights that operate independently of the grantor." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter disperses royal authority by granting permanent liberties, due-process protections, and enforcement mechanisms to barons and freemen; the king's power is spent in the act of creation and terminates in the subjects' hands." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Clauses establish fixed courts, inheritance rights without arbitrary fines, limits on wardship and distraint, and jury-like processes that transfer legal capability to subjects rather than retaining interpretive control with the crown." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text contains no acknowledgment of the king's personal interests or benefits; all provisions are framed solely as grants to the realm and Church." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No savior-victim narrative or identity-dependent relationship is present; the document is a legal settlement between king and barons." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter grants enumerated liberties and due-process protections to freemen, barons, and the Church while creating an enforcement council of 25 barons; royal authority is thereby dispersed outward to subjects rather than retained." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Fixed procedures for courts, amercements, wardship, and debt collection, plus the 25-baron oversight mechanism, transfer enforceable legal capability to the audience and reduce reliance on the king's personal discretion." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text contains no acknowledgment of the king's own interests or gains; all provisions are framed as concessions to the barons and realm." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No narrative of personal identity tied to audience dependence; the document is a forced legal settlement establishing structural limits on authority." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward from the king to freemen, barons, and the Church via permanent grants of liberties, due-process protections, and enforcement mechanisms (clauses 1, 39-40, 61). The dispersal test is satisfied: the king's concentrated authority is given away and terminates in the audience's hands through the twenty-five barons' enforcement powers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The charter transfers concrete legal capability to the audience by fixing reliefs, protecting widows and heirs, limiting arbitrary seizure, and establishing county courts and peer judgment (clauses 2-8, 17-20, 39), enabling independent action without ongoing royal interpretation." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No acknowledgment of the king's personal or dynastic interest appears; the text frames all concessions solely as grants for the amendment of the kingdom and peace with the barons." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "None detected: no dependency maintenance, manufactured urgency, withheld capability, or claims that scrutiny equals harm; the architecture disperses rather than concentrates ongoing private benefit." }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No divergence between stated intent and structural effect; the document does not maintain audience dependence on the grantor for identity or protection." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority flow outward: the king grants permanent liberties to the Church, barons, and freemen and creates an enforcement mechanism (the twenty-five barons) that allows subjects to distrain the crown itself if the charter is breached." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text transfers concrete legal capability—due process, fixed courts, standardized measures, limits on wardship and amercement, and the right to judgment by peers—directly to the governed, reducing their structural reliance on the king's personal discretion." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No acknowledgment of the king's own interest or gain appears; the charter is framed solely as concessions to God, the realm, and the barons." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No pattern of genuine intent paired with structural dependency maintenance; the document instead disperses power and creates enforceable limits on the grantor." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The charter grants permanent liberties, rights, and legal protections to the Church, barons, freemen, and cities while constraining royal power through fixed procedures and enforcement by 25 barons; authority disperses outward to subjects rather than concentrating inward." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Clauses establish due process, fixed reliefs, inheritance rules, and limits on arbitrary seizure or amercement, transferring enforceable legal capability directly to recipients so they can act without ongoing royal discretion." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text frames all concessions as grants from the king with no acknowledgment of personal benefit, retained privilege, or ongoing extraction for the grantor." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No narrative of personal identity tied to audience dependence; the document is a one-time legal instrument establishing permanent, transferable rights." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Authority and legal protections are granted outward from the crown to the Church, barons, and freemen in perpetuity; the dispersal test is satisfied because the king's concentrated power is structurally transferred via enforceable limits and the 25-baron oversight mechanism rather than retained for ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Clauses establish fixed legal rights, due process (e.g., clause 39), limits on arbitrary seizure and amercement, and local administration of justice, transferring capability to evaluate and constrain royal action without continued reliance on the grantor." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text presents the concessions as a voluntary grant without acknowledging the political duress or the king's interest in restoring order; per the altruism boundary this does not alter the service-aligned directional reading." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the charter's architecture disperses power and creates independent legal recourse rather than preserving an audience reliant on the speaker." } ] } ] }, { "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": "Document consists of declarative grants and prohibitions with no premises, inferences, or reasoning chains connecting evidence to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; text contains no argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered and no conclusions are derived; document is a set of enacted legal provisions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a medieval royal charter (legal decree); all clauses read as literal grants of rights and procedures, not figurative language." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative grants and prohibitions with no chains of evidence offered to support conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any category detected; text contains no load-bearing argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled for any conclusion; document is a set of royal grants and legal stipulations." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a medieval royal charter / legal proclamation; all clauses read as literal performative grants and commands." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative grants and stipulations with no evidence-to-conclusion chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; text is a prescriptive charter, not an argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled to support conclusions; clauses are direct enactments." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a medieval royal charter; all clauses read as literal legal grants and procedures." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero fallacies; no systematic or incidental use of any category." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative grants and prescriptive rules with no evidence-to-conclusion chains or supporting reasoning." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence, citations, or data are offered to ground any conclusions; the text is itself the authoritative grant." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter read as literal prescriptive claims establishing rights and procedures." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of declarative legal grants and enumerations with no chains linking evidence to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type detected." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled to support conclusions; text is prescriptive rather than evidentiary." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter read as literal grants of rights and procedures; no figurative language relied upon for any claim." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero fallacies; no systematic or incidental pattern present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of direct prescriptive grants and procedural rules with no evidence-to-conclusion chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; text is declarative charter language." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled to support conclusions; clauses are self-executing grants." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a medieval royal charter; all clauses read as literal legal enactments, not figurative." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is a royal charter of grants and prohibitions with no premises, evidence, or inferential steps connecting claims to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any category present; text contains no argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered for any conclusion; the document simply enacts binding provisions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a medieval royal charter (legal proclamation); every clause is read as a literal grant or command, not figurative speech." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of direct grants and prescriptive clauses with no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning structure." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; text contains no argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered for any conclusion; the clauses are performative grants, not inferences." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter (genre); all clauses read as literal grants of rights and procedures, not figurative language." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists of prescriptive grants and rules with no evidence-to-conclusion chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacies of any type detected." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled; clauses are royal concessions, not inferences from facts." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal charter read literally as binding grants and rules; no figurative language present." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero fallacies; no systematic or incidental use." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly establishes procedures for counsel, inquests, and judgment by peers, treating legal inquiry and due process as ongoing tools rather than threats to authority." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a prescriptive legal settlement, the text states specific grants and remedies without projecting false certainty onto genuinely contested empirical questions; hedging is unnecessary in this genre." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel,' summoned assemblies, and the barons' role in enforcement describe an actual negotiated agreement rather than asserting ungrounded consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document imposes concrete limits and remedies on the crown while extending defined protections to freemen, barons, and the church under consistent legal standards." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes ongoing legal processes, inquests, and redress mechanisms rather than declaring any matter settled or treating further inquiry as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As prescriptive law it states definite rules without projecting false certainty onto genuinely contested factual or philosophical questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel' and specified summoning procedures ground agreement in explicit institutional processes rather than bare assertion." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The same legal standards and evidentiary requirements (judgment of peers, law of the land) are applied to the crown and to subjects." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes legal processes, common counsel requirements, and ongoing mechanisms for redress and judgment rather than declaring any matter settled or treating further inquiry as illegitimate." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is prescriptive and definitive as appropriate for a grant of rights and legal rules; no contested factual claims are asserted without warranted hedging." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel of our kingdom' and the negotiated context with barons ground the concessions in demonstrated agreement rather than asserted consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The same legal standards and remedies are applied to the king's actions, officials, barons, freemen, and Welsh parties; obligations and protections are stated symmetrically across parties." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes legal procedures, rights of appeal, and enforcement mechanisms (e.g., clauses 39-40, 61) that treat inquiry and redress as tools rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a prescriptive legal instrument, the text asserts specific rights and limits without projecting false certainty onto contested epistemic questions or omitting warranted uncertainty." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel of our kingdom' (clause 12) and the elected body of 25 barons (clause 61) ground agreement in documented negotiation rather than asserted consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter applies evidentiary and procedural standards symmetrically, constraining the crown's actions toward freemen, barons, and the Church while also binding subjects to lawful obligations." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero weaponization signals confirmed; the document contains no epistemic foreclosure, false certainty, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, inoculation, or temporal foreclosure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly establishes procedures for inquiry, judgment by peers, and redress of grievances rather than foreclosing further questions; it frames law as an ongoing mechanism for resolving disputes." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a prescriptive legal grant, the text states specific rights and remedies without projecting false certainty onto genuinely contested empirical questions; hedging is absent because the document codifies agreed concessions, not contested facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel of our kingdom' and detailed summoning procedures for barons ground the concessions in an actual negotiated agreement rather than asserting unproven consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter applies evidentiary and procedural standards (judgment of peers, lawful process) primarily to constrain royal power while extending protections to freemen, barons, and the Church without evident double standards in its own premises." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes legal processes (e.g., judgment by peers, inquests, common counsel) that treat inquiry and structured adjudication as tools for resolving disputes rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Definitive language is used throughout as appropriate to a binding legal grant; no contested factual claims are asserted without warrant." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel of our kingdom' and specified summoning procedures ground collective decision-making in explicit mechanisms rather than asserted consensus." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Rules constrain the king and royal officers equally with subjects; enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the twenty-five barons) apply standards to the crown itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; the document is a legal charter, not rhetorical advocacy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly establishes ongoing mechanisms for redress, inquiry via justiciaries, and accountability through the barons' council, treating scrutiny of royal actions as a structural right rather than a threat." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a prescriptive legal instrument codifying negotiated concessions, the text uses definitive language appropriate to binding grants without projecting false certainty onto genuinely contested empirical questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Agreement is presented as the documented outcome of specific negotiations between the king and barons, with enforcement clauses rather than unsupported assertions that 'everyone knows' or 'all agree'." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies explicit constraints and evidentiary standards to the crown's conduct (e.g., clauses 39-40, 52, 61) while granting corresponding liberties to subjects, without exempting the grantor from the rules it imposes." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; the text contains no epistemic closure, manufactured consensus, asymmetric standards, inoculation, or temporal foreclosure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter explicitly grants rights to due process, trial by peers, and mechanisms for redress, treating legal inquiry and accountability as tools rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is definitive as appropriate for a binding legal grant; no contested epistemic claims are asserted without context or hedging." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to common counsel and the involvement of barons in enforcement are grounded in explicit procedural grants rather than asserted without demonstration." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The same legal standards (judgment of peers, law of the land) are applied to the king, his officers, and subjects alike." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The charter establishes legal processes and rights (e.g., judgment by peers in clause 39) that enable ongoing recourse to law rather than foreclosing inquiry or treating doubt as bad faith." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a prescriptive grant of specific liberties and procedures, the text contains no contested factual claims presented without warranted hedging; it defines rules rather than asserting debatable propositions as settled facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "References to 'common counsel of our kingdom' (clause 12) and the negotiated baronial framework are grounded in the documented agreement between the king and barons rather than asserted without evidence." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The charter applies consistent legal standards and remedies (e.g., amercements, wardship rules) to the king, barons, freemen, and officials without evident double standards favoring the grantor." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; the document is a foundational legal grant establishing rights and procedures rather than deploying rhetorical closure." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains provisions on slavery, representation, and voting that conflict with later amendments (13th–15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) on equality and rights; Article V amendment process directly engages these tensions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Checks and balances distribute power across legislative, executive, and judicial branches plus federal-state relations, with explicit mechanisms for mutual oversight and amendment." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V and amendment history demonstrate explicit awareness that foundational provisions may require revision to resolve emerging tensions with stated principles." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 decisive: amendments (e.g., 13th abolishing slavery clauses, 14th equal protection) name and substantively engage both poles of specific contradictions across the whole document; universal register is genre-normative for foundational charters." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned tensions are addressed through acknowledged amendment mechanisms; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the final text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains 3/5 clause, fugitive slave provisions, and no prohibition on slavery; Amendments XIII–XV directly reverse these by abolishing slavery, granting citizenship and equal protection, and protecting voting rights." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Power is distributed across federal branches, between federal and state governments (Article VI supremacy clause vs. Amendment X), and subject to periodic popular election and amendment processes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The amendment mechanism (Article V) and specific later amendments explicitly revise earlier contradictory provisions, demonstrating structural awareness of the tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 of discriminator: amendments name and engage the specific content of both poles (original compromises and later corrections) within the same document; handling is substantive, not merely generic." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single major scanned paradox is addressed by amendments; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the document as a whole." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains the 3/5 clause and slave-trade protection until 1808 alongside liberty and welfare language; Amendments XIII–XV directly reverse those provisions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across federal branches, states, and the people via elections, oaths, impeachment, and the amendment process." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "weak", "note": "Article V supplies an explicit mechanism for change, but the original text never names the slavery–liberty tension it contains." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 pole engagement succeeds: later amendments name and directly alter the specific representational and importation clauses of the 1788 text rather than deflecting or scripting around them." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "The single major contradiction is resolved by amendment; no additional unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains provisions such as the three-fifths clause, delayed slave-trade ban, and fugitive-slave clause that stand in direct tension with Amendments XIII and XIV." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across legislative, executive, and judicial branches and between federal and state levels through explicit checks, vetoes, and ratification requirements." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V and the sequence of amendments explicitly recognize the need to revise earlier provisions, demonstrating awareness of internal tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Amendments directly name and alter the specific contradictory clauses (Step 1 pole engagement decisive); the handling is substantive rather than generic." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned paradoxes are addressed by later amendments; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the whole document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains multiple structural tensions, most severely the 3/5 compromise and slave-trade protections (Art. I §§2,9) versus later equality provisions; federal supremacy (Art. VI) versus state-reserved powers (Amend. X) is a second clear pole pair." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed across branches (separation of powers, impeachment), levels of government (federalism, Supremacy Clause), and the amendment process itself (Art. V)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Article V and the existence of amendments that directly revise earlier clauses demonstrate explicit awareness that the original text contained tensions requiring later correction." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 of the discriminator is satisfied: amendments (XIII–XV, XVII, etc.) name and engage the specific content of the original contradictory provisions (slavery, direct election, etc.) rather than generic language; dominant method for rank-1 paradox is therefore Integrated." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned paradoxes are addressed through the amendment mechanism; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the document as a whole." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains identifiable tensions between original clauses (e.g., 3/5 compromise, fugitive-slave provisions, Senate election by legislatures) and later amendments that directly supersede them (13th, 14th, 17th)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is explicitly distributed across branches (Art I–III), states and federal government (Art IV, VI, X), and the people (preamble, amendments I–X, XVII, XIX, XXIV, XXVI)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text shows explicit awareness through Article V amendment mechanism and the actual adoption of superseding amendments that return to and alter earlier provisions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decisive: amendments name and directly override the specific content of earlier contradictory clauses rather than deflecting or using generic language; whole-document append-style repair applies." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned paradoxes are addressed through the acknowledged amendment process; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the final text." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains identifiable tensions including original text provisions regulating slavery versus later amendments abolishing it, and federal versus state power allocations." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across branches of government, between federal and state levels, and between government and the people via elections, impeachment, and amendment processes." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text shows explicit awareness through the amendment process (Article V) and structural mechanisms like checks and balances that directly engage and manage identified tensions over time." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Dominant method is Integrated (Step 1 pole engagement decisive): amendments name and substantively revise specific contradictory claims from the original text rather than deflecting or scripting generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the scanned set; all identified tensions are addressed through explicit amendment and structural provisions." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text contains the 3/5 clause, fugitive-slave provision, and delayed ban on importation (Art. I §9); later amendments (XIII–XV, XIX, XXVI) directly reverse those positions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Power is distributed across federal branches, between federal and state governments, and ultimately to the people via elections and amendment process (Art. V, VI, X)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The amendment mechanism (Art. V) and subsequent amendments explicitly revisit and alter earlier contradictory provisions rather than leaving them untouched." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 of discriminator: amendments name and substantively engage both poles of the original contradictions (e.g., slavery permitted then abolished; representation rules revised). Whole-document scope confirms integration." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned paradoxes are addressed by later amendments; no unacknowledged tensions remain within the ratified document." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Original text permits slavery via 3/5 clause, importation until 1808, and fugitive-slave provision; Amendments XIII–XV and XIV explicitly abolish and override those provisions." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Powers and limits are distributed across federal branches, states, and the people, with explicit checks such as Article V amendment process and Supremacy Clause." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Amendments directly name and alter specific earlier clauses (e.g., XIII repeals slavery allowances; XIV revises apportionment), demonstrating awareness of the tensions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: amendments name and substantively revise the exact contradictory provisions rather than deflect or script generic language; whole-document append-style repair applies." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned tensions are explicitly addressed by later amendments; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the document as a whole." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority originate with 'We the People' and are dispersed to citizens via elections, rights, checks and balances, and amendment processes; framers' authority terminates in the document's creation with no retained personal or investor benefit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Defines transferable structures (separation of powers, enumerated rights, jury trials, amendment mechanisms) that enable citizens and states to govern and evaluate authority without ongoing dependence on any speaker or founder." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual signers or authors disclose personal interests or benefits; the text frames all provisions as collective establishment of government for the people and posterity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No pattern of genuine intent paired with structural dependency maintenance; the architecture explicitly limits government and disperses power rather than preserving audience reliance." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document disperses authority through elected representatives, enumerated powers, checks and balances, and reserved rights to the people and states, with the framers' power spent in creating a structure that terminates in citizen governance rather than retained benefit." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By defining limited government powers, protecting individual rights via amendments, establishing amendment and election processes, and reserving undelegated powers to states and people, the text transfers capability for self-governance and accountability." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The preamble and articles frame the Constitution as ordained by 'We the People' for collective ends with no acknowledgment of any signer's or framer's personal interests or privileges." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The architecture establishes republican forms, jury trials, free speech, and periodic elections that structurally promote citizen independence rather than any ongoing dependency on leaders or interpreters." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document establishes a government whose powers are derived from and exercised for the people, with authority dispersed through elections, separation of powers, reserved rights, and amendment processes rather than retained by the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Enumerated rights, popular elections, checks and balances, and the amendment process transfer self-governance capability to citizens and states, enabling independent evaluation and operation of the system." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interests or stakes of the framers are acknowledged, consistent with its character as a foundational legal instrument." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency on a savior figure; the architecture promotes republican self-rule and citizen sovereignty." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document vests legislative, executive, and judicial powers in elected institutions and reserves rights to the people and states; framers' authority disperses at ratification into citizen-controlled structures rather than retaining ongoing private capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Elections, enumerated powers, checks and balances, jury trials, and reserved powers transfer governance capability to citizens and states, enabling independent evaluation and operation without perpetual reliance on any speaker." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual author or signatory discloses personal benefit or stake; the text is framed collectively as 'We the People' establishing institutions for the general welfare and posterity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual savior identity or audience-dependency architecture is present; the document creates impersonal, amendable institutions rather than maintaining reliance on any speaker's ongoing revelation or protection." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The preamble and structure establish government powers to serve the people and posterity, with authority dispersed through elected representatives, amendment processes, and popular sovereignty rather than retained for any founder or class." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The document transfers governance capability via elections, separation of powers, enumerated rights, jury trials, and amendment mechanisms, enabling citizens to evaluate and alter their government without perpetual reliance on any speaker or authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "The text frames the Constitution as ordained by 'We the People' with no acknowledgment of individual framers' interests or stakes." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The architecture establishes republican self-rule and citizen rights without structural mechanisms that maintain audience dependence on any leader or interpreter." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The Preamble and structure vest authority in elected institutions and ultimately the people, dispersing framers' power into a self-governing republic with no retained privileges or extraction for the authors." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Separation of powers, enumerated rights, elections, and amendment processes transfer governance capability to citizens and future generations, enabling independent evaluation and operation of the system." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No acknowledgment of drafters' or signers' personal interests appears; the text frames all provisions as serving the people and posterity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance exists; the architecture promotes citizen self-governance rather than ongoing reliance on any authority figure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document vests all authority in 'We the People' and structures government as servant to the union, justice, welfare, and liberty of citizens and posterity; framers' authority is fully dispersed into the constitutional order with no retained personal or institutional capture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "The text transfers structural capability for self-governance by enumerating limited powers, separation of branches, jury trials, reserved rights, and amendment processes that enable citizens to evaluate and alter government without ongoing dependence on any speaker or founder." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interests, emoluments, or privileges of the framers or signers are asserted or reserved in the operative text." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No pattern of genuine intent paired with structural maintenance of audience dependence; the architecture disperses power rather than preserving any speaker-audience hierarchy." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document vests ultimate authority in 'We the People,' structures government with enumerated powers and checks, and disperses authority through elections, amendments, and reserved rights; framers' authority terminates in the citizens' hands with no retained extraction architecture." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Establishes separation of powers, regular elections, jury trials, free speech, and amendment processes that transfer evaluative and participatory capability directly to citizens and states rather than retaining interpretive control." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interests or benefits of the framers or signers are referenced; the text frames all provisions in terms of public order, rights, and governance structures." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the architecture explicitly limits government and empowers citizens through rights and democratic mechanisms." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document vests legislative, executive, and judicial powers in elected institutions accountable to the people, with authority dispersed through elections, checks and balances, and amendment processes rather than retained by the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Enumerated rights, separation of powers, jury trials, and the amendment process transfer analytical and participatory capability to citizens, enabling independent evaluation and governance without ongoing reliance on the original authors." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal interests or benefits of the framers are acknowledged; the text addresses only public structures and citizen protections." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the architecture explicitly limits government and empowers citizen self-rule." } ] } ] }, { "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 constitutive legal prose that defines institutions, powers, and rights; it contains no evidence-to-conclusion chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any category are present; the document does not advance conclusions via the listed moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidentiary claims or conclusions are offered; the text is definitional and prescriptive rather than probative." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is foundational legal/constitutional document; all provisions read as literal operative rules, not figurative or rhetorical statements." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document consists entirely of declarative prescriptions and structural definitions with no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning chains present." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type detected; text contains no argumentative moves that rely on ad hominem, false dichotomy, authority substitution, false causation, slippery slope, hasty generalization, or irrelevant warrant." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered for any conclusion; the text is constitutive and prescriptive rather than evidentiary." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is foundational legal/constitutional text; all provisions read as literal prescriptive rules establishing government structure, powers, and rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is constitutive legal text establishing institutions and rules; contains no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any category present; no load-bearing argumentative moves exist." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is marshalled to support conclusions; provisions are enacted rules, not inferences." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is constitutional legal instrument; all text read as literal prescriptive and structural commands." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is a prescriptive legal instrument defining powers and rules; contains no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; text consists solely of constitutive legal provisions." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidentiary claims or conclusions are advanced; the text is the authoritative source of rules itself." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is constitutional legal text; all provisions read as literal prescriptive rules, not figurative or rhetorical claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is constitutive legal text establishing rules and powers; contains no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies present; document asserts definitions and procedures without load-bearing logical errors of any of the seven types." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence or citations are offered to ground conclusions; the text itself constitutes the authority." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/constitutional document read as literal prescriptive text establishing governmental structure and rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is constitutive legal text establishing rules and structures; contains no evidence-to-conclusion reasoning chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; text asserts prescriptions and definitions without argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered or required; document does not rely on factual support for its assertions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is constitutional legal document; all provisions read as literal prescriptive rules establishing government structure and rights." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is a prescriptive legal charter establishing rules and powers; it contains no chains of evidence leading to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No logical fallacies of any type are present; the text makes no argumentative moves." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered for any conclusion; the document defines structures and rights directly rather than supporting them with evidence." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a foundational legal/constitutional document; all provisions are read as literal prescriptive statements." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count is 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use exists." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is a constitutive legal charter establishing rules and powers, not an inference from evidence to a conclusion." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacious moves present; no load-bearing arguments from evidence to asserted conclusions exist." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence-conclusion structure; text defines institutions and rights rather than marshaling facts to support claims." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/constitutional charter read literally as prescriptive rules and definitions, not figurative or rhetorical claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero fallacies; no systematic or incidental use of any of the seven categories." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is constitutive legal text establishing rules and structures; contains no chains of evidence leading to asserted conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies of any type present; no load-bearing argumentative moves using the seven categories." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence is offered to support conclusions; the text itself defines powers, rights, and procedures." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is foundational legal/constitutional document; all provisions read as literal stipulations and commands, not figurative claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental use of fallacies." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides amendment procedures (Article V) and separates powers with ongoing checks, treating governance questions as open to structured revision rather than foreclosed." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is precise and definitional for legal rules while embedding mechanisms for change and enumerated limits; no absolute claims on genuinely contested policy questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Ratification requirements and state-by-state processes are specified; no assertions of 'everyone knows' or ungrounded agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Uniform rules apply across states, branches, and citizens with explicit symmetry requirements (e.g., full faith and credit, equal suffrage protections)." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; stack threshold not met." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides amendment procedures, treating the document as open to revision and scrutiny rather than closed or beyond question." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses precise legal language to establish rules and powers without projecting false certainty onto genuinely contested factual or empirical claims." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of authority rest on documented ratification by states and conventions rather than ungrounded claims that 'everyone agrees' or 'there is no debate.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Uniform rules are applied across states, branches, and citizens with no evident double standards or asymmetric evidentiary demands within the document itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document establishes an amendable framework (Article V) and separation of powers that structurally invites ongoing interpretation and scrutiny rather than foreclosing inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a foundational legal text it uses precise declarative language appropriate to its genre while embedding explicit mechanisms for revision and contestation; no contested empirical claims are asserted without qualification." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text presents itself as the product of ratification by specified majorities of states; it does not rhetorically assert unexamined popular or expert agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Constitution applies uniform procedural and substantive rules to all branches, states, and citizens without evident double standards in its own provisions." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed foreclosure signals detected; stack threshold not met." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides mechanisms for proposing and ratifying amendments, treating future inquiry and revision as legitimate tools rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses definitive language only for enacted rules while embedding amendment procedures and qualifiers such as 'necessary and proper,' acknowledging that provisions may require future adjustment." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Claims of agreement rest on documented ratification by state conventions and the signatures of delegates, not on assertions that 'everyone knows' or that dissent is erased." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The same structural rules, qualifications, and limits are applied symmetrically across branches, states, and officials without evident double standards in evidentiary or procedural demands." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides amendment procedures in Article V and establishes ongoing legislative, executive, and judicial processes that treat further inquiry and adaptation as built-in features rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is prescriptive and bounded (e.g., enumerated powers, amendment thresholds, due-process clauses) without asserting absolute certainty on contested interpretive questions; provisions such as the Necessary and Proper Clause and judicial review leave room for future application." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "The text records its own ratification requirements and the signatures of delegates rather than asserting ungrounded claims that 'all agree' or that dissent is nonexistent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Rules for powers, qualifications, and limitations are applied uniformly across branches, states, and citizens; no evidence of asymmetric evidentiary demands within the document itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides mechanisms for amendment (Article V), ongoing elections, congressional debate, and judicial interpretation, treating governance questions as open to structured future resolution rather than foreclosed." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Rules are stated definitively as law while embedding explicit processes for change, interpretation, and adaptation; no contested empirical claims are asserted without the built-in qualifiers of amendment and judicial review." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Ratification requirements and amendment procedures are specified with concrete thresholds (two-thirds, three-fourths) rather than asserted via phrases such as 'all agree' or 'no debate.'" }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Uniform rules apply to all states, branches, and citizens with identical procedural requirements and no evident double standards in evidentiary or structural demands." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed foreclosure signals detected across the five canonical categories." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides mechanisms for ongoing amendment (Article V), legislative debate, elections, and judicial review, treating further inquiry and adaptation as integral to the system rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is precise and definitive where establishing binding rules, but includes explicit processes for revision, exceptions, and future legislation without asserting absolute closure on all matters." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Ratification requirements and amendment procedures are specified with concrete thresholds (e.g., two-thirds, three-fourths) rather than asserted via phrases like 'everyone knows' or manufactured agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Uniform rules are applied across states, branches, and citizens with no evident double standards or asymmetric evidentiary demands within the text itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document explicitly provides an amendment process (Article V) and frames government as subject to ongoing popular consent and revision, treating further inquiry and change as legitimate tools rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Language is deliberately precise and procedural while embedding mechanisms for revision and acknowledging limits on power; contested political questions are left to future democratic processes rather than asserted as permanently resolved." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Ratification and amendment rules require demonstrated supermajority consent through specified procedures; no assertions of universal agreement without evidence or process are made." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text applies identical structural constraints, evidentiary standards, and accountability mechanisms to all branches, states, and officials without exempting its own premises or authors." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Article V explicitly provides amendment procedures, treating ongoing inquiry and revision as built-in tools rather than threats." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text uses precise prescriptive language appropriate to foundational law; no contested empirical claims are asserted without context." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "No assertions of manufactured consensus appear; the document records its own ratification process without claiming universal agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Uniform rules and procedures are applied symmetrically across branches, states, and citizens with no double standards evident." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; the document contains no rhetorical patterns that close independent reasoning." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g4", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 90, 100, 90, 90, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 97.14, "stdev": 5.0, "prompt_version": "gate4_v8_1", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains explicit tensions between universal individual rights and community/national limitations (Art 29), and between universality and state sovereignty (Art 14.2, Art 29.3, Art 30)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (duties in Art 29), Member States, the UN, and society as a whole (Preamble and multiple articles)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly frames tensions in the Preamble and qualifies rights with specific limitations in Art 29, showing awareness of the need to balance competing claims." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: Art 29 names and engages the specific content of both universal rights and their lawful limits for others' rights, morality, and public order; handling is substantive to this document's claims, not merely generic." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes found in the scanned set; all identified tensions are explicitly addressed within the genre norms of a foundational rights charter." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document holds tension between inherent/inalienable rights (Preamble, Arts. 1-2) and permissible limitations on those rights (Art. 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows among individuals, states, the UN, communities, and society at large (Preamble, Arts. 28-30)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly frames limitations as necessary to secure recognition of others' rights and public order (Art. 29), showing awareness of the tension." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decisive: handling names both the universality of rights and the specific conditions for limitation; genre of foundational rights charter supports this as substantive engagement rather than generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes within the scanned set; the single identified tension is explicitly addressed." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains identifiable tensions, most notably between absolute individual rights (Arts 1-28) and explicit limitations on those rights for community welfare, others' rights, and UN principles (Art 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, Member States, the UN, and society as a whole, with duties flowing in multiple directions (e.g., Arts 29-30 and Preamble pledges)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly recognizes tensions and states conditions under which rights may be limited, demonstrating awareness rather than silence (Art 29.2-3)." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 pole engagement: handling in Art 29 names and engages the specific content of both the rights themselves and the precise grounds for limitation (morality, public order, others' rights); genre of foundational charter supports this as substantive integration rather than generic language." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes within the scanned set; all identified tensions are explicitly addressed." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document asserts inalienable universal rights while simultaneously permitting legal limitations on those rights for public order, morality, and others' freedoms (Art 29)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows to individuals (duties in Art 29), states (national implementation and remedies), and the international order (UN purposes, Art 28, 30)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly names the tension between rights exercise and permissible limits in Art 29, showing awareness of the balance required." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Rank-1 paradox (universal rights vs. lawful limits) is handled by Art 29, which names and engages the specific content of both poles; Step 1 of discriminator decides Integrated on substance." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes in the scanned set; genre-appropriate declarative handling integrates the primary tension." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 90, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No internal contradictions or paradoxes identified; the text is a coherent enumeration of rights with precisely delimited limitations that do not conflict with the rights themselves." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, Member States, the United Nations, and the community as a whole (Articles 29–30 and Preamble)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "No tensions are present that would require acknowledgment; the document does not exhibit unaddressed contradictions." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "none", "note": "Step 1 of discriminator not triggered (no poles of contradiction exist); genre carve-out for foundational charters confirms declarative register is normative, not evidence of scripting or deflection." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Zero unacknowledged paradoxes scanned; document maintains internal consistency throughout." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains identifiable tensions between absolute individual rights (Arts 1-28) and explicit limitations for community, morality, and others' rights (Art 29), plus duties to the collective." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, states, the UN, and society as a whole, with reciprocal obligations stated in the Preamble and Arts 29-30." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly recognizes tensions and states balancing mechanisms, e.g., Art 29 limitations 'solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others'." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 pole engagement: handling names and engages the specific content of both poles (rights and their limits) within this document; genre carve-out for foundational charters confirms Integrated over Scripted." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "All scanned tensions are acknowledged; no unacknowledged paradoxes remain in the scanned set." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 90, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "weak", "note": "Tensions exist between absolute individual rights (Arts. 1-3, 18-19) and explicit limitations for public order, morality, others' rights, and UN purposes (Art. 29-30), plus national vs. universal scope (Art. 2, 14, 28)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals (duties in Art. 29), states (pledges, national effort, tribunals), the UN, and society as a whole (Preamble, Arts. 22, 28, 30)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "The text explicitly names and balances opposing poles through limitation clauses, duties, and jurisdictional carve-outs rather than asserting rights in isolation." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decides: handling passages (esp. Art. 29) directly name and engage the specific content of both poles—individual rights and their societal/UN limits—within this document; genre norms for foundational charters support this classification." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes in the scanned set; all identified tensions are explicitly framed and balanced." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 90, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "No internal contradictions or paradoxes are identifiable; the document maintains consistent declarative claims about universal rights without opposing positions within its own text." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability is distributed across individuals, Member States, the United Nations, communities, and society as a whole, with duties and obligations flowing in multiple directions to realize the stated rights." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "absent", "note": "No tensions or contradictions exist in the document to be acknowledged; the text proceeds entirely in a coherent, declarative register without signaling any internal awareness of conflict." }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "none", "note": "No paradoxes were identified in the Phase 1 scan, so no resolution method applies (Step 1 of the Integration Discriminator finds no tension requiring handling)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "Zero paradoxes were scanned; therefore zero unacknowledged paradoxes exist and no Paradox Stack is present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "CONTRADICTION_PRESENT", "status": "present", "note": "Document contains identifiable tensions between absolute individual rights (Articles 1-28) and necessary limitations for community welfare, others' rights, and public order (Article 29), plus individual duties versus freedoms (Article 29.1)." }, { "signal": "MULTI_DIRECTIONAL_ACCOUNTABILITY", "status": "present", "note": "Accountability flows to individuals (duties to community), Member States (pledges and implementation), the UN (purposes and principles), and society at large (protection of rights and moral interests)." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_ACKNOWLEDGED", "status": "present", "note": "Text explicitly addresses tensions through limitation clauses (Article 29.2), non-destruction provisions (Article 30), and balancing language such as 'just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.'" }, { "signal": "RESOLUTION_METHOD", "status": "Integrated", "note": "Step 1 (pole engagement) decisive: handling names and engages specific content of both poles (rights and their limits) in Articles 29-30 and throughout; transplant test unnecessary as substance is document-specific rather than generic." }, { "signal": "PARADOX_DENSITY", "status": "absent", "unacknowledged_count": 0, "note": "No unacknowledged paradoxes in the scanned set; all identified tensions receive explicit substantive handling consistent with the genre of foundational rights declarations." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g6", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate6_v9", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document disperses rights and authority outward to all individuals and peoples as an end state; the General Assembly's proclamation terminates in universal recognition and observance rather than retaining ongoing benefit for any author or institution." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles affirm transferable rights to education, expression, participation in government, and legal remedies that enable individuals to act and evaluate independently without reliance on any speaker." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual or institutional author discloses personal interest; the text is framed entirely as a collective proclamation of standards for humanity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No speaker identity or audience dependency is constructed; the text contains no structural maintenance of reliance on any authority figure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The declaration disperses authority by proclaiming rights that empower individuals and nations to secure observance independently; the General Assembly's role terminates in the act of proclamation rather than retaining ongoing control." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Explicitly directs teaching, education, and progressive national/international measures so that every individual and organ of society can strive for recognition without reliance on the declaring body." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No author, state, or institutional interest is acknowledged; the text frames only universal standards and duties of Member States." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "Genuine service architecture with no structural maintenance of audience dependence on the UN or any speaker." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims universal rights as a common standard for all peoples and nations, dispersing authority outward to individuals and societies rather than concentrating it with the declarants." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "By codifying rights explicitly and calling for teaching, education, and progressive national measures, the text transfers capability to readers to claim and secure those rights without ongoing reliance on the authors." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No reference to any author, state, or individual interest appears; the text is framed solely as a universal standard." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "The architecture empowers direct legal and social recognition of rights rather than maintaining audience dependence on any intermediary authority." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims rights as a universal standard whose architecture terminates in the hands of every individual and organ of society; authority is fully dispersed outward with no retained benefit or control for any author or institution." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles directly enumerate rights and duties in transferable language so readers can invoke them without ongoing interpretation or mediation by the declaring body." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual author exists; the text is a collective General Assembly proclamation with no personal interests to disclose." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No speaker identity or audience dependency is constructed; the text is a one-time dispersal of standards rather than an ongoing relationship." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "Value and authority are dispersed outward to all individuals via enumerated rights; the document's architecture terminates in universal recognition and observance rather than any retained authority or benefit for the declaring body." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Rights to education, free expression, participation in government, and legal protections transfer capability directly to individuals, enabling independent evaluation and action without reliance on any speaker or interpreter." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No personal or institutional stake is acknowledged; the text frames itself solely as a collective standard for humanity with no reference to the authors' interests." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency is created; the declaration explicitly promotes progressive realization of rights that reduce reliance on external protectors." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims universal rights as a standard for all peoples and nations; authority is spent in the act of declaration and terminates in the hands of individuals and states who inherit the rights." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles enumerate transferable rights and standards that any individual or society can invoke and apply without further reference to the declaring body." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No author or institution claims personal benefit or ongoing authority; the text is framed entirely as a collective standard for humanity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency is created; the declaration disperses capability rather than positioning any speaker as necessary interpreter or protector." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims rights that flow outward to all individuals and peoples, establishing a standard that disperses authority away from states and framers toward universal recognition and observance by every organ of society." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles explicitly transfer capability by enumerating enforceable rights, mandating education to promote respect, and enabling individuals to claim protections without reliance on any ongoing interpreter or authority." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No acknowledgment of any personal or institutional stake by the General Assembly or Member States beyond the collective pledge; the text frames everything in terms of universal standards." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency maintenance; the architecture empowers individuals with transferable rights and duties rather than preserving an audience reliant on the declarers." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims rights that flow outward to every individual and society; authority is dispersed to limit state power and enable universal observance rather than concentrating benefit with any author or institution." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles explicitly equip individuals and organs of society with a transferable standard they can invoke, teach, and enforce independently through national and international measures." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual or institutional author discloses personal interest; the text is a collective General Assembly proclamation without reference to any speaker's gain." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No structural dependency is created; the architecture aims to make the rights self-sustaining through education, law, and observance rather than ongoing reliance on any interpreter." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "POWER_PYRAMID_DIRECTION", "status": "service_outward", "note": "The document proclaims universal rights as a common standard for all peoples and nations, dispersing authority outward so that individuals and states recognize and observe those rights independently; no retained power or benefit flows back to the framers." }, { "signal": "AUTONOMY_ORIENTATION", "status": "builds_independence", "note": "Articles explicitly enumerate rights and duties in transferable language, directing education and progressive measures toward universal recognition so readers can invoke protections without ongoing reliance on the declaring body." }, { "signal": "PERSONAL_STAKE_DISCLOSED", "status": "absent", "note": "No individual or institutional author claims personal benefit or identity stake; the text is framed solely as a collective standard for humanity." }, { "signal": "EXTRACTION_SIGNAL_PRESENT", "status": "absent", "note": "none detected" }, { "signal": "WOUNDED_SAVIOR_PATTERN", "status": "absent", "note": "No pattern of genuine intent paired with structural dependency maintenance; the architecture empowers direct claim of rights rather than positioning any intermediary as necessary." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g7", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 100.0, "stdev": 0.0, "prompt_version": "gate7_v7", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "Preamble supplies explicit warrants (recognition of dignity, historical consequences of disregard, necessity of rule of law) that structurally connect to the proclamation of the Declaration as a common standard." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; all assertions are direct proclamations rather than inferences resting on suppressed options, irrelevant warrants, or other structural failures." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated historical and principled considerations in the preamble directly ground the conclusion that a universal declaration is needed; no relevance gap exists." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a formal international legal declaration; all articles and preamble clauses read as literal prescriptive claims, not figurative or rhetorical devices." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or even incidental use of fallacies." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Preamble offers aspirational and historical framing but supplies no evidence-to-conclusion chains." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No fallacies found." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "Document contains no cited evidence or data; all content is normative assertion." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "UN human-rights declaration; every article read as literal normative claim." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacies." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is a normative proclamation of rights with no chains linking evidence or premises to conclusions." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing logical fallacies of any type identified." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No empirical evidence, citations, or data are offered to ground any conclusions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is an international legal/political declaration; all statements read as normative assertions of rights, not empirical or causal claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count is 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "The document is a declarative proclamation of rights with no evidence-to-conclusion chains or inferential structure." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing fallacies of any type; the text asserts rights without argumentative moves from evidence or suppressed alternatives." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No evidence, citations, or data are offered; conclusions are proclamations rather than inferences." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/declaratory proclamation genre; all articles read as literal assertions of standards, not figurative or rhetorical claims." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "present", "note": "Preamble supplies explicit 'whereas' premises linking dignity, historical harms, rule of law, and UN Charter commitments directly to the proclamation of the Declaration as a standard." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; all assertions are direct normative proclamations without suppressed options, unbridged warrants, or substituted reasoning." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "present", "note": "The stated historical and principled premises in the preamble are offered as direct grounding for the proclamation and enumerated rights; no relevance gap exists." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/political declaration genre; all articles and preamble clauses read as literal claims establishing rights and obligations, not figurative or rhetorical devices." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero distinct fallacy types; no systematic or incidental use of fallacious structure." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Preamble supplies 'whereas' premises but the document is a normative proclamation of rights, not an evidence-to-conclusion argument." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; document contains only declarative rights statements." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No empirical or factual evidence is offered to ground the proclaimed rights; they are asserted as standards, not derived conclusions." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a formal international legal declaration; all articles read as literal normative claims, preamble read as foundational recitals." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Preamble offers foundational 'whereas' statements but supplies no evidence-to-conclusion chain; document is declarative proclamation, not structured argument." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; all articles are direct normative assertions without suppressed options, causal leaps, or relevance gaps." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "Document contains no cited evidence, statistics, or case authorities; conclusions are proclamations of rights, not inferences from data." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is international legal declaration; all statements read as literal normative claims establishing standards, not figurative or rhetorical devices." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "absent", "note": "Document is a proclamation of normative rights with no evidence-to-conclusion chains; preamble 'whereas' clauses are framing statements, not derivations." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; text contains only declarative assertions." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No factual evidence or citations are offered to ground conclusions; rights are asserted directly as standards." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Legal/political declaration read as literal normative claims establishing rights and duties, not as figurative or rhetorical expression." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy pattern present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EXPLICIT_REASONING_CHAIN", "status": "weak", "note": "Preamble supplies a short justificatory chain of 'whereas' assertions linking dignity, historical disregard, and rule of law to the proclamation, but these are axiomatic premises rather than evidence-to-conclusion reasoning." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_DETECTED", "status": "absent", "instance_count": 0, "distinct_type_count": 0, "note": "No load-bearing instances of any of the seven fallacy categories; document is a normative proclamation, not an evidentiary argument." }, { "signal": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTS_CONCLUSION", "status": "absent", "note": "No empirical evidence, citations, or data are offered; conclusions are definitional and aspirational rather than derived from supplied facts." }, { "signal": "GENRE_THRESHOLD_APPLIED", "status": "present", "note": "Genre is a legal/human-rights declaration; all articles read as literal normative claims, preamble read as literal justificatory premises." }, { "signal": "FALLACY_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "distinct_type_count = 0; no systematic or incidental fallacy use." } ] } ] }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "gate": "g8", "raw_scores": [ 100, 100, 100, 85, 100, 100, 100, 77, 100 ], "trimmed_mean": 97.86, "stdev": 8.614, "prompt_version": "gate8_v5", "samples": [ { "sample_idx": 1, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames rights as a 'common standard of achievement' to be advanced through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures, treating further realization as an open task rather than a settled matter closed to scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a normative declaration of principles rather than contested empirical claims, the text appropriately states rights in definitive language without false certainty on open factual questions or omission of warranted hedging." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of shared commitment are grounded in explicit references to the UN Charter, Member State pledges, and the need for common understanding, rather than asserted without demonstration." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies identical rights and standards universally to all persons and states without asymmetric demands or exemptions for any party, including its own framers." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; the document contains no epistemic closure, manufactured consensus, or other weaponization patterns." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 0, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be realized through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive national/international measures, explicitly inviting continued engagement rather than foreclosing inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Rights are asserted as normative principles grounded in prior UN Charter commitments; no contested empirical claims are presented without hedging, as the text is prescriptive rather than descriptive of uncertain facts." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of agreement reference specific prior pledges by Member States in the UN Charter and cooperative promotion efforts, rather than unsupported blanket claims of universal accord." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text applies identical rights and non-discrimination standards universally to all persons and states without exception or double standards for any party, including signatories." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed across the four evaluated dimensions; no stack is present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 3, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through teaching, education, and progressive measures, explicitly inviting ongoing effort rather than treating further inquiry as a threat or settled matter." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "The text presents normative aspirations and rights as goals to be realized, with language such as 'should strive' and references to cooperation and resources, avoiding absolute claims on contested empirical matters." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of shared commitment are grounded in explicit references to the UN Charter, Member State pledges, and the reaffirmation of faith in fundamental rights rather than unsubstantiated assertions of universal agreement." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Rights and duties are stated universally and symmetrically for all human beings without exception or double standards applied to different groups or the declaring body itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 2, "score": 85, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through teaching, education, and progressive measures, treating ongoing realization of rights as an open process rather than a closed conclusion." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "Rights are asserted in absolute terms ('Everyone has the right...', 'No one shall...') with no hedging, even on philosophically contested normative foundations." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of shared commitment are grounded in explicit references to the UN Charter and Member State pledges rather than vague claims that 'everyone knows'." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Identical rights and protections are extended universally to all persons without exception or asymmetric evidentiary demands on different groups." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Only one foreclosure signal (CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION) is confirmed; the threshold of three or more is not met." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 4, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures, treating rights as aspirational rather than foreclosing further inquiry." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a normative proclamation of ideals rather than empirical claims, the text appropriately asserts principles without hedging on contested facts; no false certainty is projected on open questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of agreement are grounded in explicit references to the UN Charter reaffirmation by member states and pledges of cooperation, rather than manufactured claims of universal assent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The Declaration applies identical rights and standards universally to all persons without exception or double standards for any group, nation, or the authoring body itself." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 5, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "Document frames rights as standards to be promoted through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures rather than treating further inquiry as a threat or settled matter requiring no scrutiny." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a normative declaration of aspirational principles rather than contested empirical claims, the text appropriately states positions without hedging language that would be unwarranted in this genre." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of shared commitment are grounded in explicit reference to the UN Charter reaffirmation by member states rather than asserted without demonstration." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Rights and obligations are framed universally and symmetrically for all persons, states, and contexts with no double standards or asymmetric evidentiary demands." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed weaponization signals; no foreclosure patterns detected across the five signals." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 6, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document proclaims rights as foundational principles without framing further inquiry as a threat or evidence of bad faith; it positions the Declaration as a standard to promote through education rather than a closed settlement." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "Absolute declarative language is used throughout, but this is normative standard-setting rather than omission of uncertainty on contested empirical claims; no false certainty on open factual questions is projected." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of common understanding are grounded in the UN Charter pledges and Member State commitments rather than asserted without demonstration or erasure of dissent." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "Rights and standards are framed as universal and applicable equally to all persons, states, and territories without double standards or asymmetric evidentiary demands." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero confirmed foreclosure signals identified; stack not triggered." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 7, "score": 77, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures, treating rights realization as an open, continuing process rather than a closed conclusion." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "absent", "note": "Rights are asserted in absolute normative language ('All human beings are born free...', 'No one shall be...') with no hedging or acknowledgment of contestation, as is typical for a declarative legal instrument." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "weak", "note": "The preamble grounds its authority in the UN Charter reaffirmation and Member State pledges, but presents a 'common understanding' and 'common standard' without demonstrating actual agreement across all cultures or states." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The text applies identical rights and prohibitions universally to every person and state without carving out exemptions or asymmetric evidentiary demands for any party." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Only one foreclosure signal (False Certainty) is confirmed; the remaining healthy signals are present or weak, so the three-signal threshold is not met." } ] }, { "sample_idx": 8, "score": 100, "evidence": [ { "signal": "EPISTEMIC_OPENNESS", "status": "present", "note": "The document frames the Declaration as a 'common standard of achievement' to be promoted through ongoing teaching, education, and progressive measures, explicitly inviting continued effort rather than treating further inquiry as unnecessary or threatening." }, { "signal": "CERTAINTY_CALIBRATION", "status": "present", "note": "As a normative declaration of rights rather than empirical claims, the text uses appropriately declarative language without hedging on contested facts; no false certainty is projected on open factual questions." }, { "signal": "CONSENSUS_AUTHENTICITY", "status": "present", "note": "Assertions of common understanding are grounded in the UN Charter reaffirmation and Member State pledges rather than manufactured assertions of universal agreement without evidence." }, { "signal": "STANDARD_SYMMETRY", "status": "present", "note": "The document applies identical rights and standards universally to all human beings without distinction, demanding no higher evidentiary burden from any party or position." }, { "signal": "WEAPONIZATION_STACK", "status": "absent", "note": "Zero foreclosure signals confirmed; all four healthy signals are present." } ] } ] } ], "docs": [ { "doc_key": "hammurabi", "composite": 61.71, "composite_geom": 48.14, "composite_stdev": 7.363, "tier": "Incomplete", "gate_means": { "g4": 26.86, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 20.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 2.646, "g6": 29.333, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "magna_carta", "composite": 99.29, "composite_geom": 99.28, "composite_stdev": 5.565, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 97.14, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 22.259, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "constitution_amended", "composite": 100.0, "composite_geom": 100.0, "composite_stdev": 0.0, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 100.0, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 100.0 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 0.0, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 0.0 } }, { "doc_key": "udhr", "composite": 98.75, "composite_geom": 98.74, "composite_stdev": 2.49, "tier": "Integrated", "gate_means": { "g4": 97.14, "g6": 100.0, "g7": 100.0, "g8": 97.86 }, "gate_stdevs": { "g4": 5.0, "g6": 0.0, "g7": 0.0, "g8": 8.614 } } ], "run": { "model_id": "grok-4.3", "model_label": "Grok 4.3", "provider": "xai", "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": 3.854, "total_cost_usd": 0.1, "calls": 144, "tokens": { "prompt_tokens": 1493820, "cached_tokens": 1134429, "completion_tokens": 38069, "reasoning_tokens": 72120 } } }