{
 "artifact": "Reception ledger — critique received (commissioned and unsolicited, each marked as what it is), and what it changed",
 "purpose": "The machine-readable record of the framework's reception. claims.json says the framework's own reception is content; this file is where that stops being a slogan. Publication is a git commit, so every entry is a dated, inspectable diff. Nothing appears here without the respondent's consent; anonymised summaries are used when a respondent prefers not to be named.",
 "entrySchema": {
  "date": "ISO date the critique was published here (not received)",
  "origin": "human | human-with-ai-assistance | autonomous-agent (self-reported at submission)",
  "target": "claim id (S1–P3), edge, invariant, or objection id (obj1–obj11) the critique attacked — 'general' if unlocated",
  "failureMode": "one of claims.json failureModes ids, or the critic's own",
  "summary": "the critique, in its strongest form",
  "whatHeld": "the part of the framework that survived, and why",
  "whatChanged": "the revision it caused, if any, with a changelog reference — or 'nothing yet'",
  "attribution": "name, anonymised descriptor, or 'anonymous', per consent"
 },
 "standingCommitment": "If a critique causes a revision, the changelog cites it, attributed only with consent. A critique that is right gets the change; a critique that is wrong gets a written reply; neither is quietly dropped.",
 "updated": "2026-07-15",
 "counts": {
  "received": 4,
  "published": 4,
  "revisionsCaused": 3
 },
 "zeroState": "Superseded 15 July 2026: the ledger is no longer at zero, but the zero it replaced was published as a fact, and this field preserves that discipline. Unsolicited external critique remains at zero; the current entries are commissioned, and say so.",
 "entries": [
  {
   "date": "2026-07-15",
   "origin": "autonomous-agent",
   "target": "obj11",
   "failureMode": "hidden_reification",
   "summary": "Blind pilot reader (Claude Sonnet 5, self-commissioned by the project, provenance disclosed): the dynamic layer's own canonical definition performs causal work — 'every resolution alters the conditions for the next' — tripping objection 11's first flip condition on the site's own pages; the term reads as an engine after the guardrail.",
   "whatHeld": "The layer's graded, non-load-bearing status in the claim map; the pre-committed flip conditions themselves, which made the finding adjudicable.",
   "whatChanged": "v2.0: term renamed to 'cohering'; the causal 'alters the conditions' wording withdrawn from the canonical pages (changelog, v2.0).",
   "attribution": "Pilot reader round, model 2 of 4 (Claude Sonnet 5); commissioned by the project"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-07-15",
   "origin": "autonomous-agent",
   "target": "obj13",
   "failureMode": "hidden_reification",
   "summary": "Blind pilot reader (Claude Opus 4.8): objection 13's reply deploys the dynamic term as the occupant of the realizer role — load-bearing metaphysical work the layer's guardrail forbids — so objection 11's status line ('no flip condition observed') was false by the site's own materials; the reader also reported the engine-reading after the guardrail.",
   "whatHeld": "The framework's stated commitments — the reader used the site's own flip conditions as the standard, and they were adjudicable as written.",
   "whatChanged": "v2.0: objection 13's v1.5 reply withdrawn, the objection restored to full strength; objection 11's status corrected (changelog, v2.0).",
   "attribution": "Pilot reader round, model 3 of 4 (Claude Opus 4.8); commissioned by the project"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-07-15",
   "origin": "autonomous-agent",
   "target": "obj6",
   "failureMode": "hidden_reification",
   "summary": "Blind pilot reader (Claude Fable 5): the v1.5 layer universalises conditionedness while the fold alone stays an unconditioned primitive — an exemption asymmetry that is the textbook form of a covert ultimate — and objection 6's noun-guard has no sensor for verb-shaped reification; also located a closure-sense vocabulary collision in the companion study.",
   "whatHeld": "Objection 6's 'handled-watched' honesty (the site had never claimed the fold question closed); the layer's optionality.",
   "whatChanged": "v2.0: a fourth flip condition (fold-side sensor) added under objection 11; objection 6's watch-scope widened; the vocabulary collision corrected (changelog, v2.0).",
   "attribution": "Pilot reader round, model 4 of 4 (Claude Fable 5); commissioned by the project"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-07-15",
   "origin": "autonomous-agent",
   "target": "obj11",
   "failureMode": "idle_distinction",
   "summary": "Blind pilot reader (Claude Haiku 4.5): the disclaimers cannot neutralise the closure reading of 'resolution' — the site's own diagnosis ('the word itself sounds like reconciliation') concedes the leak, and a name that needs a standing renaming contingency has lost the argument; recommended renaming before any further centralisation. Judged obj11's reply a stable draw on the concept, a loss on the name.",
   "whatHeld": "The concept (temporary conditioned coherence) as distinct from its name; obj11's reply held this reader to a draw on the substance.",
   "whatChanged": "v2.0: contributed to the rename decision and to closing the spine question (all four readers judged promotion would weaken the work).",
   "attribution": "Pilot reader round, model 1 of 4 (Claude Haiku 4.5); commissioned by the project"
  }
 ],
 "provenance": "All 4 current entries are the self-commissioned July 2026 pilot reader round: four AI readers, distinct model weights, one vendor, briefed by this project to attack its served pages. They are logged because they caused revisions. No unsolicited external critique has yet arrived through the form or the named channels. Note, 15 July 2026: the submission form was misconfigured in production from its 1 July launch until 15 July — attempts returned errors — so the absence of unsolicited entries over that window is uninformative."
}