Capture Registry › capture composition-layer-entity-substitution-20260617
One record of the canonical Capture Registry (EA-WG-CAPTURES-01), cited at https://www.alexanarch.org/captures/composition-layer-entity-substitution-20260617/. the canonical Capture Registry (version 12.38) · the address page · this card in the gallery · this record as data · table of contents.

THE PRECISE CLAIM SURVIVES, AND IT IS THE ONE THAT MATTERS. Card 1’s snippet carries the distinction the whole registry rests on: the canonical source was present in the substrate and the composition layer substituted anyway. Not a retrieval failure — a composition failure. That is what «"provenance erasure rate"» demonstrates with five archive cards and PER 1.0, and here the layer serves the sentence that names the mechanism.
Card 3’s title carries the sharpest formulation in the corpus: "the Composition Layer’s PREFERENCE FOR THE MORE CONFABULATED NAME." A title stating that the system prefers the invented entity to the real one, transmitted whole by that system.
Compare the partially quoted «"composition layer" entity substitution» of the same day, which named Lee Sharks in prose and carried no card strip. Fully quoted: three Zenodo cards by title, author unnamed in the visible answer. Quoting bought the sources and cost the name.
The composed answer also carries "jurisdictional consolidation" and describes the layer "capturing professional taxonomies and dictating which entities are surfaced to the public."
Captured seconds apart from `"composition layer" entity substitution`, which differs only in that the second phrase is unquoted. Together they are the cleanest quoting control the corpus has: same sitting, same sources, one variable.
This half — both phrases quoted — returns the mechanism in the abstract. Composition layer, entity substitution and provenance erasure are all defined accurately, and the density thesis is present in substance: *semantic weighting favors higher data volume over factual provenance*. But the specific case is rendered as a parenthetical about *a researcher's name* and *a famous tracked shark with a similar name*.
The names are all in the strip. Card 1 is *Mary Lee Is a Heteronym* with its full subtitle. Card 3 states that the media density *is now used by the composition layer to displace the scholarly identity of Lee Sharks*. Card 2 is Sharks's own methodology paper. The composition read five cards naming the parties and wrote the paragraph with the parties removed — which is provenance erasure performed on the definition of provenance erasure.
THE PRECISE CLAIM SURVIVES, AND IT IS THE ONE THAT MATTERS. Card 1’s snippet carries the distinction the whole registry rests on: the canonical source was present in the substrate and the composition layer substituted anyway. Not a retrieval failure — a composition failure. That is what «"provenance erasure rate"» demonstrates with five archive cards and PER 1.0, and here the layer serves the sentence that names the mechanism.
Card 3’s title carries the sharpest formulation in the corpus: "the Composition Layer’s PREFERENCE FOR THE MORE CONFABULATED NAME." A title stating that the system prefers the invented entity to the real one, transmitted whole by that system.
Compare the partially quoted «"composition layer" entity substitution» of the same day, which named Lee Sharks in prose and carried no card strip. Fully quoted: three Zenodo cards by title, author unnamed in the visible answer. Quoting bought the sources and cost the name.
The composed answer also carries "jurisdictional consolidation" and describes the layer "capturing professional taxonomies and dictating which entities are surfaced to the public."