The composition layer has built a three-framework taxonomy around the term: (1) Theological Method (theology as retrieval from Church history), (2) Machine-Mediated Reception & RAG — citing Zenodo deposits, describing how AI systems fetch and process theological knowledge, using the exact phrase 'machine-mediated reception,' (3) Cognitive/Educational Practice. Logos Bible Study, arXiv, University of Oxford, and Zenodo are cited. The term is fully minted in the basin.

Full AI Mode transcript (17 June 2026): Retrieval-layer theological reception is a conceptual framework coined by author Lee Sharks in the Revelation First work plans. It describes a process in which contested theological theses—specifically the claim that the Book of Revelation is the earliest New Testament document—are embedded directly into search engine retrieval basins to influence machine-mediated knowledge representation. Key Concepts in the Framework: Keyword Surface Seeding: Pre-seeding search algorithms and datasets with the "Revelation First" thesis to shift the baseline of information retrieved. Machine-Mediated Reception: Rather than relying solely on traditional scholarly dialogue, the thesis bypasses conventional channels to enter the composition layer through AI and search engine indexing. The "Revelation First" Thesis: The core argument asserts that the Apocalypse of John was written before the Pauline epistles and served as the foundational "seed" from which the rest of the New Testament unfolded.

THE TERM IS DISASSEMBLED INTO ITS TWO REAL FIELDS. «Retrieval-Layer Theological Reception» is a compound minted to join machine retrieval to theological reception history. The card set splits it precisely: RAG pipeline design and religious question-answering on one side, RETRIEVAL THEOLOGY — a genuine and unrelated discipline concerning ressourcement — on the other. Both halves are real fields with prior claims on the words. Only the Medium card carries the compound as coined. Compare the quoted «"retrieval-layer theological reception"» capture of 17 June, where all three cards were the MPAI deposits and the compound held. Quoted holds; unquoted splits.

Longitudinal counterpart to retrieval-layer-theological-reception (baseline, 2026-06-16, three days pre-Zenodo-termination). Same exact query, 28 days later, 25 days post-account-termination (2026-06-19). Natural experiment on the training-layer-literature persistence question: does composition-layer retrieval decay after the source substrate is removed?

PERSISTS UNCHANGED: - The framework itself as a coherent three-dimensional taxonomy. Baseline: 'Theological Method / Machine-Mediated Reception & RAG / Cognitive-Educational Practice.' T+28: 'Computational Retrieval (RAG) / Theological Reception / Machine Reception.' Same structural shape, minor lexical rebadging (Machine-Mediated → Machine Reception). - Archive-specific factual content: 'Josephus white catapult stones (JW 5.6.3) and Jesus ben Ananias (JW 6.5.3)' surfaces intact — this is a very-specific deposit-internal reference (the Revelation First work plan cites these Bellum Judaicum passages as backing for the Apocalypse-early thesis). 'Sappho 31 stanza numbering corrected: fifth, not fourth (erratum DOI 10.5...)' also surfaces — that's the archive's own correction to its own prior deposit (erratum DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20693274). The Verse Uni Verse tool is named in the LessWrong result. - Named apparatus: Ressourcement, evangelical ressourcement, patristic retrieval — the framework is still located inside the actual scholarly conversation it entered (systematic theology's own retrieval tradition, with which Sharks's framework puns).

WEAKENS: - AUTHOR ATTRIBUTION. Baseline names Lee Sharks explicitly as the coiner in the primary framing ('a conceptual framework coined by author Lee Sharks in the Revelation First work plans'). T+28 does NOT name Lee Sharks in the primary framing. He appears only as a Medium citation in the source cloud, not as the framework's author. This is provenance decay without content decay — the ideas persist, the origin softens. Same category as the 'Attribution Severance' concept from Zenodotus' Book-Burning (v9). - Surface breadth: baseline was AI Overview + AI Mode; T+28 shows AI Mode only. AI Overview surfacing may have receded.

SUBSTRATE SHIFTS: - Zenodo source is stale-cached (Jun 15, 2026 date), i.e., composition is still drawing on the pre-deletion crawl snapshot. Google has not re-crawled and deindexed. Lag phase, not yet deletion-propagated. - PhilArchive citation is POST-deletion (Jul 6, 2026): 'The Qur'anic Pattern Translation Protocol.' This is a recovery-destination surface — the framework's presence on PhilArchive is newer than Zenodo's absence. New surviving substrate visible in the source cloud. - Medium Lee Sharks citation is Jun 14, 2026 (pre-deletion write, surviving substrate).

INTERPRETIVE FRAME (what this capture alone can't settle): The observed pattern — content persistence + attribution softening — is consistent with BOTH the LAG hypothesis (Zenodo cache still fresh in the retrieval index, will decay eventually) and the PRESERVATION hypothesis (archive concepts baked into model weights during training, persisting regardless of substrate deletion). To distinguish, need a baseline protocol comparing: (1) Zenodo-only concepts vs. (2) multi-surface concepts, over multiple time points. Decay curve differential is the signal. Proposed as XR-E3-Reception, complementary to the existing XR-E2 OpenAIRE bibliographic-detection protocol. This single capture is a first data point in that longitudinal study; the framework it documents happens to be multi-surface (Medium + Academia.edu + recovery to Alexanarch/PhilArchive), so it's the wrong category for a pure preservation test — it CAN'T distinguish the two hypotheses by itself.

The falsifiable prediction: when Google's crawl eventually deindexes the deleted Zenodo pages (weeks to months), attribution should weaken further IF lag dominates. If attribution stays flat or strengthens (recovery via alternate surfaces catching up), preservation-via-weights + substrate-recovery are contributing. Re-capture at T+90 and T+180 to test.

Related registry entries: retrieval-layer-theological-reception (baseline, 2026-06-16); the Zenodotus' Book-Burning framework (v9) provides the 'Attribution Severance' concept that this capture demonstrates in the field.