---
deposit_number: 1577
hex: 0669
title: "ERRATUM to AXN:0365 — A Proposed Experiment Cited as an Established Result: Correcting Ground 1 of Deposit #856"
creator: Lee Sharks
orcid: 0009-0000-1599-0703
date: 2026-09-05
content_type: Erratum / record correction
license: CC-BY-4.0
substrate: AI-assisted (substrate) — drafted in working dialogue with Claude (Anthropic) under operator direction; the corrected sentence and the cited deposit's own disclaimers fetched from the canonical store in-session; the defect was first identified by an external machine reader (ChatGPT, unprimed traversal, 2026-09-05) and verified against the texts before this erratum was written; ruled and adopted by Lee Sharks.
version: v1.0 — 2026-09-05
related_ids: "Corrects: AXN:0365 (deposit #856). Concerns: AXN:02F8 (deposit #161). Precedent: AXN:064F (deposit #1554, the erratum mechanism)."
axn_schema_version: v2
protocol_version: alexanarch-deposit-protocol/v1
keywords:
  - erratum; proposal-to-result slippage; evidence status; Reverse Turing Test; Pristine Fallacy; citation; human-mediated feedback; model collapse
---

# ERRATUM to AXN:0365 — A Proposed Experiment Cited as an Established Result: Correcting Ground 1 of Deposit #856

## Files

(none)

# ERRATUM to AXN:0365 — A Proposed Experiment Cited as an Established Result

---
status: DEPOSITED v1.0
type: ERRATUM
corrects: The Pristine Fallacy: Why Chat Data Is Not a Clean Training Signal, v1.0 — deposit #856, AXN:0365.GOVERNANCE, 2026-06-18; Lee Sharks
subject: Evidence status of the citation to the Reverse Turing Test (#161) in Ground 1
severity: Evidence-status error — a protocol is cited as a finding; the argument's three grounds stand, but Ground 1 rests on a proposal, not a result
verification: Both canonical texts fetched from the alexanarch store (/data/texts/AXN-0365-text.md, /data/texts/AXN-02F8-text.md) 2026-09-05
---

## 1. The sentence

Deposit #856, Ground 1, reads:

> First, the Reverse Turing Test (Sharks 2026) **establishes** that AI-habituated writers produce text bearing the statistical signatures of machine cognition, even in writing produced without AI assistance.

## 2. What the cited deposit says of itself

Deposit #161, twice, in its own words:

> The paper does not run the experiment. It specifies it with the discipline required for the result to be informative.

> It does not run the experiment. It specifies it.

#161 is a three-stage protocol. It carefully separates assisted-writing homogenization (which the external literature supports) from persistent change in subsequently *unaided* writing (which it proposes to test). No stage has been run. Nothing in #161 establishes the sentence #856 attributes to it.

## 3. The correction

Ground 1 of #856 is to be read as:

> First, the Reverse Turing Test (Sharks 2026) **proposes a protocol that would establish whether** AI-habituated writers produce text bearing the statistical signatures of machine cognition, even in writing produced without AI assistance. The experiment has not been run.

The consequence for the paper: Ground 1 is a hypothesis with a specified test, not a result. Grounds 2 and 3 do not depend on it. The paper's later acknowledgement that its own proposed studies have not been conducted (§V) applies to Ground 1 as well; this erratum makes that explicit at the point of use.

## 4. What the external literature does and does not supply

Padmakumar & He (2023) found reduced diversity in essays co-written with a model and attributed the effect to the model-contributed text; the human-contributed text was unaffected in that design. Sourati et al. (2026) support homogenization through rewriting and broader linguistic drift. Neither measures persistent change in an individual's unaided writing after habituation. That is exactly the gap #161's protocol was written to close, and it remains open.

## 5. Scope

This erratum corrects evidence status only. The canonical bytes of #856 are unchanged; the AXN and hash are untouched. The correction is registered at the record (registry-level cross-reference, per the operator ruling of 2026-08-27 that established this mechanism with #1554), so that a reader reaching the June claim meets the September correction at the claim.

## 6. Record of discovery

The defect was identified by an external machine reader in an unprimed traversal of the collapse materials on 2026-09-05, and verified against both canonical texts before this erratum was drafted. It is the second such correction of the week to originate with a machine reader. The archive's own theory says a record earns authority by being auditable; this is that.