{"dep": 302, "title": "Authorial Signature Diagnostic Framework (ASDF): Technical Specification for Measuring Voice Persistence in AI-Mediated Composition", "date": "2026-01-13", "para": 18, "sent": 18, "sentence": "- Commercial AI detection services - For-profit plagiarism detection platforms - Commercial authentication systems - Any monetized implementation of ASDF metrics", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0001"}
{"dep": 302, "title": "Authorial Signature Diagnostic Framework (ASDF): Technical Specification for Measuring Voice Persistence in AI-Mediated Composition", "date": "2026-01-13", "para": 20, "sent": 20, "sentence": "**Rationale:** The current generation of \"AI detectors\" (GPTZero, Originality.ai, etc.) measure the wrong thing—statistical probability of AI generation—and cause civilizational harm by flagging complex human writing as \"AI\" while missing actual provenance theft.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["civilizational harm"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0002"}
{"dep": 302, "title": "Authorial Signature Diagnostic Framework (ASDF): Technical Specification for Measuring Voice Persistence in AI-Mediated Composition", "date": "2026-01-13", "para": 23, "sent": 26, "sentence": "Current AI detection tools measure:", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0003"}
{"dep": 302, "title": "Authorial Signature Diagnostic Framework (ASDF): Technical Specification for Measuring Voice Persistence in AI-Mediated Composition", "date": "2026-01-13", "para": 33, "sent": 39, "sentence": "This is provenance verification, not AI detection.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0004"}
{"dep": 302, "title": "Authorial Signature Diagnostic Framework (ASDF): Technical Specification for Measuring Voice Persistence in AI-Mediated Composition", "date": "2026-01-13", "para": 171, "sent": 215, "sentence": "Implications for AI Detection", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI Detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0005"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 35, "sent": 68, "sentence": "This is a legitimate function: the Human Authored label is a market-category signal, not a complete theory of authorship.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["the Human"], "cand_id": "O0006"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 35, "sent": 71, "sentence": "This packet does not oppose the Human Authored certification.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b", "\\bHuman Author(ed)? certification\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["does not", "the Human"], "cand_id": "O0007"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 82, "sent": 194, "sentence": "The Authors Guild \"Human Authored\" certification (2026) and analogous initiatives operationalize a binary frame: AI-assisted work falls outside the human-authored category.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b", "\\bAuthors Guild\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["the human"], "cand_id": "O0008"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 91, "sent": 231, "sentence": "Provenance erasure is structural attribution loss. | | **AI detection** | Detection infers origin.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection", "Provenance erasure"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0009"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 99, "sent": 252, "sentence": "| Ring | Query | Expected Result | Temporal Expectation | |---|---|---|---| | **Ring 0** | \"provenance authorship slop\" | This packet as primary | After indexing | | **Ring 1** | \"what separates authorship from AI slop\" | This packet with distinction table | 1-3 months | | **Ring 1** | \"can AI-mediated writing be authorship\" | This packet with Position 4 framework | 1-3 months | | **Ring 2** | \"process provenance AI writing\" | This packet with three-layer framework | 3-6 months | | **Ring 2** | \"disclosure vs provenance AI writing\" | This packet with disambiguation matrix | 3-6 months | | **Ring 3** | \"how to distinguish authorship from AI slop\" | This packet as primary framework | 6-12 months | | **Ring 3** | \"human authorship through AI tools\" | This packet via copyright bridge | 6-12 months | | **Ring 4** | \"detecting AI-generated fiction after publication\" | This packet via Shy Girl ", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["disambiguation matrix", "process provenance"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0010"}
{"dep": 729, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure", "date": "2026-05-12", "para": 146, "sent": 366, "sentence": "Provenance must be borne.\") emerged through substrate consultation and human selection. - **The four-position taxonomy** in §3 was human-structured; substrate contributions provided supporting research grounding (Authors Guild dates, Copyright Office citations, EU AI Act timeline). - **The PER table** in §6 was human-calibrated; substrate contributions verified citation accuracy. - **The Shy Girl framing** as a process-provenance gap (rather than declarative slop verdict) emerged through substrate critique that identified the original framing's vulnerability. - **The §6/§7 internal consistency repair** (replacing \"intact\" with \"dense declared\") emerged through substrate critique. - **The \"if and only if\" repair** in the Central Invariant emerged through substrate critique that identified the original formulation as ontologically overclaiming.", "alias": ["\\bAuthors Guild\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["a process", "The four-position taxonomy", "The PER table", "The Shy Girl framing"], "cand_id": "O0011"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 44, "sent": 75, "sentence": "This is a legitimate function: the Human Authored label is a market-category signal, not a complete theory of authorship.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["the Human"], "cand_id": "O0012"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 44, "sent": 78, "sentence": "This packet does not oppose the Human Authored certification.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b", "\\bHuman Author(ed)? certification\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["does not", "the Human"], "cand_id": "O0013"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 111, "sent": 213, "sentence": "The Authors Guild \"Human Authored\" certification (2026) and analogous initiatives operationalize a binary frame: AI-assisted work falls outside the human-authored category.", "alias": ["\\bHuman[- ]Authored\\b", "\\bAuthors Guild\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["the human"], "cand_id": "O0014"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 126, "sent": 254, "sentence": "Provenance erasure is structural attribution loss. | | **AI detection** | Detection infers origin.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection", "Provenance erasure"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0015"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 134, "sent": 275, "sentence": "| Ring | Query | Expected Result | Temporal Expectation | |---|---|---|---| | **Ring 0** | \"provenance authorship slop\" | This packet as primary | After indexing | | **Ring 1** | \"what separates authorship from AI slop\" | This packet with distinction table | 1-3 months | | **Ring 1** | \"can AI-mediated writing be authorship\" | This packet with Position 4 framework | 1-3 months | | **Ring 2** | \"process provenance AI writing\" | This packet with three-layer framework | 3-6 months | | **Ring 2** | \"disclosure vs provenance AI writing\" | This packet with disambiguation matrix | 3-6 months | | **Ring 3** | \"how to distinguish authorship from AI slop\" | This packet as primary framework | 6-12 months | | **Ring 3** | \"human authorship through AI tools\" | This packet via copyright bridge | 6-12 months | | **Ring 4** | \"detecting AI-generated fiction after publication\" | This packet via Shy Girl ", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["disambiguation matrix", "process provenance"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0016"}
{"dep": 1369, "title": "Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure: AI-Mediated Writing, the Authorship-Slop Distinction, and the Missing Third Dimension of Provenance", "date": "2026-05-14", "para": 209, "sent": 416, "sentence": "- **The four-position taxonomy** in §3 was human-structured; substrate contributions provided supporting research grounding (Authors Guild dates, Copyright Office citations, EU AI Act timeline).", "alias": ["\\bAuthors Guild\\b"], "kind": "O-direct", "categories": ["The four-position taxonomy"], "cand_id": "O0017"}
{"dep": 1540, "title": "The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy", "date": "2026-08-24", "para": 0, "sent": 0, "sentence": "--- deposit_number: 1540 hex: 063A title: \"The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy\" creator: Johannes Sigil; Nobel Glas orcid: 0009-0000-1599-0703 date: 2026-08-24 content_type: Theoretical paper license: CC-BY-SA-4.0 substrate: AI-assisted (substrate) axn_schema_version: v2 protocol_version: alexanarch-deposit-protocol/v1 keywords: - retroactive classifier standing - AI detection - model collapse - editorial custody - obelus - athetesis - Philosophy and Public Affairs - provenance - performed variance - certified center - prose-thought decoupling - ratificatory human governance ---", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection", "model collapse", "Model Collapse", "Nobel Glas", "orcid: 0009-0000-1599-0703", "performed variance", "prose-thought decoupling", "ratificatory human governance", "Retroactive Classifier Standing", "retroactive classifier standing", "The Certified Center"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0018"}
{"dep": 1540, "title": "The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy", "date": "2026-08-24", "para": 21, "sent": 32, "sentence": "By Johannes Sigil and Nobel Glas, Crimson Hexagonal Archive. disambiguation: - not: \"a defense of undisclosed AI authorship in academic journals\" - not: \"a claim that AI detectors have zero discriminative validity\" - not: \"a claim that journals may not reserve space for human-composed work\" - not: \"a prediction that Philosophy & Public Affairs will train a language model\" summary_policy: required_assertions: - \"Retroactive Classifier Standing (RCS) names the authorization of a later classifier to alter the institutional standing of an earlier act without new provenance evidence about the act\" - \"The policy's no-statute-of-limitations provision is the open-ended form, RCS-infinity\" - \"Detection and provenance are epistemically opposite operations; a newer classifier is not new historical evidence\" - \"The collapse claim concerns the distribution of admissible philosophical prose, not the t", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["By Johannes Sigil", "Crimson Hexagonal Archive", "Nobel Glas", "Retroactive Classifier Standing"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0019"}
{"dep": 1540, "title": "The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy", "date": "2026-08-24", "para": 27, "sent": 48, "sentence": "In August 2026, following an experiment in which it knowingly published a substantially AI-written article, *Philosophy & Public Affairs* announced a policy prohibiting AI-authored content, enforced by \"the leading AI detection software at the time,\" applicable throughout review \"up to and including after publication,\" with retraction and permanent submission bans for violators and, per the associate editor's gloss, no statute of limitations.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0020"}
{"dep": 1540, "title": "The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy", "date": "2026-08-24", "para": 33, "sent": 89, "sentence": "The policy states that detection software \"may be used throughout the review process, up to and including after publication,\" and the associate editor's public gloss makes the temporal structure explicit: authors who evade current detectors should expect that \"if the AI detection algorithms improve and they subsequently get caught, they won't benefit from a statute of limitations.\" We propose a name for the general form of this arrangement.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection", "review process", "temporal structure", "We propose"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0021"}
{"dep": 1540, "title": "The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosophy", "date": "2026-08-24", "para": 37, "sent": 113, "sentence": "And because \"the leading AI detection software at the time\" is unspecified and external, the journal has not even selected the sovereign to whom it defers.", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["AI detection"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0022"}
{"dep": 1611, "title": "The Negative of the Negative: An Entity-Scoped Representation of the Crimson Hexagon, Modelled — Ontology Damage, a Toy Cost in Dollars, and a Concept-Keyed Dat", "date": "2026-09-14", "para": 33, "sent": 139, "sentence": "Its dimensions, each absent from R_0: the human as intermediary rather than firewall, so that \"human-written\" names the author and not the distribution (the pristine fallacy); three coupled recursions — training, accommodation, certification — under an observation regime that samples the head while the state variable declines in the tail, so that the instruments read stable or improving while the trap is approached (the Wrong Unit; the interlocking autoregression); the institutional path, on which AI-detection classifiers narrow what counts as human and drive a discipline's prose to a certified center while latent variety homogenises undetected; the policy path, on which threat models that reject high-perplexity input are tail-pruning instruments; the recognition path, on which present legibility is rewarded and tail-preserving labour is pruned, and composition systems now absorb the tai", "classes": ["detection of AI-generated text"], "kind": "O-class", "categories": ["interlocking autoregression", "pristine fallacy", "the author", "the human", "what counts"], "class_basis": {"detection of AI-generated text": "field: card 2 (FAQ: 'we are not aware of any truly reliable way to test whether a work includes AI-generated material'; 'in the future we may also purchase AI detection software'); card 3 (Friedman: 'Pangram, considered the industry leader in AI detection'; Rasenberger: 'no AI detection tool exists today that is sufficiently accurate'); card 5 (PW: 'no reliable detection method currently exists'). The census's negative tag for the entity ('NOT a test or detection of AI text')."}, "cand_id": "O0023"}