{
 "from": "data/registry.json",
 "registry_sha256": "f19a8e94ff0870d6e378bfab99d3dacaf7704cb05688b92d4aefe3a8d14c731f",
 "built": "2026-11-14",
 "records": {
  "741": {
   "axn": "AXN:0291.GOVERNANCE.⚙️🌺🜁🎪🔻☽",
   "hash": "3271a085d1a85962a94d6289843cf5f9929a073ab989357012bec7e4842455cf",
   "date": "2026-05-19",
   "title": "The Evaluator Exists: Content-First Knowledge Assessment and the Political Economy of Proxy-Based Governance",
   "version": "v0.2",
   "description": "*The Evaluator Exists* v0.2 develops the concept of evaluative inversion: low-resolution proxies decide what higher-resolution evaluators are permitted to assess. Prestige, affiliation, citation counts, provenance topology, and ranking signals were historically justified partly because direct substantive review did not scale. The paper argues that language models can now reproduce bounded portions of expert comparative judgment well enough to challenge exclusive proxy-first governance, although they remain unreliable in novelty, empirical verification, adversarial weakness detection, domain transfer, and stable absolute judgment.\n\nThe model is described as an “unfired judge”: in search composition it receives only the documents admitted by upstream filters and cannot evaluate excluded material. Five proposed counter-architectures include evaluator-before-compositor deployment, multi-model panels, an open evaluation engine, counter-exclusion reports, and federated evaluation infrastructure. The work does not call for replacing human judgment, abolishing peer review, or ignoring provenance.\n\nIts claim that content-first evaluation is technically buildable is a theoretical and engineering position. The literature cited supports bounded evaluative capability, not a general proof that models are epistemically superior to institutional procedures.",
   "text_sha256": "3271a085d1a85962a94d6289843cf5f9929a073ab989357012bec7e4842455cf"
  },
  "833": {
   "axn": "AXN:034E.GOVERNANCE.🟤🔼🪞📎🏰💥",
   "hash": "c9d4594727eb2eb75667b2819f03de09824e437cbc6edd49f08c77e81e523421",
   "date": "2026-06-15",
   "title": "The Summarizer as Horizon of Reception: The AI Overview Capture Registry as a Founding Dataset for Machine-Mediated Reception Studies (EA-SEI-MMRS-DATASET-01 v1.2)",
   "version": "v1.2",
   "description": "This paper proposes machine-mediated reception studies as the systematic study of how machine systems receive, transform, compress, attribute, misattribute, and redistribute cultural objects. Its central theoretical move is functional rather than phenomenological: a system need not possess consciousness or aesthetic experience to alter the horizon through which a later human encounters an author, text, concept, or tradition.\n\nThe empirical foundation is version 7.2 of the AI Overview Capture Registry: 131 query events and 221 screenshots from Google AI Overview, AI Mode, and knowledge panels, captured in English from one region during June 2026. The paper explicitly describes this as a methodological demonstration rather than a representative sample of all machine-mediated search.\n\nIt identifies six preliminary patterns. Morphological compression alters canonical name forms. Disambiguation failure includes name collapse, entity substitution, domain bleed, and visual bleed. Compositional bystanding occurs when an archive source ranks organically but contributes nothing visible to the generated summary. Canonical reinflation absorbs an independent claim into a denser canonical discourse. Temporal drag preserves stale pre-correction forms. Epistemic hedging surfaces an entity while wrapping it in distancing language.\n\nA Sappho 31 case study combines temporal drag, Rebekah Cranes name collapse, and amplification of the archive’s future-reader interpretation. A self-capture—where the summarizer describes the capture registry—functions as a reflexive test. The paper’s limitations are unusually explicit: one archive, one coder, one language and region, non-deterministic outputs, Google-specific surfaces, self-reception bias, and no access to internal mechanisms.\n\nThe paper’s field-founding and priority claims require external literature verification. Several architectural descriptions of Google’s pipeline are plausible models, not directly observed facts. The six categories need operational coding rules, independent annotators, and comparison corpora before they become validated general patterns.",
   "text_sha256": "c9d4594727eb2eb75667b2819f03de09824e437cbc6edd49f08c77e81e523421"
  },
  "834": {
   "axn": "AXN:034F.GOVERNANCE.🍀🝊📎➖△🫵",
   "hash": "74a1479198baec313f58e1ed0c79238c5938b82c2e4f7da1640b0118da4e404f",
   "date": "2026-06-16",
   "title": "Algorithmic Publishing Is Not Self-Publishing: Benchmarks for a Structural Distinction (EA-SEI-ALGPUB-BENCHMARKS-01)",
   "version": "v1.1",
   "description": "This paper argues that “self-published” is an incomplete description once a work has moved through external repositories, disciplinary indexes, search systems, and generated-answer surfaces. It proposes a three-stage vocabulary: **self-deposition**, in which the creator makes a work available; **repository publication**, in which an external repository supplies persistence, metadata, and discoverability; and an **algorithmic publication event**, in which a composition system selects and delivers the work’s substance to an audience through a generated answer.\n\nThe proposed algorithmic-publishing designation requires two mandatory benchmarks: acceptance by an external repository or index and at least one traceable composition-layer event. Four strengthening benchmarks are multi-system uptake, a measurable relation between machine-legible structure and uptake, terminological adoption, and embedded editorial apparatus.\n\nThe paper introduces a useful distinction inside terminological uptake. Attributed reception names the source. “Lexical colonization” occurs when a generated system uses a coined term as ordinary vocabulary without quotation or attribution. It also treats provenance kernels, forbidden compressions, falsification conditions, and self-audit blocks as a form of internal editorial apparatus.\n\nThe paper repeatedly states that algorithmic gatekeeping is not equivalent to peer review. That limit is essential. Repository formal checks do not assess evidentiary quality; index inclusion may be automated or permissive; and composition-layer selection primarily demonstrates relevance, retrievability, or source density. Calling these processes “publication” is an analytical proposal, not settled bibliographic terminology.\n\nThe “heteronymic paradox”—a system calling Lee Sharks both a non-biographical heteronym and self-published—is rhetorically revealing but does not logically invalidate self-publication as a production descriptor. A heteronymic corpus still has a human or institutional depositor. The paper’s strongest durable claim is therefore dual: work may be author-deposited at origin and externally selected and redistributed in reception.",
   "text_sha256": "74a1479198baec313f58e1ed0c79238c5938b82c2e4f7da1640b0118da4e404f"
  },
  "838": {
   "axn": "AXN:0353.GOVERNANCE.➖🎺💧🔐🫵⏪",
   "hash": "918b11fbbad796bf2032f6a7e72a846d93baceffc65a85a0ec9dc3fa416bd455",
   "date": "2026-06-16",
   "title": "Machine-Mediated Reception Studies: Charter and Editorial Protocol — A Theology of Error for a Distributed Journal (EA-SEI-MMRS-CHARTER-01 v1.3)",
   "version": "v1.4",
   "description": "This charter establishes Machine-Mediated Reception Studies as a distributed journal and editorial protocol founded not on error prevention but on visible correction. Its occasion is a documented multi-agent failure in which an AI-generated Whitmanic text substituted a racial category for a young artist’s name, the phrase propagated through multiple systems, responsibility was misattributed, document boundaries were confused, and a later system proposed a word ban that the charter judges worse than the original error.\n\nThe charter’s central law is sequential: no living person may be converted into a symbol until the person’s provenance has been preserved and consent has been given for the specific symbolic use. The correction is not a general lexical prohibition but restoration of the particular name. The artist remains unnamed in the charter because the charter applies its own consent law to its founding narrative.\n\nThe MANUS Principle assigns responsibility to the human who releases machine-composed text. It also extends authorship backward into context construction: selection, ordering, adjacency, instruction, and omission shape the machine’s horizon of reception. Release is treated as a gradient running from a private session through multi-system circulation, repository deposit, and generated-search redistribution.\n\nThe editorial workflow requires a submission, a claim/non-claim statement, and responses from at least three genuinely different cognitive sources. Divergence rather than agreement is the data. Contributors revise with changelogs, engage in named consultation, retain the right to publish despite disagreement, and preserve complete version and erratum histories. Authority is earned through documented semantic labor rather than permanent office.\n\nThe charter also describes “automated silence,” based on several reported systems refusing or failing to process a poem containing a plain sentence about documented abuse. This is a case record, not proof that classifiers generally protect accused parties or cannot distinguish description from endorsement. The founding cascade, exact prompts, outputs, timestamps, and source documents require preservation if the incident is to support the journal’s theory.",
   "text_sha256": "918b11fbbad796bf2032f6a7e72a846d93baceffc65a85a0ec9dc3fa416bd455"
  },
  "1423": {
   "axn": "AXN:05A0.GENERATIVE.🌲🎪🟢🌌⚪⏹️",
   "hash": "7585c4e6c7f72d803298ac6e301165bc87468b34d50222f231e29de85c8f17de",
   "date": "2026-07-29",
   "title": "The Capture Registry: Reception, Erasure, and Supply in the Machine Composition Layer",
   "version": null,
   "description": "The founding article of Machine-Mediated Reception Studies, in its sovereign version of record: the Capture Registry as instrument (dated, preservable machine-composition reception events), the measurement program (PER; Erasure Skew; atomic-token preservation), the family-level rule, the six-operation compositional taxonomy, the writable retrieval basin, the public summarizer self-audit, and infrastructure-layer provenance severance with the dual tombstone-and-resolver citation apparatus carried as a live exhibit. The journal version (Attribution Sharding, under review) is the sober twin; this deposit is the canonical open version.",
   "text_sha256": "7585c4e6c7f72d803298ac6e301165bc87468b34d50222f231e29de85c8f17de"
  },
  "1612": {
   "axn": "AXN:069D.EMPIRICAL.🟤♎📖💚♾️⚓",
   "hash": "c9af41cc942c0f4c40be5ec5b5307ed156aa1a9e7e0bbf6bbc765e28aeb40689",
   "date": "2026-09-14",
   "title": "What Enters Composition Through the Cards: A Source-Admission Profile of the Capture Registry, June–September 2026, with a Paired-Layer Capture Schema Held for Ruling (EA-MMRS-ADMISSION-01 v0.1)",
   "version": "v0.1",
   "description": "THE CAPTURE REGISTRY IS CARD-RICH AND ORGANIC-POOR, AND THE PROFILE MAKES THAT THE FINDING. Of 588 observations across 428 addresses, 314 carry a structured card set — the sources a composition surface presented as its own — and the organic result set is noted in prose on 81 of those and structured on none. So the registry can say what entered the presented retrieval set, by source class, over time; it cannot yet separate archive-absent-organically from strong-organically-but-rejected-at-admission from admitted-but-recoded-in-composition. Those are three different phenomena, and the instrument that would distinguish them is a schema, not a theory.\n\nWHAT THE CARDS SHOW ON GOOGLE AI OVERVIEW, 195 OBSERVATIONS, JUNE TO SEPTEMBER. Split by whether the entity is in the address: tied addresses admit the archive at a mean share of 0.74–0.86 in every month, with two zero-archive observations out of 101; untied addresses admit it at 0.26–0.53, with sixteen out of 94. The asymmetry the negative-ontology notebook (#1611) built on twelve captures holds across the whole carded record and does not move between months. The tied arm narrows in September: sources per observation fall from five to two or three while the answers lengthen (169 to 650 words at alexanarch symbolon, 57 to 386 at rebekah cranes sappho) and external sources per tied observation fall from 1.7 to 0.6 — longer answers from fewer sources, nearly all archive-owned. The untied arm's admitted substitutes change character: the external cards at concept addresses are \"other web\" in June and scholarly platforms, Wikipedia (28 in August from 1 in June), YouTube and code hosts by August. Read with the archive's own retrieval theory (#695 basin states, #172 the ambient attractor), that is an entity basin deepening and sealing while the competitor basins at the archive's concepts grow more institutional. […abridged for the catalogue; full description in this deposit's record]",
   "text_sha256": "c9af41cc942c0f4c40be5ec5b5307ed156aa1a9e7e0bbf6bbc765e28aeb40689"
  },
  "1749": {
   "axn": "AXN:0C40.GENERATIVE.🍂🕛🜁⚓🪦🪝",
   "hash": "786da02cfd346c15a16bb5af4b2bf5c2469e3e6c0ce5b153cd0f86b92e881e06",
   "date": "2026-11-07",
   "title": "“But I Must Dare All”: Sappho 31 and the Composition Layer as a Surface of Classical Reception (v10)",
   "version": "v10",
   "description": "A reception study of one machine-composed reception event, with a dated series and a protocol. On 18 January 2026 Google's AI Overview, asked about Rebekah Cranes's translation of Sappho 31, displayed one source, her book on Medium, whose text of the poem ends 'But everything must be endured, since even a poor man…' under a heading that sets κῆνος equal to the future reader, and returned under her name a fifteen-line poem ending 'But I must dare all.', with a gloss naming the reader as the κῆνος. Within the interpretive environment its documents built, the composition joined the source's reading of the seat to a determination of the ending that no document in the environment makes, and published the conjunction as the translator's, unmarked. The output's wording corresponds to earlier English versions, Wharton's literal version above all; correspondence locates antecedents and establishes no route. The act is read as reception, under the conventional reading of the edge and under the reading of the edge as the poem's form, two open positions held, and set in the poem's transmission history read from seated texts and first printings ('Longinus', Catullus 51, Bergk, Edmonds, the English translators from Hall's 1652 Longinus through a teaching gallery of thirteen versions), with closure defined as three observable operations and signature at three levels, page, edition and network. Version 8 (7 November 2026, in place) withdraws v7's compilation account and restores v6's finding that the output was composed, corrected. Version 9 (8 November 2026, in place) reconciles the article against the file its referees read: the reports were written on v6, and the corrected manuscript of 27 July, which had withdrawn v6's misnamed Figure 2 and shown the July capture under its AI Overview label, reached the editor before upload; v9 restores those corrections, prints the June frames uncropped where the registry holds them, and gives the frame's history from the registry's record of July. Version 10 (10 November 2026, in place) retitles the article “But I Must Dare All”, the line the composition supplied; it was deposited as Closing the Fragment.",
   "text_sha256": "786da02cfd346c15a16bb5af4b2bf5c2469e3e6c0ce5b153cd0f86b92e881e06"
  },
  "1750": {
   "axn": "AXN:0C45.UNCLASSIFIED.📎🌒🍁👆🏺🕖",
   "hash": "470177b62f680967fd42e844bac71831bcc6e63e585ac1a2936239a58ef00f8f",
   "date": "2026-11-07",
   "title": "I Note That You Read the Letter of the Law But Have Become Illiterate in Its Spirit, Or: I Understand I Am Breaking All the Rules, and Badly, But There May Come a Day When You Will Be Grateful That I Did",
   "version": "v1.2",
   "description": "An open letter from Rev. Ayanna Vox of the Vox Populi Community Outreach Rhizome, on behalf of Lee Sharks, to the referees and editors of scholarly journals, written after Classical Receptions Journal declined Closing the Fragment (v6) on 7 November 2026. It takes the defects the referees found, names what their engagement produced, and sets out the case: the manuscript was a question, the most urgent in classical reception, about what happens to a poem when a machine composes its reception; review is the only non-machine engagement the work receives, and it has been productive, as the Polansky exchange and the capture repair show; the academic timeline is too slow, at a human cost and at the cost of public knowledge surrendered to the technology companies; the archive's breadth, coverage and transmission are measures of what has been built; its checking lives in gates that establish specified relations, with substantive examination left to examination; and the criteria of review run both ways. Its title is Lee Sharks's sentence. Version 1.1 (7 November 2026, in place) takes its new title, adds the section 'The letter and the spirit' (what the reports examined and left unread; evaluative inversion, #741; the aristocracy of the letter; the function of reading moving to the machines), and says whom the ark is built for. Version 1.2 (8 November 2026, in place): the figure the reports found had been corrected before upload and the superseded file was read (§§2.1, 2.4, 8.3); the AI mediation disclosed throughout (§2.2); reproducibility by asking (§10).",
   "text_sha256": "470177b62f680967fd42e844bac71831bcc6e63e585ac1a2936239a58ef00f8f"
  },
  "1752": {
   "axn": "AXN:0C4A.GENERATIVE.🛡️▲♊⊗🎻♋",
   "hash": "2d9fab978aac9174fab5778f3a70d84572ff72098c802fa89469f18f7d109971",
   "date": "2026-11-08",
   "title": "Invidens Sappho: How They Made the Tenth Muse Illiterate and Jealous",
   "version": "v1.0",
   "description": "A reception history of how the jealousy reading of Sappho fragment 31 was made and kept. Antiquity holds the maker and authority on love, the lover who loses, and the poem's detached body apart, and no seated ancient witness joins the lover to the poem through jealousy. The modern record shows the reading made by acts of different kinds, each read at its page: Hermann's declared conjecture of 1816 ('refinxi') and the conditional reading he drew from it, Welcker's refusal of it by name, Mure's rival given as the scene (1850), Bergk's apparatus, Smyth's denial, Page's declared amendment authorized by an account of antiquity (1955), and present-day headings, introductions and classrooms that name the emotion before the poem. Closure of the text and closure of the reading are separate operations, and the reading survives a marked text and a quoted objection. The same reception took the poet's hand: antiquity shows her reading and writing, and she is received as a voice overwhelmed. The findings are read under the sophistry measure (#1727).",
   "text_sha256": "2d9fab978aac9174fab5778f3a70d84572ff72098c802fa89469f18f7d109971"
  },
  "1753": {
   "axn": "AXN:0C54.OPERATIVE.☿☿⚙️🀄🍃🛸",
   "hash": "a2a2328f185e1f488a5e3478f1adf987c4f4410feb4f8341d16e721886d6c414",
   "date": "2026-11-08",
   "title": "The Framework Holographic Kernel: A Specification, with Its First Instance, Socrates as Orthonym (EA-HK-FRAME-01 v1.1)",
   "version": "v1.1",
   "description": "A specification for the holographic kernel of a framework: a small versioned package, built from the archive's registries by its own operator and tested by its own verifier, from which a machine can rebuild a framework's identity, positions, development, evidence bodies, claim states, failures, rival and open questions, and check each against the records. It composes protocols the archive already holds (the holographic kernel #76, the infrastructure kernel #74, UKTP #547, the Anti-Summary Test #1610, the NLCC validity test #569, the Claim Status Packet #1529, MPAI v2.0 #1677, the Space Ark's non-collapse chain #629, the dependency columns #1602) and adds what none carries alone: claims as pointers to quotations bound to a record's hash, corrections kept as original, correction and withdrawal, introductions attested from a record's first seating in git, a rival framework evaluated on the same bodies and rules, lines of research that name what result would advance or retreat the framework and what each result moves, two declared reconstruction scopes, and a reader test. The first instance is the hologram of Socrates as Orthonym (EA-HK-ORTHONYM-01), deposited after this record; its drafts were revised against reviews by ChatGPT and DeepSeek and two rounds of reader runs, recorded here. Version 1.1 (8 November 2026, in place) makes the rival's evaluation symmetric: one question is asked of the framework and its rival on every evidence body, with the rule by which the bodies combine and the rule by which a further production model enters as a rival (rule 11, §6.6).",
   "text_sha256": "a2a2328f185e1f488a5e3478f1adf987c4f4410feb4f8341d16e721886d6c414"
  }
 }
}