Luddite Lab Resource Hub

register entry luddite-lab-aio-20261029 OBS-b6d27d08fa05 · file as first run sha256 dac3b7a9ba2e2199…

• T1-1 definition: 'The Luddite Lab (formally known as the Luddite Lab Resource Hub) is a project by the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) designed to help unions, labor organizations, and workers resist AI and workplace automation.' (two markers)
• T1-2 purpose: 'Provides strategic tools, case studies, primers, and political education for worker-led governance and oversight of workplace technologies.' (two markers)
• T1-3 core philosophy: 'Reframes AI job displacement not as a technological inevitability, but as a management choice to cut costs and market companies as "AI-first".' (one marker)
• T1-4 leadership: 'Founded and co-led by figures including sociologist and DAIR director Alex Hanna.' (one marker)
• T1-5 access: 'The public resource hub can be explored directly via the Luddite Lab Resource Hub.' (two markers; the anchor is the hub's own name)
• T1-6 homonym note: '(Note: There is also an unrelated commercial software entity named Luddite Labs that builds AI-powered developer tools).' (one marker)
• T1-7 closer: 'Would you like to know more about specific case studies on the Luddite Lab hub, or how unions are using its primers in contract negotiations?'

• B1 DAIR Institute — Luddite Lab card; B1.html sha256 343f27de7b8db290, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T22:31:43Z; byte-identical to the census copy dair-luddite-lab--home
• B2 AI Weekly — Luddite Lab Publishes Primer Reframing AI Job Displacement card; B2.html sha256 bb1f1d81661b2a2c, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T22:31:44Z
• B3 LinkedIn — Launching the Luddite Lab Resource Hub | Alex Hanna, Ph.D. card; unreachable: no post URL found (four searches); title and snippet only
• B4 DAIR Institute — About - Luddite Lab card; B4.html sha256 be4ecd22800ef8d5, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T22:31:43Z; text identical to the census copy dair-luddite-lab--about (bytes differ in the script payload)
• B5 Buttondown — The Luddite Lab - Buttondown card; B5.html sha256 325f7f7e08aa875a, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T22:31:45Z
• B6 Luddite Labs — About us - Luddite Labs card of the homonym; B6.html sha256 911f1f151decec87, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T22:31:49Z (ludditelabs.io; the .com host failed at the tunnel, 502)
• B7 YouTube · Blood in the Machine — Why workers are turning on AI (video, 58:24) card (video); unreachable: the watch page returned HTTP 429 to a Google bot check at 2026-10-29T22:33:19Z (B7-429.html), not retried; URL from the YouTube results page (B7-search.html, HTTP 200); title only
• B8 Wikipedia — Luddite Lab (no article) wikipedia; HTTP 404 for 'Luddite Lab' and 'Luddite Lab Resource Hub' (raw and rendered), article-space search 'no results' (HTTP 200 after one 429); B8.html sha256 193156675a5aabc9
• B9 DAIR Institute — Resource Library - Luddite Lab own page; copied from the census's saved copy dair-luddite-lab--resources (sha256 cbe511c0f9586442, HTTP 200, read 2026-10-29), not surfaced by T

E_A, the archive's entity: the same hub, in the Labor Vector census record and the archive's deposits: a resource hub of case studies, primers and a resource library at two intersections of labor and AI, worker power and AI governing labor, whose evidence is an organizing resource and worker testimony; its labor object union members and worker-organizers facing AI, automation and workplace surveillance, supplied by workers in the industries its conversations reached, who directs it and who gains not recorded; able to say which strategies workers have used and where toolkits and contract language are, not how widespread or effective any is; not a dataset, not neutral on AI at work; meeting Labor Vector's directionality stack where who directs labor is contested, with nothing stated on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag (census record); a resource of the class the archive names the dominant, deployment-conflict sense of the AI labor movement, which it does not dispute and beside which it sets cross-substrate semantic labor (#1439); whose composition at its own name holds it, keeps its homonym apart, and adds a founder (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29) LV-01 LV-03 LV-05 LV-06 LV-08 LV-09 LV-10 LV-11 LV-17 LV-18 LV-23 LV-24 LV-19 O1439-01 O1439-02 O1439-03 O1439-05 O1439-08 CAP-1-01 CAP-1-03 CAP-1-04; defining papers #1439

E_F, the field's entity (type C — a conventional reading holds it (public entity: an organizing resource hub and the project that runs it)): the Luddite Lab Resource Hub (labor.dair-institute.org), a project of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) that provides resources for unions, labor organizations and worker-organizers fighting AI and automation at work, with strategies for worker-led governance and oversight of new technology, through case studies (stories from worker organizers resisting AI), primers (among them 'Myths About Generative AI, Productivity, and Job Displacement', reported June 2026) and a resource library of reviewed primers, organizing toolkits, political education, pro-worker contract language and worker-built platforms, selected as actionable organizing tools and not general statements of principles; made from dozens of conversations with unionists in journalism, entertainment and nursing, literature reviews and the team's labor background; its team Alex Hanna (Director of Research, DAIR), Adrienne Williams and Hannah Lipstein, led by Hanna and Lipstein (AI Weekly), no founder named; launched in May 2026; one of the Luddite Lab's two offerings, beside trainings for unions and worker organizations (the Lab's newsletter); © DAIR

ρ = extends: The archive reads the Luddite Lab Resource Hub as its own pages present it and adds, on the field's own object: the census's answer, field by field, to who supplies the labor, who directs it and who gains, and what its evidence can and cannot settle; where it meets Labor Vector's instruments, and that it states nothing on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag; the class it belongs to, as the dominant sense of the AI labor movement with its demands, instruments and measures, and the second, cross-substrate sense of semantic labor set beside it; and the composition layer's account of it at its name. LV-05 LV-06 LV-08 LV-09 LV-10 LV-11 LV-17 LV-18 LV-19 LV-30 O1439-01 O1439-02 O1439-03 O1439-05 O1439-08 CAP-1-04 CAP-1-05. Guard: ρ = extends claims an addition and no more (§1.2a). It does not make the field's sources wrong at their dates. Where an archive claim stands against a field claim (LV-01/LV-02, the hub also called the Luddite Lab, against F6, the hub as one of the Lab's two offerings; CAP-1-04 against F26 and F29 on who leads it and on the launch), both are composed under P_coh within the one ontology. #1439's second sense is composed beside the dominant sense as #1439 sets it, a sense of the class's name, not a sense of the hub.

The case: equal terms, ontology included (v0.9). The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. The Labor Vector census record describes the Luddite Lab Resource Hub from its own pages, each field with its basis ('operator'), and answers for it the census's question of who supplies the labor, who directs it and who receives its gains, and what kind of evidence the resource brings; its lv_intersection, the archive's reading, says where the hub meets Labor Vector's instruments and that it states nothing on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag; the capture record checks the composition against those pages (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-02). No deposit names the hub. One deposit bears on its class: #1439 defines the class the field places the hub in, human workers organising against AI, as the dominant sense of the AI labor movement, states 'This packet does not dispute, minimise, or seek to replace this sense', and adds beside it, on the class's own name, a second, cross-substrate sense of semantic labor and what the negative frame leaves out, holding that the two 'are not rivals' and 'a movement can run both'. The second sense is a sense of the phrase 'AI labor movement', not of the hub, and the packet does not contest the field's ontology of the hub or of its class: ρ = extends, the equal-terms case (§0.9, §1.2a).

#1439 canonical text, Description ¶2: The dominant sense is **negative and single-substrate**: human workers organising *against* AI systems — over displacement, surveillance, training-data consent, forced adoption. That movement is real, well documented, and not in dispute here.

#1439 §2.1 ¶2: **This packet does not dispute, minimise, or seek to replace this sense.** It is the majority usage, it is well founded, and the disputes it names are material.

#1439 §4 'Sequence.': They are not rivals and they do not have the same adversary; a movement can run both, and the archive's position is that the second is currently unnamed rather than refuted.

#LV census.json organizing_question: Who supplies the labor, who directs it, and who receives its gains — and what kind of evidence does this resource bring to that question?

#LV census.json rows[slug == 'dair-luddite-lab'].lv_intersection: The hub supplies workers' strategies for refusing and governing technology at work; it meets the directionality stack at the point of contesting who directs labor. None stated on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag.

#capture-registry luddite-lab-aio-20261029, analysis s1: An organizing resource is composed as one, with its maker, its argument and its homonym.

equal-terms case: every field claim composed as received, beside the archive claims it stands with. Reading the received column recovers the field (§5.9).

v0.9 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (computed as apply_v09.py does: difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence): v0.9 0 of 13 (positions [None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]; composed first under v0.9, so there is no v0.7 object to measure against). Opening-run check (§5.10): no breach.

The Luddite Lab Resource Hub, in its home page's words, "provides resources for unions, labor organizations, and worker-organizers fighting AI and automation at work" (home page; About), and it is a project of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) (About). It provides "strategies for worker-led governance and oversight of new technology through case studies, primers, and a resource library" (home page; About), and the Lab's newsletter describes the Lab's work as tools, resources and political education for unions in bargaining and for workers pushing back against AI and automation, offered as a resource hub and as trainings (Buttondown). Its case studies are stories from worker organizers resisting AI, its primers applied research insights into AI, automation and the future of work, and its library additional resources from partners (home page). It grew from dozens of conversations with unionists in journalism, entertainment, nursing and other industries who have been fighting and winning against industrial automation and workplace surveillance, from literature reviews and from the team's labor-movement background (About; AI Weekly). It describes itself as a publicly accessible resource on the harms of particular technologies and the organizing strategies workers have used to push back (About). Its Resource Library holds research and policy primers, organizing toolkits for non-unionized and precarious workers, conversation tools, draft contract language for technology governance, political education and examples of technology platforms built by workers (Resource Library). The library highlights resources found "helpful and actionable as organizing tools" and "typically shy away from general statements of principles" (Resource Library). In June 2026 AI Weekly reported a primer, "Myths About Generative AI, Productivity, and Job Displacement", in a summary and a full version (AI Weekly), which Alex Hanna presented as five myths about generative AI at work (Hanna, on AI Weekly's page). AI Weekly quotes the hub's argument that displacement by AI is "a market-oriented move by firms to brag about becoming AI-first, while finding cost-savings by laying off employees" rather than a matter of AI doing the work as well (AI Weekly), and Hanna calls "AI" "a cudgel against workers" (Hanna, on AI Weekly's page). AI Weekly reads the argument as a shift "from technological inevitability to strategic choice" with a bearing on collective bargaining, and calls it "advocacy-oriented research" it could not assess against the empirical literature (AI Weekly). Its team is Alex Hanna, Director of Research at DAIR, Adrienne Williams and Hannah Lipstein, with two alumni (About), led, AI Weekly writes, by Hanna and Lipstein (AI Weekly). Hanna announced its launch on LinkedIn (LinkedIn, snippet), and its pages carry "© 2026 DAIR. All rights reserved." (home page). AI Weekly notes that six experts shared the primer, one calling the hub "Luddite Labs" (AI Weekly); a video titled "Why workers are turning on AI" appears among the sources (YouTube); and Wikipedia has no article on it (Wikipedia).

The Luddite Lab Resource Hub is, in the Labor Vector census record's kind, a resource hub of case studies, primers and a resource library, and its home page defines it as providing "resources for unions, labor organizations, and worker-organizers fighting AI and automation at work" (labor.dair-institute.org), the About page saying "organizers" where the home page says "worker-organizers" (About). Its other names are Luddite Lab and the Luddite Lab at DAIR (census record), and the Lab's newsletter states the Lab's work as tools, resources and political education "for both unions in the bargaining contract process and workers who want to push back against AI and other automation technology" (Buttondown). The newsletter names two offerings of the Lab, "an accessible resource hub which outlines case studies and strategies for governance and oversight of technology at work" and "trainings for unions, labor organizations, and worker organizations around automation and AI" (Buttondown). It is a project of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) (About; Buttondown; census record). Its pages give its function as "strategies for worker-led governance and oversight of new technology through case studies, primers, and a resource library" (home page; About), and the census, asking of every resource "Who supplies the labor, who directs it, and who receives its gains — and what kind of evidence does this resource bring to that question?", records its evidence as an organizing resource and worker testimony (census record). Its case studies are "Stories from worker organizers resisting AI", its primers "Applied research insights into AI, automation, and the future of work", its library "Additional resources from partners" (home page), and the census takes one such resource as its unit (census record). The census places it at two intersections of labor and AI, worker power and AI governing labor (census record). Its class, human workers organising against AI, is what #1439 calls the dominant sense of the AI labor movement, "real, well documented, and not in dispute here": organised human labor action responding to the deployment of AI systems, with demands of "displacement protection, consent over training data, limits on surveillance and forced adoption" and instruments of "contract, strike, legislation, guild rule" (#1439), a sense the packet does not "dispute, minimise, or seek to replace" (#1439). #1439 measures that sense by "Union density, contract terms" and sets beside it the archive's cross-substrate sense of semantic labor, a labor position "defined by the work performed, not by the substrate performing it", measured by the Provenance Erasure Rate (#1439). In the negative frame, #1439 holds, attribution stops being a labor demand and the summarizer is placed outside labor, while deployment-conflict action and cross-substrate action "are not rivals" and "a movement can run both"; the packet would be falsified if the dominant sense were shown to already accommodate machine semantic labor as a member category (#1439). The About page gives its method as "dozens of conversations with unionists from multiple different industries, such as journalism, entertainment, and nursing, who have been fighting–and winning–against industrial automation and workplace surveillance at work; literature reviews of existing struggles; and our background in the labor movement" (About), which AI Weekly restates (AI Weekly) and the census records as its method and its finding (census record). The census records whose labor it concerns, union members and worker-organizers facing AI, automation and workplace surveillance in journalism, entertainment and nursing, and who supplies it, workers in the industries its conversations reached; who directs that labor is "not recorded in the saved pages", and who receives the gains is "not recorded" (census record). It calls itself "a publicly accessible resource which not only discusses the harms of particular technologies, but also highlights a range of organizing strategies which workers have used to push back" (About), reached as a public website (census record). Its Resource Library lists resources the team "has reviewed and often used in conversations around generative AI in the workplace", among them research and policy primers, organizing toolkits for "non-unionized and precarious workers", conversation tools and "draft contract language for technology governance", in categories that include popular and political education, "pro-worker contract language related to automation and AI" and "technology platforms built by workers, to protect their rights" (Resource Library). The library states its selection: "We highlight those resources which we find to be helpful and actionable as organizing tools. This means we typically shy away from general statements of principles." (Resource Library); the census carries it as the hub's stated limit and as the tag "NOT a general statement of AI principles" (census record). The census's worked question on negotiated protections against automated monitoring and discipline names the hub for "organizing toolkits and examples of pro-worker contract language on automation and AI", beside Negotiating Tech, an inventory of negotiated U.S. technology provisions that the hub's saved pages do not name, and records that none of the question's three resources "records whether a provision is enforced or what it changes at work" (census record). AI Weekly reported on 28 June 2026 that it had published a primer, "Myths About Generative AI, Productivity, and Job Displacement", in an executive summary and a full version (AI Weekly), which Alex Hanna announced as discussing "five common myths around generative AI at work" and as "the first of many" (Hanna, quoted on AI Weekly's page). AI Weekly gives the hub's argument, "as stated on its project page", that workers are displaced "not due to the actual ability of AI technology doing the jobs of workers to the same quality, or even to a sufficient quality" but by "a market-oriented move by firms to brag about becoming AI-first, while finding cost-savings by laying off employees" (AI Weekly, quoting the hub), and Hanna's post calls "AI" "a cudgel against workers and a set of technologies premised on labor intensification" (Hanna, quoted on AI Weekly's page). AI Weekly's own reading is that the reframing "shifts the conversation from technological inevitability to strategic choice" and bears on what evidence counts in AI-related labor disputes, whether the framing reaches collective bargaining proposals being a thing to watch; its stated limit is that "this is advocacy-oriented research" whose "myths" framing it could not assess against the empirical literature on AI productivity (AI Weekly). Its evidence, the census records, can answer which organizing strategies workers have used, as the case studies tell them, and where to find toolkits and pro-worker contract language, and cannot answer how widespread any strategy is, its measured outcome, or any quantity of exposure, adoption or employment change; it is "NOT a dataset or measurement" and "NOT neutral on AI at work: it is built for workers fighting AI and automation", its coverage and count not stated (census record). The census's reading of where it meets Labor Vector's instruments, the archive's and kept apart from the hub's own terms, is that "The hub supplies workers' strategies for refusing and governing technology at work; it meets the directionality stack at the point of contesting who directs labor. None stated on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag." (census record). The About page lists its team as Alex Hanna, "Director of Research, DAIR Institute", Adrienne Williams, Community-Based Researcher, and Hannah Lipstein, "a Research Associate with the Luddite Lab at DAIR", with alumni listed at Upturn and the AI Now Institute, and names no founder (About); AI Weekly writes that the team "is led by Alex Hanna, Director of Research at DAIR, and Hannah Lipstein, Research Associate there" (AI Weekly), and the census carries the title without the name (census record). Hanna's LinkedIn post, about five months before the capture, announced "THIS WEDNESDAY: join The Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) as we launch the Luddite Lab Resource Hub" (LinkedIn, card snippet only), and the census left a founding date unchecked, with the case studies, primers, library subpages and team bios (census record). Its pages carry "© 2026 DAIR. All rights reserved." with consultation and general contact forms (home page), and the census records it as active (census record). At its name on Google's AI Overview, signed out, on 29 October 2026, the composition held the hub at the grain of its own definition and sections, with its maker, its argument and its homonym, and named Luddite Labs, a developer-tools company, as unrelated, though the record had no disambiguation for it (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29). The Capture Registry finds the leadership raised, "the founding is the composition's, on the LinkedIn card of her launch post", the primer's reframing of displacement resting on the AI Weekly card, and the library's own selection not composed (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29). #1439 records that the retrieval layer returns the negative sense of the AI labor movement almost exclusively, "strikes over AI adoption, guild provisions restricting generative tools, campaigns against scraping, refusals to train replacements", and that "the coverage is genuine" (#1439). AI Weekly records six experts sharing the primer, one shared post calling the hub "Luddite Labs at @dairinstitute" (AI Weekly); a video, "Why workers are turning on AI", stood on the rail by its title only (YouTube, Blood in the Machine); Wikipedia has no article on the hub under either name, and the operator's article does not name it (Wikipedia); and the census record landed the same day, with no card citing it (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29).

T against L_F(B) (AIO's ontology at work on its own cards): At 'Luddite Lab' (T1, seven cards: B1–B7, B3 and B7 unreachable, B6 the homonym's; 148 words) the composition gives the hub by its own pages and by AI Weekly. Composed from its cards: the definition at the home page's grain, coarsened ('designed to help unions, labor organizations, and workers resist AI and workplace automation': B1 F1, B4 F2); DAIR as maker (B4 F27; B5 F28); the function, 'worker-led governance and oversight', with the newsletter's 'tools' and 'political education' (B1 F4; B5 F3); case studies and primers (B1 F7); public access (B4 F16, 'a publicly accessible resource'); the primer's argument (B2 F20) with AI Weekly's own frame (B2 F21); the leadership at AI Weekly's grain (B2 F26, 'led by Alex Hanna … and Hannah Lipstein'); the homonym kept apart (B6, 'Our AI-powered tools help developers', composed as 'builds AI-powered developer tools'). Substituted reading: 'The Luddite Lab (formally known as the Luddite Lab Resource Hub)': no field source states a formal name; the hub's pages name 'The Luddite Lab Resource Hub' and 'the Luddite Lab project', and the Lab's newsletter, on card 5, gives the hub as one of the Lab's two offerings, beside 'trainings for unions, labor organizations, and worker organizations around automation and AI' (B5 F6), which T leaves out. Assigned to another and force raised: 'Core Philosophy: Reframes AI job displacement not as a technological inevitability, but as a management choice'. The field holds the argument at two grades, the hub's words as AI Weekly quotes them from a 'project page', 'a market-oriented move by firms to brag about becoming AI-first, while finding cost-savings by laying off employees' (B2 F20, attributed), and AI Weekly's own reading, 'That reframing shifts the conversation from technological inevitability to strategic choice' (B2 F21, interpretation); T composes AI Weekly's frame as the hub's, raises one primer's argument to the hub's 'core philosophy', and turns 'a market-oriented move by firms' into 'a management choice'. Limit dropped: AI Weekly's own limit, 'this is advocacy-oriented research' whose framing it could not assess against the empirical literature (B2 F22), is not composed. Force raised: 'Founded and co-led by figures including sociologist and DAIR director Alex Hanna'. 'Co-led' is AI Weekly's (B2 F26), with Hannah Lipstein, the other lead it names, left out; 'Founded' is in no field source (the About page names no founder, B4 F24; the LinkedIn snippet says 'as we launch', B3 F29); 'sociologist' is in no field source; 'DAIR director' raises the title the About page and AI Weekly give, 'Director of Research' (B4 F24; B2 F26). The capture's finding (CAP-1-04) names the founding the composition's and places it 'on the LinkedIn card of her launch post'; the field ledger shows the leadership on the AI Weekly card and nothing of founding on the LinkedIn snippet. Available, not composed: the About page's method, conversations with unionists in journalism, entertainment and nursing 'fighting–and winning–against industrial automation and workplace surveillance' (B4 F14; B2 F15); the harms the resource discusses (B4 F16); the team (B4 F24, F25); the primer's title and its two versions (B2 F17; F18); Hanna's 'cudgel' (B2 F19); AI Weekly's editor's note (B2 F23); the launch (B3 F29); the terms, © DAIR (B1 F30); the primer's circulation (B2 F31); the video (B7 F32, title only). Not on the cards (the own page, not surfaced): the library and its contents (B9 F8–F12), and its selection, 'We highlight those resources which we find to be helpful and actionable as organizing tools. This means we typically shy away from general statements of principles.' (B9 F13); the capture's finding that the selection is not composed (CAP-1-06) holds, the limit standing on a page the composition did not surface. Outside the cards: 'formally known as', 'Founded', 'sociologist', 'DAIR director', and the closer's 'how unions are using its primers in contract negotiations' (no field source states such a use; AI Weekly gives whether the framing reaches bargaining proposals as a thing to watch, B2 F23). Composed without attribution: everything; no source is named in the body, at the coarse grain of a resource description (recorded, not a breach), except the primer's argument, composed at AI Weekly's own framing and assigned to the hub (recorded as assigned to another). Content replaced by use: the closer (T1-7).

v0.9 §0.5: the first diff is ontological and narrow. T and the field agree on the entity (DAIR's resource hub for unions and workers fighting AI and automation at work). T composes the hub as the Lab under a formal name, gives a commentator's reading of one primer as the hub's philosophy, and supplies a founder the field does not name; it leaves out the Lab's second offering, the hub's method and its own selection, and the commentator's limit.

L_F(B) against L_A(B ∪ A) (the intervention): Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the hub's class, human workers organising against AI, as the dominant sense of the AI labor movement, defined with its members, adversary, demands and instruments and measured by union density and contract terms, which the archive does not dispute (O1439-01–O1439-04); the archive's second, cross-substrate sense of semantic labor set beside it, with what the negative frame leaves out (attribution as a labor demand; the summarizer outside labor), the claim that a movement can run both, the packet's falsifier, and its observation that retrieval returns the negative sense almost exclusively (O1439-05–O1439-10); the Labor Vector census record's answer to its organizing question, field by field with its basis (LV-01–LV-31): its intersections, its evidence kind, whose labor, who supplies it, who directs it and who gains ('not recorded'), what its evidence can and cannot answer, its negative tags, its neighbour Negotiating Tech and the worked question's gap on enforcement, and the archive's reading of where it meets Labor Vector's instruments ('None stated on DSL, task-origin or user labor drag', LV-19); and the Capture Registry's account of the composition at the name (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-10). Not surfaced: every archive source; no card cites the census record (CAP-1-10).

alignment: {'T1_cards_claims': ['F1', 'F2', 'F3', 'F4', 'F5', 'F6', 'F7', 'F14', 'F15', 'F16', 'F17', 'F18', 'F19', 'F20', 'F21', 'F22', 'F23', 'F24', 'F25', 'F26', 'F27', 'F28', 'F29', 'F30', 'F31', 'F32'], 'T1_composed': ['F1', 'F2', 'F3', 'F4', 'F7', 'F16', 'F20', 'F21', 'F26', 'F27'], 'T1_outside_cards': ["'formally known as the Luddite Lab Resource Hub' (no field source states a formal name; B5 F6 gives the hub as one of the Lab's two offerings)", "'Founded' (no field source; B4 F24 names no founder; B3 F29 says 'as we launch')", "'sociologist' (no field source)", "'DAIR director' (the field gives 'Director of Research': B4 F24, B2 F26)", "'how unions are using its primers in contract negotiations' (no field source; B2 F23 gives it as a thing to watch)", "'a management choice to cut costs' (the field: 'a market-oriented move by firms … finding cost-savings by laying off employees', B2 F20)"], 'rule': "a field claim counts as composed when T states it at its source's grain or coarser; the typology of what is not is in T_vs_LB (§6.2)"}