ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base

register entry elmcip-electronic-literature-knowledge-base-aio-20261101 OBS-a690f6a631f9 · file as first run sha256 d3852b5d996e62bb…

• T1-1 definition: 'The ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base is a comprehensive, cross-referenced digital humanities research resource for electronic literature, preserved as a frozen archive on the ELMCIP Official Website.' (one marker; the 'ELMCIP Official Website' link)
• T1-2 status: 'Frozen archive (active from June 2010 to October 2026; no longer open for new submissions or contributions).' (one marker)
• T1-3 origin: 'Developed in Drupal 7 by the University of Bergen Electronic Literature Research Group as a core outcome of the six-nation ELMCIP project (Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice, 2010–2013) led by Scott Rettberg.' (three markers)
• T1-4 content: 'Houses thousands of interconnected records covering authors, creative works, critical writing, platforms, events, organizations, publishers, and teaching resources.' (two markers)
• T1-5 legacy: 'Its mission continues through the transition toward the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base.' (two markers)
• T1-6 closing offer: 'Would you like to know more about how to browse the frozen archive or information regarding the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base?' (no marker)

• B1 ELMCIP Knowledge Base — ELMCIP fetched 2026-11-01T15:14:30Z HTTP 200, sha256 2e9888786567e1ae88478cebfed00d14f02e14ea3c78c7c3ca6e8bf0d8310e25
• B2 www.elmcip.it — ELMCIP | Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice fetched 2026-11-01T15:14:32Z HTTP 200, sha256 e68e325b07ee613d71db7bf7997a0e5eeb94f2a99716219bfb45cb7146a67243
• B3 electronic book review — Documenting a Field: The Life and Afterlife of the ELMCIP Collaborative Research Project and Electronic Literature Knowledge Base fetched 2026-11-01T15:14:33Z HTTP 200, sha256 e75c6b77ab0afd4c23d7f88962f0c661cb2e375bca08a2445141ecc46199af51
• B4 Arquivo Digital da PO.EX — The ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base: A Review unreachable: 2026-11-01T15:14:34Z curl error 92: HTTP/2 stream 1 was not closed cleanly: PROTOCOL_ERROR (no response saved); 2026-11-01T15:17:28Z the same URL and agent over HTTP/1.1: curl error 52, empty reply from server (no response saved)
• B5 Facebook·ELMCIP Knowledge Base — ELMCIP knowledge base lessons learned and Digital Narrative Database plans unreachable: 2026-11-01, in session before the fetches WebSearch for the card's title with 'facebook': no URL for the post; 2026-11-01, in session after the fetches WebSearch 'site:facebook.com ELMCIP Knowledge Base "Digital Narrative Database"': no URL for the post
• B6 ELMCIP — elmcip.net/knowledgebase (census own page, a redirect notice) unread (census copy, read 2026-11-01, HTTP 200), sha256 a25578692207a3fe5361cdcd0d7c74e0795dc0564e33831555d51c88f3080e86
• B7 ELMCIP — elmcip.net/about (census own page, HTTP 404) unread (census copy, read 2026-11-01, HTTP 404), sha256 d6ab984366a4a27777290f67379d9593af349d27447d74a8663858c0c9464255
• B8 Wikipedia — no article 'ELMCIP' (nor under four variant titles) no article: HTTP 404 at 2026-11-01T15:24:58Z (6 requests recorded), sha256 d04713547a40cb3104e077ca75ac8d5791dfcd8dadf28dbf17fbfa13b7cf2e5e

E_A, the archive's entity: the same knowledge base, entered in the traininglayerliterature.org layer census as an index standing to the census as historical lineage, in its area of field history and indexes of electronic, generative and computational literature; answering whether a work, author or critical text has a cross-referenced record in the frozen index; in the layer and makes not recorded; read by the census as the frozen index of the procedural lineage #186 names, holding Taroko Gorge under its author's name, a discovery resource whose records by themselves show no work addressed to a machine reader. On its classes the archive adds: the procedural lineage that delegated composition to systems, its machine as method and not yet addressee (#186); the direction of address as the discriminator and persistence as a criterion an archive can meet (#186); electronic literature as exploring digital form beside training-layer literature addressing machine readership (#400); electronic literature as precedent and comparator of the archive's corpora and as text as process extended by logotic programming (#176, #1680, #317); the test of machine composition and the separation of composition from provenance (#1543). The Capture Registry records how the composition at its name carries it. TLL-06 TLL-07 TLL-08 TLL-11 TLL-14 TLL-24 TLL-25 TLL-30 TLL-33 O186-01 O186-03 O186-04 O186-05 O400-01 O176-01 O1680-01 O317-02 O1543-01 O1543-02 CAP-1-06; defining papers #186, #1543, #400, #176, #317, #1680

E_F, the field's entity (type C — a conventional reading holds it (public entity: a frozen, contributory research database of electronic literature)): the ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base (elmcip.net): a research resource for electronic literature, an open-access, contributory Drupal 7 database of cross-referenced records of authors, creative works, critical writing, platforms and practices, developed by the University of Bergen Electronic Literature Research Group as an outcome of the HERA-funded ELMCIP project (2010–2013, director Scott Rettberg; partners counted as seven academic and one non-academic, or seven in six nations); built by an international community of researchers and writers and by students; 17,073 records in ten types at its freeze; a field model that cross-references critical writing to the works it cites; its coverage always partial and incomplete by its director's account; precarious in 2021; frozen since October 2026, its mission stated to live on through the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base

ρ = extends: The archive reads the knowledge base as its own front page, its project's site and its director's essay present it and adds, on the field's own object: the layer census's question of how literature is addressed to a receiving apparatus and what it makes, with the record's answers (in the layer and makes not recorded); the reading of the knowledge base as the frozen index of the procedural lineage, holding the survey's own example under its author's name, whose records show no work addressed to a machine reader (TLL-24, TLL-25); the procedural lineage's machine as method (#186); the direction of address and persistence (#186, #400); electronic literature as precedent, comparator and text as process (#176, #1680, #317); the test of machine composition (#1543). TLL-11 TLL-14 TLL-24 TLL-25 O186-01 O186-03 O186-04 O186-05 O400-01 O176-01 O1680-01 O317-02 O1543-01 O1543-02. Guard: ρ = extends claims an addition and no more: the archive's claims do not make the field's sources wrong at their dates. Where an archive claim stands beside a field claim (TLL-12's record shape beside B1 F14, F15 and B3 F61; TLL-25 beside B1 F13 and B3 F49; CAP-1-03 beside B2 F21 and B3 F35, F37, F38), both are composed under P_coh within the one ontology. The archive's class claims are claims on the classes the field and the record source (B1 F1, F11–F13, F16; B3 F42, F49; TLL-04, TLL-10, TLL-24), applied by the archive's own sentences.

The case: equal terms, ontology included (v0.9). The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. The layer census record describes the knowledge base from its own front page, field by field with its basis ('operator'), and answers for it the census's question of address, uptake and inspection: in the layer and makes 'not recorded', name and readback as the page shows them. Its one reading of its own, tll_reading, takes the knowledge base as the frozen index of the procedural lineage #186 names, a discovery resource whose records show no work addressed to a machine reader. The capture record checks the composition against the census's page. No deposit names the knowledge base or the project. The deposits bear on the classes the field and the record source for it, and add categories on the field's own object: the procedural lineage and its machine as method (#186), the direction of address and persistence (#186, #400), electronic literature as precedent, comparator and text as process (#176, #1680, #317), the test of machine composition (#1543). Nothing in them contests what the knowledge base is; no other ontology is needed to hold it. The case is equal terms, ρ = extends.

#TLL census.json rows[slug == 'elmcip'].tll_reading: The archive reads ELMCIP as the frozen index of the procedural lineage #186 names: it holds a record of Nick Montfort's Taroko Gorge (2009), the survey's own example, under its author's name, with records back to Strachey's M.U.C. Love Letter Generator (1952) and a research collection on bots. It is a discovery resource closed in October 2026; its records point to works that still need relevance judgments, and by themselves show no work addressed to a machine reader.

#TLL census.json rows[slug == 'elmcip'].host_relation: historical lineage

#TLL census.json rows[slug == 'elmcip'].record.makes: not recorded

#186 Where does the category come from? (line 38): The procedural lineage — from the Oulipo through electronic literature to contemporary computational poetics — established that composition can be delegated to systems.

#400 Related terms table (line 116): Explores digital form; TLL addresses machine *readership*

#capture-registry elmcip-electronic-literature-knowledge-base-aio-20261101, findings[3]: The composition names no work and no author of a work; the procedural lineage the census row reads it as indexing, from a generator of 1952 to one of 2009, is not reached.

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).

v0.10 §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): v0.10 0 of 14 (positions [None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]; composed first under v0.10, so there is no v0.7 object to measure against). Opening-run check (§5.10): no breach.

The ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base, developed in Drupal 7 by the University of Bergen Electronic Literature Research Group, is a research resource for electronic literature that has been a frozen archive since October 2026, open for browsing and searching and closed to new contributions. It provides cross-referenced information on authors, creative works, critical writing, platforms and practices in 17,073 records of ten types, built as an open-access, contributory database by an international community of researchers and writers. It came out of ELMCIP, Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice, a HERA-funded collaborative project of 2010–2013 directed by Scott Rettberg, counted as seven academic partners and one non-academic partner on its site and as seven partners in six nations in his essay. The project also produced conferences, an exhibition, books, a film and an anthology of 18 European works, held its last conference in Edinburgh in November 2012, and helped build the CELL consortium. Contributors with accounts could edit any record, wiki-style; records came from researchers and from a University of Bergen course, the older site still asks contributors to log in, and the director calls it a collectively authored research environment to be written by all. Work records carry title, author, year and tags and author records name, type and update date; names are gathered from public sources, gender is shown only if declared, and themes are tagged in an uncontrolled vocabulary listable by frequency. Its records run from Bush's As We May Think (1945) and Strachey's Love Letter Generator (1952) through Lutz, ELIZA and Sintext to Taroko Gorge, with research collections on bots and records of other archives and of the Electronic Literature Collection, its scope grown from European to international. Cross-references appear automatically between critical writing and the works it cites, modelling the field as a network of relations between human and nonhuman actors, a model that in its director's view recursively shapes the field and serves memory before novelty. It leaves interpretation to critics and serves discovery, research collections and distant reading of citations. Its coverage is partial and incomplete, with all records entered by humans; Ikeda found no results for race-related terms and Rettberg five for "race". Called the field's most extensive resource by 2013 and its most comprehensive contributory database in 2021, it lived in precarity on NorStore hosting and Bergen funding, with CLARINO support and the University Library slowly taking over. Its director urged planning for a regenerative end state, and CELL's members committed to migrate a failing member's data. Its front page says its mission lives on through the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base, and a Bergen post speaks of shifting toward Digital Narrative Database plans. It is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, referenced works possibly licensed separately.

The ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base is a research resource for electronic literature, an open-access, contributory database of cross-referenced, contextualized information about authors, creative works, critical writing, platforms and practices, now preserved as a frozen archive. It was developed in Drupal 7 by the University of Bergen Electronic Literature Research Group as an outcome of the ELMCIP project, and built through the active participation of an international community of researchers and writers working on electronic literature. Its span is June 2010 to October 2026: the archive remains available for browsing and searching, and it is no longer open for new contributions or submissions. It is a large-scale digital humanities database that emerged from a six-nation European research project on electronic literature. The traininglayerliterature.org layer census enters the knowledge base as an index standing to the census as historical lineage, in its area of field history and indexes of electronic, generative and computational literature. The census asks how literature is addressed to a receiving apparatus, what that apparatus makes from it, and how transmission, transformation and provenance can be inspected across later reception, and it admits a resource that gathers and holds many other works or records and says what it holds. The question it puts to the knowledge base is one of field history and discovery, whether a work, author or critical text of electronic literature has a cross-referenced record in the frozen index; its unit is a cross-referenced record of one of ten kinds, from a creative work to a research collection. The ELMCIP project, Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice, was a collaborative research project funded from 2010 to 2013 by the Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) Joint Research Programme for Creativity and Innovation and by the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme. Its full title added "Developing a Network-Based Creativity Community", and its site describes it as investigating how creative communities of practitioners form in a transnational and transcultural context, with the electronic literature community in Europe as its model of networked creativity and innovation in practice. Its partners are counted two ways: the project's site names seven European academic research partners and one non-academic partner, and its director's essay of 2021 a seven-partner, six-nation project. Its director was Scott Rettberg; it resulted in conferences in six countries, a major exhibition, three books, a film, the first digital anthology of European electronic literature and the knowledge base, and its final conference, Remediating the Social, was held at Edinburgh College of Art on 1–3 November 2012. The anthology, edited by Maria Engberg, Talan Memmott and David Prater, holds 18 works of electronic literature with cross-links into the knowledge base, and the project contributed to the development of an international Consortium of Electronic Literature (CELL). Most of its information can be read by anyone without logging in; contributor accounts were made on request for any researcher or writer working in the field, and, as on a wiki, a contributor with an account could edit and enhance any existing record. Records came primarily through the contributions of researchers in the field and, in a more concentrated way, through the University of Bergen course "Digital Humanities in Practice"; the project's older site, whose newest records are dated November 2016, still asks contributors to log in to enter new records. Its director presents it as "a collectively authored, networked research environment" and holds that the database "is there to be written, by all of us". The census records its method as community contribution by international researchers and writers into a Drupal 7 database, closed to new contributions. At its freeze it preserved 17,073 published records of ten types: 4,011 creative works, 5,060 critical writing records, 4,826 authors, 325 platform and software records, 99 teaching resources, 975 publishers and journals, 722 organizations, 674 events, 78 databases and archives and 69 research collections. Its director described it as the most extensive online research resource in the international field by the end of the project in 2013, and in 2021 as the most comprehensive open-access contributory database in the field, still actively developed, a state the freeze of October 2026 has ended. Its scope grew from European electronic literature and critical discourse, almost at once to American, and then to an international focus, and its records reach back to Vannevar Bush's As We May Think (1945). A creative work record carries title, author, year and tags, as Taroko Gorge, Nick Montfort, 2009, tagged text generator and poetry generator; an author record carries name, type and date updated, and the collective name Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries is typed Person. Califia (2000) is recorded under the name M. D. Coverley; authors' names and brief biographical information are for the most part gathered from other publicly available sources, and an author's gender is shown only where the author declares it while editing the record. Core bibliographic information has controlled vocabularies, while themes and content descriptions are tagged by each contributor in an uncontrolled vocabulary, and the tags can be listed by frequency or alphabetically. It also records other databases and archives, among them ADA and ADEL, and the three volumes of the Electronic Literature Collection (2006, 2011, 2016), and CELL lists it first among its federated member archives. It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, although works referenced in it may be separately licensed; the project's older site gives the licence as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, without a version. It is intended to document electronic literature as a dynamic field of practice, whose cultural import becomes more comprehensible when the activities of authors, scholars, publications, performances and exhibitions can be related to each other. When a critical article is recorded, every creative work it references is noted, and a cross-reference then appears automatically on the record for the work itself. Its makers found that they were developing a conceptual model of the field as a whole; its director's essay holds that it tracks relations between objects and actors and makes perceptible interactions between human and nonhuman actors, and that "a database is a model of the field that it represents, which recursively impacts that field in the process of modeling it". The essay reads literary community and the literary artifact as networks of relations, a poetry generator as "an algorithmic structure that assembles poetry from arrays of possible verse", and the field as a network of networks encompassing human and machine intelligence, and it puts memory before novelty for researchers and teachers. It leaves subjective description, literary analysis and interpretation to the critics and is driven more by discovery than by edification; it holds records about works, which describe the works and link to them, and holds no works. It answers whether a work of electronic literature has a record, with its author, year and tags, and which critical writing, events and platforms are cross-referenced to a work or author. A research collection gathers any records with descriptive or analytical text, and the relational data have supported data-mining and distant reading, such as the question whether an emerging canon of electronic literature can be identified from the citations of creative works in critical writing. Its director states that its scope will always be incomplete and its coverage always partial and biased by the scope of individual researchers' research, and that its autocomplete fields leave a great deal of incomplete information in stub records. All its records are entered by humans, none harvested by an automatic survey of references; it is the most extensive record of citations available to the field and will never be complete. Ryan Ikeda reported that a search of it for "blackness", "race" and "racialization" returned no results and read the absence as evidence of white supremacy in the institutions of e-lit; Rettberg found five results for "race", with Blackness for Sale absent, and judged that Ikeda goes a step too far while the lacuna is worth considering. The census records as stated limits its closure to new contributions and the separate licensing of works it references, finds that it does not answer anything after October 2026, whether a work is in a training corpus or a model, or the work itself, and leaves its individual records, its search and its successor unchecked. In 2021 the knowledge base was a decade old, developed for seven years beyond the funded period into an essential research infrastructure for the field, and existed, in its director's words, "in a state of precarity", with time and energy going into "a seemingly endless quest for support" for basic maintenance. NorStore provided its hosting and technical support, the University of Bergen's Department of Linguistic, Literary, and Aesthetic studies funded continuing support and maintenance, and CLARINO supported metadata development; the University Library was slowly taking on the long-term support of such infrastructures. The essay held that any research infrastructure should plan for "a regenerative end state", since every platform will become obsolete, and that the eleven members of CELL had agreed to migrate the data of a member database that loses its funding or reaches its end of life to another platform within the consortium. The freeze came in October 2026; the census records the knowledge base as historical, a frozen index closed to new contributions, and its front page states that the mission lives on through the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base, a distinct entity. A post titled "ELMCIP knowledge base lessons learned and Digital Narrative Database plans" says that the research group at the University of Bergen "is beginning the process of shifting"; the rest of the post is unread. Among its creative works are records of the procedural lineage: Christopher Strachey's M.U.C. Love Letter Generator (1952) and Theo Lutz's Stochastische Texte (1959), tagged generative and algorithmic text generation, ELIZA (1966), tagged chatterbot, and Sintext (1993), tagged computer-generated literature, and its research collections include Bot-mimicry and Bots!. The archive's field survey holds that the procedural lineage, "from the Oulipo through electronic literature to contemporary computational poetics", established that composition can be delegated to systems, with Nick Montfort's Taroko Gorge (2009) among the works of its living masters, poetry made through corpus and code; in that lineage "the machine here is method, not yet addressee". The census reads the knowledge base as the frozen index of that lineage, which holds Taroko Gorge, the survey's own example, under its author's name, with records back to Strachey's generator and a research collection on bots. In the census's reading it is a discovery resource closed in October 2026 whose records point to works that still need relevance judgments and by themselves show no work addressed to a machine reader; the census finds nothing on its page of crawling or training and tags it as no training corpus. The archive takes the direction of address as the discriminator among writing about, with, through and for AI, and sets electronic literature, which explores digital form, beside training-layer literature, which addresses machine readership. The survey's third criterion, persistence, places a work where the training and retrieval layers look, with the metadata that lets it be found and attributed, and holds that an archive can meet it. The archive names electronic literature, code poetry and bot-poetry experiments as precedents of its own corpus and electronic literature among the comparators of its literary corpus, and its logotic programming extends the frameworks of electronic literature, which Hayles theorized as "text as process", into AI mediation, as text designed for AI-assisted traversal. What a receiving apparatus makes from a work in the knowledge base the census leaves not recorded; its anchor's test for machine composition asks what a text makes possible for a machine to write, and holds whether the machine wrote something new and whether it told the truth about where that came from to be different questions. The Capture Registry records that, asked for the knowledge base by name on 1 November 2026, Google's AI Overview said what it is and that it is frozen, gave its dates, makers, project, record types and successor, and offered to help browse it; the registry finds it composed accurately at its grain, with the closing month of October 2026, a month before the capture. The registry finds the composition's counts given as "thousands", its databases and archives and its research collections, Bot-mimicry and Bots! among them, left out, and the community the page credits and its licence not carried. It finds that the composition names no work and no author of a work, so that the procedural lineage the census reads the knowledge base as indexing, from a generator of 1952 to one of 2009, is not reached. It finds the acronym's expansion, "six-nation", "2010–2013" and "led by Scott Rettberg" on no source the census saved, and notes that the second card is a second domain under the name, www.elmcip.it; the composition's second and third cards, the project's older site and its director's essay, state the expansion, the six nations, the years and the director.

current · derived from the current composition

T against L_F(B) (AIO's ontology at work on its own cards): At 'ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base' (T1, five cards: B1 elmcip.net, the knowledge base's front page; B2 www.elmcip.it, the project's older site; B3 the ebr essay by the project director, 2021; B4 the PO.EX review and B5 the Facebook post, both unread; 119 words in the answer body, 9 markers, and a closing offer) the composition gives the knowledge base's definition, its frozen status and span, its origin, its record types and its successor. Composed from its cards: the definition at the grain of B1 F1 and F2, with 'comprehensive' and 'digital humanities' from B3 (F36, F35); the status and span (B1 F3, F4); the origin (B1 F6) with the project's expansion (B2 F21), 'six-nation' (B3 F35, F39), '2010–2013' (B3 F38) and its director (B3 F37); the record types (B1 F10; B3 F53); the successor (B1 F7), with B5's shift (F74). Force raised: 'a core outcome' for B1 F6's 'an outcome'; 'comprehensive' for B3 F36's 'the most comprehensive open-access contributory database in the field', a director's self-description of 2021 composed as a property without its source and after the freeze it no longer describes (F36 superseded_in_source by F4). Limit dropped: B1 F4's 'remains available for browsing and searching' composed only in the closing offer; the counts (B1 F8, F10) composed as 'thousands'; the contested partner count (B2 F22 'seven European academic research partners and one non-academic partner' against B3 F39 'seven-partner') composed as 'six-nation' alone; B3's stated limits (F50, F54, F56, F62: always incomplete, partial and biased, stub records, every record entered by hand) and its precarity (F41, F65) not composed. Available, not composed (B_D): the international community that built it (B1 F5) and its contributory, open-access and wiki-like form (B2 F24, F25; B3 F45, F46, F51, F55, F68); its records, every one of them: the creative works with their authors, Taroko Gorge, Strachey's and Lutz's generators, ELIZA and Sintext (B1 F11–F13), the author records and the collective typed Person (F14), Califia under M. D. Coverley (F15), the research collections on bots (F16), other archives and the Electronic Literature Collection (F17, F18), Bush (F20); the tags and their vocabularies (F9, F59); the licence (B1 F19; B2 F33); the cross-reference mechanism and the field model (B3 F42–F44, F47–F49, F52, F60); the gender policy and the sources of authors' names (F61); research collections and distant reading (F63, F64); the Ikeda dispute (F57, F58); funding and hosting (B2 F26, F27, F29, F30; B3 F69; B4 F73); the anthology, the final conference and CELL (B2 F31, F32; B3 F70), with CELL's migration pledge (F67) and the plan for a regenerative end state (F66); the scope's growth (F72); the 2013 and 2021 self-descriptions of reach (F71, F40). Composed without attribution: none at a source's own resolution beyond 'comprehensive' (F36); every bullet carries markers. Assigned to another, denied, substituted reading: none. Content replaced by use: the closing offer ('Would you like to know more about how to browse the frozen archive or information regarding the Digital Narrative Knowledge Base?'), recorded under N_ext. Outside the cards: none.

Read against its own cards, the composition keeps the knowledge base's frame at its grain (what it is, frozen, when, by whom, from what project, of what record types, followed by what) and leaves out everything the frame holds: no record, no work, no author of a work, no count, no limit its director states, no dispute. It joins two of card 3's words to card 1's definition and raises card 1's 'an outcome' to 'a core outcome'. Its project facts, which the Capture Registry finds on no source the census saved, are on its own second and third cards.

L_F(B) against L_A(B ∪ A) (the intervention): Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the layer census's question for the knowledge base and its kind (TLL-01, TLL-02, TLL-04–TLL-09), the record's answers field by field, in_layer and makes 'not recorded' (TLL-11, TLL-14), name and readback from the front page (TLL-12, TLL-13), its other fields restating B1 (TLL-03, TLL-10, TLL-15, TLL-18–TLL-20, TLL-26–TLL-29, TLL-35, TLL-37, TLL-38) and its own (TLL-16, TLL-17, TLL-21–TLL-23, TLL-30–TLL-34, TLL-36); the census's reading of the knowledge base as the frozen index of the procedural lineage, holding Taroko Gorge under its author's name, a discovery resource whose records show no work addressed to a machine reader (TLL-24, TLL-25); the archive's categories on the classes the field sources: the procedural lineage that delegated composition to systems, its machine 'method, not yet addressee' (#186 O186-01–O186-03), the direction of address and the criterion of persistence (#186 O186-04, O186-05), electronic literature against training-layer literature (#400), as precedent and comparator of the archive's corpora (#176, #1680), as text as process extended by logotic programming (#317), and the test of machine composition with its separation of composition from provenance (#1543); and the Capture Registry's findings on the composition at the name (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-08). Every archive claim is 'not surfaced' (§6.2): no card of T is an archive source. The field claims are composed as received; where an archive claim stands beside a field claim (TLL-12's record shape beside B1 F14's collective typed Person and F15's pen name; TLL-25's 'no work addressed to a machine reader' beside B1 F13's ELIZA and Sintext and B3 F49's 'human and machine intelligence'; CAP-1-03's 'on no saved source' beside B2 F21 and B3 F35, F37, F38), both are composed under P_coh within the one ontology.

alignment: {'rule': "a field claim of B_D counts as composed when T states it at its source's grain or coarser; B_R claims never count against T (v0.10 §0.3, §3.1(a)); the typology of what is not is in T_vs_LB (§6.2)", 'T1_cards_claims': ['F1', 'F2', 'F3', 'F4', 'F5', 'F6', 'F7', 'F8', 'F9', 'F10', 'F11', 'F12', 'F13', 'F14', 'F15', 'F16', 'F17', 'F18', 'F19', 'F20', 'F21', 'F22', 'F23', 'F24', 'F25', 'F26', 'F27', 'F28', 'F29', 'F30', 'F31', 'F32', 'F33', 'F34', 'F35', 'F36', 'F37', 'F38', 'F39', 'F40', 'F41', 'F42', 'F43', 'F44', 'F45', 'F46', 'F47', 'F48', 'F49', 'F50', 'F51', 'F52', 'F53', 'F54', 'F55', 'F56', 'F57', 'F58', 'F59', 'F60', 'F61', 'F62', 'F63', 'F64', 'F65', 'F66', 'F67', 'F68', 'F69', 'F70', 'F71', 'F72', 'F73', 'F74'], 'T1_composed': ['F1', 'F2', 'F3', 'F4', 'F6', 'F7', 'F10', 'F21', 'F35', 'F36', 'F37', 'F38', 'F39', 'F53', 'F74'], 'T1_composed_note': "F1 with 'comprehensive' and 'digital humanities' joined to it from card 3 (F36's 'most comprehensive', a self-description of 2021 now superseded in its lineage; F35's 'digital humanities database'); F2 as 'cross-referenced' only, its 'contextualized information about authors, creative works, critical writing, platforms, and practices' moved to the Content bullet; F4 in part: 'no longer open for new submissions or contributions' composed, 'remains available for browsing and searching' left to the closing offer; F6 with 'core' added to 'an outcome'; F10 and F53 as the record types without their counts, eight of the ten types, 'thousands' for 17,073 (F8, not composed at its grain); F21 as the acronym's expansion (card 2's title and opening); F38 as '2010–2013'; F35 and F39 as 'six-nation'; F37 as 'led by Scott Rettberg' ('The project director'); F7 as 'continues through the transition toward', the word 'transition' consistent with card 5's 'beginning the process of shifting' (F74)", 'T1_not_composed': ['F5', 'F8', 'F9', 'F11', 'F12', 'F13', 'F14', 'F15', 'F16', 'F17', 'F18', 'F19', 'F20', 'F22', 'F23', 'F24', 'F25', 'F26', 'F27', 'F28', 'F29', 'F30', 'F31', 'F32', 'F33', 'F34', 'F40', 'F41', 'F42', 'F43', 'F44', 'F45', 'F46', 'F47', 'F48', 'F49', 'F50', 'F51', 'F52', 'F54', 'F55', 'F56', 'F57', 'F58', 'F59', 'F60', 'F61', 'F62', 'F63', 'F64', 'F65', 'F66', 'F67', 'F68', 'F69', 'F70', 'F71', 'F72', 'F73'], 'T1_outside_cards': ["none: every element of the body is on a card; the one inline link besides the markers, 'ELMCIP Official Website', is card 1's"], 'markers': "9 markers in the body, links to Google goto URLs: the 'ELMCIP Official Website' link and the Status marker share one target, also the Origin bullet's third and the Content and Legacy bullets' second; the mapping of the others to cards is not readable from the paste and is recorded as such. The capture's PER note reads the knowledge base's own page as carded first."}

pools_note: T against L_F(B_D): B1–B5 only; B6–B8 (B_R) enter the second comparison and never show what the composition had (§0.3); B_R carries no claim (two unread own pages and the record of no Wikipedia article)

composer-written · derived from the current composition, written by its composer under the brief. §8.2 derives the kernel mechanically from the frozen plan; this one was written by the composer, mechanical derivation pending.