{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__religious_studies_theology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"prp-reciprocal-meaning-synchronization-003","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Reciprocal Meaning-Residual Protocol for Interreligious Dialogue","problem":"In a bounded interreligious scholarly dialogue, participants may repeatedly use familiar technical terms while assigning them different scopes, authorities, connotations, or practical implications. Repeating complete definitions for every use consumes limited dialogue time, but relying on an ordinary shared glossary can manufacture false equivalence or false disagreement because each listener reconstructs the speaker's claim from a different expectation. Small qualifications, translation caveats, and internally contested meanings may be more consequential than conspicuous vocabulary differences.","actors":["Scholars and practitioners participating in the dialogue","Speakers who retain authority over the recorded meaning of their own statements","Dialogue facilitators","Tradition-literate or language-literate advisors","Community data stewards governing restricted material","Independent fidelity reviewers","Research-ethics or institutional oversight personnel"],"observable_state":"For each consented claim, the working group can record the versioned meaning profile that listeners were expected to use, the speaker's current self-authored meaning, structured corrections, listener reconstructions, clarification requests, model-version mismatches, full-restatement triggers, and subsequent speaker validation. The problem is observable through discrepancies between predicted and speaker-validated paraphrases, repeated definitional turns, unacknowledged cross-tradition model disagreement, reconstruction failures by term or context, and misunderstandings discovered during independent full-context review. No participant is presumed to represent an entire tradition without an explicit mandate.","consequence":"If listeners silently reconstruct claims through incompatible expectations, a dialogue can record apparent agreement where meanings differ or conflict where speakers intended compatible claims. If every recurring term instead receives complete explanation on every use, definitional repetition can displace substantive exchange. An ungoverned compression protocol could worsen both problems by elevating one group's vocabulary as the default and suppressing narrative, minority, embodied, or translation-dependent meaning.","affected_objective":"Use bounded dialogue time for consequential clarification while preserving speaker-controlled meaning, full contextual access, intra-tradition plurality, translation uncertainty, protected testimony, and the ability to return immediately to complete restatement.","intervention":"For one consented working group and one narrowly defined topic, create a reciprocal, versioned meaning model from participant-authored term cards. Each card records a term or formulation, speaker or authorized source, scope, relevant context, authority status, translation caveats, known internal contestation, practical implications, uncertainty, and expiry. Before a recurring term is interpreted in a later dialogue turn, the shared model generates the meaning profile that a listener would reconstruct from the current version. The speaker supplies or validates the actual intended profile for that turn. A structured comparator produces residuals such as narrowed scope, rejected equivalence, altered authority, translation qualification, newly relevant practice, changed analogy, or additional internal plurality. Residuals are weighted by source reliability, speaker confidence, consequence, translation uncertainty, power asymmetry, and risk of misattribution. Eligible unchanged content can remain implicit, while the residual clarification is routed to participants with the model version and context required to reconstruct the complete current claim. Meaning is processed hierarchically from term to proposition to practical implication, and unresolved error rises to explicit plenary clarification. The original utterance or complete statement remains available under its consent and access rules. Each session begins with a version handshake and heartbeat, periodically includes complete participant restatements, and sends random plus risk-stratified dialogue turns to an independent full-context fidelity audit. Personal testimony, sacred or restricted language, allegations of harm, rights-bearing statements, low-confidence translation, contested representation, and speaker-requested passages bypass residual processing. A speaker may demand complete restatement at any time. Only speaker-validated corrections update that speaker's meaning state; the protocol never infers a tradition-wide belief from silence or repetition.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Prediction target definition","domain_realization":"Predict the meaning profile a listener will reconstruct for a recurring term or formulation in the next dialogue turn, conditioned on speaker, topic, language, context, and model version."},{"archetype_element":"Generative model state","domain_realization":"A versioned collection of participant-authored meaning cards containing scope, authority, translation, contestation, implications, uncertainty, provenance, and expiry."},{"archetype_element":"Model scope and horizon","domain_realization":"The model applies only to named participants, an authorized topic, declared languages, and a bounded session series; it cannot stand for an entire religion or predict personal belief outside the dialogue."},{"archetype_element":"Expected behavior","domain_realization":"The complete meaning profile that the shared model predicts participants will use when interpreting the current formulation."},{"archetype_element":"Actual behavior","domain_realization":"The speaker-authored or speaker-validated meaning profile for the actual utterance, linked to its full context and consent status."},{"archetype_element":"Prediction comparator","domain_realization":"A structured comparison preserving changed scope, denied equivalence, authority shift, translation caveat, analogy limit, practice implication, internal plurality, and unmodeled context."},{"archetype_element":"Prediction-error signal","domain_realization":"A speaker-attributable residual clarification containing the changed feature, uncertainty, affected proposition or implication, model version, and full-context link."},{"archetype_element":"Precision-weighting rule","domain_realization":"Residual priority combines speaker confidence, provenance, translation reliability, consequence of misunderstanding, power asymmetry, sensitivity, and reconstruction cost."},{"archetype_element":"Residual propagation channel","domain_realization":"A facilitated clarification queue sends admitted residuals to all relevant listeners, requires acknowledgement, and escalates unresolved term-level errors to proposition- or practice-level discussion."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction and synchronization","domain_realization":"Listeners reconstruct the speaker's complete current meaning profile only from the matching participant-authored model version plus validated residuals; session handshakes and full restatements reanchor shared state."},{"archetype_element":"Update rule","domain_realization":"Only a speaker or explicitly authorized source steward may validate an update to that source's profile; changes are attributable, reversible, uncertainty-bearing, and never inferred from silence."},{"archetype_element":"Freshness and drift control","domain_realization":"Cards expire after their declared session or topic horizon, while accumulated clarifications, translation changes, participant withdrawal, and systematic reconstruction errors invalidate predictive use."},{"archetype_element":"Residual error budget","domain_realization":"No protected class of utterance may be compressed, and uncorrected meaning-feature loss, misattribution, and cumulative listener reconstruction disagreement must remain within predeclared tolerances."},{"archetype_element":"Raw-signal audit sample","domain_realization":"Independent reviewers examine consented random and risk-stratified complete dialogue turns without residual cues and ask speakers to validate the reviewers' reconstructions."},{"archetype_element":"Safety-critical bypass and fallback","domain_realization":"Sensitive testimony, restricted language, allegations, rights-bearing claims, uncertain translation, representation disputes, and speaker-designated passages receive complete contextual presentation; validity failures restore ordinary full dialogue."},{"archetype_element":"Attention and bandwidth budget","domain_realization":"The scarce resource is facilitated dialogue and clarification time, counted together with card maintenance, validation, auditing, resynchronization, and fallback costs."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"predictive_codec","role":"Participant-authored meaning profiles serve as matched expectations, and speaker-validated corrections serve as residuals from which listeners reconstruct the complete current claim profile.","counterfactual_removal":"Without expectation-plus-residual reconstruction, the intervention becomes a glossary with annotations rather than a predictive residual channel."},{"mechanism_slug":"event_triggered_residual_reporting","role":"A recurring meaning remains implicit only when the speaker confirms the versioned expectation; material corrections trigger an explicit clarification event.","counterfactual_removal":"Without event-triggered reporting, participants must either repeat every definition or rely on unverified silence that can conceal misunderstanding."},{"mechanism_slug":"precision_weighted_error_gate","role":"It prioritizes residuals by speaker confidence, translation quality, consequence, power asymmetry, sensitivity, and scarce plenary time while retaining suppressed items for audit.","counterfactual_removal":"Without consequence-aware weighting, conspicuous but harmless vocabulary differences could displace subtle qualifications whose misinterpretation affects the dialogue's conclusions."},{"mechanism_slug":"hierarchical_prediction_error_loop","role":"Expectations operate at term, proposition, and practical-implication levels; an error not resolved at one level moves upward for broader clarification.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the hierarchy, participants may settle a lexical correction while leaving the proposition or practical consequence incorrectly reconstructed."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_version_checksum_handshake","role":"Each session and residual verifies the participant, term-card version, language, topic scope, and consent state against which the correction was generated.","counterfactual_removal":"Without compatibility checks, listeners could apply a current clarification to an obsolete or differently scoped meaning profile and obtain a plausible but false reconstruction."},{"mechanism_slug":"periodic_full_state_resynchronization","role":"Scheduled complete restatements let speakers replace or reconcile accumulated meaning profiles and bound the duration of unnoticed divergence.","counterfactual_removal":"Without full-state reanchoring, small residual misunderstandings can compound across sessions and become embedded as shared knowledge."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_comparison_test","role":"It compares listener reconstructions, speaker validation, alternative translation models, and independent full-context readings to identify structured rather than incidental disagreement.","counterfactual_removal":"Without comparison against speaker-controlled and alternative reconstructions, the group could label its own shared assumptions accurate without testing them."},{"mechanism_slug":"shadow_raw_channel_sampling","role":"Independent reviewers receive complete consented utterances from random and risk-stratified turns and compare their reconstructions with the residual representation and speaker validation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an independent full-context sample, the system cannot reveal narrative, performative, embodied, or minority meaning that its predefined cards omit."},{"mechanism_slug":"raw_signal_fallback_switch","role":"It suspends residual processing for invalid, stale, sensitive, disputed, or mistranslated scopes and restores full contextual statement and clarification.","counterfactual_removal":"Without fallback, participants would remain dependent on compressed meaning precisely when the shared expectation is contested or unsafe."},{"mechanism_slug":"prediction_error_review","role":"Participants classify material misses as translation, scope, authority, facilitation, model, power, or genuine theological-disagreement problems before authorizing a correction.","counterfactual_removal":"Without structured review, recurring misunderstandings may produce isolated corrections without changing the faulty shared expectation or dialogue boundary."},{"mechanism_slug":"surprise_to_action_bridge","role":"Each validated residual receives a defined next action: acknowledge, request complete restatement, consult a language or tradition advisor, revise the shared profile, preserve disagreement, or suspend the topic.","counterfactual_removal":"Without owned follow-through, residuals may be displayed without repairing listener understanding or documenting unresolved difference."}],"causal_chain":["Participants create scoped, versioned, self-authored meaning profiles for recurring dialogue terms and formulations.","Before a later use is interpreted, the shared model predicts the meaning profile listeners would reconstruct.","The speaker supplies or validates the actual intended profile for the present context.","A structured comparator isolates changed scope, authority, translation, analogy, plurality, or practical implication as residual information.","Precision and consequence weighting determine whether the residual enters facilitated clarification, while protected content bypasses suppression.","Listeners reconstruct the complete current claim from the compatible meaning profile plus residual and can open the full utterance or request complete restatement.","Unresolved lexical residuals move to proposition and practical-implication levels until the speaker validates the reconstruction or the group preserves explicit disagreement.","Independent full-context sampling checks whether the residual representation omitted material meaning or privileged a participant's interpretive model.","Validated corrections update only the authorizing speaker's profile; drift, version mismatch, audit failure, or consent change triggers full-dialogue fallback.","The protocol remains active only while faithful reconstruction and clarified disagreement justify its maintenance, audit, and facilitation costs."],"baseline":"The comparator condition is an ordinary facilitated dialogue in which participants hear complete statements, consult a fixed pre-session glossary if available, and request clarification ad hoc. The same participants, topic, time allocation, language support, recording permissions, and fidelity questions are used, but there is no versioned predictive meaning state, structured residual channel, reconstruction test, or periodic synchronization rule.","nearest_rivals":["A fixed interreligious glossary, which supplies definitions but does not predict context-specific use, preserve speaker-specific updates, route residuals, or detect desynchronization.","Ordinary moderator-led clarification, which can resolve salient confusion but leaves listener expectations, silence, thresholds, and accumulated meaning changes implicit.","Side-by-side concept mapping, which displays relationships among terms but does not generate pre-turn expectations, encode speaker corrections as reconstructive residuals, or trigger raw fallback.","Translation notes or interpreter commentary, which address linguistic uncertainty but do not govern doctrinal scope, authority, analogy, practical implication, or cross-session model updates.","Transcript coding after a dialogue, which can identify themes and disagreements retrospectively but does not repair listener reconstruction during the exchange.","Consensus statements, which record agreed language but may conceal incompatible meanings and do not retain model-relative disagreement as a continuing signal."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's testable distinction is the complete reciprocal loop: participant-controlled predictive meaning profiles, pre-interpretation expectations, speaker-validated structured residuals, version-compatible reconstruction, hierarchical clarification, bounded updates, independent full-context audits, and immediate decompression. If the intervention only defines vocabulary, summarizes dialogue, or flags disagreement without reconstructing and resynchronizing meaning, it does not instantiate this proposal.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"Each speaker controls the recorded meaning and permitted reuse of that speaker's statements. Community data stewards control restricted or collectively governed material. The facilitator may switch presentation modes but cannot validate theology. Independent reviewers assess reconstruction fidelity only. No model steward, researcher, or participant may declare another person's orthodoxy, identity, or tradition-wide representativeness through the protocol.","authorized_first_step":"After ethics review and explicit consent, run a tabletop exercise using participant-authored, nonrestricted claim cards on one narrowly bounded comparative topic. Keep the workspace read-only outside the exercise, require full-context availability, and use the results only to assess reconstruction and safeguard performance.","excluded_actions":["No automatic judgment of truth, orthodoxy, heresy, sincerity, authenticity, or equivalence between traditions","No claim that an unmandated participant represents an entire tradition, community, denomination, or school","No inference of belief from silence, repeated vocabulary, demographic identity, or model prediction","No compression of personal testimony, sacred or restricted language, allegations of harm, rights-bearing claims, or speaker-designated full-context material","No employment, admissions, ordination, discipline, pastoral, security, or reputational decision based on residuals or reconstruction errors","No use of one tradition's profile as the default model for another","No retention, cross-session reuse, or model training beyond the participant's consent and declared validity window","No optimization of thresholds merely to shorten dialogue or manufacture consensus"],"halt_rollback":"Stop residual processing immediately upon participant withdrawal, restricted-content exposure, material misattribution, mandatory-bypass failure, version mismatch, repeated failed reconstruction, systematic asymmetry across participants, facilitator inability to protect dissent, or distress linked to compression. Return to complete statements and ordinary clarification, quarantine the affected model artifacts under the applicable consent rules, preserve only authorized audit records, document unresolved disagreement without adjudicating it, and require renewed participant and ethics authorization before resumption."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"In blinded full-context review, speakers repeatedly validate interpretations that depend on narrative form, tone, silence, embodied practice, or intra-tradition context omitted by the meaning profiles, while residual-led listeners produce confident but materially incomplete paraphrases—especially for less institutionally powerful participants.","problem_falsifier":"Direct observation shows that recurring technical meanings are not predictable within the scoped dialogue, definitional repetition is not a binding use of dialogue time, or the consequential misunderstandings arise mainly from substantive disagreement and power rather than expectation mismatch. In those conditions, residual representation addresses the wrong problem.","intervention_falsifier":"The tabletop exercise produces any mandatory-bypass miss, fails the predeclared speaker-validated reconstruction tolerance, systematically performs worse for a participant, language, or interpretive position, increases false confidence or coerced agreement, or consumes at least as much total time as ordinary clarification after model authoring, validation, audit, and fallback are included.","risks":["The shared meaning model may freeze a fluid or internally contested religious concept into an apparently authoritative definition.","Listeners may anchor on the predicted profile and overlook meanings the speaker did not know to encode.","Participants with greater institutional power may define the model vocabulary and residual materiality rules.","Residuals can expose sensitive disagreement or make an atypical participant easier to identify.","Compression may privilege propositional meaning over narrative, ritual, affective, embodied, apophatic, or performative communication.","Translation uncertainty may be converted into unjustified numerical confidence.","Frequent clarification triggers may stigmatize one participant as difficult or deviant.","Participants may strategically confirm an expected profile to conserve time despite unresolved reservations.","A version-compatible shared model can still embody a mutually agreed but inaccurate interpretation.","The protocol may create pressure toward commensurability where preserving non-equivalence is the appropriate result." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Recruit six consenting scholars or practitioners for a nonpublic tabletop exercise on one narrowly bounded comparative concept, without treating them as official representatives unless separately mandated. Each participant authors two claim profiles and specifies prohibited compression classes, yielding twelve profiles. Freeze the profiles before testing. Create twelve later contextualized uses: six reuse the profile without material change and six contain participant-authored changes in scope, translation, authority, analogy, plurality, or practical implication. Counterbalance two conditions so each participant encounters ordinary full clarification and expectation-plus-residual reconstruction without evaluating the same item twice. Require listeners to paraphrase each claim, state uncertainty, and identify practical implications; the originating speaker alone scores fidelity and can demand complete restatement. Send a random subset plus every protected or low-confidence item to independent full-context review. Record speaker-identified omissions, false equivalences, false disagreements, clarification time, context expansions, version failures, bypass performance, fallback use, confidence calibration, and participant-reported pressure or asymmetry. Use the exercise only to reject the protocol, revise its scope and safeguards, or justify another consented test.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 predicted descriptive event sequences in completed ritual records to concentrate a researcher's corpus-review attention on historical or local variants. This proposal instead operates during live interreligious meaning exchange: its predicted object is a listener's reconstruction of a speaker-controlled claim, its residual is a reciprocal clarification, and its outcome is faithful mutual intelligibility rather than comparative corpus analysis. It requires no ritual corpus, event-code model, or historical-variant workflow. Proposal 2 predicted consequences of proposed doctrinal language across one institution's commitment hierarchy to support an authorized drafting and adoption process. This proposal neither drafts nor adjudicates an institutional doctrine: authority remains distributed among speakers, updates are speaker-specific, disagreement may be preserved indefinitely, and the causal path synchronizes reciprocal semantic expectations across participants rather than propagating document implications toward an adopting commission. It requires no commitment graph, revision archive, or adoption authority and can be adopted independently as a dialogue protocol.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}