---
slug: summary_substance_incentive_drift
name: Summary-Substance Incentive Drift
one_liner: "One artifact is split across a short high-attention summary surface and a long low-attention substance surface; authored under different incentives and consumed by different audiences, the two surfaces drift apart until they carry divergent truth-conditions."
type: prime
schema_version: 2
status: density_v2_draft
categories: [structural, epistemic, social]
origin_domain: information_design
alternate_origin_domains: [science_communication, consumer_law_and_labeling, contracts_and_disclosure]
aliases: [headline_body_divergence, front_of_pack_drift, two_surface_truth_split, abstract_paper_gap, fine_print_divergence]
related: []
solution_archetypes: []
review_flags:
- "OPERATOR-DERIVED (op-05 generalization) — the proposed GENUS of `summary_substance_divergence` (lift: strip the general form/content framing and add the specific driver — two surfaces of one artifact, authored under DIFFERENT incentives, consumed by DIFFERENT audiences, drifting apart). Discovered in the op-05 remaining-strata sweep 2026-07-03. Tier B candidate (B-rest). NARROW-GENUS / RESTATEMENT RISK: the lift adds specificity (incentive + audience asymmetry) rather than stripping it, so it may read as a sharpening of the input rather than a genuine genus above it. STATUS: HOLD pending owner keep/cut."
- "Created 2026-07-03; STUB ONLY (frontmatter + Core Idea + Notes). SI/SF/similarity are PROPOSER ESTIMATES pending triangulation. Body sections (Structural Signature onward) NOT written."
- "Phase-C action: re-similarity-check vs `summary_substance_divergence`, `form_and_content`, and any principal-agent / disclosure / signalling prime; confirm it is a genuine genus (covers `summary_substance_divergence` AND the named siblings — press-release vs paper, front-of-pack vs ingredient panel, marketing terms vs fine print) and is neither a restatement of the input nor a mere instance of form_and_content; draw a subsumption edge summary_substance_divergence→candidate + sibling edges at incorporation; sync one_liner to a v1 draft per CLAUDE.md before merge."
substrate_independence:
  composite_substrate_independence: 3
  domain_breadth: 3
  structural_abstraction: 3
  transfer_evidence: 3
  reasoning: 'The structure — one artifact with two coupled surfaces (a short high-attention summary and a long low-attention substance), an asymmetry of authoring incentives across the two surfaces, an asymmetry of audience attention across them, and a resulting drift of the surfaces into divergent truth-conditions — is a recognizable relational pattern and it does travel across science communication, labeling, and contracts. But it scores only mid-scale on substrate-independence, and NOT clearly above its input, for a specific reason: unlike the other op-05 lifts in this batch, this genus does not strip content — it ADDS load-bearing content (differential incentives, differential audience attention) to `summary_substance_divergence`. Those additions are socio-economic and human-communication-bound (they presuppose authors with incentives and audiences with attention budgets), which caps domain_breadth and structural_abstraction near 3 and keeps the whole thing partly framed. Transfer is genuine but confined to human information artifacts, hence composite 3.'
similarity_to_nearest_existing_prime:
  slug: summary_substance_divergence
  similarity: 0.82
structural_framed:
  label: framed
  aggregate: 0.58
  criteria: {vocab_travels: 0.5, evaluative_weight: 0.4, institutional_origin: 0.4, human_practice_bound: 0.8, import_vs_recognize: 0.6}
  rationale: 'The pattern is bound to the human practice of authoring and consuming information artifacts: its two-surface anatomy presupposes authors with incentives and audiences with attention, and its "drift into divergent truth-conditions" carries an evaluative/normative edge (the divergence is a defect, often a manipulation). Its vocabulary travels only moderately — "summary vs substance surface" is fairly specific to documents/labels/contracts — and it originates near disclosure and communication practice. On balance it reads more framed than structural (aggregate ~0.58), which is itself a signal that this "lift" did not fully de-frame its input.'
phase_b_passes_completed: []
---
# Summary-Substance Incentive Drift

## Core Idea

The genus is a two-surface artifact structure: (1) a single artifact published through *two coupled surfaces* — a *summary surface* that is short, high-attention, and built for reach (headline, abstract, label front, title, term-sheet) and a *substance surface* that is long, low-attention, and carries the evidence and qualifications (body, paper, ingredient panel, full opinion, contract); (2) an *incentive asymmetry* — the two surfaces are authored under different pressures (the summary rewarded for attention and appeal, the substance governed by accuracy or liability); and (3) an *attention asymmetry* — the two surfaces are consumed by largely different audiences, most of whom read only the summary. Under those asymmetries the surfaces *drift apart* until they carry divergent truth-conditions: what the summary asserts and what the substance supports cease to match. The move made from the input `summary_substance_divergence` is unusual for operator 05: rather than *stripping* a constraint, it *specifies the driver* — naming the differential-incentive and differential-audience asymmetries as the engine of the divergence (this is flagged below as a restatement/narrowing risk).

The load-bearing anatomy is the *drift dynamic powered by the two asymmetries*. Because the summary is where attention concentrates and where the incentive to attract is strongest, and the substance is where accuracy is enforced but few people look, the cheapest path is to let the summary migrate toward whatever wins attention while the substance stays technically defensible. The characteristic payoff (to the author) is reach without formal falsehood — the summary can be aggressive because the qualifying substance still exists, somewhere unread. The characteristic cost/failure (to the reader and the system) is a *bifurcated truth*: the population effectively believes the summary while the record technically says the substance, so the artifact is simultaneously "accurate" (by the substance) and misleading (by the surface everyone reads), a divergence that is hard to police precisely because no single surface is false.

Read across domains, the input is one species among structurally-unlike others. In *science communication*, the press release drifts from the paper it announces: the release overstates effect size or certainty while the paper's methods and caveats stay intact but unread. In *consumer labeling*, front-of-pack claims ("high in fibre," "natural") drift from the ingredient and nutrition panel: the front is optimized for the shopper's glance, the panel for the regulator's audit. In *contracts*, marketing terms and the headline offer drift from the fine-print clauses: the pitch is authored to close, the clauses to protect the drafter, and few counterparties read past the summary. Press-release, food label, and contract are structurally-unlike settings, yet each runs the same skeleton: one artifact, two surfaces, opposite incentives, unequal attention, and a drift into two truth-conditions.

## Notes

**Provenance.** Produced by **operator 05 (generalization / lift)** from the input prime `summary_substance_divergence`. Note the atypical lift direction: instead of stripping a constraint to reach a broader genus, this candidate *adds* the differential-incentive and differential-audience asymmetries as the named driver. Surfaced in the **op-05 remaining-strata sweep on 2026-07-03**; manifest **tier B (B-rest)**. Claimed siblings: press-release vs. underlying paper drift; front-of-pack claims vs. ingredient panel; contract marketing terms vs. fine-print clauses.

**For owner evaluation (keep/cut).** The honest case FOR: the two-surface artifact with opposite authoring incentives and unequal audience attention is a real, recurring, teachable pattern, and the three siblings (paper/release, label, contract) are genuinely distinct human-communication settings, so if this is admitted it does carry transfer. Naming the *incentive + attention asymmetry* as the engine is a genuine analytic contribution over a bare form/content split. Now the RISKS, stated plainly because this is the weakest candidate in the batch on the operator's own terms: (1) **This is not really a lift — it is a narrowing.** Similarity to the input is high (~0.82) and the candidate *adds* content rather than stripping it, so it may be a *sharper restatement* of `summary_substance_divergence` rather than a genus sitting above it. If Kurt reads it that way, the right move is to **fold this specificity into the existing input prime** (as its mechanism), not to admit a new prime. (2) **Framed, not structural (~0.58).** The pattern is bound to human authoring-and-attention practice and carries an evaluative "this is a defect/manipulation" charge, so it sits toward the framed end and must clear the framed-inclusion bar. (3) **form_and_content instance risk** — verify it is not simply an instance of a `form_and_content` prime plus a principal-agent/incentive story bolted on. The sharp keep/cut question: *is "two surfaces of one artifact drifting under opposite incentives and unequal attention" a genus ABOVE `summary_substance_divergence`, or is it that same prime with its mechanism spelled out? If the latter, cut and merge the mechanism into the input rather than creating a near-duplicate.*

**At incorporation.** Because similarity to the input is high, the first action is a deliberate **merge-vs-keep adjudication** against `summary_substance_divergence` — this is the candidate most likely in the batch to resolve as "fold into input." Re-run similarity also against `form_and_content` and any principal-agent / disclosure / signalling prime to rule out instance/alias status. If kept as a distinct genus, draw a subsumption edge `summary_substance_divergence → summary_substance_incentive_drift` and sibling edges to whichever release/label/contract instances are drafted; if cut, record the incentive+attention asymmetry as a mechanism note on the input. Either way, write a v1 draft and sync the one_liner across v1 and v2 per CLAUDE.md before merge.
