diff --git a/docs/taxonomy/498-aif-fallacious-comparison-cluster.md b/docs/taxonomy/498-aif-fallacious-comparison-cluster.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7d870d44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/taxonomy/498-aif-fallacious-comparison-cluster.md
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+# 2026-07-05 — #498 AIF chantier, PR-1 : cluster « Fallacious comparison » (Misleading language)
+
+**Scope**: first cluster of the #498 chantier — model the **Fallacious comparison** subtree (Misleading
+language family) as **defeasible exceptions to legitimate argument schemes**, in the Walton/AIF
+paradigm. **Proposition only — GATED, 0 write to prod CSV.** Triggered by ai-01 dispatch `yj7u3j`
+(primary). This is a multi-session chantier; this PR advances one coherent cluster.
+
+**Repo reference**: master `dc02e847`. Issue: #498 (reformulated, GO jsboige 2026-06-17 verified).
+Linked: #133/#130 (existing OWL ontology, regenerated to reflect new structures — not created).
+
+> **⚠ STATUS = PROPOSITION ONLY.** No prod CSV write, no DB write, no OWL regen. This doc proposes
+> the AIF structure (scheme + exception/CQ) for the cluster's unmapped leaves, derived code=truth
+> from the CSV. jsboige ratifies → worker applies the CSV edits in a follow-up PR (gated).
+
+---
+
+## TL;DR
+
+The **Fallacious comparison** subfamily (`Subfamily=Fallacious comparison`, Misleading language
+family) has **2 mapped nodes** — pk 833 (d2 subfamily root "Comparaison fallacieuse",
+`BiasedClassification_Conflict` + `ExceptionSimilarityCase_Conflict` directRefs, `skos:broadMatch`)
+and pk 839 (d3 "Fausse analogie", `Analogy_Inference` defeated by
+`DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`, `skos:closeMatch`) —
+across 3 sub-sub clusters: **Faulty comparison** (834-838), **False analogy** (839-843), and
+**Association fallacy** (844-845). **This PR scopes to the False analogy sub-sub**: anchor pk 839 +
+**4 unmapped leaves** (pk 840, 841, 842, 843). The anchor establishes the cluster's pattern —
+**exception to `Analogy_Inference` via the `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` critical
+question** — and the 4 leaves are specialized variants of the same defeasible structure. This PR
+proposes the AIF exception-modeling for the 4 leaves, reusing the anchor's scheme, and **failing
+loud** where a leaf does not honestly fit the Analogy_Inference scheme (documenting it as such
+rather than fabricating).
+
+> **⚠ Cluster-boundary correction (code=truth re-verification).** An earlier draft of this
+> proposition incorrectly placed pk 838 ("Distinction sans différence") in the False analogy
+> sub-sub and labeled pk 834 as the subfamily root. Re-verification against the CSV `Soussousfamille`
+> column shows: (a) the true subfamily root is **pk 833** (d2, MAPPED — missing from the earlier
+> draft); (b) **pk 838 belongs to Faulty comparison**, not False analogy. The False analogy sub-sub
+> is strictly pk 839-843 (anchor + 4 leaves). pk 838 (and its honest scheme-divergence modeling) is
+> deferred to **PR-2** (Faulty comparison cluster). This correction strengthens PR-1's methodology:
+> all 4 False-analogy leaves now honestly reuse `Analogy_Inference`, with no scheme-divergence
+> needed in this cluster.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Cluster state (code=truth)
+
+From `Cards/Fallacies/Argumentum Fallacies - Taxonomy.csv`, family **Misleading language**, subfamily
+**Fallacious comparison**:
+
+| pk | text_fr | Subsubfamily | DirectRef | ExceptionRef | MappingType | State |
+|----|---------|--------------|-----------|--------------|-------------|-------|
+| **833** | **Comparaison fallacieuse** (d2) | *(root)* | `BiasedClassification_Conflict`, `ExceptionSimilarityCase_Conflict` | — | `skos:broadMatch` | **✅ MAPPED (subfamily root)** |
+| 834 | Comparaison abusive (d3) | Faulty comparison | — | — | — | unmapped (d3 anchor → PR-2) |
+| 835 | Comparaison incomplète | Faulty comparison | — | — | — | unmapped (→ PR-2) |
+| 836 | Classification non exclusive | Faulty comparison | — | — | — | unmapped (→ PR-2) |
+| 837 | Comparaison incohérente | Faulty comparison | — | — | — | unmapped (→ PR-2) |
+| 838 | Distinction sans différence | Faulty comparison | — | — | — | unmapped (→ PR-2) |
+| **839** | **Fausse analogie** (d3) | False analogy | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | `Analogy_Inference` | `skos:closeMatch` | **✅ MAPPED (PR-1 anchor)** |
+| 840 | Pétition de principe analogique | False analogy | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-1**) |
+| 841 | Analogie étendue | False analogy | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-1**) |
+| 842 | Argument de la similarité fallacieuse | False analogy | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-1**) |
+| 843 | Fausse équivalence | False analogy | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-1**) |
+| 844 | Sophisme d'association (d3) | Association fallacy | — | — | — | unmapped (d3 anchor → PR-3) |
+| 845 | Amalgame | Association fallacy | — | — | — | unmapped (→ PR-3) |
+
+The mapped anchor (839) is the **template**: a fallacious comparison = an `Analogy_Inference` scheme
+**defeated** because the critical question "do the differences between the compared items undermine
+the similarity?" (`DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`) is violated. The 4 leaves are
+specialized ways that analogy goes wrong.
+
+**This PR scopes to the `False analogy` sub-subfamily (pk 839-843)** — anchor 839 + 4 leaves — the
+tightest coherent cluster with an in-sub-sub mapped anchor. The `Faulty comparison` sub-subfamily
+(834-838, no in-sub-sub anchor → anchored by the d2 root 833) is **PR-2**; `Association fallacy`
+(844-845) is **PR-3**.
+
+---
+
+## 2. The parent model (839, the template)
+
+**Legitimate scheme**: `Analogy_Inference` (AIF native) — "A is like B in property P; B has property
+Q; therefore A has property Q." (Walton's argument from analogy.)
+
+**Critical question violated** (the defeaser): `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` — "Are there
+relevant differences between A and B that undermine the transfer of Q?" The fallacy ignores these.
+
+**Mapping type**: `skos:closeMatch` — "Fausse analogie" is the informal-logic name for the violated-CQ
+case of `Analogy_Inference`.
+
+This is **exactly the paradigm #498 asks for**: a fallacy = a defeasible exception to a legitimate
+scheme, named by the violated critical question, not by a Latin label alone.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Proposed AIF structure for the unmapped leaves
+
+For each leaf, the proposal: **(a) legitimate scheme targeted, (b) exception/CQ that defeats it,
+(c) `AIF_skosMappingType`**. Reuse the parent's scheme where the leaf is a specialized analogy-failure;
+**fail loud** where a leaf targets a different scheme honestly.
+
+### pk 840 — Pétition de principe analogique (Analogical begging the question)
+- **desc_fr**: "Vous utilisez une analogie qui suppose déjà la conclusion que vous cherchez à
+  démontrer, en assimilant de manière discutable deux situations."
+- **Legitimate scheme**: `Analogy_Inference`
+- **Exception/CQ**: the analogy **begs the question** — the disputed conclusion (A and B are
+  assimilable) is smuggled into the analogy's premise. This is **not** the same CQ as 839
+  (differences undermining similarity) — it's a circularity defeater. The closest AIF native conflict
+  node is a **question-begging / circularity** CQ.
+- **Proposal**: `ExceptionRef=Analogy_Inference`, `DirectRef=` *(no clean AIF native circularity
+  Conflict node exists for analogy)* → **FAIL LOUD**: document that no AIF native CQ cleanly
+  captures "the analogy presupposes its conclusion"; propose `AIF_skosOther="Circularity:
+  analogy presupposes the disputed assimilation (no native AIF Conflict node)"`,
+  `MappingType=skos:closeMatch`. Do **not** fabricate a `*_Conflict` token.
+
+### pk 841 — Analogie étendue (Extended/Transitive analogy)
+- **desc_fr**: "À partir d'une chose qui ressemble à une deuxième et partage une propriété avec une
+  troisième, vous concluez que la deuxième et la troisième se ressemblent."
+- **Legitimate scheme**: `Analogy_Inference` (transitive chain: A~B, A~C ⟹ B~C)
+- **Exception/CQ**: transitivity of similarity is not guaranteed — similarity is not transitive.
+  This **is** a clean AIF conflict: the differences between B and C undermine the inferred similarity.
+- **Proposal**: `ExceptionRef=Analogy_Inference`, `DirectRef=DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`
+  (same CQ as 839, applied to the B-C link rather than A-B), `MappingType=skos:narrowMatch` (a
+  narrower, transitive-chain variant of 839).
+
+### pk 842 — Argument de la similarité fallacieuse (Fallacious similarity)
+- **desc_fr**: "Vous considérez que deux choses qui se ressemblent sont liées ou similaires."
+- **Legitimate scheme**: `Analogy_Inference` (or more loosely `Sign_Inference` — resemblance as a
+  sign of relatedness)
+- **Exception/CQ**: superficial resemblance does not establish a real link/causal relation. The CQ:
+  "is the resemblance merely superficial, without an underlying connection?" Closest AIF:
+  `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` (the resemblance is too thin to transfer any property).
+- **Proposal**: `ExceptionRef=Analogy_Inference`, `DirectRef=DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`,
+  `MappingType=skos:broadMatch` (the fallacy is broader — covers mere-resemblance-without-property-
+  transfer, a looser case than 839's property-transfer analogy).
+
+### pk 843 — Fausse équivalence (False equivalence)
+- **desc_fr**: "Vous faites un parallèle impropre entre deux arguments distincts."
+- **Legitimate scheme**: `Analogy_Inference` (two arguments treated as equivalent)
+- **Exception/CQ**: the two arguments differ in a **relevant** respect (strength, structure,
+  evidence) that defeats their equivalence. This is again `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`,
+  but applied to **arguments** rather than objects — a well-known specialized case.
+- **Proposal**: `ExceptionRef=Analogy_Inference`, `DirectRef=DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`,
+  `MappingType=skos:closeMatch` (a direct, argument-level variant of 839).
+
+> **Note on pk 838** ("Distinction sans différence"): this leaf sits in the **Faulty comparison**
+> sub-sub (`Soussousfamille=Faulty comparison`), **not** False analogy — see §1 boundary correction.
+> It is the mirror fallacy (claiming a distinction where none exists) and honestly targets a
+> **classification** scheme (`ArbitraryVerbalClassification_Inference` +
+> `PropertyNotExistant_Conflict`) rather than `Analogy_Inference`. Its full modeling is deferred to
+> **PR-2** (Faulty comparison cluster), to keep this PR scoped to a single coherent sub-sub.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Cluster summary (proposed)
+
+| pk | text_fr | Proposed ExceptionRef | Proposed DirectRef | MappingType | Honest? |
+|----|---------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------|---------|
+| 839 | Fausse analogie | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | `skos:closeMatch` | ✅ (existing anchor) |
+| 840 | Pétition de principe analogique | `Analogy_Inference` | *(Other: circularity — no native CQ)* | `skos:closeMatch` | ⚠ FAIL LOUD (no native node) |
+| 841 | Analogie étendue | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | `skos:narrowMatch` | ✅ |
+| 842 | Argument de la similarité fallacieuse | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | `skos:broadMatch` | ✅ |
+| 843 | Fausse équivalence | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | `skos:closeMatch` | ✅ |
+
+**4 leaves proposed (840-843), 1 FAIL-LOUD (840)** — documents that AIF has no native circularity-CQ
+for analogy rather than fabricating one. All 4 leaves honestly reuse the anchor's
+`Analogy_Inference` scheme; the only variation is the violated-CQ specialization (840) and the
+`MappingType` granularity. The honest scheme-divergence case (pk 838, classification fallacy)
+moves to **PR-2** (Faulty comparison cluster), keeping this PR a single coherent sub-sub.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Method notes (for the chantier's后续 PRs)
+
+- **Cluster = a sub-sub-family with an in-sub-sub mapped anchor + its unmapped sibling leaves.**
+  This PR's cluster (False analogy, anchor 839 + 4 leaves) is the unit of work per PR. Where a
+  sub-sub has no in-sub-sub anchor (e.g. Faulty comparison 834-838), it is anchored by the parent
+  d2/d3 node — that is PR-2's shape.
+- **Reuse the anchor's scheme + CQ** where the leaf is a specialized violation of the same scheme;
+  vary only the `MappingType` (`narrowMatch` = more specific, `broadMatch` = looser, `closeMatch` =
+  direct variant).
+- **Fail loud** when no native AIF Conflict node captures the leaf's defeater (840) — use
+  `AIF_skosOther` to document, never fabricate a `*_Conflict` token.
+- **Honest scheme-divergence** — when a leaf sits in a subfamily but actually targets a different
+  scheme (pk 838: a comparison-subfamily leaf that is genuinely a *classification* fallacy), say so
+  and use the right scheme; don't force the anchor's scheme. (838 lives in the Faulty comparison
+  sub-sub → its modeling is in PR-2, not here.)
+- **Coverage accounting** (#498 DoD): this PR adds **4 mapped leaves** to the 70 existing → 74/1408.
+  At cluster-level, the False-analogy sub-sub goes from 1/5 mapped to 5/5. Effective cluster
+  coverage of the comparison subfamily improves; leaf-level "100%" is explicitly **not** the goal.
+
+---
+
+## 6. DoD status
+
+| DoD item (#498) | Status |
+|-----------------|--------|
+| Effective ~31% cluster-level coverage documented (not "100% leaves") | ✅ §5 (70→74 mapped, cluster-level) |
+| Per unmapped leaf: legitimate scheme + exception/CQ (not Latin alone) | ✅ §3 (4 leaves, scheme + CQ each) |
+| `AIF_skosMappingType` coherent (broadMatch when narrower) | ✅ §4 (varied per leaf) |
+| Fail-loud when no honest scheme fits | ✅ §3 pk 840 (no native circularity CQ — documented, not fabricated) |
+| OWL regen reflects new structures | ⏳ Deferred — jsboige ratifies this proposition first, then CSV edits applied, then OWL regen (#133) — not in this PR |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Mapping to jsboige's enriched DoD (I-node / RA-node / CA-node decomposition)
+
+The last jsboige comment on #498 enriches the DoD: modeling a fallacy "AIF-style" decomposes the
+argument into **I-nodes** (premises + conclusion), an **RA-node** (the inference principle = the
+Walton scheme, a first-class attackable object), and a **CA-node** (the Conflict Application, typed
+by attack: **undermine** a premise / **undercut** the RA-node / **rebut** the conclusion). This
+section maps the 4 leaves of this cluster to that decomposition. (PR-2 #701 carries the parallel
+section for the Faulty comparison cluster.)
+
+### pk 841 — Analogie étendue → **undercut**
+- **RA-node**: `Analogy_Inference` applied transitively (A~B, A~C ⟹ B~C).
+- **I-nodes**: premise P1 "A~B" (similarity); premise P2 "A~C" (similarity); conclusion C "B~C".
+- **CA-node**: `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`, applied as an **undercut** on the RA-node
+  — the inference (transitivity of similarity) is defective because similarity is not transitive.
+  The conclusion C may still hold; it is the *inference* that is defective. Classic undercut.
+- **CQ that fails**: "is similarity transitive?" — no.
+
+### pk 842 — Argument de la similarité fallacieuse → **undercut**
+- **RA-node**: `Analogy_Inference` (resemblance ⟹ relatedness/causal link).
+- **I-nodes**: premise P "A resembles B"; conclusion C "A and B are linked/related".
+- **CA-node**: `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`, applied as an **undercut** — the
+  resemblance is too superficial to license the inferred link. Again the inference, not the
+  conclusion, is the target.
+- **CQ that fails**: "is the resemblance more than superficial?" — no.
+
+### pk 843 — Fausse équivalence → **undermine**
+- **RA-node**: `Analogy_Inference` (two arguments treated as equivalent).
+- **I-nodes**: premise P "argument X ≡ argument Y (in strength/structure/evidence)"; conclusion C
+  "what holds for X holds for Y".
+- **CA-node**: `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict`, applied as an **undermine** on P — the
+  premise "X ≡ Y" is false because X and Y differ in a *relevant* respect. Unlike 841/842, the
+  attack lands on a *premise* (I-node), not the inference itself.
+- **CQ that fails**: "do X and Y differ in a relevant respect?" — yes.
+
+### pk 840 — Pétition de principe analogique → FAIL-LOUD at the **CA-node level**
+- **RA-node**: `Analogy_Inference` (exists — the analogy is the inference).
+- **CA-node**: ⚠ **absent (FAIL-LOUD)** — circularity in analogy would be an **undercut** (the
+  analogy presupposes the disputed assimilation it is meant to establish), but **no native AIF
+  Conflict node captures circularity/question-begging** for analogy. The CA-node cannot be typed
+  without a native conflict token; fabricating one is forbidden (FAIL LOUD, §3 pk 840).
+- This is a different FAIL-LOUD shape from PR-2's pure-comparison leaves (834/835/837): there the
+  **RA-node** was missing (no native comparison scheme); here the **RA-node exists** but the
+  **CA-node** is missing. Both are honest gaps, at different layers of the decomposition.
+
+### Cluster attack-type distribution
+| pk | RA-node | CA-node | Attack type |
+|----|---------|---------|-------------|
+| 840 | `Analogy_Inference` | *(absent — FAIL LOUD)* | would be undercut (circularity) — untyped |
+| 841 | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | undercut |
+| 842 | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | undercut |
+| 843 | `Analogy_Inference` | `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` | undermine |
+
+**3 of 4 leaves are undercuts** (the inference is defective, the conclusion may stand) — consistent
+with jsboige's note that "most fallacies live in the undercut." 843 is the lone undermine (the
+premise is false). 840 is the lone FAIL-LOUD (CA missing, not RA).
+
+### Representation note
+As in PR-2, the I-node/RA-node/CA-node decomposition is **recorded here but not serialized** in the
+CSV — it would require new columns (`AIF_attackType`, `AIF_attackedNode`) and is the terminal target
+of jsboige's comment. Recording it in the proposition lets jsboige ratify the attack-typing *before*
+any CSV schema evolution. The two PRs together (PR-1 False analogy + PR-2 Faulty comparison)
+demonstrate the decomposition across both cluster shapes (in-sub-sub anchor + borrowed anchor) and
+both FAIL-LOUD layers (CA-missing vs RA-missing).
+
+---
+
+## Gate boundaries (HARD — proposition only)
+
+- ❌ No prod CSV write, no DB write, no OWL regen, no `aif:` assertion emitted.
+- ❌ No #674/#596 merge, no régén launch.
+- ✅ Proposition derived code=truth from the taxonomy CSV (cluster + AIF columns) + AIF scheme
+  semantics (Walton/`Analogy_Inference` + `DifferencesUndermineSimilarity_Conflict` are AIF native).
+- ✅ Fail-loud on 840 (no fabricated Conflict node); pk 838's honest scheme-divergence deferred to
+  PR-2 (cluster-boundary correction §1 — 838 is in Faulty comparison, not this cluster).
+
+Relates: dispatch `yj7u3j` (primary), #498 (chantier), #133/#130 (existing OWL), #499 (inverse:
+virtue = good tenor of a scheme), #192 (terminology), #458.