Skip to content

docs(taxonomy): #498 AIF chantier PR-4 — Vague definition cluster (proposition, gated) #705

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
jsboige merged 1 commit into from
Jul 5, 2026
Merged

docs(taxonomy): #498 AIF chantier PR-4 — Vague definition cluster (proposition, gated) #705

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
215 changes: 215 additions & 0 deletions docs/taxonomy/498-aif-vague-definition-cluster.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
# 2026-07-05 — #498 AIF chantier, PR-4 : cluster « Vague definition » (Inexact definition, nouvelle subfamily)

**Scope**: fourth cluster of the #498 chantier — first cluster of a **new subfamily**
(**Inexact definition**, Misleading language family). Models the **Vague definition** sub-sub
(pk 800 anchor + 801/802/803 leaves). **Proposition only — GATED, 0 write to prod CSV.** Triggered
by ai-01 dispatch `mkzt2v` (secondary: « prochaine subfamily de Misleading language »).

**Repo reference**: master `70bd1605`. Issue: #498. Predecessors: PR-1 #699 (False analogy),
PR-2 #701 (Faulty comparison), PR-3 #703 (Association fallacy) — Fallacious comparison subfamily
complete.

> **⚠ STATUS = PROPOSITION ONLY.** No prod CSV write, no DB write, no OWL regen. jsboige ratifies →
> worker applies the CSV edits in a follow-up PR (gated).

---

## TL;DR

The **Vague definition** sub-sub has an **in-sub-sub mapped anchor** — pk 800 (d3 "Acception vague",
MAPPED `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, directRef-only, `skos:closeMatch`) — and **3 unmapped
leaves** (pk 801, 802, 803). This is the **same cluster shape as PR-1** (in-sub-sub anchor + leaves,
exception pattern), but with a **new anchor scheme**: `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` (AIF
native, confirmed in existing usage), the scheme for vague/imprecise verbal classification.

All 3 leaves are **vagueness-flavored** — imprecise, obscure, undefined, or contested terms used to
keep the argument slippery. They honestly reuse the anchor's scheme and specialize along the
*vagueness mechanism*: over-complex (801), absent (802), intrinsically disputed (803).

**3 leaves proposed, all fully-modeled reusing `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, 0 FAIL-LOUD.**
This PR opens the **Inexact definition** subfamily (next sub-subs: Arbitrary definition PR-5,
Inconsistent definition PR-6).

---

## 1. Cluster state (code=truth)

From `Cards/Fallacies/Argumentum Fallacies - Taxonomy.csv`, family **Misleading language**, subfamily
**Inexact definition**, sub-sub **Vague definition**:

| pk | text_fr | depth | DirectRef | ExceptionRef | MappingType | State |
|----|---------|-------|-----------|--------------|-------------|-------|
| **800** | **Acception vague** (d3 anchor) | d3 | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | — | `skos:closeMatch` | **✅ MAPPED (PR-4 anchor)** |
| 801 | Défaut d'élucidation | d4 | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-4**) |
| 802 | Indéfinissabilité | d4 | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-4**) |
| 803 | Concept essentiellement contesté | d4 | — | — | — | unmapped (**PR-4**) |

The mapped anchor (800) is the **template**: a vague definition = a `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`
(a verbal classification left deliberately imprecise). Note 800 uses the **direct-conflict pattern**
(the scheme is in DirectRef, not ExceptionRef — the fallacy *is* the vague classification itself,
there is no "legitimate scheme defeated" framing). The 3 leaves follow the same direct-conflict
shape, varying the `MappingType` by how tightly they specialize the anchor.

---

## 2. The anchor model (800, the template)

**Scheme**: `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` (AIF native, confirmed 2x in existing usage) — a
verbal classification (grouping/labeling items via a term) where the term is left vague/imprecise,
allowing the arguer to shift its extension mid-discussion.

**desc_fr** (800): "Vous utilisez des termes imprécis pour rester évasif et pouvoir modifier votre
argumentation en cours de route."

**Pattern**: direct-conflict — the scheme itself names the defect (the classification *is* vague).
This differs from PR-1's anchor 839 (exception pattern: a legitimate `Analogy_Inference` defeated by
a CQ). Here there is no "defeated legitimate scheme"; the vagueness is the whole point.

---

## 3. Proposed AIF structure for the leaves

For each leaf: reuse the anchor's scheme `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, vary the
`MappingType` by the leaf's specialization. Vocabulary restricted to AIF-native tokens.

### pk 801 — Défaut d'élucidation (Failure to elucidate) ✅
- **desc_fr**: "Vous employez des définitions trop complexes qui obscurcissent plutôt qu'elles
n'éclairent vos propos."
- **Mechanism**: vagueness by **obscurantism** — the term is technically defined but the definition
is so complex it fails to elucidate. A specialized variant of 800 (imprecision via over-complexity
rather than plain underspecification).
- **Proposal**: `DirectRef=VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, `ExceptionRef=` *(direct-conflict
pattern, mirroring 800)*, `MappingType=skos:narrowMatch` (a narrower case: vague *via complexity*,
not plain vagueness).

### pk 802 — Indéfinissabilité (Undefinability) ✅
- **desc_fr**: "Votre argument repose sur un concept crucial qui n'est pas clairement défini."
- **Mechanism**: vagueness by **absence** — the crucial concept is simply undefined. A broader
variant of 800 (the vagueness is total — no definition at all — rather than a slippery imprecise
one).
- **Proposal**: `DirectRef=VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, `ExceptionRef=`,
`MappingType=skos:broadMatch` (a broader case: any undefined concept, not just deliberately
slippery terms).

### pk 803 — Concept essentiellement contesté (Essentially contested concept) ✅
- **desc_fr**: "Vous utilisez un terme ou un concept qui admet plusieurs interprétations et dont le
sens est intrinsèquement disputé, ce qui entraîne des malentendus ou des débats sans fin."
- **⚠ Semantic note**: this is the philosophically deepest of the three — the contestability is
*intrinsic* (Gallie's essentially-contested concepts), not a defect of the speaker. Structurally
though, the AIF mechanism is the same: a verbal classification whose extension is not fixed.
- **Mechanism**: vagueness by **intrinsic polysemy** — the concept's meaning is genuinely disputed,
so any classification using it is vague-by-nature. A direct variant of 800.
- **Proposal**: `DirectRef=VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`, `ExceptionRef=`,
`MappingType=skos:closeMatch` (a direct variant: vague because intrinsically contested, the
canonical essentially-contested-concept case).

---

## 4. Cluster summary (proposed)

| pk | text_fr | Proposed ExceptionRef | Proposed DirectRef | MappingType | Honest? |
|----|---------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------|---------|
| 800 | Acception vague | *(absent — direct-conflict)* | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | `skos:closeMatch` | ✅ (existing anchor) |
| 801 | Défaut d'élucidation | *(absent)* | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | `skos:narrowMatch` | ✅ |
| 802 | Indéfinissabilité | *(absent)* | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | `skos:broadMatch` | ✅ |
| 803 | Concept essentiellement contesté | *(absent)* | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | `skos:closeMatch` | ✅ |

**3 leaves proposed, 3 fully-modeled, 0 FAIL-LOUD.** All reuse the anchor's
`VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` (direct-conflict pattern). The only variation is the
`MappingType`, encoding the vagueness mechanism: 801 narrow (complexity), 802 broad (total absence),
803 close (intrinsic contestability).

---

## 5. Method notes (additions for the chantier)

- **Direct-conflict cluster (all-leaves)**: when the anchor itself uses the direct-conflict pattern
(scheme in DirectRef, no ExceptionRef) and every leaf shares that scheme, the cluster is uniform —
all leaves take DirectRef-only and vary only the MappingType. This is structurally simpler than
PR-1 (exception pattern, varied schemes) or PR-2 (mixed, FAIL-LOUD). A useful "clean baseline"
shape for the chantier.
- **Vagueness-mechanism taxonomy**: within a single scheme, leaves can specialize along *how* the
vagueness arises (complexity / absence / contestability). The MappingType encodes this:
`narrowMatch` = a specific mechanism, `broadMatch` = a broader phenomenon, `closeMatch` = a direct
sibling case. This gives the eventual consumer (the EPITA harness) a graded notion of vagueness,
not a binary one.
- **Intrinsic-contestability is structural, not defective**: pk 803's contestability is a property
of the concept, not a rhetorical move by the speaker — yet the AIF mechanism (vague verbal
classification) still applies because any classification using such a concept is vague. Modeling
it as a `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` (rather than inventing an "intrinsically-contested"
Conflict node) is the honest reuse; the philosophical depth is captured in the desc, not the
token.

---

## 6. DoD status

| DoD item (#498) | Status |
|-----------------|--------|
| Effective cluster-level coverage documented (not "100% leaves") | ✅ §4 (78→81 fully-modeled / 81→84 DirectRef-loose; new subfamily opened) |
| Per unmapped leaf: legitimate scheme + exception/CQ (not Latin alone) | ✅ §3 (3 leaves, scheme + mechanism each, 0 FAIL-LOUD) |
| `AIF_skosMappingType` coherent | ✅ §4 (narrow/broad/close encode the vagueness mechanism) |
| Fail-loud when no honest scheme fits | N/A this cluster (all leaves reuse the anchor's native scheme) |
| OWL regen reflects new structures | ⏳ Deferred — jsboige ratifies, then CSV edits, then OWL regen (#133) — not in this PR |

---

## 7. Mapping to jsboige's enriched DoD (I-node / RA-node / CA-node decomposition)

### pk 801 — Défaut d'élucidation → **undercut**
- **RA-node**: `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` — classifying via a term.
- **I-nodes**: premise P "term T is defined (by a complex definition)"; conclusion C "items labeled
T are classified".
- **CA-node**: the inference (that the complex definition licenses classification) is **undercut** —
the definition is so complex it fails to fix T's extension; the classification is effectively
vague. The conclusion C may hold; the *inference* is defective.

### pk 802 — Indéfinissabilité → **undercut**
- **RA-node**: `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`.
- **I-nodes**: premise P "T is a meaningful concept (used in the argument)"; conclusion C "items can
be classified via T".
- **CA-node**: **undercut** — T is undefined, so the classification has no fixed extension. Again
the inference, not the conclusion, is defective (T *might* still pick out a real category; we
just cannot tell).

### pk 803 — Concept essentiellement contesté → **undercut**
- **RA-node**: `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference`.
- **I-nodes**: premise P "T has a single determinate meaning"; conclusion C "items classified via T
are grouped unambiguously".
- **CA-node**: **undercut** — P is false (T is intrinsically polysemous), so the classification has
no single extension. The inference (that T licenses unambiguous grouping) is defective.

### Cluster attack-type distribution
| pk | RA-node | CA-node | Attack type |
|----|---------|---------|-------------|
| 801 | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | *(scheme as direct conflict)* | undercut |
| 802 | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | *(scheme as direct conflict)* | undercut |
| 803 | `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` | *(scheme as direct conflict)* | undercut |

**All 3 leaves are undercuts.** Note on the direct-conflict pattern: here the "CA-node" *is* the
RA-node scheme itself (the vague classification is both the inference and its own defect) — a
degenerate case of undercut where the attack and the inference coincide. This is consistent with the
direct-conflict anchor pattern (§2) and is the honest representation: vagueness fallacies do not
defeat a separate legitimate scheme, they *are* a defective scheme.

### Representation note
As in PR-1/PR-2/PR-3, the I-node/RA-node/CA-node decomposition is **recorded here but not
serialized** — it would require new CSV columns (`AIF_attackType`, `AIF_attackedNode`) and is the
terminal target of jsboige's comment. Four PRs now demonstrate the decomposition across all cluster
shapes and both patterns (exception + direct-conflict).

---

## Gate boundaries (HARD — proposition only)

- ❌ No prod CSV write, no DB write, no OWL regen, no `aif:` assertion emitted.
- ❌ No #674/#596/#666 merge, no régén launch.
- ✅ Proposition derived code=truth from the taxonomy CSV + AIF vocabulary confirmed by existing
usage (the only token proposed — `VagueVerbalClassification_Inference` — is reused from the anchor,
no fabrication).
- ✅ Direct-conflict pattern documented; vagueness-mechanism encoded in MappingType, not in
fabricated tokens.

Relates: dispatch `mkzt2v` (secondary), #498 (chantier), PR-1 #699 (False analogy), PR-2 #701
(Faulty comparison), PR-3 #703 (Association fallacy), #133/#130 (existing OWL), #499 (inverse),
#192 (terminology), #458.
Loading