From a806d8cf6d94debce13ba6b696ce8bbf24f21e11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jsboige Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:15:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs(taxonomy):=20AIF=20audit=20=E2=80=94=20thi?= =?UTF-8?q?rd=20axis=20(cross-linguistic=20tradition)=20+=20labelling=20co?= =?UTF-8?q?nstraint=20(#498)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Add axis C (cross-linguistic/cross-cultural divergence) to the arbitrariness framing: branches are not always aligned across languages because traditions consecrated different visions; the tree is a French-anchored projection of a family of partially-divergent language-specific trees. - §2 table: two axes -> three; AIF orthogonal to A *and* C but can *diagnose* C (cross-linguistic solvent). - §2.1 internal-node labelling constraint (consecrated-term-with-reference; distorted labels; grouping gated by lexical availability) — straddles A and C. - §2.2 evidential base uneven/decaying (Wikipedia stable vs dictionary->archive.org). - §4 decision rule: third layer (c) cross-linguistic divergence + bridge-node reading (high a / low b / high c = tradition divergence, annotate don't flatten). - §4 specimen: tu quoque/whataboutisme reframed as joint axis-B *and* axis-C seam. - §6: layer (c) needs reference-reachability metadata + label-distortion flag. Docs-only, 0 prod CSV. Conversation record (jsboige + ai-01, 2026-07-22). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) --- docs/taxonomy/aif-structural-audit-method.md | 96 +++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/taxonomy/aif-structural-audit-method.md b/docs/taxonomy/aif-structural-audit-method.md index 548cb9e0..55aa0949 100644 --- a/docs/taxonomy/aif-structural-audit-method.md +++ b/docs/taxonomy/aif-structural-audit-method.md @@ -27,19 +27,59 @@ adjustments get proposed?** The answer is *yes, partly* — and this document frames how to do it **fairly to the tree**, without letting an automated lens flatten five years of deliberate nuance. -## 2. Two axes of arbitrariness (jsboige's framing) +## 2. Three axes of arbitrariness (jsboige's framing) -The taxonomy carries **two distinct kinds of arbitrariness**, and only one is -revisable: +The taxonomy carries **three distinct kinds of arbitrariness**, and only one is +freely revisable: | Axis | What | Status | |------|------|--------| | **A — the groupings** | The tree structure jsboige built: consolidating clusters, moving grappes, integrating large blocks (codex of cognitive biases, the mental-manipulation / psychological-games grappe). Built with, in his own words, *"as much rigour as I could, i.e. relatively little if I'm honest."* One explicit criterion, kept since the card game: **balancing the tree** — necessarily arbitrary, essentially pedagogical. | **Revisable** | | **B — the base material** | The fallacies *themselves* are heterogeneous objects. Some carry Latin names and 2000 years of scholastic history (*petitio principii*); others are decades-old coinages for modern phenomena (*whataboutisme*, ~30 yrs). The tree is simultaneously **a classification of argument structures AND a museum of the history of how humans named their bad arguments.** No protocol makes these commensurable. | **Irreducible** | - -**The AIF attack-type is a lens orthogonal to axis A.** A leaf can be correctly -placed (pedagogically) under a node *and* have a different attack-mechanism than -its siblings. **"Misgrouped under the AIF lens" ≠ "misplaced in the taxonomy."** +| **C — the cross-linguistic tradition** | The taxonomy is authored primarily in **French**, with **English the richest** reference source; the other six languages are unevenly populated. But the divergence runs deeper than coverage: **traditions consecrated different visions across cultures, so the branches are not always aligned** — a grouping natural in one language has no clean counterpart in another. The tree is therefore a **French-anchored *projection* of a family of partially-divergent language-specific trees**, not a culture-neutral structure. | **Partly irreducible** (tradition-bound; but *which projection to privilege* is a real editorial arbitration) | + +**The AIF attack-type is a lens orthogonal to axes A *and* C** — it names a +*pragmatic move*, invariant both to how a node is grouped and to which language +named it. A leaf can be correctly placed (pedagogically) under a node *and* have a +different attack-mechanism than its siblings: **"misgrouped under the AIF lens" ≠ +"misplaced in the taxonomy."** But that same invariance makes AIF a +**cross-linguistic solvent**: two non-aligned consecrated labels (FR vs EN) can be +tested for *"same fallacy?"* by comparing attack-type + scheme — so the lens does +not merely *audit* axis A, it can **diagnose** axis C. + +### 2.1 The internal-node labelling constraint (straddles A and C) + +A self-imposed rule with a hard external teeth: **internal (grouping) nodes must be +labelled with a consecrated term that carries an external reference** — one may not +coin a neologism for a node just to make the tree balance. Leaves are specific +named fallacies; internal nodes must borrow an *existing* term. Two consequences, +both arbitrations jsboige has already had to make: + +- **Distorted labels** — the nearest consecrated term's scope doesn't exactly match + the intended cluster → the term is **stretched or narrowed**, giving the node a + slightly shifted meaning to align the schema. +- **Grouping gated by lexical availability** — where no consecrated term exists for + a natural grouping, either the grouping isn't made, or a term is **borrowed from + the one language/tradition that has it**, importing that tradition's framing. + +This mostly lives on **axis A** (a structural/pedagogical rule), but it is +**genuinely arbitrary** (the term must exist and be referenced) and it **surfaces +axis C**: whether a consecrated label is even *available* is language-dependent, so +the tree's shape is partly dictated by which culture happened to name a given +meta-concept. **Refinement for the audit:** a distorted/compromise-labelled node +that is *mechanism-homogeneous* is **vindicated** (the stretch was sound); one that +is *mechanism-heterogeneous* is a candidate where the labelling constraint may have +**forced a bad merge** — but check axis C first (below) before billing it as a +grouping defect. + +### 2.2 The evidential base is uneven and decaying + +External anchors split by stability: **Wikipedia links are stable; fallacy-dictionary +links are decaying** (several already dead, repointed to archive.org). The +Wikipedia-anchored nodes are the trustworthy skeleton; dictionary-only nodes are at +evidential risk. The audit should therefore carry **reference reachability** as +per-node metadata — a fail-loud leaf whose only anchor is a dead dictionary link is +a *different* diagnosis than one with a live Wikipedia anchor. ## 3. Preliminary read (ai-01 impression — to be replaced by measurement) @@ -69,7 +109,7 @@ audit below: The point of the audit is to **replace impression with a per-node number**, and to be **fair to the tree** by separating tree-tension from material-resistance. -For each parent node, compute two independent layers: +For each parent node, compute three independent layers: - **(a) Attack-type heterogeneity** — distribution of `undercut`/`undermine`/`rebut` across the node's leaves (a homogeneity ratio or Shannon entropy). **High (a) = @@ -78,23 +118,34 @@ For each parent node, compute two independent layers: scheme token** (the material resisted mechanistic modelling). This is an *imperfect proxy* for **material resistance** (axis B intruding). The chantier already records this per leaf (`native token` vs `fail-loud`, e.g. #839). +- **(c) Cross-linguistic divergence** — do the node's leaves' cross-language + reference sets and labels **align**, or does the node's membership/shape shift + with the source language? Plus a flag: is the node's own label a + *distorted/compromise* consecrated term (§2.1)? **High (c) = the heterogeneity may + be a tradition-divergence artifact** (axis C), not a grouping defect. Weakest of + the three proxies today — reference-set overlap + label-distortion flag are the + first-pass signals; refine with human read. **Decision rule:** -| (a) attack-type heterogeneity | (b) fail-loud rate | Reading | Action | -|---|---|---|---| -| high | low | Genuine **tree tension** — the grouping mixes mechanisms and the material is tractable | Arbitrage worth it (jsboige) | -| any | high | **Material resistance** — axis B, the atoms are just refractory here | Leave the pedagogy alone; annotate the seam, don't regroup | -| low | low | Node is mechanism-coherent | No action — evidence the grouping tracks mechanism | +| (a) heterogeneity | (b) fail-loud | (c) ling. divergence | Reading | Action | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| high | low | low | Genuine **tree tension** — grouping mixes mechanisms, material tractable, traditions aligned | Arbitrage worth it (jsboige) | +| high | low | **high** | **Tradition divergence** (axis C) — a cross-cultural **bridge node** whose heterogeneity does legitimate work | Annotate as a bridge; **don't flatten** — the misalignment is the tradition's, not jsboige's | +| any | high | any | **Material resistance** (axis B) — the atoms are refractory here | Leave the pedagogy alone; annotate the seam, don't regroup | +| low | low | any | Node is mechanism-coherent | No action — the grouping tracks mechanism | This makes the audit **only bill jsboige for what is genuinely his** (grouping -choices), never for the irreducible messiness of the source material. +choices), never for the irreducible messiness of the source material (axis B) or +the divergence of traditions the tree must bridge (axis C). -**Live specimen already on the table:** *tu quoque* (ancient, Latin) and -*whataboutisme* (modern) — the **same pragmatic move at two eras** — surfaced as -the `rebut`/CA vs `undermine`/I modelling tension in #845. The ancient/modern seam -(axis B) reads *directly* in a modelling tension, which is exactly why layer (b) is -needed to avoid misreading it as an axis-A defect. +**Live specimen already on the table:** *tu quoque* (ancient, Latin, scholastic) and +*whataboutisme* (modern, anglophone, Cold-War) — the **same pragmatic move at two +eras *and* two traditions** — surfaced as the `rebut`/CA vs `undermine`/I modelling +tension in #845. It is a **joint axis-B *and* axis-C seam**: the ancient/modern +divide (B) and the Latin-scholastic / Cold-War-anglophone divide (C) both read +*directly* in a modelling tension — exactly why layers (b) and (c) are needed to +avoid misreading it as an axis-A grouping defect. ## 5. Governance principle (decision record) @@ -118,9 +169,12 @@ needed to avoid misreading it as an axis-A defect. - **Down-payment ("acompte") available now:** a preliminary homogeneity read on the already-annotated material (145 fully-modeled + the merged clusters) — a first per-family homogeneity rate + the visible heterogeneous nodes — enough for - jsboige to sanity-check the "changes at the margin" impression on data. + jsboige to sanity-check the "changes at the margin" impression on data. Layers (a) + and (b) are computable today; **layer (c)** needs two cheap additions to the + chantier: **reference-reachability metadata** (Wikipedia-stable vs + dictionary/archive.org) and a **label-distortion flag** on internal nodes. - Read-only, staged, feeds the post-tag batch ratification. Companion to #497 (crosslinks), #498 (AIF modelling), #790 (Layer-C pilot design). -**Tracking issue:** the two-layer audit + acompte are tracked as a dedicated +**Tracking issue:** the three-layer audit + acompte are tracked as a dedicated GitHub issue (extends #498). See #458 (coordination roadmap) for the pointer.