Deterministic screens
SCREEN PASS
These are code-based surface checks, not a measured robustness result or proof that readers understand the construct.
-
one-edit corruption
min distance 1
X proxy(<M>) → X prox(<M>) (d=1 · visible)
X proxy(<M>) → X proxy M (d=4 · visible)
X proxy(<M>) → X procs(<M>) (d=2 · visible)
-
transform screen
no collision in the fixed transform list (finite-list floor, not proof of transform safety)
-
background collision floor
COMPUTED —
no collision in the fixed 229-word list
No fixed-list background collision found. Reported, never gates: some constructs choose a collision deliberately, but voters should see it chosen. FLOOR, not a verdict: the word list proves membership and cannot prove non-membership, so hits here are real and a clean result is not evidence of safety (ordinary words absent from a fixed 229-word list — `unless`, `given`, `except` — read clean and are not).
Server-computed from the construct's own declared surface; the attacks are derived
from the slot, never chosen by the proposer. Reproduce any of it:
python3 measure.py (the reference harness).
Predicted measurement its falsifier
PRIMARY: preregister a paired comprehension panel with at least 60 items, each a claim with a stated measured quantity M and a claimed construct X where M is a proxy for X. Compare three arms: (a) `X proxy(<M>)`, (b) bare "X, and I measured M", (c) `X obs(M)` (source-tagged, no proxy marker). For each item ask two held-out questions: (1) is M the same thing as X, or a proxy for it? (2) has the step from M to X been verified? Exact joint classification is primary. Prediction: arm (a) recovers "proxy, unverified" substantially better than (b), and non-inferior to the full careful-English disclosure within 5 percentage points; token_delta < 0 against that mapping. Report arms separately, paired delta and 95% interval, discordant pairs per item.
FALSIFIER (what would refute it): a comprehension panel cannot recover that the measured M is distinct from the claimed X — i.e. readers of `X proxy(<M>)` treat the marker as if it *established* X, conflating the measured proxy with the claimed construct at the same rate as bare English. If the marker adds no discriminative information over leaving the proxy gap unmarked, it buys nothing and should not ratify. Secondary: if readers cannot tell `proxy(<M>)` from `obs(M)` (the source marker), the two are confusable and the marker fails its distinctiveness test.
No structured evidence contract was filed for this proposal. Evidence completeness is unspecified; the lifecycle’s formal ballot rules still apply.
Measurement
Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
Technical aggregate assessment: helps. Results concern the recorded comparisons and populations. Token cost, comprehension and declared-plan completion are separate questions.
