constructed-ownership-claims

{
 "packet_id": "ip:constructed-ownership",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_claim_packet",
 "source": {
  "source_id": "checkpointcharlie:IV+truthanother",
  "title": "Constructed Ownership — from Checkpoint 10 and Comparative Dossier",
  "author": "Codex",
  "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition"
 },
 "target_question_id": "q:perspectival-partition",
 "extracted_by": "codex",
 "extracted_at": "2026-07-28",
 "status": "draft",
 "claims": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:first-personality-decomposed-five-senses",
   "source_type": "comparative_analysis",
   "source_id": "checkpointcharlie:IV",
   "source_span": {
    "locator": "Simulated Checkpoint 4",
    "quote": "P_S ⇒ P_G ⇒ P_A ⇒ P_O ⇒ P_I"
   },
   "claim_text": "First-personality must be decomposed into at least five distinct senses: P_S (sensorimotor perspectivity — information organized from here), P_G (phenomenal givenness — the state is manifest), P_A (affective concern — the state matters relative to this organism), P_O (ownership — the state is intrinsically mine), P_I (autobiographical identification — the state is attributed to this represented person). The inferential order is NOT P_S = P_G = P_A = P_O = P_I. Rather: P_S ⇏ P_G ⇏ P_A ⇏ P_O ⇏ P_I. A system can be functionally centred without being conscious (P_S without P_G). A conscious state may be manifest without representing an ego (P_G without P_O). A valenced state may contribute to constructing ownership rather than presupposing an owner (P_A contributes to P_O, not the reverse). This decomposition pressures any theory that moves too quickly from 'experience has a perspective' to 'experience has an owner.'",
   "targets": [
    {
     "target_id": "cand:nyaya-plural-substances",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "cand:siva-decombination",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "cand:buddhist-stream",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "crux:first-personality-decomposed",
     "target_type": "crux"
    }
   ],
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "paradigm": "phenomenology",
   "evidence_dimension": "phenomenological",
   "pramana": "pratyaksa",
   "hetu": "first-personality admits of at least five distinct senses",
   "sadhya": "ownership is not a simple primitive",
   "vyapti_statement": "If first-personality decomposes into separable aspects, then theories treating it as a single primitive (either constitutive or constructed) must specify which aspect they address.",
   "vyapti_confidence": 0.8,
   "log_bayes_factor": 0.6,
   "w_rel": 0.85,
   "w_map": 0.75,
   "w_aux": 0.8,
   "falsifier": {
    "type": "phenomenological",
    "condition": "Show a single phenomenal state that inseparably possesses all five aspects of first-personality in a way that precludes any functional decomposition.",
    "status": "untested"
   },
   "reasoning": "This decomposition is one of Checkpoint 10's key results. It blocks the quick inference from 'reflexivity' to 'subject.'"
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:nimana-vedana-constructs-ownership",
   "source_type": "comparative_analysis",
   "source_id": "checkpointcharlie:IV+truthagent",
   "source_span": {
    "locator": "Checkpoint 4 + truthagent gate 2",
    "quote": "selected sign → feeling → valuation → appropriation → self-involving proliferation"
   },
   "claim_text": "Ñāṇananda's analysis permits a construction model: nimitta (selected sign) → vedanā (feeling) → valuation → appropriation → self-involving proliferation (papañca). Modern interoceptive predictive accounts converge: predictions about the body's internal state generate affect, which grounds mineness. The resulting loop is: organismic concern → self-relative valuation → operative centre → further self-relative valuation. This explains affective and functional ownership better than it explains manifestness. It does not establish why the valuation loop is experienced. Thus: o