q-brain-if-consciousness-fundamental.recovery-wager-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:brain-if-consciousness-fundamental",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:q17-recovery-trajectory-wager",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/q17-recovery-trajectory-wager.json",
 "generated_by": "hermes_loop_008",
 "source_role": "recovery_trajectory_hierarchy_experimental_wager",
 "candidate_under_test": "cand:brain-as-appearance-only",
 "central_reading": "This layer formalizes the recovery trajectory hierarchy differential prediction from Loop 007 as a concrete experimental wager with specific falsification criteria and analysis protocol. The four claims frame the test as capable of shifting research priority between Kastrup's dissociation model and Trika's kañcuka-contraction model (Claim 1), specify the kañcuka model's universal-hierarchy prediction (Claim 2), specify the dissociation model's patient-specific-variation prediction (Claim 3), and provide a minimum analysis protocol for conducting the test (Claim 4). This moves the differential from a theoretical prediction to an actionable research design. The wager does not claim to settle the ontology debate — it claims to produce actionable research-direction information. If the data supports consistent hierarchical ordering, future research should focus on the kañcuka model's dimension-specific intervention targets. If it supports patient-specific variation, research should focus on the dissociation model's boundary-reconstruction approach. If neither, both accounts are underspecified on this prediction.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:recovery-hierarchy-test-framing",
   "source_span_id": "synthetic:q17-recovery-trajectory-wager",
   "quoted_anchor": "The recovery trajectory hierarchy test moves the dissociation-vs-contraction differential from a theoretical prediction to a falsifiable wager.",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(recovery_hierarchy_test,dissociation_kancuka_distinction)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "analytic_idealism_trika_comparison",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "recovery trajectory hierarchy as differential test",
    "hetu": "the two consciousness-first accounts disagree on individuation ontology and this generates different recovery ordering predictions",
    "sadhya": "the test is tractable and produces actionable research-direction information",
    "vyapti": "If the disagreement generates different predictions about recovery ordering, the test is a valid wager that can shift research priority."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:brain-as-appearance-only",
    "cand:brain-as-filter",
    "crux:brain-damage-transformation"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Demonstrate that the recovery trajectory hierarchy test cannot in principle distinguish the two models because (a) both models can be adjusted post-hoc to accommodate any recovery ordering, (b) the models do not actually commit to specific predictions about recovery sequences, or (c) any observed ordering can be equally explained by both models without auxiliary assumptions."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:recovery-hierarchy-kancuka-predicts-universal-order",
   "source_span_id": "synthetic:q17-recovery-trajectory-wager",
   "quoted_anchor": "The six kañcukas are not arbitrary; māyā (limitedness/arousal) is the foundational scaffolding that makes the other five dimensions appear as limitations.",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(maya_prathama_kancuka,universal_recovery_hierarchy)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "analytic_idealism_trika_comparison",
   "evidence_dimension": "empirical",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "DOC recovery ordering",
    "hetu": "kañcukas form a dependent hierarchy with māyā as foundational; recovery is reverse of contraction",
    "sadhya": "recovery follows consistent cross-p