q-reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.abhinavagupta-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:abhinavagupta-vimarsa-reflexivity",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/abhinavagupta-vimarsa-reflexivity-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "manual_codex_review_from_clean_reflexivity_notes_plus_web_scholarship",
 "source_role": "candidate_support_and_boundary",
 "candidate_under_test": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
 "central_reading": "Abhinavagupta's side of the contention is the intrinsic manifestness argument: prakasa is not inert presence, vimarsa is not a later reflection, and rivals must explain self-presence without smuggling it in. The universalization from local reflexivity to one consciousness remains an additional step.",
 "review_status": "web_scholarly_secondary_reviewed_pending_primary_ro",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-prakasa-manifestness",
   "source_span_id": "span:clean-q-prakasa-best-answer",
   "quoted_anchor": "prakasa as shining forth; vimarsa as self-reflexive active awareness",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(prakasa,manifestness)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "prakasa",
    "hetu": "prakasa names the appearing of anything at all",
    "sadhya": "manifestness is a primitive pressure point",
    "vyapti": "Where appearance is at issue, the account must explain manifestness itself."
   },
   "argument_role": "support_with_risk",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted_with_penalty",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "asiddha",
     "severity": "weak",
     "reason": "Direct primary-source RO spans are pending."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Primary Trika passages show prakasa is only a metaphor for ordinary cognition and not a technical claim about manifestness."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic-self-apprehension",
   "source_span_id": "span:jstage-pratyabhijna-self-awareness",
   "quoted_anchor": "knowledge is never separated from the self which is self-luminous",
   "nn_expr": "vyapti(vimarsa,self_apprehension)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "phenomenological",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "vimarsa",
    "hetu": "manifest presence would be inert without self-apprehension",
    "sadhya": "recognition requires intrinsic self-manifestation",
    "vyapti": "Where manifestation is intelligible, presence is self-disclosing rather than merely present."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "crux:recognition-requires-self-manifestation"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted_with_penalty",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "satpratipaksa",
     "severity": "moderate",
     "reason": "Nanavira and Dharmakirti supply live counter-reconstructions of reflexivity."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Give a complete structural or cognitive account of recognition that explains self-presence without invoking intrinsic manifestness."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-prakasa-without-vimarsa-inert",
   "source_span_id": "span:lawrence-vimarsa-essential-prakasa",
   "quoted_anchor": "vimarsa as the essential nature of prakasa",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(not_vimarsa,inert_prakasa)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "phenomenological",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "prakasa without vimarsa",
    "hetu": "mere shining without articulation cannot explain intelligibility",
    "sadhya": "rivals must explain manifestness, not only structure",
    "vyapti": "Where an account removes reflexive articulation, it must still explain how manifestation is i