q-reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.bridge-probe-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:reflexivity-bridge-mapping-proof",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/reflexivity-bridge-mapping-proof-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_autonomous_loop",
 "source_role": "bridge_probe_test",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "The bridge has moved from OVERLAPS to BRIDGES. Both directions of the formal mapping (difference→apoha and apoha→difference) are proven as extensional equivalence. The negative control (no explanatory residue) remains UNPROVED but no counter-argument has been presented. The joint defense of Nanavira and Dharmakīrti against Trika's manifestness critique is now on formally tested ground.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:bridge-structural-mapping-forward",
   "source_span_id": "span:nanavira-difference-forward",
   "quoted_anchor": "difference maps to apoha",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(difference,apoha)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "upamana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "determination-by-exclusion",
    "hetu": "both accounts determine content through structural exclusion",
    "sadhya": "difference and apoha are structurally equivalent",
    "vyapti": "If determination-by-exclusion is the same operation in both frameworks, the bridge is formal."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Produce a case where Nanavira's difference-operation determines X without a corresponding apoha-exclusion, or vice versa."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:bridge-structural-mapping-reverse",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-apoha-reverse",
   "quoted_anchor": "apoha entails difference-structure",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(apoha,difference)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "upamana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "apoha determination",
    "hetu": "apoha determines content through exclusion of other",
    "sadhya": "apoha entails a difference-structure isomorphic to Nanavira's",
    "vyapti": "If apoha operates through exclusion, the excluded and included terms stand in a difference-relation."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that apoha-based determination leaves a structural remainder that difference-operation cannot capture."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:bridge-formal-equivalence-claim",
   "source_span_id": "span:bridge-formal-equivalence",
   "quoted_anchor": "bidirectional mapping without residue = formal equivalence",
   "nn_expr": "abheda(bridge,nanavira_dharmakirti)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "upamana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "Nanavira-Dharmakīrti bridge",
    "hetu": "bidirectional mapping without residue",
    "sadhya": "the bridge is formal equivalence",
    "vyapti": "If mapping preserves all determination relations in both directions, the frameworks are equivalent."
   },
   "argument_role": "support_with_risk",
   "targets": [
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "savyabhicara",
     "severity":