q-reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.buddhist-response-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:buddhist-response-crystal-argument",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/buddhist-response-crystal-argument-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "source_role": "buddhist_response_crystal_argument",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "The Buddhist tradition has a robust account of self-awareness (svasaṃvitti) — cognition is inherently self-manifesting, not insentient like a crystal. The crystal argument misfires because it assumes the Buddhist position lacks an account of sentience when svasaṃvitti is a core doctrine.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:buddhist-cognition-is-self-manifesting",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-svasamvitti",
   "quoted_anchor": "cognition has self-appearance and object-appearance",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(buddhist_lacks_self_awareness)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "dharmakirti_buddhist",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "Buddhist account of consciousness",
    "hetu": "Dignāga and Dharmakīrti argue every cognition has self-appearance",
    "sadhya": "Buddhist tradition has an account of self-awareness distinct from determination-by-exclusion",
    "vyapti": "If cognition has two appearances, self-awareness is intrinsic to cognition."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that Buddhist svasaṃvitti reduces to determination-by-exclusion with no remainder."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:nanavira-consciousness-as-presence-reflexive",
   "source_span_id": "span:nanavira-vinnana",
   "quoted_anchor": "consciousness is presence, reflexively given",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(consciousness_needs_extra_property_for_sentience)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "nanavira_phenomenology",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "nature of consciousness",
    "hetu": "consciousness is presence-of-phenomena, not a thing",
    "sadhya": "reflexivity is structural to presence, not an added property",
    "vyapti": "If consciousness IS presence, the question 'does structure produce sentience?' is misapplied."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that reflexive presence is compatible with insentience."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:buddhist-crystal-response-combined",
   "source_span_id": "span:buddhist-crystal-response",
   "quoted_anchor": "crystal argument misfires against actual Buddhist position",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(crystal_argument_applies_to_buddhist)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "applicability of crystal argument",
    "hetu": "both Buddhist traditions have accounts of self-awareness",
    "sadhya": "crystal argument does not apply to Buddhist position as actually held",
    "vyapti": "If critique assumes metaphysics the target does not hold, it misfires."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show Abhinavagupta already considered and refuted svasaṃvitti in the crystal argument."
  }
 ],
 "argument_edges": [
  {
   "edge_id