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

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:dharmakirti-pv3-reflexivity",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/dharmakirti-pv3-reflexivity-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "manual_codex_review_from_sanskritree_ground_truth",
 "source_role": "candidate_support_and_pressure",
 "candidate_under_test": "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
 "central_reading": "Dharmakirti supplies a no-self and functional-cognitive pressure on intrinsic self-manifestation: bare perception is kalpanapodha, particulars are pre-conceptual, existence/valid cognition are tied to arthakriya, and apoha explains conceptual determination without real universals. This supports conditioned cognition while leaving manifestness as an open problem.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:dharmakirti-pratyaksa-kalpanapodha",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-pv3-3",
   "quoted_anchor": "pratyaksa of particulars is free from conceptual construction",
   "nn_expr": "vyapti(pratyaksa,not_kalpana)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "dharmakirti_buddhist",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "perception",
    "hetu": "perception is kalpanapodha",
    "sadhya": "bare cognition does not require conceptual self-ownership",
    "vyapti": "Where cognition is direct perception, conceptual construction is absent."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:recognition-requires-self-manifestation"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that Dharmakirti's kalpanapodha definition entails intrinsic self-manifestation or enduring owner-subject."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:dharmakirti-svalaksana-ineffable-particular",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-svalaksana-ground-truth",
   "quoted_anchor": "The particular is the ineffable object of perception",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(svalaksana,pratyaksa)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "dharmakirti_buddhist",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "svalaksana",
    "hetu": "particulars are direct and pre-conceptual",
    "sadhya": "identity/self claims are downstream constructions",
    "vyapti": "Where the direct object is pre-conceptual, stable identity claims require additional construction."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:no-self-target"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that the direct particular itself contains stable self-identity rather than serving as a pre-conceptual object."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:dharmakirti-arthakriya-causal-efficacy",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-arthakriya-ground-truth",
   "quoted_anchor": "x exists iff x has causal efficacy",
   "nn_expr": "vyapti(existence,arthakriya)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "dharmakirti_buddhist",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "existence",
    "hetu": "being is causal efficacy",
    "sadhya": "cognition can be evaluated functionally rather than by substance metaphysics",
    "vyapti": "Where existence is established, causal efficacy is the test."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show a reflexivity phenomenon that cannot be given any causal or functional role but must still count as established within Dharmakirti's framework."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:dharmakirti-pramana-arthakriya",
   "source_span_id": "span:dharmakirti-pramana-phase1",