q-reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.joint-defense-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:reflexivity-manifestness-joint-defense",
 "source_metadata": "argument_fabric:joint_defense:reflexivity_manifestness (synthetic, no single source text)",
 "claim_packet": "/root/projects/clean/content/information-packets/reflexivity-manifestness-joint-defense-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "argument_fabric_reasoning",
 "gate_version": "nyaya-truthmap-gate-v0.1",
 "source_role": "joint_defense",
 "candidate_under_test": "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity + cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity (joint defense)",
 "central_reading": "The joint defense contends that Nanavira structural reflexivity and Dharmakirti apoha together account for manifestness: structural reflexivity gives the form of self-presence (recursive self-similar structure), while apoha gives the mechanism of determination (exclusion-based conceptual determination). Neither is individually sufficient, but together they cover both dimensions of manifestness that Trika's manifestness critique claims only intrinsic vimarsha can fill. The joint defense weakens — does not refute — the claim that constructed reflexivity necessarily presupposes manifestness.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:joint-structural-reflexivity-form-of-self-presence",
   "source_span_id": "span:joint-defense:structural-form",
   "quoted_anchor": "Structural reflexivity can include its own occurrence through recursive self-similar structure",
   "nn_expr": "vyāpti(reflexion,self_presence_form)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "phenomenological",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "self-presence in experience",
    "hetu": "self-similar reflexion preserves structural form across levels without adding a hidden substance",
    "sadhya": "structural reflexivity explains the form of self-presence without intrinsic self-manifestation",
    "vyapti": "Where higher-order reflexion preserves structural form across levels, self-presence can be modeled structurally rather than as a primitive metaphysical property."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted_with_penalty",
   "adjusted_lbf_cap": 0.35,
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "savyabhicara",
     "severity": "moderate",
     "reason": "The claim lists vyapti violations/counterexamples."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Show that self-similar reflexion across levels necessarily introduces a qualitative gap such that the form of self-presence cannot be preserved without intrinsic self-manifestation."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:joint-apoha-determination-without-self",
   "source_span_id": "span:joint-defense:apoha-determination",
   "quoted_anchor": "Apoha explains conceptual determination by exclusion, not by participation in a universal essence",
   "nn_expr": "vyāpti(apoha,determination)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "evidence_dimension": "phenomenological",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "determination of manifest content",
    "hetu": "conceptual determination proceeds by exclusion of what is other",
    "sadhya": "recognition and determination can be explained without intrinsic self-manifestation",
    "vyapti": "Where a cognition determines its content by excluding what is other, determination can be accounted for by exclusion relations rather than by self-luminous essence."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness",
    "crux:no-self-target"
   ],
   "ga