q-reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.trika-vimarsa-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:trika-vimarsa-manifestness",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/trika-vimarsa-manifestness-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "source_role": "trika_vimarsa_response",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "Abhinavagupta provides a five-part argument that vimarśa cannot be reduced to determination-by-exclusion: (1) difference presupposes vimarśa, not vice versa; (2) without vimarśa consciousness would be insentient like a crystal; (3) apoha does not apply to self-luminous consciousness; (4) vimarśa is self-grounding freedom while determination is other-dependent; (5) difference culminates in separation, vimarśa in identity. The bridge between difference and apoha holds at the objective level but does not extend to the nature of consciousness itself.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-mutual-distinction-presupposes-vimarsa",
   "source_span_id": "span:tantraloka-1-52cd",
   "quoted_anchor": "mutual distinction arises within vimarśa",
   "nn_expr": "vyāpti(mutual_distinction,vimarśa)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "determination-by-exclusion",
    "hetu": "all tattvas are equally Light, requiring vimarśa for differentiation",
    "sadhya": "structural difference presupposes reflexive awareness",
    "vyapti": "If differentiation requires reflexive awareness, determination-by-exclusion is dependent on vimarśa."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Demonstrate mutual distinction without any prior reflexive awareness."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-crystal-argument",
   "source_span_id": "span:tantraloka-4-crystal",
   "quoted_anchor": "without vimarśa consciousness would be insentient like a crystal",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(determination_by_exclusion_equals_consciousness)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "consciousness",
    "hetu": "a crystal reflects without awareness; vimarśa adds self-presence",
    "sadhya": "structural determination alone cannot account for sentience",
    "vyapti": "If structural determination were sufficient for consciousness, any system of mutual contrasts would be conscious."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that a purely structural system of determination-by-exclusion exhibits conscious self-presence."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-apoha-inapplicable-to-consciousness",
   "source_span_id": "span:tantraloka-1-apoha",
   "quoted_anchor": "apoha not applicable to self-luminous consciousness",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(apoha_applies_to_consciousness)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "scope of apoha",
    "hetu": "consciousness is self-luminous, not determined by negation",
    "sadhya": "apoha/difference mapping does not apply to consciousness itself",
    "vyapti": "If consciousness is self-luminous and not constituted by negation, determination-by-exclusion is inapplicable to its nature."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexiv