q-universalization-pratyabhijna-vs-nyaya.utpaladeva-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:utpaladeva-universalization-validity",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:utpaladeva-aps-universalization",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/utpaladeva-aps-universalization-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "manual_codex_review_from_truthtranslation",
 "source_role": "candidate_support_and_pressure",
 "candidate_under_test": "cand:utpaladeva-universal-subject",
 "central_reading": "Utpaladeva's Ajadapramātṛsiddhi makes a strong case for reflexive manifestation and intra-stream synthesis (verses 9-15), but the universalization from 'all objects are within manifestation' to 'all manifestations are numerically one subject' (verses 16-17, 25) is asserted rather than demonstrated. The critical ambiguity is 'sarvārthasaṃvidām': all cognitions within one stream vs all cognitions of every subject. Nyāya plural selves are the strongest live countermodel.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:utpaladeva-aps-16-limited-unlimited-same-self",
   "source_span_id": "span:aps-16",
   "quoted_anchor": "dvidhā sa eṣa evātmā mito 'parimitas tathā",
   "nn_expr": "abheda(atmā_mita,atmā_aparimita)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "ātman",
    "hetu": "the text declares limited and unlimited self to be the same",
    "sadhya": "the individual and universal self are numerically identical",
    "vyapti": "Where the text declares two modes to be the same self, the identity is textually asserted."
   },
   "argument_role": "doctrinal_assertion",
   "targets": [
    "cand:utpaladeva-universal-subject",
    "crux:numerical-identity-of-finite-and-unlimited-self"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted_with_penalty",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "savyabhicara",
     "severity": "moderate",
     "reason": "The claim declares weak vyapti confidence; the reason does not reliably imply the target."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Show that the text's preceding argument (verses 9-15) rules out distinct reflexive subjects sharing a common structure, rather than merely establishing reflexive manifestation within one field."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:utpaladeva-aps-17-one-synthesizer-all-cognitions",
   "source_span_id": "span:aps-17",
   "quoted_anchor": "ubhayo 'py eṣa paryantabhūmiḥ sarvārthasaṃvidām",
   "nn_expr": "vyapti(anusandhana,eka_pramatr)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "pramāt",
    "hetu": "connective synthesis requires one synthesizer",
    "sadhya": "there is one knower of all cognitions",
    "vyapti": "Where synthesis is observed, a synthesizer is required."
   },
   "argument_role": "central_universalization",
   "targets": [
    "cand:utpaladeva-universal-subject",
    "crux:ambiguity-of-sarva-in-sarvarthasamvidam",
    "bridge:utpaladeva-subject-nyaya-plural-self"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted_with_penalty",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "savyabhicara",
     "severity": "moderate",
     "reason": "The claim declares weak vyapti confidence; the reason does not reliably imply the target."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Show that the Sanskrit compound 'sarvārthasaṃvidām' unambiguously refers to cognitions of every subject, not merely all cognitions within one individual stream, and that no Nyāya plural-self ontology can explain the same synthesis data."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:utpaladeva-aps-25-one-power-all-cognitions",
   "source_span_id": "span:aps-25",
   "quoted_anchor": "ekaiva cānusandhānāt sā proktā sarvasaṃvidām",
   "nn_expr": "abheda(svasaṃvedana,matrtattva)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "mātṛtattva",