q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.nanavira-presence-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:nanavira-presence",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/nanavira-presence-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "source_role": "nanavira-presence",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "Nanavira's account treats consciousness as the presence of a phenomenon, reflexively given. The Trika criticism assumes consciousness is a 'thing' needing an extra property (vimarśa), but for Nanavira reflexivity is structural to presence itself.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive",
   "source_span_id": "span:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive",
   "quoted_anchor": "eye-consciousness is present reflexively",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(nanavira_presence_is_reflexive,target)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "nanavira_phenomenology",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "reflexivity is structural to Nanavira's ",
    "hetu": "consciousness is presence of phenomena, not an entity; presence is reflexively given",
    "sadhya": "reflexivity is structural to Nanavira's account, not an added property",
    "vyapti": "If consciousness is presence and presence is reflexively given, then reflexivity"
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that Nanavira's 'reflexive presence' is compatible with a purely structural account that lacks sentience — i.e., that presence could be reflexively given without being experienced."
  }
 ],
 "argument_edges": [
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive:support:cand-nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
   "source_node_id": "cl:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive",
   "target_node_id": "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
   "edge_type": "support",
   "strength": 0.72,
   "relation_rationale": "Direct account of reflexive presence from primary text."
  },
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive:attack:cand-abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "source_node_id": "cl:nanavira-presence-is-reflexive",
   "target_node_id": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "edge_type": "attack",
   "strength": 0.48,
   "relation_rationale": "Shows Trika's framing of the issue may misrepresent the Buddhist position."
  }
 ],
 "bridge_probe_logic": {},
 "structural_correspondences": [],
 "directional_critique_pairs": [],
 "state_of_play_delta": {
  "current_best_answer": "Nanavira's account treats consciousness as the presence of a phenomenon, reflexively given. The Trika criticism assumes consciousness is a 'thing' needing an extra property (vimarśa), but for Nanavira reflexivity is structural to presence itself.",
  "next_tests": []
 }
}