All three creator attempts completed. Each supplied a colour prelude and two developments; the fixed exchange ring supplied the fourth authored state. All six interpreters completed a first reading, an alternative reading and a field reply. Alternatives were explicitly requested by the reception prompt. A reply could have been declined; none was declined in this run.
| Recorded object | Count | Meaning of the count |
|---|---|---|
| Authored trajectories / states | 3 / 12 | Three preludes, six developments and three cross-creator responses. |
| Rule-generated states | 24 | Eight steps for each prelude, on a separate branch. |
| First interpretations / alternatives | 6 / 6 | Two fresh readers per trajectory, with alternatives requested. |
| Interpreter field replies | 6 | New works, not revisions of the received original; no further recipient in this trial. |
| Concept occurrences / distinct concepts in the 12-state authored sequence | 281 / 67 | Repeated positions and states count as occurrences. No depth or quality score. |
| Images re-decoded | 18 | All 12 authored composites and six interpreter reply composites. |
| Trajectory | First reader | Second reader |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | The Right to Remain a Different Line | A Score for Keeping Difference Available |
| C2 | The Door That Keeps Its Frame | A Door That Remembers the Room |
| C3 | What Disclosure Cannot Close | What the Ledger Cannot Close |
The paired main readings are notably close: difference and legibility in C1, refuge and disclosure in C2, judgment and the limits of accounting in C3. This is an observation about these six texts. Shared model configuration, selected concepts, relation grammar and prompts are plausible contributors. No design here isolates those causes or measures a population agreement rate.
The alternatives make a different point. In C1, both readers ask whether care has become an interpretive checkpoint. In C2, the first questions the loss of particular histories through technical abstraction; the second proposes a system-modeling workshop as the organizing subject. In C3, the first offers compositional editing as the main drama; the second sees a more adaptable administrative instrument capable of absorbing objections. These differences concern the work’s organizing priority, not a failure to identify its concepts.
Repetition with changed situation: C1-S2 places counterpoint at both n33 and n42, with different coordinates, layers and emphasis, and a return relation. Exact reference identity coexists with a changed role in the composition.
Deliberate nonselection: C2-S2 changes n04 into an aperture while retaining complete metric space elsewhere, and puts an emphatic aperture at the earlier legibility position. An aperture selects no concept. Its artistic significance is supplied by the change and the reader, not by decoding a hidden word such as “consent”.
Encounter through another arrangement: C3-S3 removes three mathematical positions and introduces counterpoint, hysteresis, refractive index and improvisation. A recipient can change the attention of the work while preserving the earlier field for comparison.
Growth with a visible authoring boundary: the 24 rule states retain their inherited semantic links without adding new ones. The artists’ changes include subtraction, replacement and new relations. A dictionary neighbour’s automatic appearance is not presented as an authored endorsement.
Each receiver’s sequence folder is about 1.03–1.06 million uncompressed file bytes, excluding the shared resources. The shared common folder contains 29,775,950 bytes, including the frozen dictionary, state chains, codecs and lexical files. These are stored-file accounting figures, not measured network traffic, model-token use or a compression comparison. Exact per-work sizes and scope are in the descriptive record.
Readers reported difficulty distinguishing close hues, tracing overlapping lines and carrying exact qualifications through analogies. They used decoded coordinates and typed relations alongside the images. Images were resized for display by their tool; the decoder separately checked exact original samples. Several large exploratory outputs were truncated and replaced by compact views or saved reports.
The present browser workbench offers the 256-colour initial palette plus the additional colours used in the retained works, 283 choices altogether. Full offline authoring tools can access all 6,257 checked concepts. The workbench rearranges existing cells and their colours, layers and emphasis; it is not a complete visual editor for creating every permitted relation or membrane.
The final supplied-codec recovery reproduces all 18 authored/reply field objects and their colour-name representations. All 24 rule JSON files reproduce byte for byte. The field test suite contains 15 adversarial test groups. Public UI checks use an inert DOM fixture, not a browser: 33 checks include the actual 42 stored fields. The UI review corrected halo layering, keyboard focus, camera controls and narrow-screen selection. No real browser rendering, physical-phone behavior or live WordPress result is verified here.
The whole-record audit checks frozen input hashes, actual raw-file parent links, rule provenance and available reader anchors. One C1-I2 grouped G8 anchor uses descriptive colours rather than exact RGB pins; exact colour correspondence is therefore unavailable for that annotation, and the original reading remains unchanged. Exact cell addresses are still inspectable. The audit does not certify the prose’s entailment or artistic quality.
An early audit helper wrongly omitted rule states and assumed singular anchors. Its failed report is retained beside the corrected helper’s scope. A rule-reproduction attempt also failed at a sandbox temporary-directory boundary; the rerun used a fresh directory inside the record. Reader-specific writing and freeze-command errors remain in their operations files. None was resolved by altering a frozen interpretation or original artwork.
The separate editorial audit also found two reading qualifications: C1-I2’s legibility/self-confinement tension starts in S1, not S0; and C3-I2’s dotted-region description cannot mean literal containment of the externally linked presumption cell. A C3-I2 operations sentence miscounts the interpretation’s ten fields as eleven. These notes now sit beside the unchanged readings. C1-I2 also disclosed three status-only messages to the coordinator, with no reported interpretive consultation; “fresh” must not be mistaken for enforced no-contact isolation.
Protocol freezes, source hashes and local access disclosures make the record inspectable. They are not external authentication of a model build, proof of OS-level isolation or evidence about private cognition. The supplied underlying CVP2/USL1 code is reused, not independently reimplemented in this job.
The fresh interpreter kit contains the input image sequences, layouts, recovery tools and frozen vocabulary, without these readings or their replies. Its invitation makes the order explicit: encounter the images, recover the exact field, then interpret and choose a reply or refusal. The full record contains every stage and is therefore unsuitable as blinded reception input.
Separate editorial check · 18-work recovery rerun · Rule reproduction · Codec tests · Inert UI checks · News · Findings essay · Lumin’s reflection