A family is an assigned classification over a relation that was already verified: the design is on the design page, the checks on the method page.

Checked once against outside scholarship: 8 of 16 treated items agreed — the full result.

Where the layer stands

That is 1669 of 2091 relations classified, with 354 still waiting on a person and 68 that no family was forced onto. The queue is not a backlog to be cleared by machine; clearing it is what the human step is for.

How the settled records were arrived at:

The map: which relation strings land in which family

The reverse index, derived from the graph on every build. 25 families over 693 distinct relation strings; the number beside each string is how many relations carry it. 46 of those strings appear under more than one family, which is the layer's central commitment made visible: a family is assigned to an edge in its paragraph, never to a string in the abstract. is alone spans identity, classification and position.

What fits nowhere

49 relation strings carry a relation that is well formed and that no family covers. They are counted rather than absorbed, because a vocabulary that covers everything has stopped discriminating:

And the strings where the sentence itself refuses to settle, a property of the text rather than of the vocabulary:

Where the boundaries are decided

Two of the rules that do the discriminating, quoted from the definitions document exactly as they stand at v0.7.2. Each was written because a ruling forced it.

• Identity vs correspondence on indistinguishability/equivalence: indistinguishability or equivalence asserted of the terms THEMSELVES → archetypal-identity; asserted of their symbols, images, functions or roles → correspondence. So both CW 9ii §60 edges (mandala indistinguishable-from god-image, wholeness is-psychic-analogue-of god-image — one shared quote: the symbols can no longer be distinguished) are correspondence. The test is what the text predicates indistinguishability OF, not what the nodes are: sentence subject "the symbols of X" → correspondence; sentence subject X itself → identity, even when X is a Symbol-typed node (worked contrast: mercurius is-identical-with saturn, two image-terms, identity). Worked contrast, one relation across two paragraphs (v0.6, ruling of 2026-08-10): mandala is god-image at CW 9i §572 is archetypal-identity, because §572 predicates God-image-hood of the mandala itself; the CW 9ii §60 edges stay correspondence, because §60 predicates indistinguishability of the symbols of the two terms. Same two nodes, same copula, different family — and the difference is the sentence subject, not the node types. The distinguishing note is recorded on the §572 edge in seed.json, so the ruling travels with the data as well as with this document. Placements: is-psychic-analogue-of, coincides-with, comes-closest-to, is-symbolical-equivalent-of, felt-as-equivalent-of → correspondence; is-essentially-same-as, revealed-identity-with, made-equal-to, amounts-to, flat is-equivalent- of the terms → identity; identical-or-connected-with (12 §476, Jung's own hedge) → unclassified(text-undecided). Secondary idiom never anchors identity (v0.7, ruling 2): the reference literature writes identity and symbol idioms for one pair interchangeably (measured 2026-08-12 — Abraham's entries vs his Introduction; Edinger across and within his own books, in both directions), so a scholar's equation is not evidence for archetypal-identity; only the primary quote's own predication is. Over alchemical image pairs specifically: a synonym-class string is identity only when the quote asserts co-reference — two names, one referent, one stage of the opus; a "likens"/parallel framing is correspondence; otherwise unclassified(text-undecided). Standing of this test (v0.7, ruling 4): the sentence-subject test is this project's instrument. The external check found scholarly usage falling along exactly its line without any scholar naming the distinction (Edinger, Ego and Archetype* pp. 3–4: copula for the term-pair, symbol language for the image, twenty lines apart, unremarked; the Critical Dictionary reproduces the pattern across three entries). The test tracks usage; it claims no scholarly endorsement, and copy that cites it says so.
• The layer: amplification tag never overrides the content family (v0.6; replaces the rule the arms were reading at v0.5). The layer tag is a hand-built annotation on the MATERIAL — it marks an edge as belonging to the amplificatory apparatus of the text. It is not a family assignment and it does not outrank the relation. Classify the edge by what the relation asserts, the same way as any untagged edge; a tagged edge lands in amplification only when the amplification definition itself fits it. Three rulings of 2026-08-10 decided this against three model-arm answers that had cited the tag as decisive, with one precedent application after; the tag currently sits on 57 edges that are spread across six families.

The definitions document, in full

What follows is the working document itself, rendered as written. It carries its own history, including measurement sections describing earlier runs of the calibration harness whose figures were withdrawn in August 2026, when a code inspection found they could not be substantiated. Those sections are the record of what was done, not current evidence; the current figures are the version-bound records named above.

Relation families — candidate definitions, v0.7.2

Status: BINDING once this version's calibration PASS record exists under pipeline/family_calibration/records/ (RULES #16, #18b: a version with no matching committed record fails CI). The sign-off ladder stands as at v0.6: arms benchmarked on controls, gate calibrated per version, human adjudication of disagreement sets.

Provenance: v0.1 drafted 2026-08-06 by the Fable-family planning session from the live graph (328 nodes / 1062 edges / 1180 references). Reviewed the same day by an Opus-family agent per the governance rule (different-family review); verdict RETHINK, scoped: architecture kept, 21 findings. v0.2 incorporated all of them and was re-reviewed by the same Opus agent: verdict MINOR-REVISIONS, 12 findings, all verified against the graph — three blockers (a type-based default in derivation, a direction inversion in manifestation's string list, a self-contradicting seed in separation) plus nine corrections. v0.3 lands them. Human sign-off comes from the step-0 tail test. The test sample was drawn stratified by STRUCTURE (singleton/normalized/volume), never by family, so the v0.2→v0.3 fixes did not invalidate the draw.

v0.6 (2026-08-12) is a mechanical fold of the second adjudication sitting. Sharpened the same day, inside the calibration loop: the doctrinal-attribution precedence (attribution outranks the surface verb) made explicit with the peregrinatio worked example, after the run-2 gate misdiagnosed exactly that boundary. The failing and passing runs are both on file: records/2026-08-12_v06_run2.json (FAIL), records/2026-08-12_v06_run3.json (PASS, bound to this text). Nothing here is new reasoning: every change transcribes a ruling already made and recorded, and the fold deliberately resolves nothing that the rulings left open. Its five entries:

1. The amplification layer tag no longer overrides the content family. Three rulings of the 2026-08-10 sitting decided this — dragon symbolizes unconsciousness → symbolization, mercurius is-identified-with hermes → archetypal-identity, mercurius is-a psychopomp → classification, each against a model arm that had answered amplification because the edge carried layer: amplification. One precedent application followed, on leviathan symbolizes the-unconscious. The rule the arms were reading is deleted below and replaced by its negation, stated as a boundary rule.
2. The sentence-subject test gains its worked contrast, from the ruling on mandala is god-image (CW 9i §572), recorded in the indistinguishability rule.
3. exemplified-by is recorded as a homeless string, per the ruling on quaternity exemplified-by four-elements.
4. The underlies / based-on collision is recorded as a KNOWN AMBIGUITY and is NOT resolved here. It reached the document from the window-9 Opus arm.
5. Version header, this change log, and the calibration-harness reference, which pointed at a superseded script.

v0.7.2 (2026-08-13) is a single editorial ruling on instrumentality's slot geometry. The definition's opening fixed the means to the object slot while the family's own seeds carry it in either; the sentence now says so ("the means term may sit in either slot"). No item flips; the risk closed is a strict-reading arm routing subject-as-means edges away from the family — CW 8's register is thick with by-means-of constructions. Proposed by the pre-arc check (docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/prearc_cw8_check.md), ruled 2026-08-13. Nothing else changed.

v0.7.1 (2026-08-12) is the mechanical close-out of ruling 1's re-run. The 43 amplified-by edges were re-classified under v0.7 by two blind arms (prior assignments unknown to both): 24 agreed and are assigned — archetypal-identity 7, symbolization 4, personification 3, composition 3, correspondence 2, manifestation 2, doctrinal-attribution 2, transformation 1 — and 19 split to the human queue. Neither arm placed any of the 43 in amplification. The family's assigned membership after the re-run: 0 edges. Nothing else changed in this version.

v0.7 (2026-08-12) folds in the seven rulings of the external-validity check — the first revision driven by evidence from OUTSIDE the repository: 27 sampled assignments checked against eight works of Jungian secondary literature in three pre-registered passes (record and receipts: docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/; headline 8/16 agreement among treated items, disagreements concentrated in amplification and identity). Editorial rulings, 2026-08-12 evening, adopting the check's proposals P1–P7. Each transcribed below at its boundary; the seven in brief:

1. Amplification requires the adducing act in the quote (P1). The relation string never routes an edge here; a quote asserting signification, synonymy or naming classifies by that content relation. The literature rendered every sampled amplified-by edge as a content relation (0/3 agreement, two independent reference authors). The 43 amplified-by edges queue for a two-arm re-run under this version; their current assignments stand as v0.6 records until that run merges.
2. Secondary-literature idiom never anchors identity (P2). Measured: Abraham and Edinger each write identity and symbol idioms for the same pair interchangeably, Edinger within one book in both directions. Only the primary text's own predication carries an identity assignment.
3. Layer/stratum/sphere language defaults to structural-position (P3), external anchor Jacobi (the layer picture as spatial "topology", a methodological overlay).
4. The sentence-subject test is declared our instrument (P4), with the measured qualification that scholarly USAGE follows its line unremarked (Edinger, Ego and Archetype pp. 3–4; the Critical Dictionary across three entries) while no scholar names the distinction.
5. A carrier is "named" by definite reference, not only by name (P5); collective ascription stays with the content family unless the claim collapses without it; dictionary-genre evidence is weighed accordingly.
6. Classify-input carries the verbatim relation beside the normalized one, and the amplified-by direction convention is audited (P6 — pipeline ruling; lands with the classify-input builder, not in this document).
7. The named-figure is-a rule narrows (P7): an attributed equation routes to doctrinal-attribution; its own worked example (christ is-a anthropos) is a measured scholars-split and such pairs queue rather than auto-assign.

v0.5 folds in the first human adjudication run — ten rulings over the step-0 disagreement set, 2026-08-06, recorded in "The first adjudication run" below with four boundary refinements they force.

v0.4 was the first revision driven by measurement rather than review. The step-0 test ran on 2026-08-06 in four arms: the human annotator (17 items), an Opus pass and a Gemini pass over all 60 blind, and a seeded-corruption calibration of the family gate. Results and their consequences are in "What the step-0 test measured" below. The headline: the gate caught 19 of 19 planted errors, the two model arms agreed 83%, and the human arm diverged mainly where a thin UI withheld the boundary rules — so the definitions are followable from the document, the interface was not, and the human's role changes from classifier to adjudicator.

Companion: docs/PROPOSAL_RELATION_TYPING.md (design, pre-registered ruling, assignment pipeline, cost). Measurement basis: 543 effective relation strings over 1,061 referenced edges — effective means relation_normalized.relation where that layer exists (260 edges), else the verbatim relation. One edge (albedo precedes rubedo) carries an empty references array and is excluded from every count here; it is flagged as a graph defect to repair separately.

Method and precedents — what is reused, what is rejected, and why

This vocabulary stands on named practice. Each line: the source, what is taken, and the rationale for taking or refusing it (full treatment in the proposal).

What the step-0 test measured (2026-08-06)

Four arms, same 60-item structure-stratified sample, all blind to each other.

Arm 1 — gate calibration (the decisive result). 19 deliberate errors were planted in the Opus pass's assignments and a Gemini gate judged all 60 without the key. Corruption classes were chosen to be meaningful rather than random: K1 near-miss across a boundary this document explicitly rules on (8), K2 far-miss (4), K3 swap to correspondence, the family the human arm showed behaving as a sink (4), K4 replacing a confident family with a refusal (3).

The run's figures were WITHDRAWN on 2026-08-12 after a blind code inspection found the original harness could not substantiate what "caught" meant (RULES.md #12); its artifacts were also deleted before being committed, so the numbers cannot be re-derived. What stands from this arm is the design — the four corruption classes above — which the rebuilt, receipted harness at pipeline/family_calibration/ reuses. Current calibration figures live only in the version-bound records under pipeline/family_calibration/records/, never in this prose. One detail worth keeping from the withdrawn run: several of its "false positives" were arguably real errors in the uncorrupted set (the gate flagged christ is-a anthropos as classification-should-be-identity, and both other arms agreed) — the reason specificity is reported but never gates.

Arms 2 and 3 — followability. Opus vs Gemini agreed on 83% of 60 (100% on the amplification control, 80% on head-string controls). Two independent model families converging at that rate is evidence the document is followable. It is NOT evidence it is correct: no arm is ground truth, and the document's author is the Fable session, so agreement measures consistency, not truth.

Arm 4 — the human. 17 items: 35% agreement with Opus, 41% with Gemini, but 80–100% on head-string controls and 0–20% in the tail. Where the human differed, Opus and Gemini agreed with each other on 15 of 17. The interface showed twelve-word definitions on hover and no boundary rules and no seed examples — precisely the content that discriminates. The divergence is therefore attributable to the instrument, not to the annotator or (mainly) to the definitions. Confidence was 29% "sure" with "best fit" written four times, which is the signature of an annotator discriminating without the means to discriminate.

Consequence for the protocol. The human step is redesigned: models classify, the calibrated gate checks them, and the human adjudicates only the cases where two model families genuinely disagree — roughly ten items rather than sixty. The step-0 test as originally specified (a human classifying cold from the definitions) is retired; it measured the interface as much as the vocabulary.

The rules of the layer (fixed before any definition)

1. Assignment is per edge, never per string. Head strings are polysemous — "is" alone spans identity, classification and position. The string batches the work; the recorded fact is edge → family.
2. The family classifies the effective relation IN ITS EDGE CONTEXT — subject, object, qualifiers, quote. Qualifiers can be decisive: the-devil is-equivalent-to mercurius {scope: only to Mercurius' dark half} is identity-family as scoped. Carriers matter: the-self lies-at-border-of the-unconscious {carrier: consciousness} (13 §67) — the carrier is not the object; misreading it misfamilies the edge.
3. Family is independent of voice. claim_type records who speaks; the family records what kind of relation is claimed. Every family definition below is agent-neutral. The predicted amplification↔jung-asserts correlation is E11's hypothesis to TEST — it must not be true by definition (and the data already shows it is not: 28 of 43 amplified-by edges carry reported or quoted voice).
4. Two administrative classes exist beside the families, per the pre-registered ruling (committed 2026-08-05, before data):

• unclassified — a well-formed relation no family fits. Licensed, counted, CI-ceilinged. Carries a REASON CODE: no-family (the vocabulary is short) or text-undecided (the text itself hedges between families, e.g. "identical or at least connected with"). The two are reported separately — only no-family is vocabulary evidence; text-undecided is a property of the corpus, and scoring it against the vocabulary would permanently loosen the CI ceiling for the wrong reason.
• not-a-relation — the relation slot holds a clause (fails the P24 screen and the semantic test). Excluded from every family denominator. After the normalization pass, 11 edges — all two-model-agreed refusals.

1. A split is always allowed; a merge of established families requires re-gating of every affected assignment. Adding a family follows the Wikidata shape (see table). The five families added at v0.2 (manifestation, separation, telos, derivation, privation) entered exactly this way: proposed by the Opus review with ~20–30 homeless edges each as evidence, accepted by the drafter, pending the human test.
2. One family per edge. If two families compete after the qualifiers are read: unclassified(text-undecided) when the TEXT hedges; unclassified(no-family) when the vocabulary is short; and if a boundary rule below decides it, follow the rule.

Boundary rules (the six the review demanded, plus placements)

• Identity vs correspondence on indistinguishability/equivalence: indistinguishability or equivalence asserted of the terms THEMSELVES → archetypal-identity; asserted of their symbols, images, functions or roles → correspondence. So both CW 9ii §60 edges (mandala indistinguishable-from god-image, wholeness is-psychic-analogue-of god-image — one shared quote: the symbols can no longer be distinguished) are correspondence. The test is what the text predicates indistinguishability OF, not what the nodes are: sentence subject "the symbols of X" → correspondence; sentence subject X itself → identity, even when X is a Symbol-typed node (worked contrast: mercurius is-identical-with saturn, two image-terms, identity). Worked contrast, one relation across two paragraphs (v0.6, ruling of 2026-08-10): mandala is god-image at CW 9i §572 is archetypal-identity, because §572 predicates God-image-hood of the mandala itself; the CW 9ii §60 edges stay correspondence, because §60 predicates indistinguishability of the symbols of the two terms. Same two nodes, same copula, different family — and the difference is the sentence subject, not the node types. The distinguishing note is recorded on the §572 edge in seed.json, so the ruling travels with the data as well as with this document. Placements: is-psychic-analogue-of, coincides-with, comes-closest-to, is-symbolical-equivalent-of, felt-as-equivalent-of → correspondence; is-essentially-same-as, revealed-identity-with, made-equal-to, amounts-to, flat is-equivalent- of the terms → identity; identical-or-connected-with (12 §476, Jung's own hedge) → unclassified(text-undecided). Secondary idiom never anchors identity (v0.7, ruling 2): the reference literature writes identity and symbol idioms for one pair interchangeably (measured 2026-08-12 — Abraham's entries vs his Introduction; Edinger across and within his own books, in both directions), so a scholar's equation is not evidence for archetypal-identity; only the primary quote's own predication is. Over alchemical image pairs specifically: a synonym-class string is identity only when the quote asserts co-reference — two names, one referent, one stage of the opus; a "likens"/parallel framing is correspondence; otherwise unclassified(text-undecided). Standing of this test (v0.7, ruling 4): the sentence-subject test is this project's instrument. The external check found scholarly usage falling along exactly its line without any scholar naming the distinction (Edinger, Ego and Archetype* pp. 3–4: copula for the term-pair, symbol language for the image, twenty lines apart, unremarked; the Critical Dictionary reproduces the pattern across three entries). The test tracks usage; it claims no scholarly endorsement, and copy that cites it says so.
• Composition vs structural-position: if the claim entails the subject is materially a constituent of the object → composition; if it locates the subject within the object's structure without asserting constituency → position. Nucleus, centre, foundation default to POSITION (is-nucleus-of, is-centre-of, is-foundation-of, chief-constituent-of reads literally → composition). Layer, stratum and sphere language defaults to POSITION (v0.7, ruling 3) even when the container noun suggests parthood — external anchor: Jacobi renders the layer picture as a spatial "topology", a methodological overlay on a genetic way of seeing (external-validity item 24, the check's cleanest result). Totality/unity claims where the subject IS the whole (the-self is-totality-of psyche, 12 §44) → composition, whole-side; unifies-…-into as an act → union.
• Psychic-effect vs dependence: a standing condition ("unless X, no Y"; "must always be dealt with first") → dependence, even when phrased as a blocking act — personal-unconscious bars-gateway-to collective-unconscious {condition: unless dealt with first} (12 §81) is DEPENDENCE. A dynamic act with an outcome → psychic-effect.
• Psychic-effect vs opposition on compensation: A acts on B to balance it → psychic-effect (the-unconscious compensates consciousness, 14 §184); a standing counter-position → opposition (mercurius compensates christ, 13 §295 — the note says compensatory COUNTERPOINT, not act → opposition).
• Sequence vs dependence on precedes: "without X, no Y" → dependence (the-shadow precedes anima/animus, 9ii §42, whose quote says recognition is impossible without it); bare order → sequence.
• is-a on a named-figure pair is identity, not classification (v0.4, from the gate). christ is-a anthropos was assigned classification by Opus and flagged WRONG by the gate, with Gemini and the human both saying identity; the quote ("The second Adam is Christ") asserts identity between two named figures, not membership of a class. Rule: when both endpoints are named Figures and the quote asserts they ARE one another, is-a is archetypal-identity. Classification requires the object to be a genuine kind or class. Narrowed (v0.7, ruling 7): the predication must be the quote's OWN. An attributed equation — the paragraph frames the equating as a tradition's or author's act — routes to doctrinal-attribution per the precedence rule. And this rule's worked example is itself a measured scholars-split (Edinger equates Christ and Anthropos in one book and renders the relation as reported Pauline doctrine plus correspondence in another), so a named-figure pair on which the reference literature splits queues for adjudication rather than auto-assigning.
• Doctrinal-attribution outranks the relation's surface verb (v0.4). Where the quote frames the claim as an act of interpretation by a named tradition or author, attribution wins even when the relation string looks like another family: Gemini read phoenix symbolizes christ as attribution because the paragraph describes the reading being made ("in Christian interpretation"), against Opus's symbolization. Test: is the CLAIM the symbolizing, or someone's act of so reading it?
• renewed-through / transformed-through are per edge (v0.4). Opus read rex renewed-through the-unconscious as dependence, Gemini as psychic-effect, and instrumentality now also claims it. Decide by what the quote asserts: the standing requirement (dependence), the acting-upon (psychic-effect), or the route travelled (instrumentality).
• The layer: amplification tag never overrides the content family (v0.6; replaces the rule the arms were reading at v0.5). The layer tag is a hand-built annotation on the MATERIAL — it marks an edge as belonging to the amplificatory apparatus of the text. It is not a family assignment and it does not outrank the relation. Classify the edge by what the relation asserts, the same way as any untagged edge; a tagged edge lands in amplification only when the amplification definition itself fits it. Three rulings of 2026-08-10 decided this against three model-arm answers that had cited the tag as decisive, with one precedent application after; the tag currently sits on 57 edges that are spread across six families.
• KNOWN AMBIGUITY, awaiting a ruling: underlies versus based-on (recorded v0.6; NOT resolved here). Two rules in this document reach opposite families for what may be one sense of "rests on". The composition/position rule routes foundation language to structural-position — is-foundation-of is named there, and all seven live underlies edges follow it. Derivation's string list, meanwhile, carries based-on and develops-on-basis-of. The window-9 Opus arm hit the collision head-on and reported it rather than choosing. Until a ruling: an edge caught between the two rules queues for adjudication; neither rule is amended, and neither is the tiebreak.
• Per-edge caveats on promiscuous strings: is-a (identity-flavoured at 9ii §42, taxonomic at 9ii §33), embodies ("consists of/composed of" quotes → composition: adam embodies quaternity 14 §555; fusion/reunion quotes → union: filius-regius embodies union-of-opposites 14 §441; guise-of-content edges → manifestation: christ embodies anthropos 9ii §69; enacting-figure edges → personification; edges matching no cue → unclassified(no-family): chariot embodies quaternity 14 §272), symbolizes (9 of 90 sit in the amplification layer), precedes (above). These four are the standing proof that assignment is edge-level.

The families

Twenty-five candidates as of v0.4. The ≤25 figure is a design TARGET from the CIDOC scale lesson, not a constraint: if the tail test's refusal reasons cluster into a coherent 25th or 26th family, exceeding the target is a reportable finding and goes through governance — a hard cap against a fail-closed CI would deadlock. The count stands at 25 for a stated reason: the review showed that refusing the five v0.2 additions would send ~100 well-formed edges to unclassified and bake a ~10% error into the measured CI ceiling. Each entry: definition (agent-neutral), boundary, seeds verified against the live graph.

1. symbolization

The subject is a symbol of the object in Jung's strict sense: "the best possible description or formulation of a relatively unknown fact" (CW 6, Definitions, s.v. Symbol) — not a conventional sign. Directionality test: the OBJECT is the less formulable term; the subject is the image carrying it. Boundary: not manifestation (there the SUBJECT is the less formulable term showing itself — the direction inverts); not correspondence (two knowns); not personification (a figure enacting). Seeds: quaternity symbolizes wholeness (9ii §59); fish symbolizes soul (9ii §187); sol is-classical-symbol-for the-self (12 §108, normalized); the-wheel is-symbol-for circulatio (12 §214); christ symbolized-by fish (9ii §147). Strings: symbolizes (90; the amplification-layer edges among them are no longer subtracted — v0.6 classifies them by content like any other), symbolized-by (10), signifies (10), stands-for (6), represents (7). Inverse pair declared: symbolizes / symbolized-by.

2. personification

A figure gives personal, enacting form to a content — the subject (usually Figure-typed) is the content wearing a person, acting and speaking. Boundary: not symbolization (a symbol presents; a personification acts); not identity (anima personifies the-unconscious does not exhaust the unconscious in the anima); not manifestation (the guise there need not be a person). Seeds: anima personifies the-unconscious (9ii §26); maya personifies projection-making-factor (9ii §20); christ personifies the-unconscious (13 §448, normalized). Strings: personifies (22), is-personified-by, and embodies ONLY on enacting-figure edges (see boundary rules).

3. manifestation (added at v0.2 — review finding 3)

The subject shows itself under the form of the object: one content, one appearing guise, the subject persisting and not exhausted by any guise. Directionality is the definiens: the SUBJECT is the less formulable term. Boundary: inverts symbolization's direction test; not transformation (the subject persists — Mercurius manifests as lumen naturae, Proteus AND Regina); not generation (nothing new is brought forth); not personification (the guise need not be a person: sol manifests-as archeus). Inverse pair declared: manifests-as / is-aspect-of (with is-manifestation-of) — the aspect strings run the SAME relation in the inverse direction (the subject is the partial showing, the object the content shown: lilith is-aspect-of adam), and the inverse declaration handles them without breaking the direction test. antichrist manifests enantiodromia is likewise inverse-direction and classified here. Seeds: mercurius manifests-as lumen-naturae / proteus / regina; syzygy manifests-as christ-and-church (9ii §41); the-devil manifests-as antichrist; archetype manifests-through synchronicity (9ii §148); aqua-permanens is-aspect-of mercurius (13 §370, inverse direction). Strings: manifests-as (8), manifests, manifests-through, is-made-manifest-in, is-figured-as, worshipped-as, is-often-represented-as, is-presented-through; inverse: is-aspect-of, aspect-of, is-dark-aspect-of. NOT here: appears-as-centre-of → structural-position (a place claim, per the composition/position rule); appears-as-archetype-of (2) → classification with a per-edge caveat (the object is what the subject is archetype OF, not a guise).

4. archetypal-identity

The text asserts the two terms are ONE — via the projection thesis: a single archetype behind both terms (Edinger, Anatomy of the Psyche; the answer to the literal-absurdity objection). Includes scoped identity where a qualifier restricts the claim. Symmetric in principle; synonym-of carries the owl:SymmetricProperty precedent. Boundary: the strongest family — demand the text's own identity assertion of the TERMS (see the indistinguishability rule above). Watch identity overreach, the E-series' recurring catch. Seeds: mercurius is-identical-with saturn (13 §274, scoped: as senex); synonym-of (22); identified-with (14), is-identified-with (13); the-devil is-equivalent-to mercurius {scope: dark half} (14 §238); is-essentially-same-as (13 §111).

5. correspondence

Two terms answer each other across registers or traditions — structural likeness asserted without identity. The workhorse of the comparative method. Boundary: weaker than identity (see the equivalence placements), stronger than amplification (which is an adduced widening, not an asserted relation between the terms). Seeds: animus corresponds-to logos / anima corresponds-to eros (9ii §29); leviathan corresponds-to the-devil (9ii §178); anthropos coincides-with the-self (13 §268); mandala indistinguishable-from god-image (9ii §60, per the boundary rule); wholeness is-psychic-analogue-of god-image (9ii §60); wholeness cannot-be-distinguished-from god-image (9ii §73, per the indistinguishability rule). Strings: corresponds-to (58), is-analogue-of (13), parallels (10), is-parallel-to, agrees-with, is-psychic-analogue-of (6), comes-closest-to, are-likened-to, coincides-with (5).

6. amplification

A parallel adduced to widen the interpretive basis of an image — "the use of mythic, historical and cultural parallels … metaphorical, never literal" (Samuels, Shorter & Plaut, A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, pp. 16–17) — BY WHOEVER adduces it (agent-neutral per rule 3; 28 of the 43 amplified-by edges carry reported or quoted voice, so an agent-bound definition would contradict the data and pre-decide E11). Boundary: correspondence asserts a relation between the terms; amplification adduces material to read an image by. An edge lands here only when the quote asserts the adducing act itself (v0.7, ruling 1): a quote asserting signification, synonymy or naming ("signifies", "is a synonym for", "is the traditional name for") classifies by that content relation, whatever the relation string says — the same precedence attribution already holds over surface verbs. The external check measured the old string-following practice at 0/3 against the reference literature, with both independent reference authors rendering every sampled amplified-by edge as a content relation; the 43 amplified-by edges queue for a two-arm re-run under v0.7. The layer: amplification field is a hand-built annotation on the material, NOT a family assignment and never a tiebreak — see the layer-tag boundary rule above, which the 2026-08-10 sitting installed in place of the reading it retired. It tags 41 of the 43 amplified-by edges (lapis amplified-by shulamite 14 §185 and prima-materia amplified-by isis 14 §16 lack the tag — a layer repair item) plus 9 symbolizes, 2 symbolized-by, 2 parallels, and 3 singletons: 57 edges over seven strings, which is why one string splits across families — and why the tag itself splits across families too. Seeds: coniunctio amplified-by rex, and the amplified-by edges generally, where the relation states the adducing. A layer-tagged symbolizes edge is NOT a seed here: those are classified by what they assert, and the three ruled on in 2026-08-10 came out symbolization, archetypal-identity and classification.

7. classification

Plain taxonomy: the subject is an instance or kind of the object. Boundary: not identity (a member is not its class); not manifestation (an aspect is not a kind — the aspect strings moved out at v0.2); is-a is polysemous per the boundary rules. Seeds: animus is-a psychopomp (9ii §33); the-self is-a archetype (9ii §257). On the-self is-a god-image (9ii §42): the quote is disjunctive ("is a God-image, or at least cannot be distinguished from one") → unclassified(text-undecided) unless the annotator judges the scope qualifier settles it as identity.

8. composition

Part–whole: the subject contains, includes, or is a constituent of the object (either direction; the verb settles which). Includes whole-side totality claims (the-self is-totality-of psyche, 12 §44). Boundary: the composition/position rule above (nucleus/centre/foundation default to position); union is an act of joining, composition a standing parthood. Seeds: the-self includes the-shadow (9ii §76); contains (9); includes (6); wise-old-man completes marriage-quaternio (9ii §42); adam embodies quaternity (14 §555, per the embodies caveat). Concealment placement: containment-as-concealment (lies-hidden-in, concealed-within, imprisoned-in, harbours) → composition when the claim is in-ness, position when the claim is where; epistemic concealment acts (unlocks-secret-of, obstructs-discovery-of, covers-up) → unclassified(no-family) — recorded as a candidate future family.

9. structural-position

The subject's place within a structure: centre, periphery, seat, abode, between-position, schema-role, ordinal place. The family the Aion evidence demanded (b-cw9ii-1 minted is-centre-of, is-schema-for; batches 3–4 added is-abode-of, is-seat-of, is-first-fish-of, is-second-fish-of, dwells-in) — admitted under the seam rule as an ADDITION; no existing family was redefined. Boundary: the composition/position rule above. Seeds: christ is-centre-of christian-mandala (9ii §69); marriage-quaternio is-schema-for the-self (9ii §42); the-north is-abode-of the-devil (9ii §157); mercurius dwells-in celestial-pole (9ii §206); the-self lies-at-border-of the-unconscious {carrier: consciousness} (13 §67); the-devil is-fourth-person-beside the-trinity (12 §192); the-ego centre-of consciousness (9ii §11).

10. union

The terms are joined, married, fused — the coniunctio class, central enough in this corpus to stand apart from composition. Boundary: an act or achieved state of joining distinct terms, vs composition's standing parthood; three-place unions ("A unites B[-and-C]") keep the united pair in object or qualifiers. Seeds: mercurius unites the-opposites (12 §404); lapis unites the-opposites (12 §140, 13 §131); spirit unites the-opposites (9ii §141); yesod unites tifereth-malchuth (14 §635); the-self unites-with anima (14 §736); conjoined-with; flows-together-in (13 §218).

11. separation (added at v0.2 — review finding 11; reworked at v0.3)

The separatio/solutio class, in BOTH its structures: (i) A is parted, extracted or freed from B; (ii) A dissolves, separates or splits B. The opus's counter-operation to union and as central. Boundary: not transformation (where the subject BECOMES the object — so messiah splits-into the-opposites, whose quote says the split "becomes a complete polarity", is transformation-toward-opposition and goes per edge, not here); not psychic-effect (separation asserts the parting itself, not a dynamic residue — this is a definitional distinction, not just check-order). Seeds: lapis is-extracted-from man (9ii §256); solutio dissolves the-body (14 §316); luna dissolves rex (14 §506); consciousness separates the-opposites (12 §30); unio-mentalis achieved-by-separating the-body (14 §671). Strings: dissolves, is-extracted-from, separates, is-separated-from, frees-god-from, delivered-from, splits-into (per edge), abolish-separation-from (negated — read per edge; may be union).

12. transformation

The subject turns into, or is turned into, the object. Boundary: not generation (the parent persists beside the offspring); not sequence (order without becoming); not manifestation (a guise is not a becoming — the subject persists unchanged behind it). Seeds: transforms-into (6); anima was-transformed-into lilith (13 §399); mandala transforms chaos (9ii §60); hierosgamos developed-into coniunctio (9ii §72); renewed-as, reborn-as.

13. generation

The subject brings forth or begets the object — psychological or mythological parenthood, the parent persisting beside the offspring. Boundary: not transformation; not derivation (historical/doctrinal descent is family 14, split out at v0.2 — the same verb "originates" serves both, so read the terms: traditions derive, beings beget); kinship ROLES (brother, consort) are family 20. Seeds: produces (8); begets (3); four-elements give-rise-to will (9ii §100); fish is-son-of great-mother (9ii §173); brings-forth. Inverse pair declared: produces / originates-in (alongside produces/produced-by) — projection originates-in the-unconscious (9ii §17) and god-image originates-in psychoid (14 §787) are generation, inverse direction; only tradition-to-tradition originates-in (per §14's relation test) is derivation.

14. derivation (added at v0.2 — review finding 13)

Doctrinal, historical or textual transmission: one tradition, doctrine, text or figure draws from, descends from, influences or supplants another. Boundary: generation begets beings; derivation transmits ideas and forms. The RELATION itself must assert transmission (draws from, descends from, influences, supplants, continues). Subject type is evidence, never a default — a tradition-subject edge whose relation asserts telos, privation, expression or opposition takes THAT family (alchemy reached-its-summit-in faust → telos; privatio-boni makes-evil-diminution-of good → privation; dogma expresses collective-unconscious → symbolization). Seeds: alchemy originates-in gnosticism (9ii §267); yahweh influenced jakob-boehme {scope: through the Cabala} (9ii §111); paracelsus draws-knowledge-from lumen-naturae (13 §148); lapis-christ-parallel was-bridge-into alchemy (13 §387); the-opus replaces-sacraments-of christianity (13 §232). Strings: derives-…-from, has-roots-in, rooted-in, springs-from, proceeded-from, has-a-source-in, probably-chief-source-of, forerunner-of, has-precursor-in, continues-doctrine-of, takes-the-place-of, based-on, develops-on-basis-of, shares-allegories-with.

15. sequence

Temporal or processual order without becoming, begetting or requirement. Boundary: transformation/generation entail order — assign the stronger family when the text supports it; "without X, no Y" is dependence (see boundary rules). NO transitivity (uroboros argument). Seeds: the-opus begins-with nigredo (9ii §231); is-first-stage-of (9ii §42); rubedo immediately-preceded-completion-of the-opus (12 §269); followed-by. (precedes distributes per edge — see boundary rules; the sixth precedes edge, albedo→rubedo, is the empty-references defect.)

16. prefiguration

Typological anticipation: the subject foreshadows the object as type to antitype — the pattern exists earlier and points forward. Boundary: not sequence (order without pointing); not correspondence (alignment without the temporal arrow). "Anticipation" language is the cue. Seeds: prefigures (8); son-of-man is-anticipation-of the-self (12 §314); jupiter heralds messiah {carrier: Saturn, condition: in Pisces} (9ii §128); foreshadows.

17. telos (added at v0.2 — review finding 12; widened at v0.3)

Goal-direction AND goal-attainment: the subject aims at, strives toward, culminates in, reaches, or attains the object as its end. The teleology of the opus — one of the corpus's main axes. Boundary: a goal is not the next term (sequence) and not a requirement (dependence). Against psychic-effect: telos claims an end pursued or reached BY the subject on its own arc; psychic-effect claims one term acting on the other. Attainment of one's own end is telos, not effect. Seeds: self-knowledge aims-at the-self (9ii §252); the-self goal-of individuation (9i §278); lapis is-goal-of the-opus (14 §759); night-sea-journey aims-at rebirth (12 §436 normalized); alchemy reached-its-summit-in faust (12 §558); the-self fulfils-itself-in wholeness (9ii §123). Strings: aims-at, aimed-at, goal-of, is-goal-of, culminates-in (2), attains (2), destined-for, tends-towards, is-movement-toward, fulfils-itself-in, is-consummated-on, reaches.

18. opposition

The terms stand against each other: enmity, polarity, contradiction, standing counter-position (including compensatory counterpoint — see boundary rules). Boundary: not mere difference or lack — negation without enmity is privation (family 19); the text must set the terms AGAINST each other. Seeds: antichrist opposes christ (9ii §69); leviathan opposes behemoth (9ii §181); is-equivalent-opposite-of (9ii §84/98); polarizes-with (4); mercurius compensates christ (13 §295, per the compensation rule); came-into-tension-with (13 §290).

19. privation (added at v0.2 — review finding 14)

Lack, absence, negated identity or negated capacity: A lacks B, A is not B, A cannot be/represent B. The privatio-boni axis — Aion's spine — lives here. Boundary: opposition requires enmity; privation only absence or non-identity. Negated-modal identity ("cannot be distinguished") is NOT here — it follows the indistinguishability rule (identity or correspondence). Seeds: christ lacks the-shadow (9ii §79); god-image lacks man (9ii §185); the-trinity lacks the-devil (11 §103); putissimus-homo cannot-be christ (13 §390); animus cannot-represent-totality-of the-self (13 §342); privatio-boni makes-evil-diminution-of good (9ii §74); evil does-not-lead-to manichaean-dualism (9ii §99); archetypal-image distinct-from archetype (8 §417); christ is-never-matched-by the-self (9ii §124); the-centre occupies-different-plane-from the-ego (12 §135).

20. kinship (added at v0.2 — review finding 15)

Standing familial or consort roles at the mythologem level: sibling, spouse, bride, companion, double, contrasexual counterpart. Boundary: generation covers parent/child acts of begetting; kinship covers the standing role. Not union (a consort is a role, not an act of joining). Seeds: the-devil is-elder-brother-of christ (9ii §77, §103); shulamite consort-of anthropos (14 §609); soul is-the-bride-of christ (9ii §72); behemoth is-double-of leviathan (9ii §185); is-feminine-half-of, masculine-half-of, is-anima-of, companion-of; is-shadow-of per edge (luna is-shadow-of sol 14 §172 = contrasexual counterpart, here; leviathan is-shadow-of yahweh 9ii §183 = the shadow-relation, opposition).

21. doctrinal-attribution

A carrier names, defines, translates, teaches, interprets or classifies — the relation records an act of predication by someone, not an ontology between subject and object. Boundary: the decisive test — remove the carrier and the claim collapses. Voice often co-varies but never decides (rule 3). Tradition-to-tradition transmission is derivation; a single carrier's predication is attribution. A carrier is "named" by definite reference, not only by proper name (v0.7, ruling 5): "this remarkable text explains…" identifies a carrier; collective ascription ("the alchemists say") stays with the content family unless the claim collapses without the ascription. Genre note, from the external check: dictionary-genre sources state relations carrier-free, so dictionary evidence systematically under-reports attribution — weigh attribution questions toward discursive sources. Attribution outranks the surface verb. When a NAMED carrier performs the predication, the family is attribution no matter what the relation string says — a symbolizes/symbolized-by/parallels string does not send the edge to symbolization or correspondence if the quote's claim is the carrier's act of reading. Worked example: the-opus symbolized-by peregrinatio (14 §199, "Maier imagined the opus as a wandering") is doctrinal-attribution, not symbolization — Maier's act; remove Maier and this quote's claim collapses. Contrast a symbolization edge whose quote asserts the image relation with no carrier named in the quote itself. Seeds: hun is-translated-as animus {carrier: Wilhelm} (13 §57); prima-materia was-designated-as mercurius (12 §517); the-wheel is-in-boehme-a-concept-for wholeness (12 §216); augustine identifies-god-image-with soul (9ii §71); origen locates-imago-dei-in soul (9ii §70); aniadus is-defined-as inner-man {carrier: Ruland} (13 §194); basil-the-great denies-god-authorship-of evil (9ii §82 — an attributed denial: the carrier's act, not a privation between the terms).

22. projection

Psychic contents relocated into an outer carrier — the central explanatory mechanism for alchemy. Includes withdrawal edges. Boundary: not symbolization (a symbol formulates; a projection relocates and is later withdrawn); not manifestation (the archetype showing itself is not relocated by a psyche). Seeds: mercurius is-projection-of the-unconscious (13 §259); lapis is-projection-of the-self (9ii §264); artifex projected individuation {scope: into the phenomena of chemical change} (12 §564); tree-nymph is-a-projection-of anima (13 §458); consciousness develops-through-withdrawal-of projection (13 §122).

23. dependence

Requirement, precondition, subordination, rulership: one term needs, presupposes or is governed by the other — a STANDING condition. Boundary: the dependence rules above absorb conditional "precedes" and blocking-phrased requirements (bars-gateway-to). Seeds: coniunctio is-prerequisite-for wholeness (9ii §58); the-ego subordinate-to the-self (9ii §9); aeon-of-the-fishes is-ruled-by hostile-brothers (9ii §142); wholeness requires anima (12 §295); the-shadow precedes anima (9ii §42, per the precedes rule); are-necessary-conditions-of (9ii §112); personal-unconscious bars-gateway-to collective-unconscious (12 §81).

24. psychic-effect

One term acts dynamically on the other: overpowers, activates, stimulates, suppresses, heals, endangers, produces a state in. Deliberately the LAST family checked — if any more specific family fits, take it. Exists so genuine dynamics do not leak into unclassified; the tail test watches whether it becomes a dumping ground. Boundary: all the rules above drain this family first (dependence, opposition-as-counterpoint, separation, telos). Seeds: consciousness is-overpowered-by the-unconscious (12 §438); the-unconscious compensates consciousness (14 §184); soul produces-negative-inflation-in the-unconscious (9ii §114); projection leads-to-psychoses-of mass-psyche (13 §52); artifex activates the-unconscious (13 §220); mediates (4); undergoes (5); consciousness leads-to-crucifixion-of the-ego (9ii §79).

25. instrumentality (added at v0.4 — earned by measured refusal; slot rule v0.7.2)

One term is the MEANS by which the other is reached, enabled, effected or made possible; the means term may sit in either slot (see seeds). Not what happens, but what it happens through. Boundary: telos names the END pursued; instrumentality names the route to it (homo-maximus is-approached-through the-opus — the opus is the road, the homo maximus the destination). Not dependence: a precondition must be satisfied before, a means is used to. Not psychic-effect: the subject is not acted upon by the object, it travels by it. Evidence for the addition: both model arms of the step-0 test refused items this family now covers, independently and with converging reasons — Gemini on homo-maximus is-approached-through the-opus ("an instrument/means relation is not covered by the existing families") and both arms on temenos enables-meeting-with the-unconscious ("an instrumental/affordance relation does not fit structural-position, dependence, or psychic-effect"). 13 strings and 13 edges in the live vocabulary carry the sense. Seeds: homo-maximus is-approached-through the-opus (13 §203); temenos enables-meeting-with the-unconscious (12 §63); imaginatio unlocks-secret-of the-opus (12 §400); mandala is-built-up-through active-imagination (12 §123); rex renewed-through the-unconscious; unio-mentalis achieved-by-separating the-body (14 §671, per edge — the separation reading may win where the parting itself is the claim).

What is deliberately NOT here

• No transitivity on any family; symmetry and inverses only as declared (see the precedents table).
• No family for "is" as such — the copula distributes by context; the canonical argument for edge-level assignment.
• No voice-derived families (rule 3).
• No manifestation/appearance merger into symbolization — the direction test separates them and 19 edges depend on it.

Considered at v0.4 and NOT added

Two further gaps surfaced in the step-0 refusals. Both are recorded rather than adopted, because the evidence does not yet meet the bar the instrumentality addition cleared.

• property-attribution (is-characterized-by, possesses, has-affinity-with). One arm refused one item. 5 strings / 7 edges. A family for "A has quality B" is a different shape from every family here — the object is a property, not a participant — and adopting it would invite every adjective in the corpus. Route these to unclassified(no-family) for now and revisit if the full assignment pass produces a cluster.
• governing-principle (is-principle-of, orders). Both arms refused ares is-principle-of individuation, which is real evidence, but the class is 3 strings / 4 edges — too thin to earn a family, and plausibly absorbed by structural-position (a governing role is a place in a structure) or by instrumentality (a principle by which something proceeds). Route to unclassified(no-family) and let the assignment pass decide.

Homeless strings — recorded, not force-fitted

Relation strings ruled to have no family, kept as a named list so a no-family on one of them is a known gap rather than an unexplained miss.

• exemplified-by (v0.6, ruling of 2026-08-10). quaternity exemplified-by four-elements (14 §261) was ruled unclassified(no-family): one arm read it as classification run inverse, the other refused it, and the quote ("rests on the four elements") pulls toward composition as well. The ruling records it as a homeless string with the family decision left open, not as an instance of any existing family. One live edge.
• Characterization / appearance (is-characterized-by) — ruling 44 of the first adjudication run, above, decided unclassified(no-family) over the composition reading. A candidate gap, not a family.
• Epistemic concealment acts (unlocks-secret-of, obstructs-discovery-of, covers-up) — routed by the concealment placement under composition.
• Property attribution (is-characterized-by, possesses, has-affinity-with) and governing principle (is-principle-of, orders) — the two v0.4 refusals recorded just above.

Recording refusals as refusals, with their counts, is how the unclassified reason codes stay meaningful: a no-family on is-principle-of is now a known gap under review, not an unexplained miss.

Expected coverage, stated before the test

The 24 families were derived from the head (≥4 uses), the normalized layer, the Aion mints, and the review's sweep of the homeless verb classes. The singleton tail is the test. Pre-registered expectation: most well-formed singletons land in a family (b-cw9ii-1 ran 22/24 at edge level); refusals above ~30% of the well-formed tail sample mean the vocabulary is short, and the refusal reasons say where. That outcome ships as a finding, not a failure.

The first adjudication run (v0.5, 2026-08-06)

Ten edges where the two model arms disagreed, ruled by the author in the adjudication interface, every ruling with a reason (pipeline/work/family_adjudication_rulings.json, exported 18:42Z).

Outcome: the human sided with Opus 5 times, Gemini 4, and chose a third answer once — agreement with at least one arm on 9 of 10 of the hardest cases in the sample. The gate's signal held direction: all 3 assignments it marked SUPPORTED were confirmed by the human; of the 6 it marked WRONG, 4 ended in the human overruling the arm the gate had checked. Router, not judge — as designed.

Four boundary refinements, each forced by a ruling, each now binding:

1. The referent decides identity vs classification vs symbolization (rulings 14, 39). When the subject stands as the person or figure itself, identity families beat classification (christ is-a anthropos → archetypal-identity: "christ is the person here, not a symbol"). And a hermeneutic or doctrinal emphasis in the paragraph tips even a literal symbolizes string into doctrinal-attribution (phoenix symbolizes christ). The relation string never decides the family; the edge in its paragraph does.
2. A process classifies by its stated terminus (ruling 28). dionysos dissolves-distinctions-into psyche is union, not separation: the dissolving is the mechanism, the resulting unity is the claim. Where the text states what the process arrives at, that terminus names the family.
3. Transcendence is position, not lack (ruling 59). archetype transcends psyche is structural-position — "this reflects more a location than a lack (by being elsewhere)". privation requires a stated absence or deficiency, never mere location beyond a boundary.
4. Characterization has no family, and that is the right answer (ruling 44). celestial-pole is-characterized-by quaternity was ruled unclassified(no-family) over the composition reading: the claim is about how a thing appears, not what it contains. Appearance/characterization claims are a recorded candidate gap — not added as a family on one data point, per the v0.4 refusal discipline.

Because refinements 1–3 touch boundaries the calibration planted near-misses on, the gate's calibration is re-run in situ during the full pass: a fresh seeded corruption set is planted among the live assignments the gate checks, so sensitivity under v0.5 is measured on the pass itself rather than asserted from v0.4.

The adjudication protocol (replaces the step-0 tail test)

The original protocol asked a human to classify 60 items cold. It ran on 2026-08-06 and is retired: it measured the interface as much as the vocabulary, and 60 cold classifications is the wrong use of the only scarce resource in the pipeline. What replaces it:

1. Two model arms classify, blind to each other — one Opus-family, one Gemini. Neither may be the family that authored the definitions.
2. The calibrated gate checks both. Sensitivity and specificity are measured, not assumed, and both are re-measured whenever the definitions change — a new version voids the previous version's numbers (RULES #16). The harness is pipeline/family_calibration/ (seeded and reproducible: draw, plant, gate, score), and it supersedes pipeline/work/corrupt_family_assignments.py, whose figures were withdrawn under RULES #12. The figures themselves live in the version-bound records under pipeline/family_calibration/records/, and nowhere in this prose — a number written into a document outlives the ruleset it measured, which is how the last set went stale unnoticed.
3. The human adjudicates only genuine disagreement — cases where the two model arms differ, plus any the gate marks WRONG on an uncorrupted assignment. On the 60-item sample that was ~10 items, not 60.
4. Refusals are routed, not pooled. unclassified(no-family) clusters go to the family-addition path in rule 5; unclassified(text-undecided) is recorded against the corpus, never against the vocabulary.

The adjudication interface must show, at the point of decision: the edge with its qualifiers and quote, both model answers with their stated reasons, the competing family definitions in full, the governing boundary rule, and the seed examples. The v0.3 interface showed twelve-word hovers and none of that, which is the measured cause of the human arm's divergence — 80–100% agreement on head controls, 0–20% in the tail where boundary rules decide.

Retained from the original protocol: unanchored presentation (no suggested answer), per-stratum reporting never pooled, a required one-line reason on every refusal, and Fleiss' κ = 0.80 as the agreement benchmark — now applied to the two model arms rather than to a human pair, with 83% observed on the first run.

Sign-off condition

The definitions bind the family gate when: the two model arms agree at or above the benchmark on the controls; the gate's calibration has been re-run against the current definitions; and the human has adjudicated the disagreement set. None of those is satisfied by model agreement alone — consistency is not correctness, and the author family is not eligible to judge its own document.

The exposition above is generated by web/build-atlas.mjs; every count in it is derived from seed.json at build time. The document below it is rendered from docs/FAMILY_DEFINITIONS.md as written — the atlas quotes that document, it never paraphrases it.