relation family

projection

assigned, not verified What this family covers, what it fails to cover, and every relation string in the graph that lands in it. A family is assigned: two models read the definitions document and named the same kind of relation, or a person ruled where they did not. Verified is the other layer: a quote checked letter-exact against its paragraph and judged by a model of a different family. That was already done before any of this began.

23 assigned relations 14 effective relation strings 0 queued items carry a string this family covers 0 declared pairs

graph-wide: 1669 assigned · 354 awaiting a ruling · 65 no family · 3 text undecided · 2091 relations

Definition

Quoted from docs/FAMILY_DEFINITIONS.md v0.7.2, family 22. The atlas quotes that document; it never paraphrases it.

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Boundary: not symbolization (a symbol formulates; a projection relocates and is later withdrawn); not manifestation (the archetype showing itself is not relocated by a psyche).

Relation strings that land here

is-projection-of 7is-projected-in 2is-projected-onto 2projected-into 2attributes-contents-to 1brings-back 1develops-through-withdrawal-of 1externalizes 1externalizes-the-conflict-of 1is-a-projection-of 1is-concretization-of 1is-the-tradition-whose-practitioners-projected-god-into 1and 2 more, 2 relations between them

The number beside a string is how many relations carry it. 10 of these strings occur exactly once. The tail is the informative part: a string used once usually carried its own qualifier in the sentence it came from. A string can appear under more than one family, and does: assignment is made to an edge in its paragraph, never to a string in the abstract.

seeds: the examples the definition names

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

pending a ruling

No queued item carries a relation string this family covers.

Checked against readers of Jung

Checked against 8 works of scholarship: across the sample, 8 of 16 treated items agreed with our family. The sample did not reach this family.the whole table

family	agrees	disagrees	split	not treated
archetypal-identity (incl. 26)	0/3	1/3	2/3	2
correspondence (incl. 27)	2/3	1/3	0/3	2
symbolization	3/3	0/3	0/3	1
doctrinal-attribution	1/2	1/2	0/2	1
amplification	0/3	3/3	0/3	0
controls (personif., union)	2/2	0/2	0/2	0
All	8/16	6/16	2/16	6

A row this small is the items themselves; no rate over a handful of items carries precision worth reporting. The check asked which kind of relation a reader of the literature would say Jung asserts, not whether Jung's claim is true, which the verification chain had already asked of the paragraph. The disagreements stand beside the agreements because hiding them would make the table an argument rather than a record. Full worksheets: docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/.

Agreement is not endorsement: no scholar reviewed this vocabulary, and the sample is small enough to name in a sentence.

receipts counts read from seed.json sha256:9dc668bfff36 via web/family-map.mjs;
definition and seeds quoted from docs/FAMILY_DEFINITIONS.md v0.7.2;
external-validity row from docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/results.json (report v3, closed 2026-08-12);
built 2026-09-05

These families are this project's classification. They are calibrated inside this repository, checked once against outside scholarship on a small sample, and endorsed by nobody. What the layer records is how we sorted relations Jung wrote: a map of assertions, not a reading of him.