# Source and Section Index

This is a navigation aid, not an additional theory. Repository version 3.2.1; paper versions remain separate. For a narrow question, use a relevant section rather than loading the entire corpus. For the whole programme, read T1 → T5.

## Source precedence and scope

1. The paper DOI is the canonical scholarly citation target.
2. The reproduced paper text is the local source to check; the supplied T1–T4 blocks are unchanged.
3. Theory Map, claim ledger, and application guidance are derivative interpretations.
4. If a guide and the paper disagree, report it. Do not silently reconcile them.

Author–date suffixes and notes are local to each paper. `Tomita 2026a` is not a corpus-wide identifier. Paper T4 is Japanese with an English abstract; read the Japanese text for detailed claims. Figures omitted in the supplied corpus remain omitted.

## Question routes

| Question / topic | Source sections |
|---|---|
| Spec.／Spec.cost／domain expertiseの区別 | [T1 §2.1](./papers/T1.html#t1-2-1); [T2 §2.1](./papers/T2.html#t2-2-1) |
| T1の消去比較：機能性とドメイン適切性 | [T1 §4.2](./papers/T1.html#t1-4-2) |
| T3の二つの非委譲対象：方向の承認と応答の立場 | [T3 §2.2](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-2); [T3 §2.5](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-5); [T3 §7](./papers/T3.html#t3-7) |
| T3の主体性・選抜ではない分析 / agency, not diagnosis | [T3 §2.3](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-3); [T3 §2.4](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-4); [T3 §5.1](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-1) |
| 誰が問う側に答えるか / reciprocity, standing and competence | [T3 §4.4](./papers/T3.html#t3-4-4); [T3 §5.4](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-4); [T4 §2.4](./papers/T4.html#t4-2-4) |
| 組織の二経路と理由ある不採択 / organizational response | [T4 §4.3](./papers/T4.html#t4-4-3); [T4 §5.3](./papers/T4.html#t4-5-3) |
| 参加は代行できるか / non-transferability | [T5 §3.1](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-1); [T5 §3.5](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-5) |
| Nagel・Parfitとagent-relativeの帰属 | [T5 §3.1](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-1) |
| AIの地位と二つの席 / AI status and two seats | [T5 §3.3](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-3); [T5 §3.4](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-4) |
| 尊厳・承認・面子・評価 / dignity, standing, face, appraisal | [T5 §4.4](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-4); [T5 §4.6](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-6) |
| moral luck・結果と気質・承認の床 | [T5 §4.4](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-4) |
| visibility thesis / apparatus hypothesis / shogi evidence | [T5 §4.4](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-4); [T5 §5.2](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-2); [T5 §5.3](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-3) |

The moral-luck analogy is [T5 footnote 4](./papers/T5.html#fn4), not a new theorem. The original paper and its note should be read together.

## Paper files and section inventory

### T1 — preprint version 1

[HTML](./papers/T1.html) · [Markdown](./papers/T1.md) · [Canonical DOI](https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cwkav_v1)

| Section heading | Exact Markdown lines |
|---|---|
| [Abstract](./papers/T1.html#t1-abstract) | 12–17 |
| [Keywords](./papers/T1.html#t1-keywords) | 18–23 |
| [1. Introduction](./papers/T1.html#t1-1) | 24–45 |
| [2. Conceptual Framework](./papers/T1.html#t1-2) | 46–47 |
| [2.1 Two-component decomposition](./papers/T1.html#t1-2-1) | 48–63 |
| [2.2 The distillation model of authorship](./papers/T1.html#t1-2-2) | 64–71 |
| [2.3 Positioning among existing frameworks](./papers/T1.html#t1-2-3) | 72–88 |
| [2.4 Applicability conditions](./papers/T1.html#t1-2-4) | 89–96 |
| [3. Case Study](./papers/T1.html#t1-3) | 97–104 |
| [3.1 Specification cost as the determinant of design](./papers/T1.html#t1-3-1) | 105–118 |
| [3.2 Reversal of the translation direction](./papers/T1.html#t1-3-2) | 119–126 |
| [3.3 Exploratory value of reduced externalisation cost](./papers/T1.html#t1-3-3) | 127–138 |
| [3.4 Two identification points](./papers/T1.html#t1-3-4) | 139–148 |
| [4. Methods](./papers/T1.html#t1-4) | 149–152 |
| [4.1 Dialogue logs as cognitive records](./papers/T1.html#t1-4-1) | 153–160 |
| [4.2 Domain-ablation experiment](./papers/T1.html#t1-4-2) | 161–194 |
| [4.3 Data availability](./papers/T1.html#t1-4-3) | 195–198 |
| [4.4 AI use disclosure](./papers/T1.html#t1-4-4) | 199–206 |
| [5. Discussion](./papers/T1.html#t1-5) | 207–208 |
| [5.1 Theoretical positioning: the visibility thesis](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-1) | 209–226 |
| [5.2 Domain knowledge as the substance of specification cost](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-2) | 227–238 |
| [5.3 Non-functional requirements and the responsibility boundary](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-3) | 239–250 |
| [5.4 Methodological contribution of dialogue logs](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-4) | 251–260 |
| [5.5 Cumulative optimisation risk and educational implications](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-5) | 261–280 |
| [5.6 Safety considerations and limitations](./papers/T1.html#t1-5-6) | 281–298 |
| [6. Conclusion](./papers/T1.html#t1-6) | 299–302 |
| [The PhD as specification training](./papers/T1.html#t1-the-phd-as-specification-training) | 303–310 |
| [Observed diffusion and framework-derived conjectures](./papers/T1.html#t1-observed-diffusion-and-framework-derived-conjectures) | 311–316 |
| [Urgency](./papers/T1.html#t1-urgency) | 317–322 |
| [Closing](./papers/T1.html#t1-closing) | 323–332 |
| [Postscript: A general form of domain-native development](./papers/T1.html#t1-postscript-a-general-form-of-domain-native-development) | 333–344 |
| [Ethical approval](./papers/T1.html#t1-ethical-approval) | 345–348 |
| [Informed consent](./papers/T1.html#t1-informed-consent) | 349–352 |
| [Competing interests](./papers/T1.html#t1-competing-interests) | 353–356 |
| [Data availability](./papers/T1.html#t1-data-availability) | 357–362 |
| [References](./papers/T1.html#t1-references) | 363–416 |
| [Figure legends (images omitted)](./papers/T1.html#t1-figure-legends-images-omitted) | 417–418 |
| [Figure 1](./papers/T1.html#t1-figure-1) | 419–424 |
| [Figure 2](./papers/T1.html#t1-figure-2) | 425–442 |

### T2 — preprint version 2

[HTML](./papers/T2.html) · [Markdown](./papers/T2.md) · [Canonical DOI](https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/e9qw5_v2)

| Section heading | Exact Markdown lines |
|---|---|
| [Abstract](./papers/T2.html#t2-abstract) | 11–18 |
| [1. Introduction](./papers/T2.html#t2-1) | 19–32 |
| [2. The internal structure of specification: deriving the Sein/Sollen decomposition](./papers/T2.html#t2-2) | 33–34 |
| [2.1 Three concepts, not two](./papers/T2.html#t2-2-1) | 35–38 |
| [2.2 Derivation from the Mekiki case study](./papers/T2.html#t2-2-2) | 39–48 |
| [2.3 Philosophical foundations](./papers/T2.html#t2-2-3) | 49–64 |
| [2.4 Generalization beyond Externalization](./papers/T2.html#t2-2-4) | 65–72 |
| [3. Philosophy as cognitive assay: operationalization](./papers/T2.html#t2-3) | 73–74 |
| [3.1 Why the assay conditions are now met](./papers/T2.html#t2-3-1) | 75–78 |
| [3.2 The scoring protocol](./papers/T2.html#t2-3-2) | 79–104 |
| [3.3 Worked example: a minimal demonstration](./papers/T2.html#t2-3-3) | 105–116 |
| [3.4 Philosophical frameworks as candidate assay axes](./papers/T2.html#t2-3-4) | 117–124 |
| [4. First application: re-describing SECI through the assay](./papers/T2.html#t2-4) | 125–128 |
| [4.1 Externalization: the Mekiki framework's direct domain](./papers/T2.html#t2-4-1) | 129–132 |
| [4.2 Combination: AI's strongest domain](./papers/T2.html#t2-4-2) | 133–136 |
| [4.3 Socialization: the domain of Sollen-type specification](./papers/T2.html#t2-4-3) | 137–140 |
| [4.4 Internalization: AI as catalyst, not substitute](./papers/T2.html#t2-4-4) | 141–144 |
| [4.5 The rate-limiting shift: an analytic consequence](./papers/T2.html#t2-4-5) | 145–165 |
| [5. Convergent evidence](./papers/T2.html#t2-5) | 166–169 |
| [5.1 Predictive validity](./papers/T2.html#t2-5-1) | 170–173 |
| [5.2 Discriminant validity](./papers/T2.html#t2-5-2) | 174–177 |
| [5.3 Convergent and ecological validity](./papers/T2.html#t2-5-3) | 178–183 |
| [5.4 Failure modes](./papers/T2.html#t2-5-4) | 184–187 |
| [6. Discussion](./papers/T2.html#t2-6) | 188–191 |
| [6.1 The assay structure in practice: convergent implementation and convergent failure](./papers/T2.html#t2-6-1) | 192–201 |
| [6.2 Implications for AGI discourse](./papers/T2.html#t2-6-2) | 202–205 |
| [6.3 Agent-relative residues in LLM output](./papers/T2.html#t2-6-3) | 206–209 |
| [6.4 Scope, limitations, and safeguards](./papers/T2.html#t2-6-4) | 210–223 |
| [6.5 Do-type as a heuristic extension](./papers/T2.html#t2-6-5) | 224–227 |
| [7. Conclusion](./papers/T2.html#t2-7) | 228–241 |
| [Postscript](./papers/T2.html#t2-postscript) | 242–247 |
| [Ethical approval](./papers/T2.html#t2-ethical-approval) | 248–251 |
| [Informed consent](./papers/T2.html#t2-informed-consent) | 252–255 |
| [Author contributions](./papers/T2.html#t2-author-contributions) | 256–259 |
| [Competing interests](./papers/T2.html#t2-competing-interests) | 260–263 |
| [Data availability](./papers/T2.html#t2-data-availability) | 264–269 |
| [References](./papers/T2.html#t2-references) | 270–367 |
| [Figure legends (images omitted)](./papers/T2.html#t2-figure-legends-images-omitted) | 368–376 |

### T3 — preprint version 2

[HTML](./papers/T3.html) · [Markdown](./papers/T3.md) · [Canonical DOI](https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/hvbfe_v2)

| Section heading | Exact Markdown lines |
|---|---|
| [Abstract](./papers/T3.html#t3-abstract) | 9–12 |
| [1. Introduction](./papers/T3.html#t3-1) | 13–30 |
| [2. Decomposing learner agency by delegability](./papers/T3.html#t3-2) | 31–32 |
| [2.1 The choice of axis](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-1) | 33–38 |
| [2.2 Three components](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-2) | 39–42 |
| [2.3 Two forms of magnitude](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-3) | 43–46 |
| [2.4 The sort](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-4) | 47–71 |
| [2.5 What the sort shows about distribution](./papers/T3.html#t3-2-5) | 72–75 |
| [3. A design conjecture: encounter, crystallization, conversion](./papers/T3.html#t3-3) | 76–85 |
| [4. What the decomposition isolates](./papers/T3.html#t3-4) | 86–87 |
| [4.1 A different kind of remainder](./papers/T3.html#t3-4-1) | 88–93 |
| [4.2 Not an artifact of the axis](./papers/T3.html#t3-4-2) | 94–97 |
| [4.3 The second-personal ground](./papers/T3.html#t3-4-3) | 98–105 |
| [4.4 What the relation grounds](./papers/T3.html#t3-4-4) | 106–117 |
| [5. The two-layer prescription](./papers/T3.html#t3-5) | 118–121 |
| [5.1 Layer one: an analytic compass](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-1) | 122–129 |
| [5.2 Layer one: encounter engineering](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-2) | 130–139 |
| [5.3 Layer one: AI guardrails](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-3) | 140–147 |
| [5.4 Layer two: the second person](./papers/T3.html#t3-5-4) | 148–155 |
| [6. Boundary conditions and research agenda](./papers/T3.html#t3-6) | 156–159 |
| [7. Conclusion](./papers/T3.html#t3-7) | 160–163 |
| [Practitioner Notes](./papers/T3.html#t3-practitioner-notes) | 164–181 |
| [Statements](./papers/T3.html#t3-statements) | 182–191 |
| [References](./papers/T3.html#t3-references) | 192–251 |

### T4 — preprint version 1

[HTML](./papers/T4.html) · [Markdown](./papers/T4.md) · [Canonical DOI](https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/495wg_v1)

| Section heading | Exact Markdown lines |
|---|---|
| [1. 問題の所在](./papers/T4.html#t4-1) | 25–26 |
| [1.1 「自分ごと化」という未成熟な要請](./papers/T4.html#t4-1-1) | 27–30 |
| [1.2 医療が一度通過した同型の問題](./papers/T4.html#t4-1-2) | 31–34 |
| [1.3 説明言語の不在という横断的な構造](./papers/T4.html#t4-1-3) | 35–38 |
| [1.4 なぜ今この再記述が必要か](./papers/T4.html#t4-1-4) | 39–42 |
| [1.5 本稿の貢献](./papers/T4.html#t4-1-5) | 43–46 |
| [2. 概念枠組み：アドヒアランスと引き受けの構造](./papers/T4.html#t4-2) | 47–48 |
| [2.1 医療アドヒアランスの核心：正統性の所在](./papers/T4.html#t4-2-1) | 49–56 |
| [2.2 Mekikiによる翻訳：二つの区別の輸入](./papers/T4.html#t4-2-2) | 57–64 |
| [2.3 中核命題：自分ごと化とは何か](./papers/T4.html#t4-2-3) | 65–72 |
| [2.4 引き受けの核：応答可能性（answerability）](./papers/T4.html#t4-2-4) | 73–97 |
| [3. 事例分析](./papers/T4.html#t4-3) | 98–109 |
| [4. 考察：非対称の経路依存と二経路モデル](./papers/T4.html#t4-4) | 110–111 |
| [4.1 なぜ医療で成立しやすく組織で難しいのか](./papers/T4.html#t4-4-1) | 112–117 |
| [4.2 非対称の正体は経路にある](./papers/T4.html#t4-4-2) | 118–127 |
| [4.3 組織アドヒアランスの二経路モデル](./papers/T4.html#t4-4-3) | 128–145 |
| [4.4 射程の限定とその反転](./papers/T4.html#t4-4-4) | 146–151 |
| [5. 失敗と成功の様式：形骸化と3M](./papers/T4.html#t4-5) | 152–155 |
| [5.1 失敗の様式：形骸化と自惚れ](./papers/T4.html#t4-5-1) | 156–165 |
| [5.2 成功の様式：3Mの三操作](./papers/T4.html#t4-5-2) | 166–181 |
| [5.3 先行指標による観測](./papers/T4.html#t4-5-3) | 182–202 |
| [6. 結論](./papers/T4.html#t4-6) | 203–214 |
| [注](./papers/T4.html#t4-notes) | 215–222 |
| [参考文献](./papers/T4.html#t4-references) | 223–261 |

### T5 — preprint version 3

[HTML](./papers/T5.html) · [Markdown](./papers/T5.md) · [Canonical DOI](https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/593ah_v3)

| Section heading | Exact Markdown lines |
|---|---|
| [Abstract](./papers/T5.html#t5-abstract) | 11–14 |
| [Keywords](./papers/T5.html#t5-keywords) | 15–20 |
| [1. Introduction](./papers/T5.html#t5-1) | 21–46 |
| [2. The Separation: Achieved State and Participation](./papers/T5.html#t5-2) | 47–48 |
| [2.1 The apparatus](./papers/T5.html#t5-2-1) | 49–58 |
| [2.2 What delegation delivers, and what it dissolves](./papers/T5.html#t5-2-2) | 59–68 |
| [2.3 Two clarifications](./papers/T5.html#t5-2-3) | 69–74 |
| [3. The Non-Transferability Theorem](./papers/T5.html#t5-3) | 75–76 |
| [3.1 Statement and scope](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-1) | 77–88 |
| [3.2 The criterion: undertaking, not provenance](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-2) | 89–96 |
| [3.3 Independence from the status of AI](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-3) | 97–106 |
| [3.4 Two roots and two world-images](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-4) | 107–120 |
| [3.5 A first-person corollary](./papers/T5.html#t5-3-5) | 121–126 |
| [4. The Conditions of Acceptance](./papers/T5.html#t5-4) | 127–128 |
| [4.1 The vision of collapse and its heirs](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-1) | 129–140 |
| [4.2 Diagnosis and the third response](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-2) | 141–148 |
| [4.3 Dignity apparatuses](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-3) | 149–164 |
| [4.4 Price and dignity: what the apparatus protects](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-4) | 165–182 |
| [4.5 Two further pillars](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-5) | 183–190 |
| [4.6 What this account does not license](./papers/T5.html#t5-4-6) | 191–194 |
| [5. A Completed Historical Case](./papers/T5.html#t5-5) | 195–196 |
| [5.1 The case](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-1) | 197–202 |
| [5.2 The assay: three axes](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-2) | 203–208 |
| [5.3 What survived, and the record](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-3) | 209–216 |
| [5.4 Conclusion](./papers/T5.html#t5-5-4) | 217–224 |
| [Postscript](./papers/T5.html#t5-postscript) | 225–230 |
| [Acknowledgements](./papers/T5.html#t5-acknowledgements) | 231–234 |
| [References](./papers/T5.html#t5-references) | 235–325 |

## Verification

Paper hashes and derivation are in [source_manifest.json](./source_manifest.json). Run `python tools/validate_corpus.py` for local consistency checks. These checks do not measure model comprehension, indexing, citation uptake, or DOI availability.