Questions carried forward from earlier studies
The earlier studies supply distinctions that can be tested on this corpus. Their titles are links to the original project pages; the English descriptions below are editorial aids rather than claims that official English versions were retrieved. The source material was read from the dated archive. Direct retrieval on 30 September obtained all thirteen live pages. Twelve HTML files matched the archive byte for byte; the live Human page differs. The entry for Human below refers to the archived version; its link opens the live page. The archive’s filename does not establish that its contents match the live edition.
| Earlier study | Question carried into the present analysis |
|---|---|
| Human | What is added by naming a participant or assigning a predicate to that participant? |
| Text in the place of text | How are recorded material, interpretation and a later demand connected in the declared corpus? |
| No authority in the output | Which claim concerns content, source, applicability or permission to act? |
| An evaluation remains a record | What supports the added status of proved, guilty or justified? |
| Record boundaries | Is a later attribution being placed inside an earlier inscription? |
| Inscription and reading | Does a match between explanations establish the further claim of shared understanding? |
| Mathematical notation | Which conditions govern a calculation or formal result, and are they retained in its use? |
| Full stop | Does the correction itself remain available for the same examination? |
| Diagnostic records and decisions | How are a designation, its assignment, a decision and an account of execution separated? |
| Reading as enclosure | Is an interpretation being used to support itself? |
| The later outside view | What was added by a caption or generalisation? |
| Did you understand | What further attribution follows a recorded confirmation? |
| The written I | Do pronouns or verbs conceal a change in participant or ownership? |
The connection is methodological. It does not establish a universal verdict against courts or turn an earlier formal result into a finding under criminal law. The present study, its name and its last explanatory sentence remain subject to the boundary applied throughout the package.