Previous works · [1]–[9]
[1] Kirill Shebetov · Record Boundaries: A Source-Order Method for Checking Written Attributions
2026
Edition: Russian PDF, 9 pages; the edition number is not used in this comparison.
Scope: §2.1 and the beginning of §2.2, p. 2
Use: The order of the initial record and a subsequent explanation.
Limit: Not a reconstruction of the chronology of a participant’s perception or life.
[2] Kirill Shebetov · Reading as Enclosure: A Constructive Separation of Self-Return and Evidential Admission
2026
Edition: Edition 1.2.3; Russian PDF, 56 pages.
Scope: §12, especially §§12.1–12.5, p. 16
Use: The use of an explanation as grounds for the attribution on which it rests; symmetry between affirmative and negative formulations.
Limit: The formal cycle-detection procedure was not run again; no general mechanism of thought was established.
[3] Kirill Shebetov · “Did You Understand Me?”: What This Record Actually Presents
2026
Edition: Russian PDF, 9 pages.
Scope: §§5.3–5.5, p. 5
Use: Keeping occurrences, assignment to log roles, and matching under a stated criterion distinct.
Limit: Neither understanding nor its absence is inferred from a match alone.
[4] Kirill Shebetov · A “View from Outside” Comes Later: How a Particular Record Acquires General Status
2026
Edition: Russian PDF, 12 pages.
Scope: §§6.1–6.4, p. 6
Use: Adding a general claim to particular material; keeping the caption separate from the image.
Limit: The comparison with self-description is proposed in the present work; photographs and self-reports are not treated as identical.
[5] Kirill Shebetov · The Mathematics Series, Phases 0–7 (“MATHEMATICS REFUTED”). Text used: “A Rocket Does Not Prove Mathematics: A Theorem on the Dependent Status of Application and the Boundary of the ‘It Works’ Argument”
2026
Edition: Phase 6, technical edition 6.0.0, August 29, 2026; compiled Russian PDF, 100 pages; hosted in the directory for series 7.2.1.
Scope: §8 of the main manuscript, p. 14; also the series page for its contents and public title
Use: The dependence of a result label on the stated threshold while the compared numbers remain unchanged.
Limit: Not a full analysis of phases 0–7; the code and theorems were not reproduced; not proof that a feeling or speaker is absent.
[6] Kirill Shebetov · Evaluation Never Leaves the Record: Before the Word “Evaluation”—The Boundary Between Checking a Record and Establishing Its Meaning
2026
Edition: Russian research edition dated September 2, 2026; PDF, 33 pages.
Scope: §11.1, p. 17
Use: Keeping a match between records and the assignment of an evaluative status distinct from agreement or truth.
Limit: The number of self-citations is not presented as a count of independent confirmations; the technical tests were not repeated.
[7] Kirill Shebetov · A String Has No Authority: A Self-Applying Boundary Between AI Output and the Right to Act
2026
Edition: Russian manuscript dated August 30, 2026; PDF, 42 pages.
Scope: §§6.2–6.4, p. 19
Use: Considering byte identity, attributed content, and authority separately.
Limit: The regulatory discussion was not updated and is not used as a legal opinion; role labels do not establish authority by themselves.
[8] Kirill Shebetov · FULL STOP: The Boundary of a Presented Record
2026
Edition: Public Russian PDF, 14 pages; the URL parameter v=558c81c426bf is retained as part of the link, not as a calculated checksum.
Scope: §5.1, p. 4
Use: Even a warranted inference remains a record; its explanation and grounds fall within the same scope.
Limit: Not a denial that inferences can be drawn or that text can be useful; not a survey or a measurement of change in readers.
[9] Kirill Shebetov · Inscription and Reading: The Limit of Recording Reading in Writing
2026
Edition: Edition 13, September 11, 2026; public Russian PDF, 29 pages.
Scope: §9, p. 6; §15, pp. 19–20
Use: The earlier application to “I” and feelings; explanatory words not individually listed receive no exemption.
Limit: Restating this point is not presented as a separate discovery; the present work develops distinctions between the roles involved in self-description.
External sources · [10]–[20]
[10] Émile Benveniste · Subjectivity in Language
1971; first published in 1958.
Publication: In Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. University of Miami Press, pp. 223–230.
Scope: According to the retained reading record: a text reproduction of chapter 21, passages on pp. 223–230 concerning the subject, the first person, and the performative. This was not a publisher’s scan; the extraction contains repetitions and OCR errors. No comparison with another copy was carried out for this edition.
Use: A comparison retained from the preceding edition concerning the first person and action performed through an utterance. It is not the basis of the present analysis of N1.
Limit: Not evidence of the historical moment when self-description emerged; not proof that letters become a subject. Removing the link does not resolve the limitations of the earlier text extraction.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” The Scribd link has been removed from this entry and its intended use clarified; removing the link does not resolve the limitations of the earlier text extraction. No new analysis of the source was conducted for this edition.
[11] Matthew D. Lieberman; Naomi I. Eisenberger; Molly J. Crockett; Sabrina M. Tom; Jennifer H. Pfeifer; Baldwin M. Way · Putting feelings into words: affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli
2007
Publication: Psychological Science 18(5), 421–428
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x
Scope: The authors’ abstract and bibliographic information.
Use: A limited report of an effect in an emotion-labeling task.
Limit: The methods and primary data were not reanalyzed. Not clinical guidance or an account of the emergence of “I”.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[12] Stanislas Dehaene et al. · How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language
2010
Publication: Science 330(6009), 1359–1364
DOI: 10.1126/science.1194140
Scope: The authors’ abstract and bibliographic information.
Use: Distinguishing the question of literacy from the question of the first person.
Limit: Not a universal chronology of perception or a causal history of self-awareness.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[13] Lisa K. Fazio; Nadia M. Brashier; B. Keith Payne; Elizabeth J. Marsh · Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth
2015
Publication: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144(5), 993–1002
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000098
Scope: The authors’ abstract and bibliographic information.
Use: A limited hypothesis about repetition and judgments of truth.
Limit: Not grounds for claiming universal belief in writing. The full experiment was not analyzed.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[14] David Kaplan · Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals
1989
Publication: In Themes from Kaplan, edited by Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein. Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.
Scope: §§II–III, book pp. 490–492. An image of the spread on pp. 490–491 was inspected during the earlier reading.
Use: A contextual rule for assigning first-person reference.
Limit: Not the establishment of a biography or an experience from an isolated symbol. Not a comprehensive review of indexicality.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[15] Stevan Harnad · The Symbol Grounding Problem
1990
Publication: Physica D 42, 335–346; an openly accessible author version on arXiv
Scope: The points used from §§1–3.
Use: The problem of explaining symbols through symbols and the proposal of nonsymbolic components.
Limit: The written form of the account is not used to refute the model.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[16] Emily M. Bender; Alexander Koller · Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data
2020
Publication: Proceedings of ACL 2020, 5185–5198
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463
Scope: The abstract and §3 of the article.
Use: The distinction between form and meaning within a specified formulation of the problem.
Limit: Not a universal verdict on understanding in all models or on the absence of states.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[17] Cameron Berg; Diogo de Lucena; Judd Rosenblatt · Large Language Models Report Subjective Experience Under Self-Referential Processing
2025
Publication: arXiv preprint 2510.24797v2
Version: October 30, 2025
Scope: The abstract and version information.
Use: Distinguishing a model’s self-report from the subjective experience attributed to it.
Limit: The methods, code, and results were not reproduced. Not proof of either the presence or absence of consciousness.
Status of the comparison: The comparison is retained from the original package, whose Russian title is rendered here as “The Written I.” This edition does not claim to provide a new full analysis of the source.
[18] L. B. Okun · The Einstein formula: E₀ = mc². “Isn’t the Lord laughing?”
2008
Edition: arXiv:0808.0437v1, August 4, 2008; author version. Physics–Uspekhi 51(5), 513–527.
DOI: 10.1070/PU2008v051n05ABEH006538
HTML version: https://arxiv.org/html/0808.0437v1
Scope: The abstract and §1: PDF, pp. 1–2; the HTML reproduction of §1.
Use: Distinguishing rest energy E₀ from total energy E; making the chosen notation explicit.
Limit: Not grounds for the claim about written form, not a refutation of physics, and not a report of a measurement.
Retained scope note: The earlier record does not claim that the full work was read. Sources [1]–[17], entered earlier, were not checked again. This note belongs to the earlier source record.
[19] N. Yu. Shvedova (editor-in-chief); USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Russian Language · Russian Grammar. Volume I. Section “Substantival Pronouns”
1980
Edition: Moscow: Nauka, 1980; an openly accessible text reproduction on SLOVARI.RU
Edition information: https://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?p=167&s=0
Scope: §§1270–1273, 1277; the introductory page on the edition’s contents and its descriptive and normative aims.
Use: Comparing pronominal use, personification, and generalized use with the prepared reading frames.
Limit: Not proof of the claim about written form; not an instruction to read every inscription as a person; not a legal opinion or a review of current language norms.
Retained scope note: The source was added during the revision described in the retained record. Information on sources [1]–[18] was carried over from the preceding package; no new online audit of those sources was conducted.
[20] O’Brien B. C., Harris I. B., Beckman T. J., Reed D. A., Cook D. A. · Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
2014
Edition: Academic Medicine. 89(9):1245–1251. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
Scope: Table 1, pp. 1247–1248; the explanation of the researcher’s role on p. 1246; the limitation on the recommendations’ scope on p. 1248.
Use: An explicit account of the author-participant’s role, selection, quotation, and the limits of the report.
Limit: Not grounds for the claim about written form, not an evaluation of the instruction’s effectiveness, and not a claim that the work complies with SRQR.