Building an Instrument by Running It: Seventeen Results for Ontosystematics from Two Reflexive Identity Trials

Abstract

Ontosystematics proposes a comparative inquiry into the identity and difference of determinations concerning being. No instrument existed for performing such a comparison so that it could come out either way. This record accounts for two reflexive identity trials run to build one, and states the seventeen results they produced. The trials tested a determination of this corpus against seven prior articulations of the same corpus, and in each case the corpus stood to gain from one verdict and the instrument returned the other. The results cover the verdict space, including a two-part office-identity test and the separation of failed identity by printed self-limitation from suspension, with silence excluded from both; the candidate statement, which carried both trials’ governing defects and did so in opposite directions; the evidence, including the replacement of free reconstruction by a blind full-text grid whose questions are fixed before any text is opened; and what the instrument cannot do, including the finding that reflexive trials inside one corpus are malformed as novelty tests and yield attribution maps instead, and that an identity trial cannot establish novelty against silence and should not be asked to. Four problems are named as unsolved and the standing protocol for the next application is stated. All runs accounted for here are public and unredacted, including those that convicted the instrument that produced them.