{
  "schema":"ULTRACON_CON_CLAIMS_V42",
  "version":"4.2",
  "updated":"2026-09-14",
  "range":"CL45-CL53",
  "principle":"Validation and reflexivity claims are methodological constraints, not new universal laws of stupidity.",
  "claims":[
    {"id":"CL45","status":"C3","claim":"Researcher position and prior experience can shape what becomes visible, plausible or salient in qualitative interpretation; reflexivity is therefore a quality-control practice rather than optional self-description.","source_ids":["S80"],"limit":"reflexivity does not eliminate subjectivity or guarantee correctness"},
    {"id":"CL46","status":"C3","claim":"Reflexivity is strongest when treated as continuous practice across research decisions rather than as a one-time positionality statement.","source_ids":["S81"],"limit":"specific reflexive practices depend on paradigm and research design"},
    {"id":"CL47","status":"C3/C4","claim":"Inter-coder agreement can test whether a coding scheme is applied reproducibly and can reveal systematic sources of disagreement.","source_ids":["S82","S83"],"limit":"agreement measures reliability, not truth, construct validity or moral legitimacy"},
    {"id":"CL48","status":"C5","claim":"CON^ should preserve pre-adjudication disagreement before coders discuss or reconcile their decisions, otherwise the apparent reliability of the scheme can be inflated.","source_ids":["S82"],"limit":"this is a methodological design rule for CON^ validation, not a universal requirement for all qualitative research"},
    {"id":"CL49","status":"C3","claim":"Krippendorff-style agreement measures are useful when coding involves multiple coders, categorical decisions and potentially incomplete rating matrices.","source_ids":["S82","S83"],"limit":"choice of coefficient and interpretation must match the measurement structure and research design"},
    {"id":"CL50","status":"C3","claim":"Provenance can be represented explicitly through relations among entities, activities and agents rather than inferred from citation counts alone.","source_ids":["S84"],"limit":"a provenance graph documents derivation; it does not establish evidential quality by itself"},
    {"id":"CL51","status":"C3","claim":"Structured adversarial collaboration can improve theory building by requiring rival positions to jointly clarify and test competing explanations.","source_ids":["S85"],"limit":"adversarial collaboration does not guarantee consensus or truth"},
    {"id":"CL52","status":"C5","claim":"The raw number of sources in CON^ is not an evidential-depth metric; primary access, local-language evidence, independent provenance, rival interpretations and replication matter separately.","source_ids":["S84"],"limit":"the listed provenance dimensions remain a CON^ methodological synthesis"},
    {"id":"CL53","status":"C5","claim":"CON^ must be able to return OUTSIDE_FIELD, SUSPEND or INDETERMINATE when its own admission rule, evidence or rival explanations are insufficient.","source_ids":["S80","S81"],"limit":"self-audit states are local research decisions, not objective properties of the world"}
  ]
}