{
  "schema":"ULTRACON_CON_PROTOCOL_V43",
  "version":"4.3",
  "updated":"2026-09-14",
  "name":"CON^ comparative protocol v4.3",
  "goal":"Study how foolishness/non-adequacy is produced, attributed, circulated, institutionalized or reversed while preserving reflexivity, provenance, disagreement and the possibility that the case is outside CON^.",
  "unit_of_analysis":"qualification-event, stabilized cultural figure, collective failure configuration, institutional category or human-AI interaction",
  "notation":"CON(a ← q | N, C, t, P, K, R)",
  "steps":[
    {"id":"P0","name":"ADMISSION","question":"Does this object actually involve a documented attribution/figure/category relevant to judgment, understanding, prudence or competence? If not, stop as OUTSIDE_FIELD."},
    {"id":"P1","name":"ANCHOR","question":"What exact term, figure, event, organization, institution or machine failure is being studied?"},
    {"id":"P2","name":"EMIC","question":"What distinctions are meaningful inside the source language, period, group and practice?"},
    {"id":"P3","name":"SCENE","question":"Where does the qualification occur?"},
    {"id":"P4","name":"PRAGMATICS","question":"What social act is performed: description, insult, joke, rebuke, affection, ridicule, exclusion, status move or silence?"},
    {"id":"P5","name":"ATTRIBUTION","question":"What mismatch is claimed?"},
    {"id":"P6","name":"ATTRIBUTION_TYPE","question":"Is the attribution primarily TRAIT, CONDUCT, ROLE, INSTITUTIONAL_CLASSIFICATION, SYSTEM_OUTPUT or OTHER? If ROLE, separate role-title validity from any trait/competence inference."},
    {"id":"P7","name":"NEIGHBOR_CONCEPTS","question":"Which nearby notions — error, ignorance, incompetence, irrationality, bullshit, madness, immorality, failure, nonconformity, disability — must remain distinct?"},
    {"id":"P8","name":"KNOWLEDGE_AVAILABLE","question":"What relevant information/evidence was reasonably accessible to the target at that time?"},
    {"id":"P9","name":"RESPONSIBILITY","question":"Accident, ordinary ignorance, inattention, negligence, overconfidence, willful ignorance or refusal to update?"},
    {"id":"P10","name":"RATIONALITY_BOUNDS","question":"Is the judgment comparing a bounded agent with an omniscient ideal? Could a simple heuristic be ecologically appropriate?"},
    {"id":"P11","name":"POSITION","question":"Where is the target placed socially, narratively, technically or institutionally?"},
    {"id":"P12","name":"POWER_CREDIBILITY","question":"Who may qualify whom, with what authority/sanction/licence, and how does the label alter credibility?"},
    {"id":"P13","name":"OPERATION","question":"What does the label, role or classification do in practice?"},
    {"id":"P14","name":"COLLECTIVE_DYNAMICS","question":"If a group/system is involved, are there conformity, pluralistic ignorance, aggregation failure, credibility asymmetry, functional stupidity or incentive effects?"},
    {"id":"P15","name":"TIME","question":"Does the judgment change ex-ante/ex-post, across generations, or when timescale changes?"},
    {"id":"P16","name":"RETROSPECTIVE_BIAS","question":"Is outcome or hindsight knowledge being imported into the judgment as if it had been available ex ante?"},
    {"id":"P17","name":"AUDIT_QUALIFIER","question":"Separate Ka(t0), O(t1) and Kq(t2). Is the qualifier’s judgment SUPPORTED, FRAGILE, RETROSPECTIVE, ASYMMETRIC, REVERSED or INDETERMINATE? For ROLE attributions, audit role designation separately from trait inference."},
    {"id":"P18","name":"CURVATURE","question":"Does the configuration reinforce the norm, expose it, redistribute credibility, or alter what can count as sensible/wise/legitimate/sayable?"},
    {"id":"P19","name":"ETIC","question":"Which provisional comparative coordinates can be used without erasing local meaning?"},
    {"id":"P20","name":"COUNTERCASE","question":"Which mandatory countercase most strongly threatens the current interpretation?"},
    {"id":"P21","name":"REFLEXIVITY","question":"Apply CON^REFLEX: what does the field’s own anchor, selection, imported norm, source asymmetry or curation power contribute to this interpretation?"},
    {"id":"P22","name":"RIVAL_HYPOTHESES","question":"What competing explanation could account for the same material or outcome without using the CON^ framing?"},
    {"id":"P23","name":"PROVENANCE","question":"Can every published claim resolve to stable source IDs, derivation steps and relevant editorial/revision history?"},
    {"id":"P24","name":"VALIDATION_STATUS","question":"Is the rule UNVALIDATED, PILOTED, REVISED, REPLICATED or CONTESTED? Preserve pre-adjudication disagreement when reliability is tested."},
    {"id":"P25","name":"RESIDUAL","question":"What remains non-translatable, uncertain, contradictory, inaccessible or unsupported?"}
  ],
  "attribution_type":{"allowed":["TRAIT","CONDUCT","ROLE","INSTITUTIONAL_CLASSIFICATION","SYSTEM_OUTPUT","OTHER"],"origin":"Added after CON-V42-PILOT-01 disagreement on court-jester case P09.","role_clause":"A documented social role such as 'fool' can be valid as a role designation while a trait/competence inference about the performer remains unsupported or indeterminate."},
  "reflexivity":{"route":"./reflex-schema.json","rule":"Self-audit is a research operation, not a ceremonial positionality statement."},
  "validation":{"route":"./validation-protocol.json","current_state":"REVISED","pilot_01":"./validation/pilot-01-results.json","rule":"Reliability is distinct from truth and validity."},
  "provenance":{"graph":"./graph-schema.json","source_schema":"./source-provenance-schema.json","rule":"Source count is never an evidential-depth score."},
  "mechanism_status":{"route":"./mechanism-status.json","rule":"Mechanisms, phenomena, theoretical constructs and interpretive heuristics remain typed separately."},
  "comparison_rules":["Emic reconstruction precedes etic comparison.","A translation gloss is not concept identity.","A similar function is not proof of shared psychology.","An insult is a social act, not cognitive measurement.","Role designation and trait inference must be coded separately.","Ordinary ignorance and willful ignorance remain distinct.","Bounded rationality must not be mistaken for stupidity by default.","A heuristic must be assessed relative to its environment, not by complexity alone.","Dunning-Kruger must not be used as a universal shorthand.","Collective failure does not entail individual stupidity.","Public consensus does not entail shared private belief.","Outcome and hindsight bias must be tested in ex-post judgments.","Groupthink must be evidenced, not invoked as a one-word explanation.","A historical fool category is not a retrospective clinical diagnosis.","Credibility deficit/excess does not determine truth.","Raw source count does not measure evidential independence.","Coding reliability does not establish truth or cultural validity.","CON^ must be able to return OUTSIDE_FIELD, SUSPEND or INDETERMINATE.","No culture, civilization, person, organization or AI receives a global stupidity score."],
  "evidence_statuses":{"C1":"primary text/corpus/direct lexical attestation","C2":"specialist lexicography/reference","C3":"peer-reviewed historical/anthropological/linguistic/philosophical/theoretical interpretation","C4":"empirical behavioral/cognitive/organizational/human-AI study","C5":"comparative synthesis inside CON^","C6":"structural/T^ analogy only"},
  "T_total_clause":{"status":"C6 structural analogy","rule":"Hold local configurations in asymmetric co-presence; preserve the butterfly-corner caesura between resemblance and equivalence; dragonfly holding without fixation; inaccessible Janus horizon; no totalization, hierarchy or final trajectory.","auto_annulment":"Any use of this protocol to globally rank persons, peoples, cultures or civilizations as more or less stupid voids the protocol. CON^REFLEX also self-annuls if it becomes a final meta-authority."}
}