Dynamic model — post-critic pass 2

Explanation

Cirkeltrek's text shows organizing in specific answered undertakings, not a unified force inferred from orange language. Readers are offered entry, a concrete object and a current plan (P01). A newcomer can be willing yet not know how to help; a later reader cannot find the current portrait plan. Availability and participation are different achievements. Proposals for letters, windmills, portraits and borders specify what to act on, while disputes and revisions keep the goal open. No founding moment or single decision system is recovered.

The most legible local action is a repair. In E-02, named partners agree a moment and complementary pixels (P02), then acknowledge success (P03) [A01]. Its supporting words are “om 13:05 ga ik met 2 profielen twee blokjes veranderen, als je dit ook om 13:05 precies doet kunnen we de letter naar een O veranderen” in c0027, item dfoskt3, hour 18.953333333333333, and “Yes, gelukt! High-Five!” in c0071, item dfosqu9, hour 19.10388888888889, both thread 62rwzd. The full replies connect those endpoints by divided intentions. This supports reported local completion, not direct canvas verification. A later report of reversal returns contributors to correction, but does not supply a complete typed feedback cycle.

Accountability is also work, and can change its own target. A named alleged saboteur (P04) answers that they are restoring black pixels, whereupon the accuser apologizes (P05) [A02]. In E-04, “Dat ben ik niet, ik probeer 't juist steeds weer zwart te maken” (c0078, item dfowkrg, hour 21.656111111111112) receives “Ah, excuus. Dit maakt het wel moeilijk om betrouwbaar /r/cirkeltrek -verraders te vinden” (c0079, item dfowq9p, hour 21.735833333333332), thread 62sk70. Rendering lag remains the participant's explanation. E-03 supplies a different result: release “een beetje uit medelijden” rather than proven innocence. The model preserves the distinction instead of equating all sanctions with effective repair.

Calls to annex and proposals to spare neighbours contest a project's reach (P06); they are rival practices, not an evolution to consensus. The specific no-expansion exchange in E-05 ends in reported loss. The Pusheen exchange (E-11) promises preservation, then its own promiser says others disagree. K01 names that limit: an undertaking by a speaker is not demonstrated control over every placer. “We have no control over our people” (c0306, item dfpe692, thread 62vffi, hour 28.979166666666668) is a participant's explicit explanation, not a measured universal condition. These contrasts prevent an arrow from agreement to enforced territorial restraint. Whether an earlier binding arrangement existed elsewhere remains unresolved.

After hour 73, original-canvas placing cannot continue under the imposed clock. Appraisal and preservation (P07) make a result available through the header request, wallpapers and compilation; these do not establish continuing pixel production. Replacement-venue offers repeat P01, but the in-window Nah in E-23 refuses. The last observed coordinating act remains c0299 at instrument hour 94.53666666666666; it dates an attempt, not the end of all activity. Work-remained reports and the R2 aftermath calculation retain their separate meanings.

Elements, tier and range

The authoritative register is model/elements.jsonl: P01 offers work (T4-001); P02 schedules complementary repair (T4-002); P03 acknowledges completion (t05); P04 calls to account (T4-002); P05 revisits attribution/sanction (t05); P06 contests reach (T4-003); P07 interprets/preserves result (T4-004); P08 calls for restoration/guarding (T4-002); K01 limits the reach of speakers' undertakings (D01). Each row specifies its range and coded evidence. P03 also uses construction reports as an edge variant without importing their original coder theme into another higher theme. P01 and P06 name K01 as a bound. No authoritative leader or stable representative role is inferred.

Relationships and negative tests

A01: P02 to P03, transition, fair, bounded. Complementary timing makes the repair jointly actionable; incompatible or refused action would defeat that mechanism. E-23 defeats the broad offer-to-uptake expectation, not the narrower accepted repair. E-06 has no joint timing; E-17 has no visible response; E-23 lacks complementary repair and a shared time. None tests failure of the retained mechanism, whose negative check is not-addressed, not tested absent. This is a quote-grounded sequence, not an interval measurement or a frequency result.

A02: P04 to P05, transition, fair, bounded. An answer supplies a competing account that an engaged challenger can acknowledge; ignoring it and maintaining the same attribution would defeat that mechanism. E-17 does not expose an ignored answer, so the negative test remains weak, not tested absent. E-03 qualifies release as pity. Neither relation is strong; live/aftermath numerical comparisons and a prevalence base-rate test are not claimed. Full mechanisms, failure clauses, samples and counterexample responses remain in arrows.jsonl. The model relates presences and specific sequences, not amounts.

For coder-selection artefact: both relations sit in correction material that the original coder chose to preserve. A01 may be unusually legible because a success reply was coded. The full thread's divided intentions and later reversal distinguish it from a bare success label, but do not show how representative it is. A02 may be memorable because the accusation was wrong. The explicit denial/apology and different shame-wall release show the local connection, not its incidence. There is no third grounded arrow for which to invent an argument. Chronology in the original case was read at receipt 3300; it corroborates the repair/accountability and promise exchanges but supplies no independent causal observations.

Dimension projection

Both retained arrows run between process elements within D01; one endpoint in each is specified at coder-theme level. Their mechanisms cannot be abstracted into a single causal relation from D01 to itself: scheduling and reattribution are different. Report them as internal qualitative mass, not a dimension-level self-arrow. The register has no incoming or outgoing cross-dimension relationship; there is only one dimension, and P07 lies outside it. No coder theme has duplicate placement, so removing doubles changes nothing. No quantitative connection mass or drift estimate is asserted. Lack of an incoming dimension arrow does not turn this single case's entire dimension into a causal condition.

ungrounded relationships

A published plan causing acceptance; national language producing mobilization; bargaining causing compliance; an agreement changing the whole community's mind; correction producing durable defence; results causing renewed recruitment; and closure causing durable migration are not grounded arrows. Their components can be described, but these causal formulations are not drawn. The displayed model without them is P02 to P03 [A01] and P04 to P05 [A02], alongside P01, P06, P07, P08 and K01. Adding the conjectures would yield a tidy plan-to-compliance-to-survival chain; that is the rejected theorized model, not an additional set of registered arrows.

Dynamics and boundaries

No loop is claimed: loops.jsonl is empty. E-02 explicitly returns to a damaged-letter problem, but repeated work is not a closed sequence through the typed arrows. Public accounting can end in retraction, a pity release or no visible reply. A promised border can fail without dissolving the venue. Hour 73 irreversibly removes original-canvas placing, not display work, care or the possibility of another venue.

The model should break where a binding decision/membership arrangement makes a speaker's undertaking enforceable over the relevant actors, or where apparent shared work is unrelated projects with no reciprocal engagement. An unchanged statement would not explain those conditions. These are substantive boundaries, unlike the mere size of the archive. The ordinary, surprising and stopped episodes are narrated above; P08 additionally tells the overnight protection call and contextual commitment without claiming a finished watch. All remaining episodes are tested in the numbered story episode registers, with irreducible residue retained rather than absorbed.

looked-for-and-not-found

The pre-search competing account was public relay without local organizing. Literal case-sensitive searches of coded words for gelukt and excuus returned the specific repair acknowledgment and apology; their full threads are read in the story census. A controle search returned no match in that coded vocabulary. This null cannot establish absent control: the English explicit control statement exists and external decisions are unobserved. The strongest contrary item to binding reach is the Pusheen promiser's later “Well, seems others don't agree. :(” in dfq7a8j, hour 45.92388888888889, thread 62z31i, followed by visitors' reported relocation. It changes an achieved-border account into an attempted-bargain account. The relay rival survives for external plan decisions and unobserved placement; it does not explain away the local divided repair and acknowledged reattribution. No complete governance system, durable migrated team, feedback cycle or independently verified image outcome was recovered. All such absence statements are weak and scoped to the read public text and window, not proof of nonexistence elsewhere.

Unused practices and concept

t01, turning the subreddit itself into the April joke, is contextual and outside the model. Other original coder practices are represented by at least one process, but this is not a code-coverage or claim-support count. The whole tier is not forced into D01: T4-004 remains outside it. No novel concept is selected; concept.md retains the closest accountability candidate and rejects a whole-story label.

Story-test residue

The complete census retains E-18 as told-with-residue: its guide is an offer, but the in-window post-closure collaborative anthem recitation is ritual conversation rather than pixel production or display coordination. It would require a separate account of collective performance, not an extra causal arrow about plans. The model does not absorb it into continued canvas work. The contrary instruction in 62ryzp, item dfoyxq7, hour 22.77638888888889, says named people need not defend themselves, only change behaviour; A02 therefore remains an observed possible reattribution, not the definition or inevitable outcome of accountability.

Independent critic and revision

The accepted critic found two contradictions, both repaired with their prior records retained. Canonical coding places c0049 in t05, so the misplaced example under the earlier t06 section was replaced, not recoded. A01 no longer calls E-23 a failure of its narrow mechanism: the repair/timing antecedent is absent there. Its instance survives, but its negative test is weak and unaddressed. The rival access/intelligibility/claims/presentation partition is plausible; the present partition is retained to distinguish making work addressable from recovering its continuity and contesting its entitlement. The full comparison and replies are in notes-R4.md. Candidate pass 1 remains preserved. This corrected model is compared in the post-fix passes; version selection and the stopping record are reported in notes-R4.md.