Fourth-order themes, carried from R3 to R4 pass 1

Target length: under 2,000 words.

These are provisional theoretical bundles directly above the original coder themes. All names are coined, source-free and unverified against explanation literature because that stage has not opened. Original coder labels and memberships are unchanged. The naming file is retained separately; optional names do not decide this tier. The initial cuts were R3 pass 0. Their current metadata records pass 1 and in_model=true because each now has a typed model element; no gate, member or construct has changed.

T4-001: Making shared designs executable and repairable

Declaration: coined. Gloss: Make the outline, proportions and intended change clear enough to help rather than undo it.

Proposing a recognizable object is not enough to make independent placements add up. Participants turn ideas into dimensions, outlines, templates and manageable designs, recruit help with specific parts, and revise mistaken defence. The common practice is making a distributed contribution usable for a shared drawing, not merely invoking Norway. What varies is the precision of the contribution and whether it opens a project, maintains it or corrects an interpretation. A proposal can remain unbuilt and a correct specification can still be resisted.

Question: How can separate participants know what contribution will add to the same drawing rather than undo it?

Members: t01, t03, t11, c0029, c0032, c0037. Dimension: D01

Boundary test: Against T4-002, the deciding object is the drawing's usable form or interpretation, not a claim against another project's space. Against T4-003, it supplies what to make or how to contribute, not where to gather. Keep the coder theme by its organizing practice. A design calculation that respects neighbours remains here when it specifies the drawing; negotiated permission itself belongs in T4-002. Split t07 into live practical explanation here and past-event accounts in T4-005.

Least secure member: The live part of t07 is least secure: an explanation of mechanics can enable work without stating a design. It belongs because knowing the unit of contribution and how to link coordinates makes a design actionable. Its later explanations have been separated, not silently treated as onboarding.

Near case outside: c0145 gives a usable time and starting point but its focal practice is mobilizing an invasion of another flag, so it stays in T4-002. c0141 respects neighbours while calculating a flag: its drawing-specification practice stays here without an extra placement.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere, apparent shared design instructions are only independent decoration and do not orient contributions to a common drawing.

Could be mistaken for: A central designer directing all placers, or mere national symbolism.

T4-002: Making spatial claims through pressure and accommodation

Declaration: coined. Gloss: Take or defend room, ask for room, and bargain over what can remain beside or inside the flag.

Attacks, defence, border requests and relocation offers address the same practical dependence: one project can grow into another's work. Participants mobilize pressure or seek an arrangement with those making adjacent objects. Holding these practices together reveals that coexistence is worked out within conflict, not a peaceful phase replacing it. Force, permission, alliances and assistance vary without becoming equivalent in consent or effect. A claimed deal is not compliance, and one commenter cannot necessarily authorize everyone else's work.

Question: How do projects claim usable room when their contributions overlap others' work?

Members: t02, t04. Dimension: D02

Boundary test: Against T4-004, this is making or contesting a practical spatial arrangement, not principally judging whether expansion or its supposed directors are legitimate. Place territorial mobilization and neighbour arrangements here even if a speaker justifies them; place a theme organized around evaluating those acts in T4-004. No extra placement is inferred from war vocabulary.

Least secure member: t04 is least secure because its language includes permission and restraint while t02 mobilizes coercion. The shared question is practical access to interdependent space, not a claim that these acts have the same moral standing. Retaining two coder themes preserves that contrast.

Near case outside: c0058 asks people to support drawings instead of destroying others. Its practical phrasing could look like an accommodation request, but it evaluates acceptable use of pixels rather than offers terms to a neighbour; its t08 placement stays in T4-004.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere, the alleged boundary work concerns unrelated projects with no competition or interdependence over room.

Could be mistaken for: Consensual diplomacy, or a coherent campaign under unified command.

T4-003: Gathering and regathering participants

Declaration: coined. Gloss: Bring scattered event talk and helpers into places where they can find one another, including after the original event.

A place to contribute is itself made and remade. Participants open and advertise channels, moderators concentrate posts, and later recruiters call people to successor games while an overwhelmed reader asks for a public overview again. These are attempts to make joint participation reachable, not simply mentions of software. The practice varies between voluntary invitation and enforced redirection, between a discussion venue and a replacement activity, and between creation and sustainable maintenance. Gathering talk can protect the subreddit while also making some contributions harder to follow.

Question: How is participation gathered when discussion is scattered or the current venue or event no longer serves it?

Members: t05, t10, t14. Dimension: D01

Boundary test: Against T4-001, the object is a place or occasion to join, not the drawing's specification. Against T4-004, an operational redirect belongs here while a dispute about its legitimacy belongs there. Use the coder theme's practice: creating/enforcing the venue stays here, evaluating the standing of its directors goes to T4-004. t14 belongs as regathering after closure, not as a claim that persistence succeeded.

Least secure member: t05 is least secure because moderators may want less event talk rather than more pixel work. It belongs as arranging the reachability and location of participation, with enforced concentration explicitly different from voluntary gathering. This bundle does not attribute the moderators' goal to every participant.

Near case outside: c0197 denies an official Discord. It concerns a venue but disputes standing rather than creates access; t13 stays in T4-004. c0287 is a bare successor title inside t14; the theme's broader recruitment is the bundle's warrant, not that title alone.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere, venue and successor references are bare advertisements without attempts to gather, redirect or sustain participation.

Could be mistaken for: Central command, or seamless continuity of the original group.

T4-004: Contesting what the collective may do

Declaration: coined. Gloss: Question expansion, defend it, deny speaking for everyone, and dispute who can direct or remove contributions.

Participants do more than compete for pixels: they challenge the purposes, acceptable means and representative standing of collective action. Criticism of ruined art and criticism of Discord or removals share this practice of refusing an unqualified 'we'. Justification, counter-justification and denial of official status make agreement on goals and authority visible as unsettled. This is not evidence that objections stopped a campaign. It includes defences of expansion as well as criticism, and can remain unresolved after practical work ends.

Question: What limits do participants place on the purposes and claimed authority of a collective effort?

Members: t08, t13. Dimension: D02

Boundary test: Against T4-002, the focus is rightfulness, representation or authority rather than the terms of a spatial arrangement. Against T4-005, an event account belongs here only when its organizing point is this dispute. Keep the coder themes organized around contestation here. Reports or praise that principally recount effort remain T4-005; operational moderation remains T4-003. Do not assign a whole utterance's presumed stance from one military word.

Least secure member: t13 is least secure because the last complaints concern ordinary subreddit authority as well as event coordination. The explicit references to event removals and the standing of Discord connect them; general governance beyond that connection is not an inferred organizing task.

Near case outside: c0146 invokes an agreement to spare VULT. It can imply authority, but it implements an arrangement with a particular neighbour, so t04 stays in T4-002. c0246 praises respectful policy but principally accounts for a finished effort in t12.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere, participants accept the relevant goals and authority and disputes concern execution alone, with no contest over acceptable action or representation.

Could be mistaken for: A collective conversion to restraint, or opposition effective enough to control the work.

T4-005: Making a public account of collective effort

Declaration: coined. Gloss: Explain what happened, recognize work and costs, give credit, and ask what the finished activity was.

The finished event becomes an object of work in the conversation. Participants make it intelligible to latecomers, recognize contributions, describe intensity and losses, and offer competing histories. Instructional language can now explain a past activity rather than enable a current contribution. The shared practice is publicly accounting for participation and its result; this neither makes a settled history nor demonstrates that thanks reward future labour. Pride, regret, explanation, credit and wishing to have participated vary within that account.

Question: How does collective effort become publicly intelligible and acknowledged once placement has stopped?

Members: t12, c0255, c0256, c0257, c0278, c0279, c0290, c0280, c0281. Dimension: none; Accounting makes effort knowable but need not assemble current capacity or settle the reach of collective claims; forcing it into either dimension would obscure its retrospective work.

Boundary test: Against T4-001, mechanics are described for a finished event rather than used to equip live participation. Against T4-004, the organizing practice is making or acknowledging the account rather than disputing rightful action or authority. Keep t12 as public accounting. Place t07's post-closure questions, explanations and acknowledgment code by code here; live mechanics codes remain T4-001. A retrospective polemic already consolidated as t08 remains T4-004.

Least secure member: The later part of t07 is least secure because it explains mechanics rather than celebrates results. Its past-tense placement answers latecomers' questions about finished collective effort, whereas the live mechanics subset supplies usable participation now.

Near case outside: c0289 invites people to a new game after closure. Its date is retrospective to r/place, but its act is prospective recruitment, so t14 stays in T4-003. The date alone does not decide the practice.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere, the apparent retrospective account instead gives current actionable instructions, or does not concern participation or its results.

Could be mistaken for: Consensus, incentive provision, or a single collective memory.

What no fourth-order theme picked up

t06 (joking through April Fools and the canvas) remains contextual. Its April insults, inside jokes and conquest parody do not all enact one organizing practice. Their interactional register remains available through FP-03 in form_pass.md, not a humour catch-all above the coder theme.

t09 (pointing at r/place without organising more) remains contextual. Bare names, greetings and reposts can attract attention but their quoted spans do not establish a shared organizing act. Sparse coding is not evidence of absent activity beyond it.

The split coder theme t07 is not unpicked: every code has exactly one placement. No coder theme or code has multiple placement, so the multiplacement log is empty. No supplied coder-conflict register is available in this room; R2 contextual disagreements remain qualified in structure.md.