# Higher themes, initial R3 cut

All constructs are coined, source empty and not recalled. Original coder labels are retained. These cuts relate practices and do not rename a framework. R3 left model inclusion undecided at pass 0. R4 pass 1 uses all higher themes without changing membership or gates; in_model is now true.

## `T4-001`: Making and revising a flag others can build

Turning a desired symbol into a usable target, including replacement sites and a replica.

Participants give a collective aspiration a practical object by specifying a drawing, an address or a means of reproducing it. Keeping the national symbol does not require keeping its location, scale or means of construction. A takeover proposal belongs here when it proposes what to replace, not because it uses war words.

Members: `t01`, `t10`, `t13`, `c0015`, `c0092`, `c0165`, `c0167`. Gathered by `D01`.

Gate: The material proposes, specifies, revises, withdraws or supplies a reproducible target or means for making the flag or a related symbol. Against T4-002, decides what or where to build rather than who will supply continuing work; against T4-005, offers a possible drawing or replacement rather than only performing or recounting victory.

Varies: From tentative dimensions and linked designs to concrete relocation, executable colouring instructions, withdrawal and replica coordinates.

Not: A promise to defend an existing drawing, an account of past victory, or a bare hostile slogan.

When both: Place a practical target proposal here even when framed as revenge; place a capacity commitment in T4-002. Split bundled coder themes by the coded act rather than duplicating them.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: In another setting, if practical specifications neither give a common target nor distinguish changed undertakings, this construct would lose its explanatory use.

## `T4-002`: Keeping work going through contributions and help

Mobilizing one's own and neighbours' pixels under limited capacity.

Participants make available effort visible and seek more of it when keeping a drawing exceeds what they can do alone. A defender's continuing effort and a neighbour's conditional help are different sources of capacity for a shared job, rather than separate topics just because they concern different flags. Requests, commitments, reports of work, return help and acknowledgements do not guarantee enough capacity.

Members: `t02`, `t03`. Gathered by `D01`.

Gate: The material calls for, commits, reports, redirects, bargains for or acknowledges contributions toward keeping or rebuilding drawings. Against T4-001, addresses available or needed effort rather than a revised target; against T4-003, seeks support rather than primarily settling permissible occupation or responsibility for damage.

Varies: From unilateral persistence and urgent defence to conditional promises, reported aid, reciprocal maintenance and thanks for provided room or help.

Not: A drawing specification alone, a territorial limit alone, or praise with no contribution being recognized.

When both: Keep a help bargain here when contribution is its practical object. A request to stop overwriting belongs in T4-003 even when it invokes mutual safety.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: The construct would fail elsewhere if the purported contributions were only spectators' metaphors, or if no distinction between promised and available capacity could be sustained.

## `T4-003`: Making room for neighbours and answering for harm

Working out limits on pixels and responding when collective work overruns them.

Continuing beside other drawings requires more than winning space. Participants negotiate how far to go and answer complaints that their own work has become destructive. Prospective border bargains and retrospective apology differ, but both make another drawing's claim on space relevant to what builders should do. Disowning rogues can defend a group's account without controlling placements.

Members: `t04`, `t11`. Gathered by `D02`.

Gate: The material bargains for or disputes a limit on occupation, objects to encroachment, attributes responsibility for harm, apologizes or calls for restraint or repair. Against T4-002, primarily concerns permission, limits or damage rather than supplying help; against T4-004, concerns drawings and neighbours rather than where public discussion belongs.

Varies: From proposed peace, ceasefires and stopping points to damage complaints, unstable borders, refusal of retaliation, apology and unsuccessful rescue.

Not: Proof that an agreement controls every pixel, or a helper's promise alone.

When both: Place a repair response here when it answers a specific harm; place ordinary mutual maintenance in T4-002. Shared safety rhetoric alone does not erase this distinction.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere the construct would fail if purported limits carried no claim on action, or every response to harm were merely unrelated commentary rather than a negotiated obligation.

## `T4-004`: Routing coordination while containing place talk

Making venues usable for builders without giving place the entire subreddit.

The work needs accessible discussion, but the subreddit also has other purposes. Participants invite people into Discord, return accounts of decisions and argue over where Reddit posts belong. Concentrating discussion can aid access and protect elections or ordinary Armenia posts, while post removal can encourage another route. These acts manage attention and access, not a known chain of command over pixels.

Members: `t08`, `c0017`, `c0069`, `c0094`, `c0114`, `c0116`, `c0117`, `c0131`, `c0090`, `c0123`, `c0129`, `c0130`. Gathered by `D02`.

Gate: The material establishes, supplies access to, compares, redirects, contests or explains the costs of a venue for place coordination or discussion. Against T4-001, provides a place to communicate rather than the drawing target; against T4-003, bounds use of discussion space rather than occupation by drawings.

Varies: From access questions and invitations to reports from Discord, designated threads, removal threats, clutter objections and acknowledged limits to containment.

Not: Evidence of the contents of unseen Discord deliberation, or an opaque title with no recoverable venue instruction.

When both: A reported Discord agreement remains a venue-mediated coordination act here; do not infer its implementation from that report. A post-removal rationale belongs here even when it praises the project.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere the construct would fail if venue routing did not distinguish access to a job from protecting other discussion, or if venues had no relevant boundary of attention.

## `T4-005`: Telling who won, who helped and what it was worth

Giving pixel conflict collective stakes through conquest performances, jokes and accounts of achievement.

Participants and visitors make the event into more than a set of coloured positions: they perform conquest, identify opponents and friends, praise teamwork, joke about loss and value the time spent. These are acts of accounting for a collective struggle from different sides, not a consensus account. Their practical import is what people claim happened and mattered, not proof that those claims caused further work.

Members: `t06`, `t07`, `c0081`, `c0097`, `c0098`, `c0100`, `c0102`, `c0103`, `c0104`, `c0105`, `c0093`. Its accounts and valuations are not, on their own, either renewed work capacity or negotiated limits; forcing it into either dimension would assert an unsupported practical effect.

Gate: The material performs or narrates conquest, loss, completion, affiliation or the worth of the shared effort, including playful retellings and recognition of teamwork. Against T4-001, supplies an interpretation or performed victory rather than a practical replacement target; against T4-002, values participation rather than primarily requesting or promising effort.

Varies: From takeover slogans and hostile attribution to mock history, immediate cheers, friendship, time spent and later contrasting accounts of allies.

Not: A frequency of shared feeling, agreement among speakers, or evidence that symbolic recognition caused participation.

When both: Place a concrete takeover proposal in T4-001. Retain a retrospective achievement claim here even when it names a failed site. Military vocabulary elsewhere is FP register evidence, not automatic membership.

Disconfirmation elsewhere: Elsewhere the construct would fail if the accounts did not turn separate actions into recognizable collective stakes, or if the apparent valuations were only unrelated remarks.

## Coder themes not picked up

- `t12`, calling out what phRQZRXYX1NI04Oyn2DTVC3MBQI= is doing: the title does not recover the conduct, so no higher practice is invented.

Partly picked up: `t05` is split between actionable takeover proposals and accounts of conquest, with the duplicated `c0166` contextual. `t09` is split between venue acts and the unity account `c0093`, with the opaque `c0049` unresolved. Each split code has its own assignment row. No catch-all theme or multiple placement is used. See structure.md for source-bound exemplars, all gates, dimensions, borderline decisions and counted record coverage.