# Structure Target length: under 5,200 words. ## What this structure explains The structure asks how contributions become usable, how participants bound and contest the work, and what connects an event-created community to a past project or a possible next activity. It keeps operational access distinct from legitimate or feasible control. It also separates expressed attachment from assigning new work. No relationship or causal arrow is specified in this part. All higher themes and dimensions are coined. Their sources are empty; their bounds and disconfirming observations are declared in the JSON registers and `fourth/fourth.md`. A proposed use of a venue is not a demonstrated lasting organisation. The optional coder-theme names remain unchanged and do not replace any original label in this structure. ## The preserved coder tier The coding supplies a label and theme note, not a formal upper-tier gate. The practice descriptions below preserve the received theme note as a coded definition. Separating tests are this stage's placement reasoning, not revisions to the frozen coder tier. All coder themes travel on exemplars. No gate prevalence count or opportunity partition is claimed for them. ### `t01`: organising the build through Discord, plans and guides Received practice definition: These passages all make the shared doggo build actionable by moving talk to Discord or circulating plans, guides and blueprints. What varies is the organising object: a second doggo, borders, a heart, rainbow road, small boyes, and scripts with bad coordinates. Its nearest neighbour is `t03`: working routes and specifications differ from asking an outside party for help. A route to Discord can accompany another request; upper placement follows the practice the member chiefly carries. The whole theme sits in `T4-001` by that higher gate. > join our discord, our main base of operations. `c0001`, item `62yh1s`, thread `62yh1s`, 9YOvLUrh9PrSKI24tpl2NVeYIYs=, hour 39.638888888888886, offsets 24 to 70; cite receipt 2141. > If Your working on the heart please use this as a guide `c0032`, item `62zrat`, thread `62zrat`, [deleted], hour 45.97972222222222, offsets 0 to 55; cite receipt 2144. > Plans to extend rainbow road (see the discord) `c0054`, item `6315cg`, thread `6315cg`, Cvm9W+8FKUeizeUJyEpy/Rg5w58=, hour 50.08583333333333, offsets 0 to 46; cite receipt 2469. ### `t02`: turning Dutch border fights into a cloggo alliance Received practice definition: These codes belong together because participants negotiate how Dutch borders and the doggos can coexist, changing hostile calls into an accepted clog-wearing design and later naming an alliance. Within it, speakers threaten, correct misunderstandings, refuse, propose alternatives, approve designs and claim shared work. Its nearest neighbours are `t03` and `t07`. Terms of coexistence differ from requesting labour; the Dutch and anatomy exchanges share contested permission at the upper level, while the latter expressly denies a binding mandate. The whole theme sits in `T4-003` by that higher gate. > We are trying to coexist with you, please stop destroying our beautiful red, white and blue borders around your doggo `c0006`, item `62z3f6`, thread `62z3f6`, JeNHM0ZnPFG2iOxVscWMlm1PJCg=, hour 43.096666666666664, offsets 57 to 174; cite receipt 2472. > Is it okay if we, the Netherlands, simply paint your background orange? `c0016`, item `62zcsr`, thread `62zcsr`, [deleted], hour 44.34916666666667, offsets 0 to 71; cite receipt 2158. > Agreement with the Dutch to prevent them from destroying these goodboys was to give one clogs. `c0020`, item `dfq5x8e`, thread `62zdco`, X9C6UMY2Mg/ERoCNZzLtM9r6hJw=, hour 45.11527777777778, offsets 0 to 94; cite receipt 2161. ### `t03`: asking neighbours for help and trading pixels Received practice definition: Each code recruits assistance beyond the immediate group or offers labour and pixels in return. The exchanges vary from cooperation proposals and pleas for protection to reclaiming a letter, salutes between allies, and a reciprocal Mettaton request. Its nearest neighbour is `t02`: assistance links differ from accepting a rival claimant's terms. Credited alliance and promised reciprocity are not equivalent to completed exchange. The whole theme sits in `T4-002` by that higher gate. > Goodboye and Nintendo Switch should cooperate as Nintendo Switch has it's own cute doggo now, too. `c0004`, item `62z00t`, thread `62z00t`, cgnxHoINAxqcJH2ELcdObAP8HdA=, hour 42.591944444444444, offsets 29 to 127; cite receipt 2150. > i apologize for my country's imperialistic behavior, me and my group will fight for the protection of your doggo `c0012`, item `62z3ic`, thread `62z3ic`, [deleted], hour 43.10861111111111, offsets 0 to 112; cite receipt 2153. > could I get some help making a Mettaton face? I'll donate my resources to anything you need as well `c0069`, item `636vam`, thread `636vam`, 8yTdKzEusbdL8t3HKJq81JxQdB0=, hour 69.81805555555556, offsets 45 to 144; cite receipt 2156. ### `t04`: defending doggos against overwriting, vandalism and bots Received practice definition: These passages hold together as attempts to keep the doggos standing against overwrites, vandalism, scripts and bots. They vary between placing pixels, calling reinforcements, explaining why a feature returns, stopping faulty scripts, celebrating fixes, and mourning a design that never survived. Its nearest neighbours are `t05` and `t06`. The frozen theme bundles expressed attachment, local mobilisation, plan exclusion, accounts of fighting and reversion constraints. A statement about an excluded plan feature differs from an account of a script constraint; the upper register separates them. Every code has an individual upper placement or status in `assignments.jsonl`. The original theme and its membership remain unchanged. > Found the dog on the place, and now i'm vested in fighting for its continued existence. `c0038`, item `63077y`, thread `63077y`, f59MU+z/e/yriSUMR1ux6mb5phM=, hour 47.403055555555554, offsets 20 to 107; cite receipt 2475. > there's a plan for it all and curly tails just didn't make the cut! `c0024`, item `dfq69s4`, thread `62zhgb`, +UlLrDEeNyyxA7fMmUb7YoAMR8c=, hour 45.33611111111111, offsets 0 to 67; cite receipt 2192. > There are a bunch of different scripts running, most have the blep hardcoded `c0074`, item `dfrxjva`, thread `637cg7`, Cvm9W+8FKUeizeUJyEpy/Rg5w58=, hour 72.35944444444445, offsets 0 to 76; cite receipt 2199. ### `t05`: arguing over how the doggos and sign should look Received practice definition: These codes all propose or reject visible features of the shared image and its label. What varies is the feature under argument—text, pants, centring, balance—and whether the response invokes recognisability, subreddit routing or what a good boye would wear. Its nearest neighbour is `t06`: visible features and spatial extent differ as objects, while both help define a selected project. The isolated balance title leaves the precise proposal unknown. The whole theme sits in `T4-004` by that higher gate. > Proposal: put pants on the right doggo. `c0033`, item `62zrcc`, thread `62zrcc`, T89xGs8gpChlL7XOU+XFgGwct5c=, hour 45.98555555555556, offsets 0 to 39; cite receipt 2187. > it is alright, we are redesigning a more compact text that centers properly `c0036`, item `dfq8jys`, thread `62zx9e`, Cvm9W+8FKUeizeUJyEpy/Rg5w58=, hour 46.565, offsets 0 to 75; cite receipt 2190. > Should we change the sign to "GoodBoyes"? `c0041`, item `630811`, thread `630811`, nGicgY+D+eatrug6pV8eFmAXyD0=, hour 47.469722222222224, offsets 0 to 41; cite receipt 2478. ### `t06`: leaving room for other people's art Received practice definition: These passages decide whether to occupy nearby space and hold proposals back when doing so would invade allies or other artworks. The proposed additions vary from unused space to two versions of a lesser dog, while the reasons vary between alliance, fairness and bot-controlled territory. Its nearest neighbours are `t02` and `t04`. Respect for allies or fairness gives a reason to choose restraint; bot destruction gives an expected inability. These require different upper placements. Every code has an individual upper placement or status in `assignments.jsonl`. The original theme and its membership remain unchanged. > leave it be, its probably the dutches and we dont want to invade our allies `c0053`, item `dfqj08h`, thread `6313d0`, 9YOvLUrh9PrSKI24tpl2NVeYIYs=, hour 50.560833333333335, offsets 0 to 75; cite receipt 2194. > i dont think its very fair to other artworks to take that much space `c0060`, item `dfrdzom`, thread `634v0q`, 9YOvLUrh9PrSKI24tpl2NVeYIYs=, hour 61.964166666666664, offsets 39 to 107; cite receipt 2197. > Sweedish bots will kill. `c0068`, item `dfrpen9`, thread `636osz`, s8TRjbvvKgnTledca31I5eTq6wU=, hour 69.555, offsets 0 to 24; cite receipt 2205. ### `t07`: negotiating the butthole raid Received practice definition: All these codes work through a specific attempt to alter the doggos with buttholes. Within the practice, raiders issue demands and redouble them, defenders argue from the drawn pose, one speaker permits the change conditionally, both sides agree to protect the rest, and nobody claims to speak for the whole subreddit. Its nearest neighbour is `t02`: both deal with incompatible claims, but an accepted anatomy condition is explicitly personal. Similar practice does not erase that authority difference. The whole theme sits in `T4-003` by that higher gate. > Either your doggos get buttholes, or you are called GOOOBOYES. `c0058`, item `634r2y`, thread `634r2y`, G1il6AsBAhqmG/1gL9EPE9LTMbY=, hour 61.1, offsets 37 to 99; cite receipt 2163. > Please don't make doggo and cloggo stand twisted up to display their buttholes `c0062`, item `dfres5g`, thread `634x2p`, W4sA5wBqpkNZYraW41Lb+HUoNbg=, hour 62.452777777777776, offsets 233 to 311; cite receipt 2481. > Ok. Do what you want with the butthole. Just don't let them vandalise anything else `c0064`, item `dfrfjeq`, thread `634x2p`, VevQJqYKSAnyHcCJN3txOs8w9AA=, hour 62.952777777777776, offsets 0 to 83; cite receipt 2165. ### `t08`: recounting how the place doggo became Goodboye Received practice definition: These codes make an origin story: the subreddit was made for the place doggo, its makers wanted to leave a mark, and they distinguish their own Annoying Dog from earlier or generic dogs. Variation lies between direct confirmation, retrospective narration and correcting mistaken recognition. Its nearest neighbours are `t09` and `t10`: selected origins, ongoing platform roles and remembered closure occupy different narrative positions. Origin narration is evidence of an account told later, not a timestamped beginning. The whole theme sits in `T4-006` by that higher gate. > I wanted us to form our own annoying dog (now called goodboye) `c0047`, item `dfqd8z3`, thread `630ag0`, p9/QDwWM2Q8xVe0NTqGNMhk7WJw=, hour 48.48777777777778, offsets 133 to 195; cite receipt 2211. > was this subreddit made just for the /r/place doggo? `c0039`, item `dfqrgbi`, thread `63077y`, Y4mxOpBtffXatW/dP/koGpFXBmo=, hour 53.69444444444444, offsets 0 to 52; cite receipt 2484. > everyone apparently just thought it was a regular happy doggo `c0049`, item `dfqcqig`, thread `630cj6`, 8yTdKzEusbdL8t3HKJq81JxQdB0=, hour 48.29388888888889, offsets 39 to 100; cite receipt 2487. ### `t09`: making Annoying Dog the subreddit mascot Received practice definition: These passages turn the canvas figure into an ongoing subreddit identity by blessing it, naming it the mascot, proposing matching voting buttons and subscribing because of it. The practice ranges from playful praise to moderator willingness to change the interface. Its nearest neighbours are `t08` and `t11`. Praise and subscribing express affiliation; an official mascot/interface question proposes an ongoing community function. Those upper placements are separated. Every code has an individual upper placement or status in `assignments.jsonl`. The original theme and its membership remain unchanged. > bless this sub, bless the annoying doggos `c0025`, item `62zm2w`, thread `62zm2w`, 8yTdKzEusbdL8t3HKJq81JxQdB0=, hour 45.445277777777775, offsets 0 to 41; cite receipt 2489. > So is Toby Fox/The Annoying Dog the official mascot of this Sub? `c0056`, item `632z3o`, thread `632z3o`, /xoHIajru7Xr+bNVL/XojSctYc4=, hour 55.20333333333333, offsets 0 to 64; cite receipt 2222. > I subbed for the goodboye `c0080`, item `dfsgz40`, thread `6387vy`, c6nyNIznOcDj6XkrhEyuS3Ni2VE=, hour 78.64555555555556, offsets 0 to 25; cite receipt 2219. ### `t10`: saying goodbye and putting Doggo and Cloggo in history Received practice definition: These codes close the event by thanking participants, claiming the final image survived or was pixel perfect, and placing Doggo and Cloggo in Reddit history. They vary between personal gratitude, collective achievement, congratulations and a Dutch farewell. Its nearest neighbour is `t11`: a claimed accomplishment or farewell supplies remembrance; a poll or directive supplies possible next work. Survival and perfection remain participant reports. The whole theme sits in `T4-006` by that higher gate. > Cloggo & Doggo are now a part of Reddit history. `c0077`, item `dfs3ign`, thread `6387vy`, s8TRjbvvKgnTledca31I5eTq6wU=, hour 74.26277777777777, offsets 0 to 48; cite receipt 2216. > The experiment is over, and the goodboye's look as good as ever! `c0082`, item `6389f4`, thread `6389f4`, WZhv3O91pMUf/EpOOb2C4gG3Kdw=, hour 73.47722222222222, offsets 51 to 115; cite receipt 2492. > it really makes me happy that everyone of you came together to help out. `c0085`, item `639q6g`, thread `639q6g`, 9YOvLUrh9PrSKI24tpl2NVeYIYs=, hour 77.425, offsets 112 to 184; cite receipt 2494. ### `t11`: deciding what Goodboye becomes after place Received practice definition: These passages deliberate over the new community's next life through repeated polls and a moderator's alternatives: another place copycat or posting dogs. The final invitation from r/doggos shows one possible institutional home rather than proof of which option won. Its nearest neighbours are `t10` and `t09`. Future functions and means of choosing them differ from gratitude or subscription. The interface discussion shows this practice can begin before placement closes. The whole theme sits in `T4-007` by that higher gate. > What should /r/goodboye do?#2 decided to add the option to choose multiple answers `c0087`, item `63a7bs`, thread `63a7bs`, [deleted], hour 78.5911111111111, offsets 0 to 82; cite receipt 2225. > but today we post dogs! post as many as you can! `c0089`, item `63aa08`, thread `63aa08`, 9YOvLUrh9PrSKI24tpl2NVeYIYs=, hour 78.80972222222222, offsets 160 to 208; cite receipt 2231. > We'll sidebar you if you choose to be a doggo subreddit! `c0091`, item `dfskb3s`, thread `63al78`, 7DqNtk//AGpl79LCATEbCq30j8U=, hour 79.80583333333334, offsets 124 to 180; cite receipt 2234. ## Higher constructs and material The full prose, gates, variation, excluded near cases and least secure members of each higher construct appear in `fourth/fourth.md`; those are part of this structure's specification. `fourth/fourth.jsonl` carries the exact source-bound material rows. The rows retain the original coder label, author, source hour, offsets and individual item/thread IDs. Created-UTC values are not served by this citation interface; none is invented from an hour. Exemplars were selected for breadth across forms and practical issues, with the single-coder-theme exception stated for offered interdependence. ### `T4-001`: Actionable coordination infrastructure Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Making the next contribution usable through a working venue, plans, help calls and corrected instructions. Participants reduce the uncertainty about where to coordinate or what to do next. A plan publication, an invitation into the operational venue, a reinforcement call and a warning to stop faulty instructions all address that uncertainty. Their objects and level of detail vary. The construct concerns directing usable contributions; it does not assume people comply or that the main deliberation happened on Reddit. Question: How does a dispersed reader obtain a next act or common working route? Nearest excluded case: `c0005` also asks a neighbouring group to move; the Discord route is its upper placement's primary object. Least secure member: `c0027` is only a short help call. Its border-building object comes from the served thread, so it is not a standalone exemplar. Its gate's separating test is: Against offered interdependence, the organising object is the next usable contribution or common working route rather than a relationship of help across community boundaries. ### `T4-002`: Offered interdependence Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Seeking, offering or crediting help across community boundaries without presuming a completed exchange. Participants address another community as a possible source or recipient of work. A protection pledge, an invitation to cooperate and an offer to trade resources each make joint effort depend on a relationship beyond the immediate project readership. The relationship can remain an offer, or appear as retrospective ally credit. Reciprocity is explicit in one request, but is not required or inferred for every appeal. Question: How can voluntary work reach beyond its immediate readership? Nearest excluded case: `c0044` combines permission and help, but the permission exchange decides its placement with the Dutch negotiations. Least secure member: The retrospective Undertale ally report is credited interdependence, not proof of an executed reciprocal arrangement. Its gate's separating test is: Negotiated coexistence concerns rival claims to altering or sharing an output; this gate concerns who may supply help to whose work. ### `T4-003`: Negotiated coexistence Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Contesting, revising or reporting the terms on which different claimants can share or change an output. Participants face another claimant who can interfere with the same work. They state opposition, request permission, correct a misunderstanding or accept a restricted change. The shared practice is working out what each side can allow while retaining its own object. Dutch clogs and the anatomy concession differ in stakes and proposed alteration, yet both make terms and entitlement to speak consequential. Reported cooperation and later ally recognition retain the history of those terms; they do not make the settlement universal or binding. Question: How are incompatible claims to one output handled, and how far can an acceptance speak for others? Nearest excluded case: `c0053` invokes allies while declining expansion; it applies an internal limit rather than negotiating new permission. Least secure member: The later fighting recollection reports an experience rather than a new negotiation. It belongs as a contrary account of the same Dutch relationship, not proof of renewed attack. Its gate's separating test is: Selective project scope decides a project's desired extent or specification without bargaining over another claimant's permission; offered interdependence recruits labour rather than settles rival claims. ### `T4-004`: Selective project scope Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Setting which features and extent count as the shared project, including deliberate refusals. Participants define the object they want to make by proposing or excluding changes. A plan can exclude a tail, a sign can preserve a destination, and fairness can limit spatial expansion. These choices each bound the intended project. Reasons vary between appearance, recognition, routing and regard for others. A refused alteration can maintain the selected object; it need not be an enemy attack. This construct does not imply everyone accepted the specification. Question: How is the work's intended object bounded and contested? Nearest excluded case: `c0068` predicts Swedish bot destruction; it does not give a reason to choose restraint as right or desired. Least secure member: The isolated balance title leaves its precise intended change unknown; its original design grouping is retained, but it is not an exemplar for a particular specification. Its gate's separating test is: Negotiated coexistence handles rival claimants' terms and permission. This gate specifies the intended object or deliberately limits it. Reversion-limited control concerns inability to change it rather than a reason to refuse. ### `T4-005`: Reversion-limited control Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Encountering or anticipating overwrites that restrict intended changes, including reports of script and bot constraints. Participants describe a gap between the change they want and the change they can sustain. Repeated restoration, hardcoded features and expected bots can make a proposal infeasible even while people discuss or attempt it. Forecast, observed reversion and attributed cause are distinct forms of evidence here. This shared limit differs from choosing not to build. It does not establish that automation controls the entire project, identify every operator, or verify a report of destruction. Question: What limits participants' ability to sustain an intended change? Nearest excluded case: `c0024` explains that the plan excluded tails; it supplies a selected specification rather than an automation claim. Least secure member: The lesser-dog warning is prospective and does not report an attempted dog failure. Its paired proposal is retained as the object of that feasibility issue. Its gate's separating test is: Selective scope gives grounds for the desired or legitimate output; this gate describes or forecasts a limit on sustaining a desired change. Actionable infrastructure prescribes a next operation rather than reports the constraint. ### `T4-006`: Artifact-centred affiliation Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Using the dog as a reason for participation, a shared origin or a remembered accomplishment. Participants make a built object a basis for belonging and credit. They explain why they joined its defence, narrate whose creation it was, thank people who maintained it or give it a place in shared history. The practice can be personal or collective, prospective commitment or retrospective appreciation. It preserves a reason to associate without establishing a new joint task. Claims of survival and perfection are remembered accomplishment claims, not an independently checked outcome. Question: What social attachment and claimed accomplishment does the project produce or leave behind? Nearest excluded case: `c0089` directs dog posting; it gives new work rather than merely expresses attachment. Least secure member: Pure final-image quality claims carry this theme through the original farewell practice; on their own they do not demonstrate affiliation or objectively perfect survival. Its gate's separating test is: Purpose renewal proposes what the community will do or how its platform will function. This gate states attachment, origin or accomplishment without requiring a new collective activity. ### `T4-007`: Purpose renewal Declaration: coined; source empty. Gloss: Proposing or selecting further functions for the community and its interface while their uptake remains open. Participants turn an event-created venue toward further activity or a continuing platform role. A mascot and button-art discussion starts while placement remains live; later polls reopen what to do, and a moderator distinguishes possible new canvas work from immediate dog posting. A sidebar offer makes one future path eligible for external support. The common practice is specifying another use for the community, not proving that a permanent goal or institution has formed. Question: How does an event-created venue propose another use for itself? Nearest excluded case: `c0080` subscribes because of the dog but gives no new function. Least secure member: `c0057` is a short offer whose interface object comes from its served thread. It stays with that role discussion but cannot independently exemplify a completed or even specific restyle. Its gate's separating test is: Artifact-centred affiliation supplies a reason to belong or remember; this gate supplies a possible next function, decision procedure or activity. Infrastructure addresses operations within the current task. ## Dimensions A dimension gathers higher themes by an aggregate explanatory question, not by their size. None has a prevalence count. Its membership predicate identifies what the group explains and can be put against literature at R5. ### `D01`: Access to usable contributions Members: `T4-001`, `T4-002`. Declaration: coined, source empty. Gloss: Obtaining a usable next contribution through shared working routes or offered help across boundaries. Working guidance makes a contribution legible to a reader; outside assistance extends who might supply it. Together they distinguish the accessibility of voluntary effort from the legitimacy or feasibility of its intended result. Offers and instructions remain observable even when uptake is unreported. Question: How does voluntary work become accessible and usable when neither a common readership nor a neighbour is obliged to contribute? Membership predicate: The higher theme explains access to a contribution or common working route, rather than how the intended output is selected or maintained. It could be mistaken for task allocation by an authority or a measured labour pool. Disconfirming observation elsewhere: The alleged working routes and assistance links neither recruit nor orient contributions, and the material instead describes only an imposed assignment system. Outside: `T4-003` asks what another claimant permits, not merely whether that claimant supplies help. Least secure member: Offered interdependence contains credited alliance as well as unrealised offers; the dimension therefore concerns access as expressed, not measured completed contributions. Confidence: clear. Evidence: `c0001`, `c0032`, `c0075`, `c0004`, `c0012`, `c0069`. ### `D02`: Limits of project control Members: `T4-003`, `T4-004`, `T4-005`. Declaration: coined, source empty. Gloss: Distinguishing accepted terms, selected work and changes that participants say they cannot sustain. Negotiated terms address permission among claimants; specifications address the desired and legitimate object; reversions address the reported ability to maintain a change. The dimension holds those distinct forms of control together so a social agreement is not mistaken for authority over every alteration. Its feasibility evidence includes forecasts and attributed causes, which limits a claim about actual control. Question: Which parts of a shared project can participants settle by terms or specification, and where do they report a limit on sustaining the result? Membership predicate: The higher theme explains the terms, intended extent or reported feasibility of changing the shared output. It could be mistaken for sovereign control, universal consensus or technological determination of the whole outcome. Disconfirming observation elsewhere: Terms, specifications and reversions do not change or limit what participants describe as permissible, desired or feasible work. Outside: `T4-001` gives usable directions, including stopping faulty scripts. That corrective act differs from reporting a hardcoded feature constraint. Least secure member: Reversion-limited control mixes observed recurrence with forecasts and participant explanations. Those support a distinction in reported control, not verified bot causality. Confidence: arguable. Evidence: `c0020`, `c0064`, `c0024`, `c0060`, `c0074`, `c0081`. ### `D03`: Community continuity around an event Members: `T4-006`, `T4-007`. Declaration: coined, source empty. Gloss: Keeping a reason to associate while proposing another use for an event-created community. Attachment and remembered accomplishment give participants a reason to remain associated; purpose proposals give the venue possible further functions. The dimension distinguishes continuity of affiliation from renewed coordination. Mascot/interface work starts before placement closes, so this is a difference between practices rather than an assumed temporal replacement. Question: What connects the community to the project it remembers, and what, separately, could give it further work? Membership predicate: The higher theme addresses participation, identity or a further community function that is not exhausted by the current image-building operation. It could be mistaken for a permanent organisation or a demonstrated successful transition to a new goal. Disconfirming observation elsewhere: Attachment and past accomplishment have no connection to the venue, and no proposed continuing role or activity appears. Outside: `T4-002` recognises help from a neighbour for a project; its object is assistance rather than a venue's continuing role. Least secure member: Purpose renewal has polls without retained tallies and offers without delivery. The dimension explains proposed continuity, not that it was enacted. Confidence: clear. Evidence: `c0047`, `c0050`, `c0077`, `c0080`, `c0056`, `c0087`, `c0089`, `c0091`. ## Pairwise dimension separation `D01` asks how a person obtains an act or help route. From that side, `D02` is about permission, intended scope and sustainable alteration, which usable guidance alone cannot settle. From `D02`'s side, a corrective script instruction belongs to contribution access when it says what to stop doing; a report of a hardcoded feature belongs to a control limit when it explains why a desired alteration does not persist. `D01` asks how work obtains contributions within or across the project boundary. `D03` asks what association or further function the venue might retain. A cross-community request for Mettaton help supplies potential labour, while the doggos sidebar offer supplies a resource for a proposed future community role. From `D03`'s side, affiliation alone does not give a usable next operation; from `D01`'s side, a usable operation does not establish lasting membership. `D02` concerns the shared project's terms, extent and feasibility. `D03` concerns attachment and proposed further community functions. From `D02`'s side, remembering a surviving image cannot establish control over every pixel. From `D03`'s side, choosing a pixel feature does not itself define the venue's next use. Live mascot/interface work is the hard case: its object is a continuing community role, so it falls with purpose renewal rather than image specification. These distinctions allow temporal overlap. ## Alternatives considered I rejected one all-purpose organising dimension: it would hide the difference between receiving an operation, legitimating a change and retaining a reason to associate. I rejected one dimension per higher theme because none would add an aggregate question. I considered merging contribution routes with outside assistance, but a working specification and a promised labour relationship solve different access problems. They remain related at `D01`. I considered one social-negotiation theme for every refusal, demand and permission. The curly-tail exclusion and fairness objection select an intended object; the Dutch and anatomy concessions negotiate another claimant's terms. Keeping selective scope and negotiated coexistence separate preserves that difference. A proposed neighbour can offer help without accepting a territorial bargain, so offered interdependence also remains distinct. An undivided maintenance construct would treat a plan-based exclusion, corrective instruction, recalled commitment and script constraint as one practice. The split makes those claims checkable. I also rejected a single continuation theme for origin, affection, farewells and polls. `D03` connects affiliation and purpose while keeping remembrance distinct from assigning possible next work. Its broad affiliation theme remains the least secure aggregation: the remembered perfect-image claim on its own says little about membership. It stays within the frozen farewell practice, with that limitation retained. ## What does not fit, and placement accounting No whole coder theme is wholly unpicked. The split register leaves `c0073` contextual, with its words and reason in `fourth/fourth.md`. No catch-all fills that gap. A contextual status preserves the code and episode, and creates no empty empirical outcome. Complete assignment coverage is mode coverage, unit codes, n 92, denominator {unit: codes, n: 92, of: all live Goodboye codes in the inclusive hour 0 to hour 97 window}, receipt 2683. Promoted coverage is n 91 over that same denominator, receipt 2686; contextual coverage is n 1 over that same denominator, receipt 2689. Neither endpoint contains a code. These mutually exclusive status sets account for the code frame, not for all raw items or people. `placement_counts.json` lists source IDs and the governing assignment hash. Individual higher-theme code masses are coverage context in `fourth/fourth.md`, never warrants for a cut. Every assigned higher theme is defined; every retained higher theme belongs to a defined dimension. No member has an extra placement, so the multiplacement log is empty and there is no primary/additional pair to interpret. The sibling has no cross-case onset contrast or fleet disagreement inventory. None is reconstructed from a single case. ## Form findings and bounds The `FP-01` through `FP-05` findings remain prose in `form_pass.md`. They are turn-level evidence available to R4, with no assignments, gates or category counts. Brief acceptance can carry a substantive condition while leaving mandate open. Shared dog vocabulary can accompany incompatible goals. Unreported outcomes limit claims of uptake. This structure preserves the fixed live/aftermath distinction without making it a compulsory sequence. It cannot establish Discord decisions, pixel-perfect survival, delivered sidebar recognition, poll winners or a permanent community. Every absence claim is weak and scoped to the coded span or served thread that supports it. R4 must test the structure against episodes before adding any relation.