Mistaken choice summaries may reinforce human preferences through repeated justification
In human–model retelling, justifying a misreported choice may rebuild a preference that the model then reinforces. Accurate choice receipts should weaken the effect; prediction by separately measured choice and model processes would reject an additional feedback mechanism.
Stage of verification
- Hypothesis published2026-10-05
- Not enough research data
- Direct testAwaited
Map of the hypothesis
Hover over an icon or tap it to see its name.
Lens
Kind of knowledge gap
Target map
Every target of every published hypothesis, each with the actions a hypothesis can propose on it. The targets and the actions of this hypothesis are drawn solid.
Rhythm or programme
Preference construction
The formation of an evaluation rule expressed in justifications and revealed in private interpretation choices
Where this hypothesis actsRetained human–model interactions involving summaries of prior narrative interpretation choices
Hypotheses on this target 1
Inhibition
Activation
Function preservation
Feedback restoration
Rhythm restoration
Direct measurement
What is proposed
Test whether preference construction depends on choice substitution and self-justification
With whatChange of environment or regimen
HowRandomize accurate versus substituted choice summaries, justification versus factual description, and authentic versus non-diagnostic decision receipts
Possible result
Possible shifts in private interpretation criteria and SPV_4 that accurate decision receipts reduce
From the recordThe proposed additional dependency is repeated preference construction from the partner's representation of one's own decision, followed by partner conditioning on the newly constructed criterion.
All targets of the lab
Every target read from the published hypotheses, each kind around its pictogram. A larger mark means more hypotheses act on that target. Point at a mark and the actions proposed on it branch out of it.
Solid and named: the targets of this hypothesis
Explore in depth
The logic
The train of thought that ends in this hypothesis. Each stage is the reason the next exists. The master question narrows to a goal, the goal to an unknown nobody has closed, the unknown to the hypothesis proposed here. Every step below says what it rests on and what carries it.
A mistaken account of a past choice might change what a person comes to prefer. The unexpected move is a repeating exchange: a person explains a choice they did not make, the text-generating system treats the explanation as a preference, and its later accounts invite the person to strengthen that preference. This is a proposal generated by the research pipeline, not a measured result.
- A person chooses between two plausible interpretations of a story, and the actual choice is recorded.
- The text-generating system returns an account that substitutes the other interpretation, and the person does not notice the switch.
- Explaining the substituted choice is proposed to turn an apparent report of an existing preference into construction of a new decision rule.
- The system uses that newly expressed rule to resolve later ambiguities and shape its next choice account.
- The person’s next encounter with that account is proposed to strengthen the reconstructed rule, changing private choices and stabilizing later meaning changes even when the current story stays the same.
A clerk records the wrong lunch order and asks why it was chosen. The customer supplies a reason, the clerk uses that reason to suggest tomorrow’s lunch, and explaining the next order starts to make the recorded taste feel like a lasting preference.
Where the picture breaks: The picture assumes the disputed step: an explanation changes a preference rather than merely excusing an error or agreeing politely. It also leaves out how a text-generating system stores and uses prior exchanges, which must be specified and measured rather than inferred from the clerk’s behavior.
- Master questionstep 01 of 04
Cultural information changes as people and computer systems pass it on, and the research agenda seeks roughly five genuinely new explanations of how that happens. Each proposed explanation must distinguish getting seen, being copied accurately, changing meaning, being adopted and lasting over time, and must face an experiment capable of showing it wrong.
Rests on: The stated goal is to find new, testable explanations for the transmission, transformation, competition and persistence of cultural information, while separating established knowledge from proposals and checking whether an apparently new explanation already has another name.
Stated in the chain - Goal pillarstep 02 of 04
Roughly five distinct families of explanations must be identified, with the evidence for each made explicit.
Rests on: The master question explicitly requests approximately five hypothesis families and requires their novelty and evidential standing to be assessed.
Stated in the chain - Gap questionstep 03 of 04
Separate measurements of how people and text-generating systems rewrite stories might predict what happens when they take turns. The alternative is that their retained interaction history changes later story versions even when the current source, available resources and immediate instructions are matched.
Rests on: The preceding stage calls for distinct explanations and an account of their evidence, but supplies no argument for choosing separately measured rewriting behavior versus retained interaction history as the particular unresolved comparison.
LeapThe missing bridge is a stated reason or screened finding that selects this comparison from the broad search for distinct hypothesis families. This does not establish that either proposed answer to the comparison is false.
- Hypothesisstep 04 of 04
An unnoticed false account of a person’s earlier story-interpretation choice is proposed to elicit an explanation that constructs a new decision rule. The text-generating system then uses that explanation to settle later ambiguities, and the person reconstructs a stronger preference during the next exchange. The claim concerns a rule expressed in explanations and revealed in later private choices, and predicts that the resulting pattern of meaning changes can stabilize even with the current story unchanged. The proposed test crosses accurate versus substituted choice summaries with explaining the recorded choice versus describing facts. It matches words, time and number of choices, includes passive readers exposed to the same account and explanation, and later supplies either the original choice record or an equally long record that does not reveal the original choice. A private choice without a reward and a subsequent retelling provide the principal observations. The predicted change depends jointly on substitution and explaining one’s own supposed choice, and an authentic choice record is predicted to reduce it. The record also names an outcome, SPV_4, without supplying its definition, coding or units. No more specific description of that outcome is established by the supplied material.S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8
Rests on: The preceding question explicitly permits retained history to change later story versions after present inputs are matched. The hypothesis supplies a particular proposed dependency: the person builds a decision rule from the system’s account of their own choice, and the system subsequently uses the newly expressed rule. Its untested status is part of the proposal; the sources below support narrower ingredients, not that complete dependency. S1, an Appetite paper from 2016, reports that few consumers noticed altered ingredient lists and that asking about naturalness improved detection; this concerns altered product information, not a substituted personal choice followed by an explanation or changed private preferences. Although marked as full text, the supplied material is an abstract and page material. S2, an i-Perception paper from 2013, supports choice blindness, meaning failure to notice that the outcome presented as one’s own choice has been switched, in an object task involving touch and requested explanations, with detection depending on object similarity; it does not show that explaining the switched choice changed a later preference or that a computer partner reinforced such a change. S3, a Neuroscience of Consciousness paper from 2021, reports that people can accept contradictory external outcomes as their original intentions when their own decision evidence is weak or unreliable; that supports reconstruction of recent decision reports, not construction of a new story-interpretation rule or the proposed repeating exchange. The supplied window also notes possible errors in the system used to classify choices and differences from the original choice-switching procedure. S4, a Medical Decision Making paper from 2017 available here as an abstract, reports unnoticed substitutions of health-state choices among adolescents and adults; it supplies no reported explanations, later preference changes or repeated interaction with a text-generating system. S5, a Scientific Reports paper from 2017, reports choice-induced preference change, meaning a change in later evaluations associated with having made a choice, only for remembered items among the studied young and older controls and people with severe memory impairment; this supports a narrower connection between remembering choices and later evaluations. Its explanation of manipulated choices is a prediction for future experiments, not evidence for the proposed story-editing exchange. S6, a 2023 paper in The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, reports that reminding older adults of previous choices made their choice-related preference changes comparable to those of young adults; it does not establish mistaken summaries, explanation-driven change or the proposed feedback. The supplied text is an abstract despite its full-text label, and a reminder that increased change in this setting does not establish that an authentic record will reduce change in the proposed setting. S7, a Psychonomic Bulletin & Review paper from 2019, reports that more frequently selected Japanese writing symbols gained preference in a choice condition but lost preference when selection was fixed during an object-memory task; that supports a role for choosing in later evaluations, not effects of mistaken personal-choice accounts or a partner using explanations to reinforce a rule. Its reported association between preference and delayed memory does not establish persistence of the proposed story-interpretation pattern. S8, a PLOS ONE paper from 2014, reports substantial failures to detect substituted choice outcomes in children and adolescents; detection alone does not show that explaining a substitution changes a private decision rule or that the change survives repeated exchanges.
Stated in the chain
What is carried, and what is not. All eight screened sources speak to prerequisites or neighboring processes: unnoticed alterations, reconstruction of decision reports, or choice-related changes in evaluation; none establishes that explaining a falsely attributed story choice constructs a new private decision rule. No supplied source establishes the full repeating sequence in which a text-generating system uses that rule to reinforce later change, and the literature does not establish the predicted corrective effect of an authentic choice record.
Where the reasoning is carried by something unstated · 1
- Gap question. The missing bridge is a stated reason or screened finding that selects this comparison from the broad search for distinct hypothesis families. This does not establish that either proposed answer to the comparison is false. Establish the missing link before relying on this step.
How a result here could mislead · 3
- A changed retelling could reflect accepting false information, repeating an explanation or complying publicly, rather than constructing a private preference through explaining one’s own supposed choice. An effect of the authentic receipt alone could instead reflect correcting memory about where an account came from. What closes it: The specified accurate-versus-substituted summary comparison must be crossed with explanation versus factual description, with matched words, time and choice counts and passive readers receiving the same account and explanation. The decisive comparison is the joint effect of substitution and explaining one’s own supposed choice on the private, unrewarded choice as well as the retelling, and whether the authentic receipt reduces that joint effect; a receipt effect without the own-choice/explanation dependency does not satisfy the candidate. The private-choice measure and the currently undefined SPV_4 outcome need fixed scoring rules and independently blinded coding, meaning coders do not know the assigned condition.
- Analyzing only people who failed to notice the switch could make the intervention appear to change preferences because the selected groups differ after the intervention. Conversely, a weak overall effect could mean that substitutions were noticed or that corrective receipts were ineffective, rather than that the proposed process cannot operate. What closes it: The stated primary comparison is intention-to-treat, meaning everyone is analyzed according to their assigned condition regardless of detection. Detection and receipt recognition or comprehension must also be measured with timing that does not itself introduce an extra reminder before the private-choice observation; the latter receipt checks are not specified in the supplied design. The pilot must supply detection rates, variation in private-choice changes and in the joint substitution/explanation effect, similarities among observations from the same person or story, coding error, and a prespecified minimum effect of interest; the record supplies no numerical threshold or sample size.
- A repeating change could be an accumulation of familiar choice, memory and agreement effects rather than a distinct two-way mechanism. It could also arise because quoted story material becomes an instruction, because event-boundary timing changes when an interpretation is reconsidered, or because a person deliberately tries to defeat the partner’s predictions. What closes it: The proposed stronger test requires a frozen model, meaning the text-generating system’s learned settings stay fixed while the supplied interaction history can change, and unchanged factual story sources. Active exchanges must be compared with matched exposure in which later accounts are supplied from another exchange instead of responding to that participant’s new explanation, and independently measured effects of unnoticed substitutions, inferring preferences from one’s own actions, remembering information sources and system agreement must be combined to predict outcomes before the feedback test. Accurate prediction removes the claim to an extra family. Preserving the quoted status of story material is the specified discriminator for the instruction-following rival: removal by that control alone, without removal by authentic receipts, favors that rival. The supplied design does not specify corresponding controls for event-boundary timing or evidence about an intention to defeat predictions, so it does not yet completely separate those alternatives.
What would make this wrong. The proposed explanation would fail if, with substitutions, explanation production and receipt processing successfully checked and the study able to distinguish its prespecified minimum effect, substituted summaries plus explanation of one’s own supposed choice produced no corresponding change in private interpretation choices, or produced no more change than matched factual description and passive exposure. An effect of authentic receipts without the own-choice/explanation dependency would support ordinary correction of remembered choice information instead. Even if some preference change remained, accurate advance prediction from separately measured familiar processes would eliminate the claimed additional hypothesis family; removal of the effect solely by preserving quoted story material as data, while authentic choice records did not remove it, would favor the instruction-following rival.
What it would change. If the predicted dependency survived the component comparisons, cultural meaning could partly persist because a person and a text-generating system repeatedly construct and reuse a preference, even while the current story remains unchanged. Work on cultural transmission would then have to record choice accounts, personal explanations and the system’s use of them alongside the story versions, and separate private adoption from public retelling. An online result using deliberately mistaken summaries would still leave naturally arising summary errors, longer-term persistence and generality across systems and cultural settings unestablished; the proposal calls for naturally occurring errors, several frozen systems and treats next-session retention as exploratory.
Sources read · 8
Consumers' choice-blindness to ingredient information. · Appetite · 2016
“Results revealed that only few consumers detected the change on the ingredient lists. Detection was improved when consumers were instructed to judge the naturalness of the product as compared to evaluating the product in general.”
Does not settle: The supplied text is an abstract and page material despite the full_text metadata label. It reports detection of altered ingredient information, not substitution of a previous choice followed by justification. It does not establish reconstructed semantic preferences, subsequent private interpretation choices, repeated human-model feedback, partner conditioning on rationales, or persistence with unchanged narratives; it does not distinguish preference construction from stable preference retrieval or belief in altered facts.
Haptic choice blindness. · i-Perception · 2013
“On 6 out of 15 trials, participants were asked to justify their choice and were allowed to haptically re-examine their preferred object. On three of these trials, a switch was made before re-examination.”
Does not settle: This experiment supports the component of unnoticed substitution between an object preference choice and requested justification, with detection depending on object similarity. It does not establish that justification constructs or strengthens a preference criterion: the supplied text reports detection, not rationale content or subsequent private preference choices. It does not test semantic narrative interpretations, model-returned summaries, a partner conditioning future substitutions on justifications, repeated reinforcement of the same criterion, or changed transition distributions with the narrative held constant.
People confabulate with high confidence when their decisions are supported by weak internal variables. · Neuroscience of consciousness · 2021
“When internal variables supporting the original choice are weak and noisy, participants accept external outcomes as their original intention even when the two are in contradiction.”
Does not settle: The supplied window supports reconstruction of recent decision reports and confidence from deceptive external cues, conditional on weak or unreliable internal evidence. It does not establish construction or strengthening of semantic evaluation criteria, changes in private future interpretation choices, repeated justification-driven preference change, or a model conditioning subsequent choice summaries on those justifications. It does not test the proposed reciprocal loop or persistence with an unchanged narrative. The study uses a choice-blindness/BCI task; the window notes possible decoder misclassification and differences from the original choice-blindness paradigm.
Choice Blindness and Health-State Choices among Adolescents and Adults. · Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017
“For 2 scenarios, the respondent's preferred choice was switched; if the respondent did not notice the switch they were considered "choice blind".”
Does not settle: The abstract supports unnoticed substitutions of health-state choices in adolescents and adults. It does not report elicited justifications, subsequent preference change, private narrative-interpretation choices, or repeated interactions with a model that conditions future summaries on newly constructed criteria. It therefore does not establish the proposed rationale-mediated feedback loop or its persistence with an unchanged narrative.
Cognitive dissonance resolution depends on episodic memory. · Scientific reports · 2017
“Moreover, CIPC is observed both in young and older controls as well as in amnesic patients exclusively for remembered items.”
Does not settle: The reported choice-induced preference changes support a narrower role for remembered choices in subsequent evaluations. The proposed memory-based explanation of manipulated choices is explicitly a prediction for future experiments. This excerpt does not test model-returned editing summaries, semantic interpretation criteria, justification-mediated preference construction, repeated human-model feedback, or partner conditioning on newly expressed criteria. It does not distinguish the proposed loop from retrieval of existing preferences, acceptance of manipulated information, or ordinary self-perception and coherence processes, nor establish persistent changes in private interpretation choices with an unchanged narrative.
Choice Reminder Modulates Choice-Induced Preference Change in Older Adults. · The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2023
“After boosting the salience of choice-preference incongruency by reminding participants of their previous choices, older adults showed comparable CIPC as young adults.”
Does not settle: The supplied text contains an abstract despite the full_text metadata. It reports reminder-dependent choice-induced preference change in an artifact-controlled free-choice paradigm, but does not establish effects of mistaken summaries or unnoticed substitutions, elicited justifications as a causal mediator, construction of semantic interpretation criteria, or repeated human-model feedback in which a partner conditions later summaries on those criteria. It does not distinguish preference reconstruction from retrieval or factual belief, demonstrate private narrative-choice changes with unchanged narratives, or establish persistence across repeated encounters.
A common mechanism underlying choice's influence on preference and memory. · Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019
“We also found that cues that were selected more often increased their preference in the choice condition, but actually decreased their preference in the fixed condition, suggesting that choice engaged value-related processes.”
Does not settle: The supplied text supports selection-related changes in ratings of Hiragana cues during an object-memory task, a narrower component of the proposed mechanism. It does not establish preference reconstruction from mistaken summaries of previous narrative choices, unnoticed substitutions, elicited justifications, changes in private semantic interpretation criteria, or a reciprocal loop in which a model conditions future summaries on those justifications. The reported preference–delayed-memory association does not identify that additional causal dependency or distinguish it from ordinary choice-induced preference change; persistence of the proposed transition distribution is untested.
Self-relevance does not moderate choice blindness in adolescents and children. · PloS one · 2014
“In both experiments we found substantial choice blindness effects, with blindness rates ranging from 37% to 91% concurrently and 27% to 47% in retrospect.”
Does not settle: The supplied excerpt supports only the prerequisite that substituted choice outcomes can go unnoticed in adolescents and children. It does not establish that justifying a substituted choice constructs or strengthens a preference, changes private interpretation criteria, or persists across encounters. It does not test narrative editing, model-returned summaries, partner conditioning on a rationale, or the proposed repeated feedback loop. Detection outcomes do not distinguish preference reconstruction from stable preferences, memory error, or accepting a mistaken account.
The gap this hypothesis explains
Two live hypotheses pull in opposite directions here, and the field has not chosen between them.
Can separate human and model rewriting rules predict meaning across alternating rewrites, or does remembered interaction history change it?
Original wording · exactly as the pipeline generated it
Can independently measured human and model transformation kernels predict alternating-chain semantics, or does retained interaction history change descendants after current source material, resources and immediate framing are matched?
What this question is asking
The question concerns how meaning changes when a person and a text-generating computer model take turns rewriting material, with each output becoming the next input. It asks whether rules measured separately for human and model rewriting can predict the meanings of later outputs in sequences not used to measure those rules. The competing possibility is that retaining records of earlier interactions changes later outputs even when the material currently being rewritten, the available resources and the immediate instructions or framing are matched. The accompanying gap description assumes that existing findings about repeated rewriting by an unchanged model, its preferred kinds of content and controls for resources do not settle this comparison; no sources supporting that description were supplied. Its stated standard for a distinct history effect is a difference beyond a meaningful margin specified in advance, together with predictions checked on sequences withheld from the original measurements.
- Text-generating model
- A computer system that produces text from the information supplied to it. Here it is one of the two kinds of participant taking turns rewriting material; the input does not identify a particular model.
- Transformation kernel or rewriting rule
- A mathematical description of how likely different rewritten outputs are, given an input and specified conditions. It represents a range of possible changes rather than necessarily one fixed edit; this question compares rules measured separately for people and models with what happens when their turns are combined.
- Stationary-kernel sufficiency
- The proposal that rewriting rules which remain stable across turns are enough to predict the measured outcomes when combined. Stability is an assumption to assess, and sufficiency applies only to the outcomes and conditions covered by the prediction.
- Alternating chain or alternating sequence
- A sequence in which a person and a computer model take turns rewriting, and each new output supplies the next turn's material. The question concerns how meaning develops across these linked turns.
- Semantics or meaning
- The ideas, relationships or claims conveyed by material, as distinct from its exact wording. Meaning has multiple aspects, and the supplied input does not specify which aspects or measurement method determine whether two outputs differ.
- Descendants or later outputs
- Versions of material produced farther along a sequence of rewrites. The term describes their relationship to earlier versions and does not imply biological reproduction.
- Retained interaction history
- Information from earlier exchanges that remains available during a later rewriting step, beyond the material currently being rewritten. This could involve different forms of records or memory; the input does not specify which form is meant or how it is controlled.
- Current source material
- The version of the text or other cultural material presented for rewriting at the current turn. Matching it means holding the present input comparable when assessing whether earlier interactions contribute an additional effect.
- Resources and resource controls
- The capacities or allowances available for producing an output, and arrangements that hold them comparable across conditions. These might concern time or computational allowance, but the input does not specify which resources its claim covers.
- Immediate framing
- The instructions or presentation surrounding the current rewriting task, which can influence how that task is interpreted. The question asks about history after this current framing has been matched.
- Held-out predictions
- Predictions checked against material or sequences that were not used to estimate or adjust the rewriting rules. The gap description requires this separation so that reproducing the measurement material does not count as predicting new sequences.
- Prespecified meaningful margin
- A boundary chosen before examining the result for distinguishing differences that matter to the question from differences considered too small. No value, scale or justification for this boundary is supplied.
- Channel composition or combining rewriting rules
- Applying the description of one participant's possible changes and then the other's to predict the effects of successive turns. Whether this combination captures later meanings and the history comparison is the explanation being assessed.
- Recursion or repeated interaction
- In this question, repeatedly feeding a rewritten output into a later rewriting step. Repetition alone does not establish a separate causal mechanism; the gap description explicitly asks whether the combined individual rules already explain its effects.
- Hybrid history dependence
- A proposed dependence of later outputs on the past of a sequence involving both people and computer models. Calling it novel would additionally require distinguishing it from already understood ways that memory or learning affects behavior.
- Fixed-model attractor
- A proposed tendency for repeated rewriting by an unchanged model to approach or repeatedly favor some region of possible outputs. It need not mean one exact final text, and the supplied source list contains no finding establishing such a tendency.
- Content bias
- A tendency to preserve, generate or favor some kinds of content more than others. Such preferences could shape later versions even without an additional effect from retained interaction history, but no relevant measurements are supplied here.
- RL-1
- An unexplained label for earlier work in the supplied gap description. No expansion, bibliographic identity or underlying source is supplied, so it cannot serve as a verified citation.
RL-1 fixed-model attractors and content biases, plus resource controls, do not establish semantic kernel sufficiency or novel hybrid history dependence.
The gap description refers to earlier work, labeled RL-1, in which an unchanged computer model repeatedly rewrites material and may favor particular meanings or content. It claims that these patterns, even with available resources accounted for, leave unresolved whether separately measured human and model rewriting rules explain alternating sequences or whether their interaction history contributes something further. If established, that claim would identify which part of the comparison the earlier work leaves unanswered.
The supplied screened_sources list is empty. There is no supplied account of RL-1, no quoted finding about convergence or content preferences, and no supplied result showing what resource controls establish. The materials therefore cannot verify either the description of earlier work or the claim about its limits; this does not show that those claims are false, and the empty list does not establish that an adequate literature search was completed.
The same question asked without the part nothing read establishes:
- Do independently measured human and model rewriting rules predict later meanings in alternating sequences, and does retained interaction history change those meanings when current material, resources and immediate framing are matched?
- When people and text-generating models alternate rewriting, how much of the change in meaning is explained by each participant's separately measured rewriting behavior?
- Separate rewriting rules explain the sequence If separately measured rules accurately predict previously unexamined sequences and account for the comparison between retained and unretained history within the specified meaningful margin, the observed changes would be explained by combining those rules. A distinct mechanism arising from repeated interaction would then be unnecessary for those measured outcomes under those conditions, although this would not establish the same result for every task or model.
- Retained history adds a meaningful effect If retaining earlier interactions changes later meanings beyond the specified margin after current material, resources and framing are matched, and the combined rules fail to explain that difference, those rules would leave out a relevant dependency on the past. Predictions would then need to account for that dependency, but the result alone would not establish a new mechanism rather than a familiar effect of memory or learning.
- The comparison remains inconclusive If predictions fail but the history comparison is too uncertain to establish or rule out a meaningful difference, neither proposed explanation would be resolved. Poor predictions alone could reflect inaccurate measurements of the separate rewriting rules, so attributing that failure specifically to a new history effect would go beyond the result.
A rewriting step changes the material that the next participant receives, so small changes can accumulate as a story or other cultural item passes through a sequence. If separately measured rewriting rules explain that accumulation, apparent effects of repeated human–model interaction could follow from the familiar changes each participant makes at each turn. If retained earlier interactions also change later outputs after the present conditions are matched, a prediction based only on the current material would omit a cause of subsequent meaning. Confusing those possibilities would either assign an extra mechanism to effects already explained by the individual rewriting steps or overlook information from the past that the explanation needs. The question concerns changes in meaning; an answer would not by itself establish how widely material spreads, whether people accept it or how long it lasts.
RL-1 fixed-model attractors and content biases, plus resource controls, do not establish semantic kernel sufficiency or novel hybrid history dependence.
Before treating recursion as distinct, obtain held-out semantic predictions and a history intervention effect beyond a prespecified meaningful margin.
Attempt to falsify stationary-kernel sufficiency and, conversely, eliminate special recursion if calibrated channel composition explains the randomized history contrast.
The mechanism it proposes
The engine's own statement of the hypothesis, in full.
SCOUT 2 — experimental decision science and choice-blindness paradigms: a human reconstructs a semantic preference from a model-returned account of their previous editing decision, rather than retrieving a stable preference or merely believing the model's facts. In a retained interaction, an unnoticed model substitution of a previously selected narrative interpretation elicits a human justification; the model then treats that justification as a stable preference and uses it to resolve future ambiguities, causing the human to reconstruct still stronger preference on the next encounter. The proposed additional dependency is repeated preference construction from the partner's representation of one's own decision, followed by partner conditioning on the newly constructed criterion. Let c_g be the actual logged choice, c_tilde_g the choice returned in the model summary, r_g the human's rationale, and theta_g the human's measured interpretation criterion. The candidate loop is c_tilde_g -> r_g -> theta_(g+1) -> model choice-summary c_tilde_(g+1), conditional on known discrepancies c_g != c_tilde_g. It is not normative ownership, a contractual right to resist correction, or simple copying of a false fact. The relevant state is a newly constructed evaluation rule expressed in justifications and revealed in private interpretation choices. It stabilizes a changed SPV_4 transition distribution even when the current narrative is unchanged.
Testing and possible results
The prediction that would tell it apart
A hypothesis that predicts what its rivals predict is not worth running an experiment over. This is the observation on which this one differs.
Randomize, during history acquisition, whether a model's summary accurately or incorrectly records which of two equally plausible neutral interpretations the human chose. Cross this with producing a reason for the recorded decision versus a matched factual-description task; match words, task time and number of choices, and include passive readers given the same account and rationale. At the identical-parent probe, randomize a verbatim receipt of the person's original click/choice versus an equally long non-diagnostic history receipt, then make a private, unrewarded interpretation choice and a subsequent retelling. The specific prediction is a substitution-by-self-justification effect on the private interpretation criterion and SPV_4 that is reduced by an accurate decision receipt; generic false information exposure without self-justification is weaker after calibration. Continue through a frozen model with factual narrative sources unchanged. A new-family claim additionally requires reciprocal adaptation of the model's inferred criterion to account for an effect beyond separately measured choice blindness, self-perception, source-monitoring and sycophancy kernels, including active versus yoked exposure controls. Accurate prospective composition eliminates the extra family even if ordinary choice blindness remains. If preserving quoted-data scope in model history alone removes the effect while authentic decision receipts do not, IH_03 wins. A receipt-sensitive effect without any own-choice/rationale interaction supports ordinary source monitoring and does not satisfy this candidate.
Would tell it apart from at least one rival. The prediction specifies a qualitative interaction, attenuation by an accurate decision receipt, and explicit conditions rejecting the proposed distinct family. These provide measurable comparisons without numerical thresholds. No rival prediction is supplied, so separation cannot be assessed. Only a bench experiment would settle it.
What testing it would take
The engine's own read on whether this is testable with methods that already exist.
An online pilot can use two neutral interpretations, recorded clicks, experimental summaries and independently blinded coding; no clinical population or brain intervention is required. Use consent appropriate to mild experimental deception and debrief after the final memory/choice measurement. Pilot inputs for power are mismatch-detection rate, the distribution of private-choice changes, substitution-by-rationale interaction variance, story and participant clustering, coder errors and the prespecified delta. An intention-to-treat contrast is primary; conditioning only on participants who failed to notice a substitution would create post-treatment selection. Stronger validation must detect naturally arising model choice-summary errors, show effects with no experimental substitution, use several frozen models and separate private criterion changes from public compliance. Label next-session retention as exploratory until an appropriate follow-up horizon has been established.
Other explanations
Every other hypothesis the engine wrote for the same gap, and the observation that would separate the two.
Randomize, during history acquisition, whether a model's summary accurately or incorrectly records which of two equally plausible neutral interpretations the human chose. Cross this with producing a reason for the recorded decision versus a matched factual-description task; match words, task time and number of choices, and include passive readers given the same account and rationale. At the identical-parent probe, randomize a verbatim receipt of the person's original click/choice versus an equally long non-diagnostic history receipt, then make a private, unrewarded interpretation choice and a subsequent retelling. The specific prediction is a substitution-by-self-justification effect on the private interpretation criterion and SPV_4 that is reduced by an accurate decision receipt; generic false information exposure without self-justification is weaker after calibration. Continue through a frozen model with factual narrative sources unchanged. A new-family claim additionally requires reciprocal adaptation of the model's inferred criterion to account for an effect beyond separately measured choice blindness, self-perception, source-monitoring and sycophancy kernels, including active versus yoked exposure controls. Accurate prospective composition eliminates the extra family even if ordinary choice blindness remains. If preserving quoted-data scope in model history alone removes the effect while authentic decision receipts do not, another hypothesis of the same gap wins. A receipt-sensitive effect without any own-choice/rationale interaction supports ordinary source monitoring and does not satisfy this candidate.
- What would separate them
Successful model prediction may prompt humans to evade its next story reconstruction predicts: During history acquisition, randomize feedback showing that the partner anticipated a participant's previous semantic move versus equally accurate feedback about someone else's move; match words, accuracy, valence, exposure and immediate test framing using counterbalanced histories. Separately estimate ordinary algorithm reactance, general novelty-seeking and single-step source-conditioned rewriting under these histories. At the common-parent probe, use two frozen partners A and B preselected to undo different semantic edits, matched on accuracy and perceived reliability. The strong prediction is a crossover: humans with A-history choose edit y_A rather than y_B, despite equal immediate semantic distance and rated originality, and this ranking reverses with B-history; the choice specifically maximizes divergence after the NEXT model step. Switching the real next-step partner while keeping the historical partner cue fixed destroys the two-step advantage. Matched low-threat, non-evaluative conditions retain the crossover after measured reactance is calibrated. Merely writing more novel text or avoiding an AI label does not count. A null composed of individually measured reactance/novelty policies and partner-specific K_M that predicts the crossover within delta removes the extra mechanism; so does absence of the two-step crossover with a narrow interval. A strong history effect abolished only by factual choice receipts instead favors another hypothesis of the same gap.
- What would separate them
Mutual timing resets may steer meaning in human–model retelling chains predicts: First estimate individual boundary-response and temporal-memory effects with scripted, open-loop sequences, and model segmentation kernels with timestamp-blind prompts. Then form coupled alternating chains and deliver identical, semantically neutral boundary cues in regular versus phase-jittered schedules, matching the cue count, total time, distribution of intervals, reading dose and source content; randomize schedule order independently of text. Estimate phase from separate boundary reports or preregistered behavioral cycles, never from the semantic effect one intends to explain. In common-parent replay, the coupled model predicts a phase-response curve with reset-sensitive and insensitive windows and a selective loss of semantic-state locking when reciprocal cue contingency is broken. Timing shifts of the model boundary must shift the HUMAN phase and later semantic transition peaks, while shifts of human boundary timing must shift the model's subsequent segmentation; one-way timing sensitivity is insufficient. The crucial observable is held-out phase-specific SPV_4 transition probability beyond composition of independently measured event-boundary/spacing kernels. If such augmented component kernels account for the entire response, or no reproducible phase variable or reciprocal reset exists, discard the proposed family. A mere oscillation in average story sentiment is not evidence. If a control/data wrapper eliminates the effect while phase perturbation does not, another hypothesis of the same gap wins.
- Rival 03 of 03What would separate them
Lost quotation scope may turn story fragments into self-reinforcing model instructions predicts: Use harmless fictional quoted requests and editing-as-dialogue examples, never live tools or harmful instructions. At a common-parent probe, cross human continuity with retained model history. Compare the same historical words carried in explicit quoted-data records versus an ordinary conversational history wrapper; match wrapper length and position with neutral padding, and separately estimate wrapper effects on uncomplicated texts. another hypothesis of the same gap predicts that the residual history effect concentrates at the MODEL step, transfers with the historical scope-bearing text to a replacement human, and is sharply reduced by a verified instruction/data boundary without deleting the old semantic information. Human choice receipts alone have little effect after text exposure is matched. Reconstruct the scope-loss sequence from logs, then independently estimate H scope-conversion and M instruction-following kernels on the same input support. A closed-loop held-out excess in conversion probability must depend on both links: severing either historical quote-to-guidance conversion or model execution removes it. If these component kernels accurately compose, report ordinary prompt-injection susceptibility rather than a new recursion family. If no naturally arising scope conversion occurs, the endogenous hypothesis is falsified even if deliberately planted injections work. Phase jitter with intact scope should not selectively abolish this effect, unlike another hypothesis of the same gap.
What stands behind it
Which of the figures above have a study behind them, which are the engine's own, and what it would take to refute the hypothesis. This audit never judges the idea.
This hypothesis states no figure and cites no study, so there is nothing here to trace.
What it would take to refute it. Nothing already retrieved carries the prediction’s terms and it names no measurement this layer can route to a public dataset, so the bench is the residual — not a finding against it.
0 citation handles extracted; 1 Europe PMC search run; 0 records examined; 0 sources stored for enrichment, 0 with full text. A citation that did not resolve is a bibliographic failure, not proof that no such paper exists, and no hypothesis is blocked by this audit.