Inherited defaults may sustain traditions when people reinstall them for successors

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.

Do brief boosts predict extinction after sharing or recommendation memory stops, or hide different ways cultural lineages survive?

The engine's own statement of the hypothesis, in full.

SCOUT 2 — From institutional economics and default-dependent choice: a cultural act can leave an inheritable rule for the next actor's choice, rather than merely a memory or another exposure. In a shared harmless naming or document-making task, each participant chooses both a convention and the preselected convention presented to the next participant. A recipient can actively reproduce the focal unit and reinstall it as the successor's default. This procedural inheritance can continue through fresh people after both the original direct-message relay and recommender memory are interrupted. Its physical carrier is a user-authored default field in the task artifact; the causal process is successive human acceptance and reinstallation, not persistence of a ranker's weights, an automatically repeated post or static candidate eligibility. The distinctive candidate dependency is default-preserving meta-choice: having inherited a default changes the probability of reinstalling it for another person even among actors assigned the same current convention, equal alternatives and equal current action costs. Such second-order procedural transmission can stabilize SPV_7 while leaving private endorsement weak and pre-break exposure pulses unchanged. It is a proposed additional cultural route that must be fully logged, not an assertion that a two-route model remains complete.

Every other hypothesis the engine wrote for the same gap, and the observation that would separate the two.

• Rival 01 of 03

  Cultural copying may be suppressed by its expected influence on future recommendations
  What would separate them

  Cultural copying may be suppressed by its expected influence on future recommendations predicts: In independent groups first estimate the same prespecified small-pulse response band, and then randomize a genuine act-to-training gate independently of recommender-state reset. Maintain the same current candidate pool, actor-specific predecision exposure history, copy opportunity, immediate recipient panel and public attribution using a preregistered yoked-allocation arm. The gate controls a real subsequent update for a separately logged later audience, not a fictitious shadow rule. Estimate the proximal copying response before that future audience response can return; otherwise a compensating controller that cancels every future consequence would also remove the very causal influence g being manipulated. The ensuing total lineage-survival contrast includes downstream exposure changes and must be reported separately from the controlled proximal effect. Teach the gate by harmless contingent demonstrations before withdrawal, with attention-matched demonstrations in controls. Give no rescue responsibility, censorship message or scarcity warning. Let D(t)=P(documented new human descendant by t | gate detached)-P(descendant by t | gate coupled) at matched exposure. The candidate requires D(t)>0 beyond a pilot-chosen meaningful bound and a dose-ordered negative response to g, including when delivery remains available and no outage occurs. Reversal of which lineage trains the allocator must reverse the selective withholding. The crucial total survival prediction is more new human generations after detachment despite loss of the positive allocation path, not merely more clicks or one rebound post. For a second-stage common-regime test, randomize both groups into the same openly announced follow-up policy after their initial copy decisions, and test whether those decisions seeded different descendant trajectories; do not claim a controlled survival effect while covertly changing future exposure. another hypothesis of the same gap instead needs a perceived continuity failure and available substitute; another hypothesis of the same gap needs a learned prospective cue; another hypothesis of the same gap needs inherited procedural defaults. Falsify the distinctive claim if a calibrated ordinary reactance/control-preference model predicts the held-out gate-transfer results, or if D is bounded near zero after directly matching those variables. A generic label or annoyance effect is insufficient.

• Rival 02 of 03

  Inherited takeover rules may recruit human relays when recommendations fail
  What would separate them

  Inherited takeover rules may recruit human relays when recommendations fail predicts: Randomize recommender-state reset versus retention, partial human-relay availability, and a content-free verified outage signal versus a matched irrelevant signal. Hold the available cultural content and pre-break recall distribution fixed. With the automatic route actually interrupted, the outage signal should selectively increase first new human handovers and their descendant survival when a trained standby route is permitted. It should have little effect when that route is unavailable; a policy gate detached while delivery continues should not by itself produce the increase predicted by another hypothesis of the same gap. Estimate coverage C from separate failure drills, then predict S(t) without refitting it after withdrawal. Under the restricted equation in cross_field_source, the survival gain from C0 to C1 is (C1-C0) times the specified nonnegative convolution, giving both a sign and a held-out magnitude prediction. At a forced break at time u, conditional human-route survival is C W_H(u) R_H(v) over post-break horizon v, under the stated assumptions. An equal-current-exposure demonstration that routes are still working should remove the takeover response. To test the extension, pass identical content with versus without the inherited handover rule to fresh successors; survival after a second unanticipated break should depend on the inherited rule despite equal first-handover rates. Failure to predict either break, or an effect fully explained by ordinary independent retention and an additive warning response, removes the distinctive standby explanation.

• Rival 03 of 03

  Inherited return cues may rearm completed intentions and sustain cultural copying
  What would separate them

  Inherited return cues may rearm completed intentions and sustain cultural copying predicts: After identical initial cultural exposure, randomly bind the relay intention to cue x or equally familiar cue y. Complete the intention once and clearly terminate the obligation. Independently reset the recommender, allow or suppress return notifications, and remap the notification's cue identity while holding cultural payload, event count, timing, visual salience and opportunity to act constant. The distinctive contrast is Delta_PM=[P(new copy|return x)-P(new copy|return y)]_x-trained minus the same difference in y-trained participants; it must be positive in the predicted direction after completion and predict descendants through the measured cue-response lag. A newly composed post must require an explicit fresh action, so replaying a precommitted send cannot satisfy the endpoint. A deactivation procedure rehearsing the now-correct response to the old cue should reduce the continuation tail without reducing independent content recall. This effect should occur without outage knowledge, an inherited default or a change in one's causal influence on training. another hypothesis of the same gap predicts status-triggered takeover, not arbitrary cue-identity transfer; another hypothesis of the same gap predicts training-gate transfer; another hypothesis of the same gap predicts procedural-setting transfer. Falsify the loop if no new action-specific commission effect occurs, if return-cue suppression leaves the predicted excess unchanged within a prespecified precision bound, or if an already fitted open-loop cue-response model predicts the entire tail and cross-generation results without any inherited rearming dependence.

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.

Provenance audit: failed at enrich. Nothing below has been traced yet.