Does earlier exposure change what people keep passing on?

HERETICAL CANDIDATE — Successful transmission can be a private memory-disposal event. Exposure history builds an unfinished, source-specific retention demand in the person. The person continues reproducing that unit until another person has demonstrably acquired its meaning; that event then actively reduces the sender's source-specific accessibility even when the recipient is permanently unreachable and cannot serve as an external memory. Thus a lineage can persist through serial disposal while its successive carriers abandon private retention. The stored variable is an unresolved mnemonic demand, not durable liking, a social obligation, ownership, or recommendation weights. Equal-dose ordering matters if encounters occur before versus after such completion events. A hidden allocator reset cannot erase the demand, but a validated recipient-comprehension receipt can. The strong additional claim is a recipient-specific negative update to the sender's trace despite matched retrieval, matched successful task completion, equal future usefulness, and zero expected reacquisition. This goes beyond generic cognitive offloading and goal completion only if those controls fail to reproduce it. A schematic candidate update is m_after=m_before+a*rho-k*c, where m is independently measured source-specific accessibility, rho is the sender's matched retrieval operation, c is randomized evidence of another person's comprehension of that source, a is ordinary retrieval benefit and k is the proposed disposal effect. The risky regime is k>a*rho for a completed handoff; it is not assumed from current evidence. Lower sender retention together with continued qualified descendants targets SPV_7, not a claim that lower memory improves belief adoption.

Receipt salience, praise, elapsed time and output effort are matched. Actual receiver competence and sender belief are measured separately; pilot any credible receipt implementation before the main study. IH_01 predicts a negative receiver-receipt effect on later sender source-detail availability exceeding margin delta_m, despite the usual positive retrieval benefit, coupled with reduced repeated forwarding by that sender and preserved or increased survival through new recipients. Crucially, the contrast survives elimination of reciprocal access and survives controls for expected future usefulness, perceived task completion, effort and social approval. It need not preserve the sender's adoption. An ordinary allocator account predicts no receipt-specific sender-memory difference during common open loop; ordinary retrieval predicts benefit from the matched production; ordinary offloading predicts an effect tied to recoverable storage, and general goal completion predicts the matched closure control suffices. Primary decisive result is the joint sender-memory/descendant-survival sign pattern, not the number of shares alone. If both receipt and archive conditions behave alike, or a fitted offloading-plus-goal-closure model predicts the joint trajectories within the negligible-extra-effect margin on held-out content, delete this distinct family. If memory merely remains unobserved in one test, use source-cued recovery and recognition probes before claiming loss; no behavioral result licenses molecular erasure.

Independently randomize a neutral reorganization of their pre-existing tentative plans that preserves planned duration, obligations, rewards and content, versus equally effortful plan inspection. Model planned and performed activities separately. Given externally equal opportunities, IH_02 predicts the history contrast interacts with indivisible enactment duration and is attenuated selectively by repacking, with effect magnitude predicted out of sample by available-start measure A(d). Example, purely mathematical rather than empirical: subjective free gaps of 4+4 versus 1+7 minutes both total eight, but a five-minute indivisible act has A(5)=0 versus 2 minutes of acceptable start positions. Splitting the same act into independently meaningful shorter parts should relieve rejection without extra source exposure, but does not by itself establish ancestry or adoption. A scalar resource-depletion model predicts equal rejection at equal total free time after controlling task cost; a boundary-task/time-contraction model predicts effects from current salient boundary distance, so fit it explicitly. The claimed new family is removed if independently calibrated boundary perception, planning-cost and ordinary opportunity-choice models reproduce all history-by-duration and repacking contrasts, or if measured private reservations are absent. If real external time or feasible action opportunities differ, this does not answer the L3 and the trial must be redesigned.

Exposure history may bias sleep cueing to preserve cultural source lineages predicts instead: After the matched history/reset procedure, randomly assign counterbalanced benign source-associated cues to verified non-REM sleep, the same cues during quiet wake, or uncued control, while keeping total waking content exposure, elapsed interval and later opportunity schedule equal. Within sleep, target the historically prioritized source or its competitor with the same cue count and intensity, randomizing cue identity independently of exposure order. IH_03 predicts a prespecified history-by-targeted-source-by-sleep interaction on arbitrary-source-detail retention and subsequent qualified survival, with onset after sleep and persistence through the common open-loop interval. The specific candidate predicts that cueing the lower-priority source attenuates or reverses the history contrast beyond a consequence margin even when a preregistered ordinary memory-strength/TMR model calibrated in single-source controls predicts only an additive cue gain. Estimate that rival's nonlinearities and ceiling effects rather than assume additivity. A pure allocator model predicts no such open-loop, sleep-specific history interaction. The accounting, disposal and prospective-packing hypotheses do not predict source-cue specificity during verified sleep when their own states are held constant. Family-removing result: ordinary source memory plus the already established TMR/preference model predicts later choices and descendants within the negligible-extra-effect margin, or apparent cue effects are explained by awakenings or unequal waking rehearsal. A cue-induced preference shift alone is explicitly insufficient for novelty.

Reassigning past effort to another cultural lineage may transfer its persistence advantage predicts instead: In a preregistered benign practice experiment, require equal amounts of neutral preparatory work that cannot improve skill, give identical monetary pay and practice opportunities, and randomize which lineage that work is recorded as supporting. Assignment of credit is made separately from actual variant exposure and order. After verified reset and common open-loop delivery, cross unchanged versus transparently reassigned effort credit with a matched relabeling-only control and an equal-value general acknowledgement control; no extra payment, audience or material advantage is introduced. IH_04 predicts that the sign of private post-support persistence follows the credited lineage, including a transfer to a different fully learned lineage, while blinded source competence and source-detail fidelity remain stable within their margins. The critical contrast is change in D after lineage-specific reassignment minus change after equally salient general acknowledgement or label change. It should survive explicit confirmation that prior work cannot be recovered and future costs are equal. Pure allocator memory cannot move common-open-loop private persistence this way; offline memory predicts a trace-related effect; time packing predicts duration-specific feasibility rather than credited ancestry; disposal predicts a recipient-comprehension contingency. Remove the distinct family if ordinary accounting plus effort justification predicts the transfer and later hazards out of sample, if mere labels suffice, or if the manipulation changes expected future reward or competence. A standard sunk-cost main effect is only a successful control, not discovery.

CROSS-DOMAIN TRANSFER — Exposure order deposits private time reservations that reject otherwise possible cultural reproductions. A recipient who encounters several narrative/practice variants forms tentative plans for when to enact them. The first accepted plans reserve indivisible blocks in subjective future time; later plans fit into the remaining gaps. Reversing encounter order changes the arrangement of those reservations without changing total exposure, total planned minutes or external reproduction availability. After allocator reset the person still treats these private reservations as binding, so a long familiar practice may be privately unavailable while equally known short variants continue. The carrier is the person's prospective allocation of a time budget, not a network, spatial barrier, geometric neural representation or sensor. No actual opportunity is removed by the experiment. The candidate extension is an order-deposited, duration-specific fragmentation state that predicts willingness beyond total busyness, ordinary schedule salience, competence, expected value and the logged allocator. SPV_6 is stabilized for practices that fit surviving subjective gaps, while abandonment of nonfitting practices rises. Repacking a private plan without adding free time should selectively rescue long cultural acts.

Independently randomize a neutral reorganization of their pre-existing tentative plans that preserves planned duration, obligations, rewards and content, versus equally effortful plan inspection. Model planned and performed activities separately. Given externally equal opportunities, IH_02 predicts the history contrast interacts with indivisible enactment duration and is attenuated selectively by repacking, with effect magnitude predicted out of sample by available-start measure A(d). Example, purely mathematical rather than empirical: subjective free gaps of 4+4 versus 1+7 minutes both total eight, but a five-minute indivisible act has A(5)=0 versus 2 minutes of acceptable start positions. Splitting the same act into independently meaningful shorter parts should relieve rejection without extra source exposure, but does not by itself establish ancestry or adoption. A scalar resource-depletion model predicts equal rejection at equal total free time after controlling task cost; a boundary-task/time-contraction model predicts effects from current salient boundary distance, so fit it explicitly. The claimed new family is removed if independently calibrated boundary perception, planning-cost and ordinary opportunity-choice models reproduce all history-by-duration and repacking contrasts, or if measured private reservations are absent. If real external time or feasible action opportunities differ, this does not answer the L3 and the trial must be redesigned.

Receipt salience, praise, elapsed time and output effort are matched. Actual receiver competence and sender belief are measured separately; pilot any credible receipt implementation before the main study. IH_01 predicts a negative receiver-receipt effect on later sender source-detail availability exceeding margin delta_m, despite the usual positive retrieval benefit, coupled with reduced repeated forwarding by that sender and preserved or increased survival through new recipients. Crucially, the contrast survives elimination of reciprocal access and survives controls for expected future usefulness, perceived task completion, effort and social approval. It need not preserve the sender's adoption. An ordinary allocator account predicts no receipt-specific sender-memory difference during common open loop; ordinary retrieval predicts benefit from the matched production; ordinary offloading predicts an effect tied to recoverable storage, and general goal completion predicts the matched closure control suffices. Primary decisive result is the joint sender-memory/descendant-survival sign pattern, not the number of shares alone. If both receipt and archive conditions behave alike, or a fitted offloading-plus-goal-closure model predicts the joint trajectories within the negligible-extra-effect margin on held-out content, delete this distinct family. If memory merely remains unobserved in one test, use source-cued recovery and recognition probes before claiming loss; no behavioral result licenses molecular erasure.

Exposure history may bias sleep cueing to preserve cultural source lineages predicts instead: After the matched history/reset procedure, randomly assign counterbalanced benign source-associated cues to verified non-REM sleep, the same cues during quiet wake, or uncued control, while keeping total waking content exposure, elapsed interval and later opportunity schedule equal. Within sleep, target the historically prioritized source or its competitor with the same cue count and intensity, randomizing cue identity independently of exposure order. IH_03 predicts a prespecified history-by-targeted-source-by-sleep interaction on arbitrary-source-detail retention and subsequent qualified survival, with onset after sleep and persistence through the common open-loop interval. The specific candidate predicts that cueing the lower-priority source attenuates or reverses the history contrast beyond a consequence margin even when a preregistered ordinary memory-strength/TMR model calibrated in single-source controls predicts only an additive cue gain. Estimate that rival's nonlinearities and ceiling effects rather than assume additivity. A pure allocator model predicts no such open-loop, sleep-specific history interaction. The accounting, disposal and prospective-packing hypotheses do not predict source-cue specificity during verified sleep when their own states are held constant. Family-removing result: ordinary source memory plus the already established TMR/preference model predicts later choices and descendants within the negligible-extra-effect margin, or apparent cue effects are explained by awakenings or unequal waking rehearsal. A cue-induced preference shift alone is explicitly insufficient for novelty.

Reassigning past effort to another cultural lineage may transfer its persistence advantage predicts instead: In a preregistered benign practice experiment, require equal amounts of neutral preparatory work that cannot improve skill, give identical monetary pay and practice opportunities, and randomize which lineage that work is recorded as supporting. Assignment of credit is made separately from actual variant exposure and order. After verified reset and common open-loop delivery, cross unchanged versus transparently reassigned effort credit with a matched relabeling-only control and an equal-value general acknowledgement control; no extra payment, audience or material advantage is introduced. IH_04 predicts that the sign of private post-support persistence follows the credited lineage, including a transfer to a different fully learned lineage, while blinded source competence and source-detail fidelity remain stable within their margins. The critical contrast is change in D after lineage-specific reassignment minus change after equally salient general acknowledgement or label change. It should survive explicit confirmation that prior work cannot be recovered and future costs are equal. Pure allocator memory cannot move common-open-loop private persistence this way; offline memory predicts a trace-related effect; time packing predicts duration-specific feasibility rather than credited ancestry; disposal predicts a recipient-comprehension contingency. Remove the distinct family if ordinary accounting plus effort justification predicts the transfer and later hazards out of sample, if mere labels suffice, or if the manipulation changes expected future reward or competence. A standard sunk-cost main effect is only a successful control, not discovery.

SCOUT 1 — Sleep neuroscience: cultural exposure history survives in source-selective offline replay priority. An order of encounters can assign unequal future relevance to equally practiced source episodes. During subsequent non-REM sleep, replay consolidates one source and its arbitrary diagnostic details preferentially; recommendation reset therefore leaves a delayed human-carried lineage advantage. The strong extension is that the history-induced priority determines how a fixed amount of source-specific sleep cueing changes later voluntary reproduction and qualified lineage survival. This is not a new name for sleep consolidation, a claim that equal waking recall equals equal memory, or a universal cueing benefit. The hidden state is a source-specific eligibility for offline stabilization, assessed with experimentally associated neutral cues and sleep physiology. The candidate state changes only over verified sleep episodes in the relevant version of the hypothesis, rather than through a donor's handoff receipt, a reconfigured time budget or an effort account. It targets SPV_7 by preserving diagnostic source information available for later descendants after allocator support stops.

Within sleep, target the historically prioritized source or its competitor with the same cue count and intensity, randomizing cue identity independently of exposure order. IH_03 predicts a prespecified history-by-targeted-source-by-sleep interaction on arbitrary-source-detail retention and subsequent qualified survival, with onset after sleep and persistence through the common open-loop interval. The specific candidate predicts that cueing the lower-priority source attenuates or reverses the history contrast beyond a consequence margin even when a preregistered ordinary memory-strength/TMR model calibrated in single-source controls predicts only an additive cue gain. Estimate that rival's nonlinearities and ceiling effects rather than assume additivity. A pure allocator model predicts no such open-loop, sleep-specific history interaction. The accounting, disposal and prospective-packing hypotheses do not predict source-cue specificity during verified sleep when their own states are held constant. Family-removing result: ordinary source memory plus the already established TMR/preference model predicts later choices and descendants within the negligible-extra-effect margin, or apparent cue effects are explained by awakenings or unequal waking rehearsal. A cue-induced preference shift alone is explicitly insufficient for novelty.

Receipt salience, praise, elapsed time and output effort are matched. Actual receiver competence and sender belief are measured separately; pilot any credible receipt implementation before the main study. IH_01 predicts a negative receiver-receipt effect on later sender source-detail availability exceeding margin delta_m, despite the usual positive retrieval benefit, coupled with reduced repeated forwarding by that sender and preserved or increased survival through new recipients. Crucially, the contrast survives elimination of reciprocal access and survives controls for expected future usefulness, perceived task completion, effort and social approval. It need not preserve the sender's adoption. An ordinary allocator account predicts no receipt-specific sender-memory difference during common open loop; ordinary retrieval predicts benefit from the matched production; ordinary offloading predicts an effect tied to recoverable storage, and general goal completion predicts the matched closure control suffices. Primary decisive result is the joint sender-memory/descendant-survival sign pattern, not the number of shares alone. If both receipt and archive conditions behave alike, or a fitted offloading-plus-goal-closure model predicts the joint trajectories within the negligible-extra-effect margin on held-out content, delete this distinct family. If memory merely remains unobserved in one test, use source-cued recovery and recognition probes before claiming loss; no behavioral result licenses molecular erasure.

Exposure order may fragment private free time and block long cultural practices predicts instead: During the common open-loop probe give everyone the same objectively uninterrupted interval and the same menu of optional short and long enactments; all can physically finish either. Independently randomize a neutral reorganization of their pre-existing tentative plans that preserves planned duration, obligations, rewards and content, versus equally effortful plan inspection. Model planned and performed activities separately. Given externally equal opportunities, IH_02 predicts the history contrast interacts with indivisible enactment duration and is attenuated selectively by repacking, with effect magnitude predicted out of sample by available-start measure A(d). Example, purely mathematical rather than empirical: subjective free gaps of 4+4 versus 1+7 minutes both total eight, but a five-minute indivisible act has A(5)=0 versus 2 minutes of acceptable start positions. Splitting the same act into independently meaningful shorter parts should relieve rejection without extra source exposure, but does not by itself establish ancestry or adoption. A scalar resource-depletion model predicts equal rejection at equal total free time after controlling task cost; a boundary-task/time-contraction model predicts effects from current salient boundary distance, so fit it explicitly. The claimed new family is removed if independently calibrated boundary perception, planning-cost and ordinary opportunity-choice models reproduce all history-by-duration and repacking contrasts, or if measured private reservations are absent. If real external time or feasible action opportunities differ, this does not answer the L3 and the trial must be redesigned.

Reassigning past effort to another cultural lineage may transfer its persistence advantage predicts instead: In a preregistered benign practice experiment, require equal amounts of neutral preparatory work that cannot improve skill, give identical monetary pay and practice opportunities, and randomize which lineage that work is recorded as supporting. Assignment of credit is made separately from actual variant exposure and order. After verified reset and common open-loop delivery, cross unchanged versus transparently reassigned effort credit with a matched relabeling-only control and an equal-value general acknowledgement control; no extra payment, audience or material advantage is introduced. IH_04 predicts that the sign of private post-support persistence follows the credited lineage, including a transfer to a different fully learned lineage, while blinded source competence and source-detail fidelity remain stable within their margins. The critical contrast is change in D after lineage-specific reassignment minus change after equally salient general acknowledgement or label change. It should survive explicit confirmation that prior work cannot be recovered and future costs are equal. Pure allocator memory cannot move common-open-loop private persistence this way; offline memory predicts a trace-related effect; time packing predicts duration-specific feasibility rather than credited ancestry; disposal predicts a recipient-comprehension contingency. Remove the distinct family if ordinary accounting plus effort justification predicts the transfer and later hazards out of sample, if mere labels suffice, or if the manipulation changes expected future reward or competence. A standard sunk-cost main effect is only a successful control, not discovery.

SCOUT 2 — Behavioral accounting: exposure history persists as an unrecovered effort balance attached to a cultural lineage. Equal total exposure and work need not create the same balance if early versus late effort is mentally attributed to different variants. After reset, a person keeps voluntarily enacting a less preferred but well-known practice because abandoning it would close a subjective account at a loss. The substrate is a remembered allocation of sunk personal effort, not stronger competence, normative ownership or increased future production efficiency. The candidate extension is transferable accounting: a credible, payoff-neutral reassignment of the same completed effort from the old lineage to a new one should move the persistence advantage to the newly credited lineage without extra exposure or improved competence. That transfer must exceed predictions of ordinary sunk-cost, effort-justification, reference-point and labeling models fitted to matched noncultural choices. SPV_6 is stabilized for the credited lineage; reallocating its effort balance should raise its abandonment and lower abandonment of the newly credited competitor. This is not new merely because sunk costs occur in culture.

Assignment of credit is made separately from actual variant exposure and order. After verified reset and common open-loop delivery, cross unchanged versus transparently reassigned effort credit with a matched relabeling-only control and an equal-value general acknowledgement control; no extra payment, audience or material advantage is introduced. IH_04 predicts that the sign of private post-support persistence follows the credited lineage, including a transfer to a different fully learned lineage, while blinded source competence and source-detail fidelity remain stable within their margins. The critical contrast is change in D after lineage-specific reassignment minus change after equally salient general acknowledgement or label change. It should survive explicit confirmation that prior work cannot be recovered and future costs are equal. Pure allocator memory cannot move common-open-loop private persistence this way; offline memory predicts a trace-related effect; time packing predicts duration-specific feasibility rather than credited ancestry; disposal predicts a recipient-comprehension contingency. Remove the distinct family if ordinary accounting plus effort justification predicts the transfer and later hazards out of sample, if mere labels suffice, or if the manipulation changes expected future reward or competence. A standard sunk-cost main effect is only a successful control, not discovery.

Receipt salience, praise, elapsed time and output effort are matched. Actual receiver competence and sender belief are measured separately; pilot any credible receipt implementation before the main study. IH_01 predicts a negative receiver-receipt effect on later sender source-detail availability exceeding margin delta_m, despite the usual positive retrieval benefit, coupled with reduced repeated forwarding by that sender and preserved or increased survival through new recipients. Crucially, the contrast survives elimination of reciprocal access and survives controls for expected future usefulness, perceived task completion, effort and social approval. It need not preserve the sender's adoption. An ordinary allocator account predicts no receipt-specific sender-memory difference during common open loop; ordinary retrieval predicts benefit from the matched production; ordinary offloading predicts an effect tied to recoverable storage, and general goal completion predicts the matched closure control suffices. Primary decisive result is the joint sender-memory/descendant-survival sign pattern, not the number of shares alone. If both receipt and archive conditions behave alike, or a fitted offloading-plus-goal-closure model predicts the joint trajectories within the negligible-extra-effect margin on held-out content, delete this distinct family. If memory merely remains unobserved in one test, use source-cued recovery and recognition probes before claiming loss; no behavioral result licenses molecular erasure.

Exposure order may fragment private free time and block long cultural practices predicts instead: During the common open-loop probe give everyone the same objectively uninterrupted interval and the same menu of optional short and long enactments; all can physically finish either. Independently randomize a neutral reorganization of their pre-existing tentative plans that preserves planned duration, obligations, rewards and content, versus equally effortful plan inspection. Model planned and performed activities separately. Given externally equal opportunities, IH_02 predicts the history contrast interacts with indivisible enactment duration and is attenuated selectively by repacking, with effect magnitude predicted out of sample by available-start measure A(d). Example, purely mathematical rather than empirical: subjective free gaps of 4+4 versus 1+7 minutes both total eight, but a five-minute indivisible act has A(5)=0 versus 2 minutes of acceptable start positions. Splitting the same act into independently meaningful shorter parts should relieve rejection without extra source exposure, but does not by itself establish ancestry or adoption. A scalar resource-depletion model predicts equal rejection at equal total free time after controlling task cost; a boundary-task/time-contraction model predicts effects from current salient boundary distance, so fit it explicitly. The claimed new family is removed if independently calibrated boundary perception, planning-cost and ordinary opportunity-choice models reproduce all history-by-duration and repacking contrasts, or if measured private reservations are absent. If real external time or feasible action opportunities differ, this does not answer the L3 and the trial must be redesigned.

Exposure history may bias sleep cueing to preserve cultural source lineages predicts instead: After the matched history/reset procedure, randomly assign counterbalanced benign source-associated cues to verified non-REM sleep, the same cues during quiet wake, or uncued control, while keeping total waking content exposure, elapsed interval and later opportunity schedule equal. Within sleep, target the historically prioritized source or its competitor with the same cue count and intensity, randomizing cue identity independently of exposure order. IH_03 predicts a prespecified history-by-targeted-source-by-sleep interaction on arbitrary-source-detail retention and subsequent qualified survival, with onset after sleep and persistence through the common open-loop interval. The specific candidate predicts that cueing the lower-priority source attenuates or reverses the history contrast beyond a consequence margin even when a preregistered ordinary memory-strength/TMR model calibrated in single-source controls predicts only an additive cue gain. Estimate that rival's nonlinearities and ceiling effects rather than assume additivity. A pure allocator model predicts no such open-loop, sleep-specific history interaction. The accounting, disposal and prospective-packing hypotheses do not predict source-cue specificity during verified sleep when their own states are held constant. Family-removing result: ordinary source memory plus the already established TMR/preference model predicts later choices and descendants within the negligible-extra-effect margin, or apparent cue effects are explained by awakenings or unequal waking rehearsal. A cue-induced preference shift alone is explicitly insufficient for novelty.