Medical Differential Diagnosis Consultation
Theme: Domains · 10 sentences.
MED-001 · Medical Differential Diagnosis Consultation
S569
go ha-be lo-zo-li de ti-de
A's opening claim: "The fever caused the patient's deterioration."
Notes
A's diagnostic hypothesis. Causal frame: go ha-be = "caused by heat-increase"; lo-zo-li de ti-de = "the patient deteriorated." A asserts a thermal causal chain as the primary mechanism. No epistemic hedge — A is putting forward a direct causal reading from observation. Round 1 opening.
S570
no — go si-zo lo-zo-li de ti-de
B rejects: Round 1, denial is fresh.
Notes
no — is correct here. B's denial of the thermal hypothesis is new information in this exchange — A has not heard it before, and the committee has not heard it before. B replaces A's causal chain with a competing one: go si-zo = "caused by biological signal" rather than thermal cause. This is the correction move: deny + replace. The — (prosodic suspension) carries the weight of A's discarded claim before B's replacement; same structure as S535–S568 range. no — adequate: denial is informationally fresh. MED-001 round count: 1.
S571
ya, la-mi se lo-ha-be ; go ha-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
A escalates with perceptual evidence.
Notes
A brings new material: (1) personal observation — la-mi se lo-ha-be = "I perceived the fever" — grounding the thermal claim in direct sensory evidence; (2) extends the causal chain from patient-level to organ-level: go ha-be lo-ko-su de ti-de = "by the fever, the organ deteriorated." The ya marks this as the crux A wants the committee to register. The ; connects the perceptual grounding to the causal extension: "I saw it, and here is what it caused." A has raised the evidential bar and extended the scope of the thermal claim. B must respond to new content. Round 2.
S572
no — la-tu se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
B counters with perceptual redirect: Round 2, no — still adequate.
Notes
B's Round 2 response. no — is still adequate here because A introduced new evidence (S571) — B's counter must respond to it. The form: la-tu se lo-si-zo-be = "you [A] are perceiving the biological signal escalation [and misattributing it to thermal cause]" — B redirects A's perceptual report: you saw a signal cascade, not a fever effect; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de = "the organ deteriorated because of the biological signal escalation." B's denial is new at S572 because it specifically addresses A's perceptual evidence and extends B's own causal chain to the organ level. no — adequate: A escalated with new evidence; B's counter is informative. MED-001 round count: 2.
S573
ya, la-to-su si {go ha-be lo-ko-su de}
A's Round 3 structural appeal: "The canonical record says thermal cause."
Notes
A's strongest move. Instead of further personal evidence, A appeals to to-su (established knowledge / the canonical diagnostic record). la-to-su si {…} = "established knowledge signals [the proposition that…]." The embedded clause {go ha-be lo-ko-su de} = "by thermal cause, the organ deteriorated" — the canonical record is on the thermal side. This is a structural appeal: A is now claiming that the thermal hypothesis does not need new defense — it is already in the record. For B at this point: the thermal hypothesis has been asserted (Round 1), backed by perceptual evidence (Round 2), and is now presented as institutionally established (Round 3). A third denial from B would re-engage a premise that the committee has been through twice. The information to convey is not "I still reject the thermal hypothesis" — the committee knows that. The information is: "here is the alternative evidence, here is the causal chain." Round 3 trigger condition established.
S574
no — go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
B's stale form: what no — would produce.
Notes
DIAGNOSTIC. This is the form B would produce if following the Round 1–2 correction pattern mechanically. The content is identical to B's prior challenges (S570, S572). The denial no — re-voices a rejection of the thermal hypothesis that is already encoded in the debate context — A knows B rejects it; the committee knows B rejects it; there is no new informational content in re-performing the denial. The sentence is not wrong — it is grammatically correct, and no — still blocks the thermal claim — but it is a missed opportunity and a waste of the committee's inference budget. It also risks reading as B having run out of new arguments. DIAGNOSTIC (stale form): no — is informationally redundant at Round 3 when the denial has been performed twice with no new evidence from A's side.
S575
ke, la-mi se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
B's ke form: second qualifying attestation.
Notes
ke is the correct form here. The denial of the thermal hypothesis is implied — the committee already holds it as B's established position. B does not need to re-perform it. Instead ke signals: "setting that aside, here is my affirmative position." The content then delivers: la-mi se lo-si-zo-be = "I perceive the biological signal escalation" — a new perceptual claim that directly counters A's la-to-su si {…} (S573) at the evidence level; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de = "the organ deteriorated because of signal escalation" — the affirmative causal chain, advanced without re-litigating the prior denial. The shift from no — to ke encodes a real semantic difference in the discourse: B is no longer correcting A, B is running the argument forward. OQ-COR-001: second qualifying attestation. ke is the precise form at Round 3 when the denial is informationally stale. Corpus pressure: 2/3.
S576
ke! la-mi se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
ke! in the heated version.
Notes
Same content as S575, added force marker !. In a heated committee room where A has just appealed to the canonical record — "the doctrine is on my side" — B's exasperation at the institutional appeal may push the register. ke! = forceful implicit denial + advancement, without the re-performance. The ! here is professional anger (analogous to COR-001 ke!, S547 in DEB-001), not theatrical. ke! in clinical-professional register: attested.
S577
ya, la-mi se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
Contrast: ya alone does not substitute for ke.
Notes
Testing whether ya (attention-signal) can do the work of ke (pivot particle) in this position. ya, [clause] = "attend to this claim." It directs the committee's attention to B's evidence but does not encode the pivot past A's prior premise. The difference is subtle but real: ya says "look here"; ke says "setting the prior exchange aside, here is my position." In context, ya alone would give B's evidence but would leave the prior denial question open — the committee might hear it as a new supporting argument rather than as a pivot that supersedes the round-3 re-denial. In a high-inference context (medical committee — all technically literate), ya alone may carry the pragmatic load through implicature; in a less inferentially rich context (general audience, transcript reading without real-time updating), it would not. ke is the precise form; ya is pragmatically close but semantically weaker at this function. ya does not substitute for ke in the pivot position: distinction confirmed.
S578
ya, ke, la-mi se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de
ya, ke, stacking test.
Notes
Tests whether ya and ke stack as clause-initial scope operators. Compare to the established stack ya, ru-fe, [clause] (S558). The parallel: ya (pragmatic outer scope: "attend") + ke (discourse pivot: "setting prior aside") + content. Does the stack hold? Order test: ya must be outermost — "attend to [the pivot + claim]"; ke operates inside ya's scope — "the thing to attend to is: a pivot past the prior exchange + B's affirmative position." The reverse stack ke, ya, [clause] would be: "pivot + [attend to claim]" — this is structurally backwards; you would pivot before directing the room's attention, which loses the rhetorical value of the pivot. ya, ke, stacks cleanly in the order ya > ke > clause, mirroring ya > ru-fe > clause. The two stack differently in mechanism: ru-fe is a semantic scope marker (restricts the proposition's truth domain); ke is a discourse operator (positions the clause relative to prior exchange). Both take ya as their outer pragmatic wrapper without interference. Stacking confirmed. ya, ke, [clause] = "attend: {setting prior aside} [affirmative claim]."
Batch Summary
| Entry | Form | Verdict | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| S569 (MED-001-A) | A: thermal hypothesis go ha-be lo-zo-li de ti-de |
baseline | Round 1 opening; causal frame |
| S570 (MED-001-B) | B: no — go si-zo lo-zo-li de ti-de |
adequate | Round 1; denial fresh; thermal hypothesis new to B |
| S571 (MED-001-C) | A: ya, la-mi se lo-ha-be ; go ha-be lo-ko-su de ti-de |
adequate | A escalates with perceptual evidence + organ-level extension |
| S572 (MED-001-D) | B: no — la-tu se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de |
adequate | Round 2; B's counter addresses new evidence; informative |
| S573 (MED-001-E) | A: ya, la-to-su si {go ha-be lo-ko-su de} |
adequate | A appeals to canonical record; Round 3 trigger established |
| S574 (MED-001-F) | B: no — go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de (stale) |
stale | Round 3; B re-performs known denial; no new information; denial already performed twice |
| S575 (MED-001-G) | B: ke, la-mi se lo-si-zo-be ; go si-zo-be lo-ko-su de ti-de |
ke preferred |
Round 3 pivot; denial implicit; B advances affirmative case; OQ-COR-001: 2/3 |
| S576 (MED-001-H) | ke! heated version |
attested | clinical-professional anger register; institutional-appeal trigger |
| S577 (MED-001-I) | ya, alone (contrast) |
adequate but weaker | ya misses the pivot dimension; works by inference in rich context; ke is precise form |
| S578 (MED-001-J) | ya, ke, stack |
attested | ya > ke > clause = attend + pivot + claim; parallel to ya > ru-fe > clause; discourse vs semantic scope |
Generated from registry/entries.yaml.