Scope & Aspect Test

Theme: Grammar & syntax · 4 sentences.

SA-001 · Scope & Aspect

S172 lo-si-de no [ka-be] The signal record cannot be altered.

Notes

no [ka-clause] second attestation. Level 3 clause negation: no fronts a full action bracket [ka-be], negating the entire action frame. First use: S036 no [ka-se] (cannot be consumed). Pattern confirmed; Level 3 graduates from provisional to confirmed. Updated in spec/grammar.md § Negation.
si-de second attestation. First use S106 (lo-si-de inside a relative modifier clause). Here lo-si-de is the standalone patient of a main clause. Compositional: si (signal/encoded representation) + de (decay/past) = past-signal / signal-of-record. Third use in S174 completes the threshold for W-entry. Registered as W098 with this batch.
ka-be in negated position: action:grow/alter — in the context of a signal record, expansion, amendment, or annotation. no [ka-be] seals the record against any form of augmentation. Parallel to no [ka-se] (cannot perceive): both negate a full action frame with no as clause-level operator.

S173 la-mi no-si [lo-ne-ra be] I do not hypothesize that the resonance grew.

Notes

no-si second attestation. First use: C007 B3 la-mi no-si lo-ne-ra ru (I do not hypothesize the resonance is coherent). S173 follows the same la-mi no-si [prop] frame with a different embedded proposition: here [lo-ne-ra be] = patient + predicate (full stative clause, not bare NP). Extends no-si from NP-embedding to full-clause embedding, confirming it takes the same proposition slot as to and se.
In review context: the reviewer has positively assessed and found no basis even at hypothesis level for the resonance-growth claim — stronger than uncertainty, a positive epistemic disclaimer.

S174 la-mi no-se lo-si-de I have no perceptual basis for the past signal record.

Notes

no-se second attestation. First use: C007 B4 la-mi no-se lo-ne-ra (I have no perceptual basis for the resonance). S174 is structurally identical: la-mi no-se lo-[X], different object. Pattern confirmed across two objects.
si-de third attestation (S106, S172, S174). Threshold met; registered as W098.
Entailment chain demonstrated: S173 + S174 in sequence show no-se → no-si in practice — the reviewer who lacks the perceptual floor automatically satisfies the hypothesis denial. Both forms are still stated independently because the institutional record requires each level cited explicitly.
Floor denial: the reviewer did not observe the signal themselves; their assessment is based on the archived record, not direct observation.

S175 la-to-fe-li to [la-mi no-se lo-si-de] The knowledge-keeper certifies: I have no perceptual basis for the signal record.

Notes

Nested epistemic embedding second attestation. First: C007 A5 la-mi to [la-tu no-se lo-ne-ra] (I certify: you have no perceptual basis for the resonance). S175 is structurally identical: outer la-X to [la-Y no-se [prop]]. Different attributors (C007 A5: first person certifying second; S175: to-fe-li certifying first) — the construction is confirmed as domain-general.
Once la-to-fe-li to [...] is entered, the inner claim becomes a matter of formal record: the reviewer's perceptual floor denial is institutionally certified, not merely a personal epistemic statement. The to-fe-su system now treats it as established.
Constructional form confirmed: la-X to [la-Y no-se [prop]] is a general epistemic certification wrapper. The outer certifier, inner disclamer, and inner proposition can vary independently.