Organizational Roles & Witness

Theme: Domains · 7 sentences.

← Domains · ← Corpus

T-WIT-001 / baseline · Witness — Baseline

S086 la-to-li lo-wi-to be-past The engineer revised the plan.

Notes

be-past = grew/changed/improved. A plan being revised is the plan growing into a better version of itself. be here carries the productive/generative sense (the plan was developed), not strictly growth in size. Attested pattern: la-X lo-Y be = X improved Y.
This is the intended baseline reading: wi-to = a concrete plan artifact that exists externally (it can be revised, held, destroyed) and has a specific purposive structure.
Baseline datum: wi-to = plan as external artifact = what you write down and can change. The head to is the pattern/concept; wi marks it as purposive.
to-li pressed into service for "engineer" — a knowledge-worker in the technical sense. The to-li is the person whose work is pattern-making, which generalizes to design engineer. Compare to-su-li (knowledge-structure person = librarian/archivist/priest) and ra-ki-li (energy-motion person = pilot/driver).

Verdict S086: clean. Baseline holds. wi-to = plan-as-concrete-revisable-artifact.

T-WIT-002 / design · Witness — Design

S087 la-to-li lo-mu wi-to be-past The engineer designed the machine.

Notes

First candidate stress. "Designed the machine" — the purposive conceptual work that preceded building it. The question: does lo-mu wi-to be-past mean "the engineer planned/designed the machine" (wi-to as predicate modifier or loose purposive qualifier), or is wi-to playing a different role here than it did in S086?
In S086, wi-to was a patient (what was revised). In S087 first form, wi-to is closer to being a predicate modifier or manner qualifier on be — "improved [the machine] [with will-pattern]." This is a different grammatical slot and a different reading. That shift is the signal.
The distinction: "plan" as a standalone artifact (S086, S062) vs "design" as a purposive activity or form-specification of another object. When wi-to is the patient of a verb, it reads as a plan-artifact. When it appears adjacent to another patient with be, it reads as purposive-manner — and this is grammatically strained.
Alternative is cleaner: wi-to-su = purposive-concept-structure = a design specification document. The su head marks it as an organized external artifact containing formal specifications, not just a purposive idea. The engineer didn't just have a willed-concept; the engineer made a structured specification.
Tentative result: wi-to (bare) = plan in the sense of a purposive mental-or-paper object. wi-to-su = structured design specification — the formalized version. For "designed the machine" as an activity rather than a document, a ka-wi-to (action of will-patterning) construction would be needed (not yet attested).

Verdict S087: wi-to strained in predicate-modifier position. Clean in patient slot. The compound does not naturally mean "to design [the machine]" as an activity; it means "the plan" as an artifact. wi-to-su is the right compound for formal design specification. New compound candidate: wi-to-su (design specification).

T-WIT-003 / program · Witness — Program

S088 lo-wi-re-su ta-re-ti be The recurring protocol executes each cycle.

Notes

wi-to (Attempt A) — analysis: ta-re-ti (recurring time) suggests the thing recurs. If this is a wi-to (purposive concept), what recurs is the concept itself being enacted — but a concept doesn't "run" or "execute"; an agent enacts it. be with lo-wi-to as subject = "the plan grows/runs"? This is semantically odd: a plan isn't the kind of thing that runs; it's the kind of thing that is followed or enacted. wi-to lacks the autonomy to be the subject of be without an agent.
wi-re-su (Attempt B) — analysis: wi (will) + re (recurrence) + su (structure) = organized recurring willed structure = a protocol / program that repeats by design. The su head makes it an external structure rather than a mental concept. The re in the middle marks it as a recurring structure. On this reading: the recurring-willed-structure executes each cycle. Cleaner — be takes it as its natural subject because a structure can run (instantiate), whereas a concept cannot.
re placement: modifier order puts wi-re (will-recurrence) before su — "an institutionalized, recurring, willed structure." Compare wi-ka-su (W054, ritual): wi + ka (deliberate action) + su. The difference between wi-ka-su (ritual) and wi-re-su (program/protocol): a ritual is defined by its use of deliberate action; a program is defined by its recurrence. Orthogonal heads on a shared wi modifier.
Result: wi-to cannot serve as program. A program has institutional recurrence (re) and external structure (su); a plan has a specific outcome (to). These are different heads. New compound: wi-re-su (operational protocol / recurring procedural program).

Verdict S088: wi-to cannot cover "program." wi-re-su is the correct compound for a recurring institutionalized procedure. The su head distinguishes it from wi-to (which has a to head, marking the purposive conceptual content, not the structure).

T-WIT-004 / intention-model · Witness — Intention Model

S089 la-wi-ze lo-ka ki Her will/intention directed the action.

Notes

wi-to-ze = will-pattern-[possessive ze] = her plan. S075 established wi-ze = her will as agent in la slot. The question is whether wi-to (plan) adds anything over bare wi (will) in this context.
Bare wi (Attempt B) reads: "her will guided the action." This is clean — wi alone is the primitive for will/intention, and Tonesu is established as preferring primitives when compounds don't add precision.
wi-to-ze (Attempt A) reads: "her plan — as an existing external artifact — guided the action." This adds the sense that the intention has been externalized or committed to as a specific pattern. If there's a plan document, wi-to is correct; if the guidance is coming from her internal motivational state, bare wi is better.
The distinction is real and load-bearing. Intention = internal motivational state (wi). Plan = purposive concept externalized as an artifact (wi-to). This is not a distinction the language collapses — wi and wi-to are already separate entries, and this test confirms the line between them.
Conclusion: "Intention" as an internal goal representation = bare wi. No compound needed. wi-to is not for internal motivational states; it is for externalized purposive artifacts. The compound does not bleed into the primitive's territory.

Verdict S089: wi-to does NOT cover bare intention. wi alone = internal motivational state. wi-to = externalized, concrete plan-artifact. The distinction holds. wi-to does not need to narrow on this axis; the compound and its base primitive already divide the domain correctly.

T-WIT-005 / stress · Witness — Stress

S090 la-ra-ki-li lo-to-re-su be no lo-wi-to The pilot followed the standing doctrine, not the mission plan.

Notes

Decisive result. In a single sentence, to-re-su (canonical recurring doctrine) and wi-to (specific mission plan) are contrastive. Their separation is immediately legible: the pilot operated under the background standing instructions (to-re-su = recurring canon) rather than the specific purposive plan for this mission (wi-to).
This is the sentence the watch item was waiting for: wi-to and to-re-su contrast cleanly. Neither bleeds into the other. wi-to = this specific plan for this specific outcome; to-re-su = the established recurring doctrine that persists across missions. Time-scope is the differentiator: wi-to is particular/single-use; to-re-su is recurring/institutional.
be no lo-wi-to = "grew/followed [negation] the plan" = "followed [X], not the plan." The no as a coordinator meaning "not [the alternative]" uses the established negation pattern. First use of no as a contrast coordinator between two patients in the same clause (rather than as a prefix). Tentatively clean; worth logging as a new no use.
Design vs plan: This sentence also confirms that to-re-su covers "standing design/ doctrine" in the sense of "established working instructions." wi-to narrows further: it is not just "not doctrine" but specifically "mission-specific, single-use purposive structure."

Verdict S090: clean and decisive. wi-to and to-re-su are distinct and contrastive in a single sentence without strain. wi-to narrows to: particular, single-instance, externalized purposive structure. Standing doctrine covering multiple instances = to-re-su. Recurring procedure = wi-re-su (S088).

T-WIT-006 / transmission · Witness — Transmission

S091 la-li-su-li lo-yu lo-wi-to ka-si-past The coordinator briefed the team on the plan.

Notes

ka-si (W024, transmit/signal) used with a double-patient construction: lo-yu (the group = the recipient) and lo-wi-to (the plan = the content transmitted). First double-patient with ka-si. The structure is: agent transmits [content] to [recipient]. In prior uses, ka-si took one patient (the recipient, or occasionally the content). The double-patient form may need a formal grammar rule — or ne-yu (relation:group) for the recipient and lo-wi-to for the content alone.
wi-to as transmissible information object. The test: can a plan be transmitted the way a signal can? Yes — a plan is an externalized artifact (to head = conceptual pattern, not merely a mental state), so it can be the content of a ka-si transmission the way si-mu (a document) can. This confirms the "externalized artifact" character of wi-to: it is a thing that can be held, transmitted, revised, and stored.
Distinction from wi (bare will): bare will cannot be transmitted via ka-si. la-li-su-li lo-yu lo-wi-ze ka-si-past = "the coordinator transmitted her will to the group" — possible but reads as a command/order rather than a briefing. The wi-to form is what makes it a briefing: content is shared, not imposed.

Verdict S091: clean. wi-to works as a transmissible information object. A plan can be briefed the way a document can be archived. This confirms the artifact/external character of wi-to: it is a plan as a thing that exists in the world, not merely as an internal cognitive state.

T-WIT-007 / wi-to-su · Witness — wi-to-su

S092 la-yu lo-wi-to-su be-past ta-ti-de lo-ka-wi-de The team updated the design specification before the mission.

Notes

First corpus use of wi-to-su. wi (will) + to (concept/pattern) + su (structure) = purposive-concept-structure = design specification. The three-level compound follows the established productive pattern: wi-to (purposive concept) → wi-to-su (that purposive concept organized into a formal structure).
Compare wi-to (plan, two morphemes, the mental/paper artifact) vs wi-to-su (design specification, three morphemes, the formally organized version). The su head signals: this is not just a plan someone has; it is a structure that has been organized into a form that can be reviewed, published, and revised by the team collectively. Same distinction as to (knowledge/pattern) vs to-su (organized body of knowledge): the su upgrade marks systemization.
ta-ti-de lo-ka-wi-de = "before the departure." ti-de = time-decay = past/prior time. ka-wi-de = action-will-departure = mission-departure (intended departure action). This is a temporal prepositional phrase using ta (time marker) + ti-de (before/ prior) + lo-ka-wi-de (the departure). The structure functions as a before-clause. New form: ta-ti-de lo-[event] = "before [event]." Watch: does ta-ti-de generalize as a "before" construction or is it specific to this context?

Verdict S092: clean. wi-to-su (design specification) is a productive and unambiguous extension of wi-to. The compound composes cleanly. Register as W073.

Generated from registry/entries.yaml.