# PAST Article — Evidence and Review Ledger

**Version:** 1.2 · **Date:** 2026-09-16  
**Manuscript:** [*PAST: False Present Closure and the Distortion of Available Choice*](PAST_ARTICLE.md), Draft 0.2, Rafael Caferati.  
**Purpose:** Record definition authority, claim support, scholarly access, formal checks, and the manuscript's completed-work boundary.

Sections 5–7 retain the initial Draft 0.1 review, count, fingerprint, and delivery record. Section 8 records the current Draft 0.2 review and identity. Section 9 records the final logical review; the manuscript remains unchanged.

## 1. Authority and manuscript scope

The article follows [PAST_ARTICLE_PLAN.md v1.1](PAST_ARTICLE_PLAN.md). Family authority is [canon v1.0](DARVO_FAMILY_CANON.md); mechanism predicates follow [PAST conceptual v1.1](PAST_Maneuver_Conceptual_Framework.md) and [extended v2.1](PAST_Maneuver_Extended_Logical_Framework_v2.md). [DARVO Draft 0.4](DARVO_ARTICLE.md) is the theoretical companion. The [writing principles](PATTERNA_WRITING_PRINCIPLES.md) and [scientific voice guide](RAFAEL_CAFERATI_SCIENTIFIC_VOICE.md), both v1.1, govern expression.

This manuscript develops definitions, four propositions, constructed witnesses and countermodels, and analytical implications. It does not report an empirical case study, observed recurrence, psychological effects, or agent performance. The booking exchange and its concealment/recovery variants are explicitly constructed; their context is stipulated true within those models. No corpus record is rewritten, supplemented, or classified in this pass.

The article uses the approved opening and the distinction between distortion of available choice and distortion of causal contribution. It preserves the main article's separation of family membership, complete DARVO response, functional self-protection, particular interests, knowledge, intention, and success.

## 2. Claim-to-source map

| Claim | Article location | Grounds and scope |
|---|---|---|
| Present choice represented as past-caused impossibility | 2; 8 | PAST extended sections 7–9; approved descriptor. The conversion is an explanatory structure, not three mandatory literal utterances. |
| PAST is a DARVO-family maneuver | 2; 4.2 | Canon and DARVO Draft 0.4 section 3. Inclusion is the adopted taxonomy; incident predicates establish the member finding. |
| Distinct temporal and causal/evidential mechanisms | 2 | Canon; DARVO Draft 0.4 section 3.2. Shared operations do not establish same-incident overlap or a complete response. |
| Remedy domain and false closure | 4.1; P1 | Corrected PAST section 7 and explicit quantifier proof. Practical constraints and assertion scope are fixed. |
| Canonical base and extension | 4.2; 6 | Conceptual section 7; extended sections 15–16 and 21. Preserve R/A/B/G/¬E and separate K/D/W. |
| Consistent premises and admissible interpretations | 4.2 | DARVO Draft 0.4 section 5.2; descriptor v1.1. Nonempty model set, independent meanings, and source-grounded premises. |
| Positive PAST derivation | 4.2 | Conjunction introduction and the declared definition. No probability or additional confidence threshold. |
| Three-valued aggregation and dependencies | 4.3 | Corrected framework rules. Evidence-state aggregation is distinguished from classical entailment. |
| P1–P4 | 5 | Corrected PAST section 7; descriptor v1.1 proof dossiers. General proofs and particular countermodels are identified separately. |
| False-closure corollary | 5, following P1; abstract; conclusion | Conjunction elimination gives R and A; P1 gives ¬N. A is explicitly bound to the same scoped closure N. The entire accompanying account is not declared false. |
| Complete base witness | 4.3 | Constructed context plus bounded response establish all five conditions; knowledge remains unresolved. |
| Knowing concealment and later recovery | 6 | Separately stipulated extension establishes knowledge at the opportunity and material misrepresentation; recovery is independently indexed. |
| Particular purpose and successful protection | 6 | Canon section 4; extended section 15.2. Neither is inferred automatically from membership or knowledge. |
| Recurrence and lower bounds | 7 | Canon section 4.1; DARVO Draft 0.4 section 7.3. Distinct occurrences, same operator, bounded history/cutoff, fixed definitions. |
| Scholarly distinctions | 3; 6 | Claim-specific primary passages recorded below. Antecedents do not validate an individual PAST finding. |

## 3. Scholarly passages and citation decisions

Reference identifiers retain the coordinated plan's register. **Selected full text** means the listed passages were examined; it does not claim a whole-publication critical review. Records marked **inherited** retain the explicit verification performed for the DARVO manuscript on 13 September 2026, as documented in [its ledger](DARVO_ARTICLE_EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md#3-verified-scholarly-passages). New checks below were completed on 16 September 2026.

### R01 — Freyd (1997): retained

**Citation:** Freyd, J. J. (1997). II. Violations of power, adaptive blindness and betrayal trauma theory. *Feminism & Psychology, 7*(1), 22–32. [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353597071004).

**Access:** inherited selected full text of the [author-hosted original scan](https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/articles/freyd97r.pdf), bibliographic p. 22 and printed pp. 29–30, visually inspected in the DARVO pass. **Use:** article section 3's origin of connected denial, attack, and victim–offender reversal. Patterna's broader family organization and PAST specification remain attributed to Patterna.

### R07 — von Wright (1951): passage check completed; retained

**Citation:** von Wright, G. H. (1951). I. Deontic logic. *Mind, 60*(237), 1–15. [Publisher record and DOI](https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LX.237.1).

**Access:** selected primary text in the [estate-authorized transcription](https://filosofia.fi/sv/arkisto/deontic-logic), corroborated against publicly readable OCR of the [original journal scan](https://www.scribd.com/document/96405786/Deontic-Logic-Von-Wright-1951). Sections 1, 3, and 9 distinguish modal categories, define permission/obligation, and separate performance from deontic status. Original locators: p. 1, pp. 3–4, and p. 15. **Use:** section 3 cites sections 1 and 3 for the alethic/deontic distinction.

**Version note:** the estate page labels a 1957 *Logical Studies* reprint and separately displays 1956. The citation uses the publisher-verified 1951 journal record. No downloaded publisher PDF or visual scan inspection is claimed. Practical feasibility is defined by this article, including any explicitly stated permission constraint.

### R09 — Grice (1975): retained

**Citation:** Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), *Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts* (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. [Chapter DOI](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003).

**Access:** inherited selected full text, [Stanford-hosted original chapter scan](https://web.stanford.edu/class/psych205/papers/Grice-1975.pdf), pp. 41–45, especially 43–45. **Use:** section 3's distinction between said and implicated content. The chapter DOI identifies later hosting; locators refer to the inspected original scan. Contextual meaning is assessed through its grounds, not certified merely by citing Grice.

### R10 — McCornack (1992): passage check completed; retained

**Citation:** McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. *Communication Monographs, 59*(1), 1–16. [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376245).

**Access:** [author-uploaded journal PDF](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven-Mccornack-2/publication/248925021_Information_manipulation_theory/links/5df6de1792851c836480b876/Information-manipulation-theory.pdf); [provenance page](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248925021_Information_manipulation_theory) identifies Steven McCornack's upload. Printed pp. 5–6 cover covert informational manipulation; pp. 9–12 examine omission, distortion, and diversion; p. 14 identifies audience perception as an empirical question. **Use:** sections 3 and 6. Primary passages replace the plan's earlier abstract-only status. This theoretical comparison supplies no individual knowledge finding or PAST-C classification.

### R11 — Bandura (1999): retained

**Citation:** Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. *Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3*(3), 193–209. [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3).

**Access:** inherited selected full text of the [manuscript reproduction](https://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Bandura_1999.pdf), manuscript pp. 5–7 and 11–12: “Displacement of Responsibility” and “Attribution of Blame,” checked against the [abstract record](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15661671/). **Use:** section 3's comparison with responsibility displacement and blame attribution. Manuscript pagination is distinct from journal pagination. The theory does not establish a particular operator's mental process.

### R12 — Malle, Guglielmo, and Monroe (2014): retained

**Citation:** Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. *Psychological Inquiry, 25*(2), 147–186. [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.877340).

**Access:** inherited selected full text of the [author-hosted journal article](https://research.clps.brown.edu/SocCogSci/Publications/Pubs/Malle_Guglielmo_Monroe_2014_Blame_theory.pdf), pp. 151–152, 155–156, 158–159, and 175–176, covering the Path Model and blame management. **Use:** section 3's distinctions among causal involvement, intentionality, capacity, and obligation. A model of blame judgments is not substituted for independently stated normative grounds.

### R17 — Kleene: primary passage remains unverified; attribution omitted

**Planned reference:** Kleene, S. C. (1980). *Introduction to metamathematics*. North-Holland. (Original work published 1952). The plan's [publisher record](https://shop.elsevier.com/books/introduction-to-metamathematics/kleene/978-0-7204-2103-3) records the reprint, not an inspected passage.

The primary-text search located [one Cornell excerpt](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4860/2009sp/Formalization.Theory.pdf) and [another identifying the 1971 edition](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6110/2015sp/docs/Kleene.pdf). Neither supplies the relevant section 64 tables. A [contemporary publisher review record](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F0C6D39774CF47028A80D0673579A875/S0022481200087156a.pdf/kleenestephen-cole-introduction-to-metamathematics-north-holland-publishing-co-amsterdam-and-p-noordhoff-groningen-1952-d-van-nostrand-company-new-york-and-toronto-1952-x-550-pp.pdf) corroborates first-edition metadata; it is not the book's table passage. A cited archive scan could not be opened. Secondary table reproductions were not substituted for primary inspection.

**Decision:** omit Kleene from the manuscript's citations and bibliography under the approved fallback. State the conjunction and negation operations explicitly and verify their behavior directly. Primary inspection of the intended table passage, commonly located at printed pp. 334–335, remains outstanding. Neither those pages nor the planned 1980 edition is recorded as examined. This citation gap changes no declared operation or proved result.

## 4. Formal proof and counterexample review

| Item | Completed assessment |
|---|---|
| P1 | A remedy witness refutes universal absence in the same domain. The application to a false account separately requires its assertion or clear implication. No assertion is inferred from remedy existence. |
| False-closure corollary | PAST entails A∧¬N under the fixed scope. This states an established false closure, even where the accompanying past-fault statement remains true. |
| P2 | An agreed undertaking and breach supply actual earlier fault; an available current change supplies the countermodel. Missing a preferred date alone is not treated as fault. |
| P3 | With non-disclosure and independent discovery, the conditional and negated antecedent are true while the proposed negated consequent is false. The argument does not claim disclosure always guarantees discovery. |
| P4 | A history containing suppression and recovery establishes their compatibility. The general preservation proof uses model-set inclusion under a consistent extension retaining original meanings and premises. |
| Temporal converse | A route opening later refutes inference from later feasibility alone to earlier feasibility. Material constraint changes require their own scope; retrospective evidence can establish an earlier fact when it concerns that time. |
| Positive classification | Each required base condition is established separately; conjunction introduction and definition supply the finding. A consistent nonempty model set excludes vacuous entailment. |
| Dependencies | B implies A; factive K implies R under the time bridge. Positive dependent/conflicting prerequisite annotations require review. Raw flags cannot supply missing evidential derivations. |
| Engagement | G and E are distinct; supported E defeats strict PAST even where restriction occurs. Unresolved E cannot establish ¬E. |
| Base/extension separation | Mistaken belief is an admissible base-positive/extension-negative model. Unresolved K with all other extension requirements supported leaves the extension unresolved. |
| Protective function | Particular interests and their link to a live choice require evidence. Knowledge, deliberate selection, purpose, persuasion, and eventual success receive separate findings. |
| Recurrence | Two established distinct occurrences suffice for the specified mechanism/operator/history. Duplicate exports do not count twice. Mixed-family recurrence and supported lower bounds remain distinct. |

The base booking witness establishes R from stipulated venue conditions and A/B/G/¬E from the full bounded response. Its knowledge remains unresolved. The separate extension adds a known live route at 12:55, a disclosure opportunity at 13:00, continued knowledge, and material misrepresentation at 13:01. The recovery continuation at 13:03–13:05 changes neither earlier finding. No original evidence is invented to complete an empirical case.

The narrower-procedure contrast distinguishes “no amendment is possible” from “the online form is closed.” This prevents the available telephone route from being used against the wrong proposition. An openly acknowledged refusal without closure remains outside PAST. Genuine remedy absence makes the base false; changed availability does not retroactively supply earlier feasibility.

## 5. Review sequence and resolutions

**Initial review — Draft 0.1.**

The mathematical pass independently reviewed all four propositions, scope, the constructed base and extension, engagement, knowledge timing, recurrence, and family membership against descriptor v1.1 and DARVO Draft 0.4. No actionable mathematical defect was identified. Subsequent elaboration made the narrow-procedure countermodel, invalid conditional inference, and nonempty-model requirement explicit without changing their claims.

The scholarly pass checked the assigned citation roles against the inherited ledger and the newly inspected primary passages. Von Wright and McCornack now have passage-level support. Kleene remains outside the bibliography. No whole-publication review is claimed where only selected passages were examined.

The editorial pass checked conviction, direct conclusions, authorial movement, and the distinction between established results and empirical questions. It identified one sentence that could imply feasibility itself assigns responsibility. The conclusion now reads: **“The analysis restores the available choice to the responsibility inquiry.”** This retains the argument's force while keeping obligation independently grounded.

The article follows the main paper's theoretical format. Its opening announces the mechanism; the derivations establish the argument; its conclusion returns to the original conversion. No repeated publication-status defense, speculative effect assertion, or product pitch was introduced.

## 6. Word count and source-level verification

**Historical count and checks — Draft 0.1.** The current count appears in section 8.3.

The counting convention follows the DARVO ledger: include section headings, keywords, quotations, captions, table text, and prose; exclude front matter, mathematical expressions, image alternatives, and references. Markdown link labels count; their URL destinations do not. Tokens contain Unicode letters or digits, with internal apostrophes and hyphens retained.

| Section | Main-text words |
|---|---:|
| 1. Abstract and keywords | 155 |
| 2. The choice represented as impossibility | 347 |
| 3. Scholarly foundations | 237 |
| 4. Formal specification | 765 |
| 5. Propositions and derivations | 650 |
| 6. Knowing concealment: PAST-C | 325 |
| 7. Analytical implications | 289 |
| 8. Conclusion | 189 |
| **Total** | **2,957** |

The manuscript has eight main sections, eight display equations, one predicate table, six external references, and four project/companion references. The approved seven-source research map is fully accounted for: six sources are cited and one primary-passage gap is explicitly retained above.

### Completed checks

- Exhaustive raw evidence-state aggregation: all **243** five-predicate base inputs and **6,561** eight-predicate extension inputs matched the corresponding independently enumerated classical-completion outcomes. Scope and dependency review remain prerequisites; arbitrary input tuples are not all semantically admissible incidents.
- Separate dependency assessment: all **144** classical eight-predicate assignments satisfying B⇒A and K⇒R preserve extension-to-base inclusion. The base-positive/knowledge-negative and unresolved-knowledge examples were checked separately.
- Finite remedy-witness checks cover domains of sizes zero through five. P2 and P3 use explicit admissible countermodels; P4's finite model-extension check preserves every original supported consequence in its tested domain. These finite checks supplement the written general proofs rather than replacing them.
- All manuscript and ledger local links and referenced anchors resolve; the eight-section inventory, word count, mathematical delimiters, and citation/bibliography correspondence were checked.
- Preservation hashes confirm that all **25 pre-existing files** in the framework directory, including the main article, plans, frameworks, canon, corpus, and diagram, remain unchanged. Only the article and this ledger were added. No application file was edited.

**Manuscript identity:** `PAST_ARTICLE.md`, Draft 0.1, SHA-256 `78cf97ee549dbbb0c89a04f47b72cb3a95d6afe7c422eaac23d41a518433460e`. The final link check covered 18 local link occurrences across the article and ledger.

## 7. Delivery boundary

Draft 0.1 is a complete theoretical manuscript with its evidence and review record. The remaining Kleene passage check is documented research work, not a missing premise of the article's explicit mathematics. This pass makes no empirical validation, application-test, deployment, or publication claim. Case incorporation, Portuguese translation, website-reader integration, and submission to a publication venue remain separate work.

## 8. Full logical and claim-strength review — Draft 0.2

**16 September 2026.** Reviewed the complete manuscript against the canon, corrected PAST sources, descriptor v1.1, main DARVO article, and writing principles. Independent mathematical and editorial reviews found the core proofs sound. This revision makes their established consequence more explicit and aligns the abstract and conclusion with that consequence.

### 8.1 Refinements and their grounds

| Refinement | Reason and result |
|---|---|
| Explicit closure binding | The formal exposition now states that the assessed closure is N and binds A to its assertion or clear implication. This makes the proposition and represented account share exactly the same content. |
| False-closure corollary | Added PAST⊨A∧¬N, with a proof from conjunction elimination and P1. No predicate or classifier changes. |
| Direct statement of logical certainty | The article states that every admissible interpretation of established PAST premises instantiates the mechanism. Unresolved motive or effect does not weaken that consequence. |
| Predicate/evidence distinction | R now “states” availability; its notation is not itself described as establishing a remedy. Evidence establishes the premise. |
| Full verbal conjunction | The conclusion explicitly includes asserted closure alongside remedy availability, backward blame, suppression, and absent engagement. |
| Persuasion invariance | Replaced a modal sentence about independent discovery defeating persuasion with the proved result that discovery and audience rejection do not negate established PAST-C. |
| Temporal heading | P4 now names the precise result: later recovery does not erase established earlier suppression. Its proof and consistency conditions remain intact. |

The corollary concerns the represented closure, not the truth of every sentence in the account. A true account of an earlier breach remains compatible with a false claim that no present remedy exists. The article's claim is correspondingly exact: once the complete scoped premises are established, the mechanism and false closure follow deductively.

The review preserves the distinction between the adopted mechanism specification, the ordinary logical rules used in its derivation, and empirical questions. It introduces no population claim, attribution of purpose, psychological-effect result, or claim that every refusal is PAST. Particular obligations, interests, knowledge, intention, and success retain their separate premises.

### 8.2 Verification

- Checked the corollary against **63 finite remedy configurations** across domains of sizes zero through five and **756 Boolean assignments** satisfying B⇒A over those configurations. All **57 positive PAST valuations** satisfied A∧¬N. The general proof remains the manuscript's conjunction-elimination and witness argument; finite checks are supplementary.
- Rechecked all **243** base and **6,561** extension evidence-state combinations against independent classical-completion enumeration. Semantic dependency review remains separate from raw aggregation.
- Checked **65 nonempty consistent model-set extensions** preserving established earlier suppression while later recovery and audience-response facts vary. This supplements the general preservation proof, rather than replacing it.
- Rechecked P2 and P3 countermodels, narrow procedure scope, mixed engagement, unresolved knowledge, temporal continuity, base/extension separation, and recurrence identity. No unsupported positive inference was added.
- Bibliography and external citation destinations remain unchanged; no new source-reading claim is made. The recorded Kleene primary-passage gap remains outstanding.
- Verified word count, nine display equations, local links and anchors, and citation/reference correspondence. Only the PAST article and its ledger changed; all **25 other files** in the framework directory, including the DARVO article, canon, plans, frameworks, corpus, and diagram, remain unchanged.

### 8.3 Current manuscript identity

The counting convention remains the one recorded in section 6.

| Section | Main-text words |
|---|---:|
| 1. Abstract and keywords | 171 |
| 2. The choice represented as impossibility | 359 |
| 3. Scholarly foundations | 237 |
| 4. Formal specification | 803 |
| 5. Propositions and derivations | 710 |
| 6. Knowing concealment: PAST-C | 325 |
| 7. Analytical implications | 289 |
| 8. Conclusion | 202 |
| **Total** | **3,096** |

Draft 0.2 retains eight main sections, four named propositions, one predicate table, six external references, and four project/companion references. The added corollary brings the display-equation count to nine.

`PAST_ARTICLE.md` SHA-256: `48046d1766960aac29c1a7111e4e1a8a401a061d1336e9464ba66a4ad4236882`.

## 9. Final logical review — 16 September 2026

**Disposition: no remaining logical defect identified; retain Draft 0.2 unchanged.** A fresh independent mathematical review and a separate source comparison confirmed the manuscript's alignment with the canon, corrected PAST definitions, and the main DARVO article's evidentiary principles.

| Review question | Finding |
|---|---|
| Does the strongest conclusion follow? | Yes. With A bound to the same scoped N, PAST supplies R and A, and the remedy witness establishes ¬N. Thus PAST entails A∧¬N. This identifies an asserted false closure even when the past-fault account is true. |
| Are the non-entailments demonstrated? | P2 supplies actual earlier fault together with a current remedy. P3 supplies non-disclosure together with independent discovery. Both countermodels satisfy their premises and falsify the proposed conclusion. |
| Does recovery reasoning preserve the right claim? | P4 preserves the historical finding under a consistent extension retaining the original premises and meanings. Later recovery does not negate earlier suppression; evidence correcting a mistaken original premise still requires reassessment. |
| Are evidence and scope enforced? | Actor, response, remedy domain, objective, constraints, and time remain bound. Narrow procedure closure, genuine impossibility, changed availability, and later-acquired knowledge cannot supply a positive finding by scope substitution. |
| Are dependencies and unresolved states handled correctly? | B⇒A and K⇒R are reviewed before aggregation, with the required knowledge-time bridge. Unknown engagement does not establish its absence. G and E remain distinct, and an independently valid base finding survives an unresolved concealment extension. |
| Is claim strength aligned with the principles? | Established scoped premises yield categorical deductions. Family membership is stated directly; the complete DARVO response retains its own requirements. Knowledge, intention, persuasion, and particular obligations are not supplied by the base finding. |
| Is recurrence correctly scoped? | Two distinct supported incidents establish recurrence within the specified history. A shared PAST/FATE incident contributes once to family occurrence counts; unresolved additional incidents preserve supported lower bounds. |

The mathematical achievement is the explicit connection between the maneuver's specified conditions and a checkable conclusion about misrepresented agency. The article states that consequence at full deductive strength. Its use of ordinary quantifier reasoning, conjunction, countermodels, and monotonic consequence does not turn those inherited logical rules into newly discovered mathematics or imply empirical prevalence.

This pass rechecked the four proofs, the false-closure corollary, and the constructed base, concealment, and recovery variants. It confirmed the unchanged manuscript fingerprint, eight main sections, four named propositions, nine display equations, and all 18 local link occurrences across the article and ledger. The prior exhaustive aggregation checks remain recorded in section 8.2; they were not rerun. No new scholarly reading, corpus result, or application test is claimed. Only this ledger changed; the manuscript and the other 25 files in the framework directory remain byte-for-byte unchanged.