---
title: "The PAST Maneuver"
subtitle: "Fabricated Temporal Impossibility, Retrospective Blame, Self-Protective Agency Concealment, and Outcome Capture"
version: "2.1 — Extended Logical Framework"
date: "2026-09-12"
status: "Project-defined analytical mechanism with explicit source-level logical specification"
---

# The PAST Maneuver

## Fabricated Temporal Impossibility, Retrospective Blame, Self-Protective Agency Concealment, and Outcome Capture

**Extended conceptual and logical framework for textual analysis of controlling, abusive, accountability-avoiding, and narcissistic-style communication**

**Version 2.1 — 12 September 2026**

Original extended release: Version 2.0 — 6 August 2026.

**Canon alignment v1.0 — 12 September 2026.** [DARVO Family Canon](DARVO_FAMILY_CANON.md) governs the family definition and hierarchy. PAST is the family's temporal maneuver; FATE is its causal and evidential maneuver. The **complete DARVO response** remains a specific, separately assessed configuration. This editorial alignment retains the original source version, predicate names, conjunctions, and executable examples; outstanding formal corrections remain recorded in the [PAST source review](PAST_SOURCE_REVIEW.md).

**Source correction — 12 September 2026.** This revision supersedes the classifier, derivation, evidential, and methodological rules preserved by the earlier alignment. The preceding alignment paragraph is the historical record of that earlier pass. Current definitions and executable references are corrected in place; the [source review](PAST_SOURCE_REVIEW.md) contains the appended resolution and verification record. No application implementation is asserted.

> **Central proposition:**  
> **PAST represents a live present choice as “There is no alternative because you failed earlier.”**

> **Compressed formulation:**  
> **PAST converts present agency into apparent necessity and assigns the alleged closure to the counterpart's past conduct.**

---

## Status and use note

PAST and PAST-C are Patterna's defined analytical constructs. This source defines their predicates, proves logical results, and assesses textual episodes. Reliability, prevalence, and psychological effects remain distinct empirical questions.

One self-contained episode can establish the maneuver, a particular intention, or a particular abusive act when the relevant premises are complete. A sustained pattern and a diagnostic conclusion require their own criteria. Repetition is neither necessary for every finding nor a substitute for missing premises.

Use the same evidence rule for real records and fiction: distinguish attributed speech, established facts, and valid inferences. State established conclusions directly. Mark missing premises unresolved. Explicit wording and contextual inference can each be conclusive. The provenance of the original illustrative examples is unknown unless specified otherwise below; new constructed variants are explicitly labelled.

---

# Contents

1. [Executive abstract](#1-executive-abstract)  
2. [What this extended version adds](#2-what-this-extended-version-adds)  
3. [Scope, unit of analysis, and terminology](#3-scope-unit-of-analysis-and-terminology)  
4. [The four-layer conceptual architecture](#4-the-four-layer-conceptual-architecture)  
5. [Core thesis: self-protective agency concealment](#5-core-thesis-self-protective-agency-concealment)  
6. [The baseline decision model](#6-the-baseline-decision-model)  
7. [The central logical error](#7-the-central-logical-error)  
8. [The modal conversion: “I will not” becomes “we cannot”](#8-the-modal-conversion-i-will-not-becomes-we-cannot)  
9. [Agency inversion and causal reversal](#9-agency-inversion-and-causal-reversal)  
10. [The architecture of self-protection](#10-the-architecture-of-self-protection)  
11. [Cost export and burden transfer](#11-cost-export-and-burden-transfer)  
12. [Dual distortion of intention](#12-dual-distortion-of-intention)  
13. [The denial cascade](#13-the-denial-cascade)  
14. [The PAST acronym](#14-the-past-acronym)  
15. [Formal variables and logical representation](#15-formal-variables-and-logical-representation)  
16. [The strictly closed classifier](#16-the-strictly-closed-classifier)  
17. [Decision algorithm and reference code](#17-decision-algorithm-and-reference-code)  
18. [Illustrative PAST trajectories](#18-illustrative-past-trajectories)  
19. [Counterfactual and diagnostic tests](#19-counterfactual-and-diagnostic-tests)  
20. [Mechanism: fabricated temporal impossibility](#20-mechanism-fabricated-temporal-impossibility)  
21. [PAST-C: the concealment modifier](#21-past-c-the-concealment-modifier)  
22. [Forms of remedy concealment](#22-forms-of-remedy-concealment)  
23. [Evidence for intention: separate claims and direct findings](#23-evidence-for-intention-separate-claims-and-direct-findings)  
24. [Relationship to DARVO](#24-relationship-to-darvo)  
25. [Textual and linguistic indicators](#25-textual-and-linguistic-indicators)  
26. [Interactional sequence indicators](#26-interactional-sequence-indicators)  
27. [Computational and annotation heuristic](#27-computational-and-annotation-heuristic)  
28. [Worked examples](#28-worked-examples)  
29. [Differential classification and exclusions](#29-differential-classification-and-exclusions)  
30. [From isolated episode to abusive pattern](#30-from-isolated-episode-to-abusive-pattern)  
31. [Hypothesized functions and effects](#31-hypothesized-functions-and-effects)  
32. [Coding protocol and evidence standards](#32-coding-protocol-and-evidence-standards)  
33. [Suggested annotation schema](#33-suggested-annotation-schema)  
34. [Research program and testable hypotheses](#34-research-program-and-testable-hypotheses)  
35. [Ethical and interpretive safeguards](#35-ethical-and-interpretive-safeguards)  
36. [Publication-ready formulations](#36-publication-ready-formulations)  
37. [Quick-reference card](#37-quick-reference-card)  
38. [Glossary](#38-glossary)  
39. [References](#39-references)  
40. [Version 2.0 change log](#40-version-20-change-log)  
41. [Version 2.1 correction record](#41-version-21-correction-record)  

---

# 1. Executive abstract

This framework defines the **PAST maneuver** as an episode-level communication sequence in which:

1. a meaningful remedy or alternative still exists at the present decision point;
2. the operator represents the matter as solved, settled, impossible, too late, or otherwise closed;
3. the operator attributes that alleged closure to the counterpart’s earlier action or inaction; and
4. the response suppresses consideration or exercise of the live option and does not meaningfully engage it (T = G ∧ ¬E).

**PAST** stands for:

- **P — Present remedy remains**
- **A — Assert closure or impossibility**
- **S — Shift blame backward**
- **T — Terminate present agency or negotiation**

Its immediate rhetorical mechanism is **fabricated temporal impossibility**: a presently available choice is represented as though time has already removed it. The distinctive move is not merely “blaming the past.” It is using past blame to counterfeit the end of present choice.

The family-level function is **self-protective agency concealment**: the account protects the operator's represented position by suppressing present agency. When a particular preference and refusal are evidenced, the concealed present-tense proposition can be reconstructed as:

> “I prefer this outcome, and I am unwilling to cooperate with the available alternative.”

Instead, the operator substitutes:

> “The alternative no longer exists because you failed earlier.”

This conversion removes present agency from the represented account and directs blame at the counterpart. It can protect a preferred outcome, self-image, control, or an accountability position. Identify the particular protected relation from evidence; actual preservation, conscious intention, and persuasive success do not follow from the family label.

The framework also defines **PAST-C**, where **C means concealment**. PAST-C applies when supported PAST includes knowledge of the scoped live remedy at a relevant disclosure opportunity and material withholding, evasion, or misrepresentation of its enabling information.

PAST-C therefore marks a shift from a false description of impossibility to the **active maintenance of impossibility as an appearance**. Material withholding obstructs an evidential route to the live option. Whether the counterpart remains unaware, verifies independently, or exercises the remedy is separately assessed.

**PAST is a temporal maneuver within the DARVO family.** It suppresses present feasibility and agency, directs retrospective blame at the counterpart, and reverses represented responsibility by making the operator appear constrained by the counterpart's past conduct. FATE belongs to the same family and operates through obscured contribution and manufactured vindication. Either maneuver can occur without a complete DARVO response; that response requires its own linked conditions and evidence.

For a preference-protecting configuration with that preference and refusal established, the conversion is:

> **A live remedy threatens the operator’s preferred outcome. The operator converts unwillingness into impossibility, locates the supposed loss of possibility in the past, blames the counterpart for that past, and suppresses the information or negotiation that would expose the present choice.**

---

# 2. What this extended version adds

Historically, Version 1.0 established the core acronym, fabricated temporal impossibility, the closed classifier, the denial cascade, a proposed relationship to the complete DARVO response, and the PAST-C modifier. The dated canon alignment establishes the current family hierarchy separately from that version history.

The original Version 2.0 extended those foundations with the **logic of the self**. Version 2.1 retains the following distinctions while correcting the inference rules, reference code, and examples. Particular protective relations and psychological effects have their own evidence requirements.

## 2.1 The self-protection thesis

PAST is not only a method of ending a conversation. In its strongest form, it is a method for protecting:

- the operator’s preferred outcome;
- the operator’s freedom to act according to preference;
- the operator’s image as reasonable, constrained, or innocent;
- the operator’s control over whether the decision remains open;
- the operator’s ability to avoid openly defending the choice.

The maneuver is self-protective in representational function because it suppresses the operator's agency in the account. An identified preference, actual self-benefit, deliberate concealment, and achieved protection are additional findings; none is supplied merely by classifying PAST. Selfishness or whim in the original conduct is not a prerequisite.

## 2.2 The agency-asymmetry thesis

PAST creates a characteristic inversion:

- the operator retains actual agency but denies having it;
- the response suppresses the counterpart’s present option while representing the counterpart as responsible for the alleged loss; the counterpart’s subsequent action is separately observed.

The powerful character appears powerless. The obstructed character appears causally responsible.

## 2.3 The modal-conversion thesis

When present refusal is established, the characteristic linguistic conversion is:

> **“I will not” → “we cannot” → “because you did not.”**

A statement of willingness becomes a statement of feasibility. A present choice becomes an impersonal constraint. The constraint is then attributed to the counterpart’s past.

## 2.4 The cost-export thesis

PAST exports more than blame. It can export:

- the practical cost of the operator’s preferred outcome;
- the burden of proving that a remedy exists;
- the labor of contacting third parties;
- the cognitive burden of reconstructing the timeline;
- the emotional burden of defending against blame;
- the consequences of delay;
- the risk created by withheld information.

## 2.5 The concealment-as-enforcement thesis

In PAST-C, withholding materially obstructs disclosure or verification of the remedy and supports the false closure account. It does not entail that the counterpart remains unaware or fails to act. The counterpart may know another route or verify independently.

---

# 3. Scope, unit of analysis, and terminology

## 3.1 Unit of analysis

The primary unit is the **communication episode**, beginning when a present problem, option, request, or remedy becomes salient and ending when one of the following occurs:

- the present option is honestly considered;
- the option is blocked or abandoned;
- the option is independently discovered or recovered;
- the factual record establishes genuine impossibility;
- the interaction ends without enough information to classify.

The framework should analyze the sequence, not an isolated phrase. “You should have told me earlier” may be accurate and benign. It contributes to a supported PAST finding when the record establishes the full R/A/B/G/¬E conjunction. A passage with missing predicates remains a candidate for assessment, not a positive finding.

## 3.2 Core roles

| Term | Operational meaning |
|---|---|
| **Operator** | The character or speaker performing the PAST sequence. This identifies a role in the assessed episode. |
| **Counterpart** | The character seeking information, correction, negotiation, verification, or a present remedy. |
| **Present decision point (`t0`)** | The moment at which the current feasibility of a remedy is assessed. |
| **Past reference point (`t-1`)** | The earlier moment invoked as the supposedly missed opportunity. |
| **Present remedy** | An action available at `t0` that can materially alter, correct, prevent, or mitigate the outcome. |
| **Preferred outcome** | The result the operator appears to favor, protect, or preserve. |
| **Closure assertion** | Language stating or implying that the matter is solved, settled, fixed, too late, impossible, or no longer negotiable. |
| **Retrospective blame** | Attribution of the alleged present closure to the counterpart’s earlier action, delay, omission, misunderstanding, or failure. |
| **Present agency** | The practical and conversational ability to perceive, propose, verify, choose, or implement an available remedy now. |
| **Remedy suppression** | Communication that prevents, delays, or discourages recognition or use of the remedy. |
| **Material concealment** | Withholding or misrepresenting information that would change the counterpart’s understanding of feasibility or ability to act. |
| **Outcome capture** | Obtaining or preserving the preferred result by making it appear inevitable rather than chosen. |
| **Agency laundering** | Converting a present preference or refusal into an apparently impersonal consequence of time or circumstance. |
| **Self-protective agency concealment** | Suppressing current agency in a responsibility account that protects the operator's represented position; specific interests, knowledge, intention, and success are assessed separately. |

## 3.3 What “feasible” means

A remedy does not have to be effortless, costless, ideal, or guaranteed to be feasible. A remedy may involve inconvenience, travel, delay, negotiation, expense, embarrassment, or compromise and still remain meaningfully available.

At the same time, **mere physical possibility is insufficient**. A technically imaginable option may be unreasonable, unsafe, unlawful, prohibitively costly, or incapable of materially changing the outcome. PAST requires a meaningful practical option, not a fantasy solution.

The correct question is:

> **At `t0`, is there a real action that a reasonable person in the scenario could still take to alter, correct, mitigate, or renegotiate the outcome?**

---

# 4. The four-layer conceptual architecture

The framework has four analytical layers. Keeping them distinct prevents confusion between what is observed, how it works, why it may be used, and what strengthens the inference.

| Layer | Concept | Question answered |
|---|---|---|
| **Observable sequence** | **PAST** | What communication moves occur? |
| **Immediate mechanism** | **Fabricated temporal impossibility** | How is the live option made to appear unavailable? |
| **Aggravating modifier** | **PAST-C** | Is the false closure actively maintained through concealment? |
| **Functional and outcome analysis** | **Self-protective agency concealment; separately assessed outcome capture** | Which represented position is protected, which particular interest is involved, and what actually occurs? |

The following illustrates a trajectory in which preference, interference with that preference, and successful outcome capture are also established. Those additional facts are not universal premises of PAST:

```text
A live remedy exists at t0
            |
            v
The remedy threatens or complicates the operator's preferred outcome
            |
            v
FABRICATED TEMPORAL IMPOSSIBILITY
"That option is already gone / solved / decided / too late"
            |
            v
RETROSPECTIVE BLAME
"It is gone because you failed earlier"
            |
            v
AGENCY LAUNDERING
"My present refusal disappears; time and your past become the cause"
            |
            v
TERMINATION OF PRESENT AGENCY
The counterpart is diverted, discouraged, misinformed, or blocked
            |
            v
OUTCOME CAPTURE
The operator's preferred result survives without open negotiation

PAST-C obstruction within this illustrative successful trajectory:
Known remedy -> relevant disclosure opportunity -> concealment/evasion ->
the false closure remains believable and actionable
```

The layers should not be collapsed into a single label. An episode can meet the PAST sequence without evidence of conscious concealment. PAST-C requires its additional premises. Self-protection is the canonical representational function; a specific protected interest, knowledge, purpose, and successful outcome capture each require their own evidence. Repeated benefit can inform those assessments without replacing them.

---

# 5. Core thesis: self-protective agency concealment

The core of PAST is not time alone. It is the use of time to protect the self from the consequences of openly owning a present choice.

Consider a case in which a preference and refusal are independently established. Its accountable form is:

> “The alternative is still possible, but I do not want it. I prefer the current outcome, and I am unwilling to compromise.”

That statement exposes four things:

1. the operator has a preference;
2. the operator has present agency;
3. the operator is refusing or resisting an available remedy;
4. the operator is responsible for defending the costs imposed on others.

PAST removes those exposures. It replaces the accountable statement with:

> “The alternative is no longer possible because you failed earlier.”

The operator no longer appears to be choosing. The operator appears to be reporting a fact. The preferred outcome no longer appears self-serving. It appears inevitable. The counterpart no longer appears to be proposing a solution. The counterpart appears to be arriving too late and causing the problem.

This is **self-protective agency concealment**:

> **The operator hides the fact that the current outcome depends on the operator’s present preference, cooperation, permission, disclosure, or refusal.**

Four possible protected positions can be distinguished. For each, establish the particular relation to the maneuver and assess actual preservation separately:

- **Preference protection:** the account represents a preferred result as necessary rather than chosen.
- **Control protection:** the account represents limits on negotiation as externally imposed.
- **Image protection:** the operator is presented as reasonable or constrained rather than responsible for suppressing an option.
- **Accountability protection:** the account substitutes past-caused closure for an answer about present choice.

The maneuver is therefore not simply “selfish.” Ordinary direct selfishness says, “I want this.” PAST says, in effect, “This is not about what I want; reality has already decided, and you caused it.”

In this stipulated preference case, the second form suppresses negotiation over the preference by representing choice as unavailable. Any comparison of population-level controlling effects requires a specified measure and study.

## 5.1 The deepest conversion

The deepest conversion can be written as:

```text
Actual present structure:
I want X.
Y remains possible.
Y would interfere with X.
I am refusing, withholding, or resisting Y.

PAST narrative:
Y is impossible now.
Y became impossible because you failed at t-1.
I am not choosing X; X is merely what remains.
```

## 5.2 The governing principle

In the preference-driven case stipulated in this section, the account can be reconstructed as:

> **Protect the preferred outcome, erase the self’s responsibility for choosing it, prevent the other person from changing it, and make the other person responsible for the result.**

That describes the particular protective orientation in this case. The base maneuver establishes distorted present agency and backward blame; identifying this preference, deliberate pursuit, or achieved result requires the corresponding evidence.

---

# 6. The baseline decision model

To identify PAST, establish the live remedy and scope before assessing the response. An operator preference is not a base requirement. The following additional model illustrates a preference-protecting case with two complete practical courses of action:

- **Path X:** proceed with the arrangement the operator prefers;
- **Path Y:** implement a meaningful remedy, compromise, or correction.

For example:

- X = leave the submitted materials unchanged;
- Y = submit the missing item now.

Or:

- X = spend the entire evening at one location;
- Y = divide the remaining time between two locations.

Or:

- X = continue with an already scheduled plan;
- Y = reconsider, postpone, or renegotiate it.

The mere existence of an earlier preferred time for Y does not eliminate Y at `t0`. It may make Y less convenient, more expensive, or less ideal. That is a change in **cost**, not necessarily a change in **feasibility**.

The baseline decision model asks five questions:

1. **What options actually exist now?**
2. **Which outcome appears to benefit or satisfy the operator?**
3. **Which remedy would interfere with that outcome?**
4. **What present cooperation or information is under the operator’s control?**
5. **What explanation is given for refusing to engage the remedy?**

In this preference illustration, the false explanation converts “available but unwanted” into “unavailable because of the counterpart’s past.” A supported classification also establishes suppression and absence of meaningful engagement. General PAST need not establish a particular private preference.

---

# 7. The central logical error

**“You should have acted earlier” does not entail “nothing can be done now.”** We prove that a scoped feasible remedy refutes the corresponding universal closure and give countermodels to the invalid temporal and concealment inferences.

### Scope and deductive results

Fix an episode \(e\), operator \(o\), counterpart \(c\), assessed response \(q\), decision time \(t_0\), objective \(g\), remedy domain \(\mathcal R\), and practical constraints \(\kappa\). All predicates below concern that same scope. Define:

\[
R_e := \exists r\in\mathcal R\;\operatorname{Feasible}(r,g,t_0,\kappa),\qquad
N_e := \forall r\in\mathcal R\;\neg\operatorname{Feasible}(r,g,t_0,\kappa).
\]

Feasibility means meaningful practical availability under the stated conditions. Identify who controls necessary cooperation. A current unwillingness must not be silently converted into an external impossibility. Practical availability, preference, permission, and obligation are distinct propositions; none is substituted for another.

**Proposition 1 — A remedy witness refutes universal closure.**

\[
R_e\models\neg N_e.
\]

**Proof.** A witness \(r_*\in\mathcal R\) satisfies Feasible. The universal claim \(N_e\) asserts that the same witness does not satisfy it. Therefore \(N_e\) is false. This establishes the contradiction between the evidenced remedy and the content of the asserted universal closure.

The scope must match. An available remedy for a different objective or time does not refute the claim. Closure of one procedure does not entail closure of every alternative procedure. Status language such as “solved” must be interpreted against the specified unmet objective and suppressed option; it is not automatically a literal universal impossibility assertion.

**Proposition 2 — Past fault alone does not entail present impossibility.** Let \(F_e\) state the relevant earlier fault. Without a premise that excludes the remedies under assessment:

\[
F_e\not\models\neg R_e.
\]

**Countermodel.** The counterpart missed the preferred submission date, and the institution still accepts the item at \(t_0\). Both \(F_e\) and \(R_e\) hold. Earlier fault can cause costs or genuine present constraints; it does not alone establish universal closure. Even an irreversible loss of one opportunity leaves this countermodel intact when another meaningful route remains. A valid closure argument must establish constraints excluding every candidate remedy in the assessed domain. Irreversibility is neither sufficient by itself nor necessary for a remedy to be unavailable at a particular time.

**Proposition 3 — Withholding does not entail successful concealment.** Let \(d\) mean that the operator discloses the remedy and \(v\) mean that the counterpart discovers it. Even if disclosure would ensure discovery, \(d\to v\), withholding \(\neg d\) does not entail \(\neg v\). Independent discovery is a countermodel. Material withholding can instantiate PAST-C even when verification defeats the closure account.

**Proposition 4 — Later recovery does not negate an established earlier act.** If \(G_e(t_0)\) is established and the remedy is recovered at \(t_1>t_0\), both facts hold. The same applies to earlier knowledge or deliberate withholding and a later correction. Later evidence can resolve an earlier uncertainty when it bears on that earlier state; changed conduct does not erase a proved earlier act. Later successful action alone does not prove feasibility at \(t_0\); a continuity or retrospective evidence bridge is required.

### Statements, premises, and logical closure

\(\operatorname{Says}(o,N_e,t_0)\) records an attributed assertion, not the truth of \(N_e\). The analyst can consistently establish that a false closure was asserted and that a remedy existed. Do not put both \(N_e\) and its negation into the accepted premise set merely because someone asserted \(N_e\).

For established premises \(\Gamma\), conclusion \(C\), and admissible interpretations \(\operatorname{Mod}(\Gamma)\), require:

\[
\operatorname{Mod}(\Gamma)\ne\varnothing,\qquad\Gamma\models C.
\]

The nonempty, consistent premise set prevents vacuous entailment from contradictory evidence. The conclusion holds in every admissible interpretation of those premises. A self-contained conversation can establish every premise required for a particular conclusion. An explicit statement and a valid inference from contextual evidence are assessed by their support and validity, not ranked automatically by form. A statement of intention, a performative refusal, or a conclusive contextual derivation can establish its respective proposition within one episode.

### What the past can establish

Past conduct can establish an earlier mistake, extra cost, reduced trust, or a genuine present constraint when those relations are evidenced. It does not automatically exclude every present remedy. A missed deadline and a current workaround can coexist. A prior commitment and a present alternative can coexist. Honest refusal acknowledges current choice; a false closure denies it.

An invalid argument can have a true conclusion. Calling a past-to-closure inference unsupported does not establish that closure is false. Supported PAST additionally establishes R and every other required predicate.

# 8. The modal conversion: “I will not” becomes “we cannot”

PAST operates through a change in modality.

- **Volitional language** concerns willingness: *will, want, prefer, refuse*.
- **Feasibility language** concerns possibility: *can, cannot, possible, impossible*.
- **Temporal language** concerns timing: *already, now, earlier, too late*.
- **Moral language** concerns fault: *should have, failed, your responsibility*.

For the preference/refusal configuration established in §6, these forms combine in the following illustrative conversion:

```text
I do not want Y.
        |
        v
I will not cooperate with Y.
        |
        v
Y cannot happen.
        |
        v
Y cannot happen now because you did not act earlier.
```

This is a **volition-to-constraint conversion**. The operator’s will is re-described as a condition of the world.

## 8.1 Grammatical agency erasure

Compare:

> “I do not want to change the plan.”

with:

> “The plan was already decided.”

The first sentence names:

- an agent: **I**;
- a mental state: **do not want**;
- a present choice: **change or not change**.

The second sentence uses passive status language:

- the decision-maker disappears;
- the present choice disappears;
- the plan becomes an object with a fixed status;
- the earlier decision is treated as self-enforcing.

The same erasure appears in phrases such as:

- “It is already solved.”
- “There is no time.”
- “That cannot be changed.”
- “It was decided on Thursday.”
- “The deadline is gone.”
- “It is already scheduled.”

These statements may be accurate. They become PAST-relevant when they replace an available present decision and are joined to retrospective blame.

## 8.2 The characteristic sentence structure

A prototypical PAST sentence has three clauses:

```text
[CLOSURE] + [TEMPORAL ANCHOR] + [BACKWARD BLAME]

"It cannot be changed now because you should have said something on Thursday."
```

The first clause asserts a modal fact. The second places the decisive opportunity in the past. The third moralizes the timeline by attributing the supposed loss to the counterpart.

## 8.3 Why the conversion matters

A direct refusal remains contestable:

> “You do not want to change it. Why? What are the costs? Can we compromise?”

An impossibility claim is harder to negotiate:

> “There is no point discussing it because it cannot be changed.”

In this preference configuration, the closure account **removes preference from the represented category of negotiable things**. Actual audience response is a separate observation.

---

# 9. Agency inversion and causal reversal

PAST creates a double inversion between actual agency and narrated responsibility.

## 9.1 Actual structure

Where the corresponding control and cooperation premises are established, the present structure includes:

- the operator may control information, permission, transport, timing, documents, access, or cooperation;
- the counterpart may be seeking a remedy;
- the operator’s current response helps determine whether the remedy is exercised;
- the operator therefore retains meaningful present agency.

## 9.2 Narrated structure

In the PAST narrative:

- the operator has no choice;
- time or circumstance is the active force;
- the counterpart’s past failure caused the impasse;
- the counterpart is responsible for the operator’s current stance.

The inversion is:

| Actual position | PAST presentation |
|---|---|
| Operator retains present choice. | Operator is powerless and constrained. |
| Counterpart seeks to exercise a remedy. | Counterpart has already destroyed the opportunity. |
| Operator blocks, ignores, or conceals the option. | Time has removed the option. |
| Operator’s preference shapes the outcome. | Counterpart’s past fault determines the outcome. |
| Counterpart bears the cost of blockage. | Counterpart is blamed for causing the cost. |

## 9.3 Causal subject substitution

The actual causal sentence may be:

> “The remedy is not being used because the operator refuses to engage it.”

PAST substitutes:

> “The remedy cannot be used because the counterpart acted too late.”

The causal subject changes from **the operator’s present action** to **the counterpart’s past action**.

This is **causal responsibility laundering**: the present decision-maker disappears from the causal account, and the past becomes a device for transferring responsibility outward.

## 9.4 Agency asymmetry

The following qualitative illustration assumes established control and actual reduction of the counterpart’s practical agency. HIGH/LOW are descriptive contrasts, not measurements or classifier thresholds:

```text
Operator:
actual agency HIGH
acknowledged agency LOW
assigned blame LOW

Counterpart:
actual agency REDUCED
acknowledged agency framed as already missed
assigned blame HIGH
```

The person who can still affect the present denies power. The person prevented from affecting the present is blamed for power allegedly lost in the past.

---

# 10. The architecture of self-protection

The maneuver can protect four domains of the self. The following are specific protective relations to establish from evidence; their description does not establish conscious purpose or actual success.

## 10.1 Protection of desire

One protective relation concerns a preferred outcome. When the evidence establishes that preference and its influence, avoidance of the remedy may protect a result that the remedy would alter, dilute, delay, or threaten.

Examples include preserving:

- an already chosen plan;
- unilateral control over a schedule;
- a preferred family arrangement;
- an elective course of action;
- an exclusionary decision;
- an informational advantage;
- freedom from inconvenience or compromise.

## 10.2 Protection of self-image

Openly saying “I refuse the available solution because I prefer my own outcome” may make the operator appear selfish, inflexible, deceptive, or indifferent to others.

PAST provides a more flattering self-presentation:

- “I am simply acknowledging reality.”
- “I had no choice.”
- “I am dealing with the consequences you created.”
- “I already solved it.”
- “I am the organized one; you were late.”

The operator can preserve an image of competence or reasonableness even when the actual behavior blocks repair.

## 10.3 Protection of control

A live remedy creates shared decision space. The counterpart can propose, verify, negotiate, or act. PAST closes that space.

The account can protect control over:

- what counts as possible;
- what information is disclosed;
- whether the issue may be reopened;
- which time point is treated as decisive;
- whose interpretation of the timeline controls the outcome.

## 10.4 Protection from accountability

Representing the outcome as inevitable displaces the question of justifying:

- why compromise is refused;
- why information was withheld;
- why another person’s interests are being subordinated;
- why costs are being imposed;
- why a practical solution is being blocked.

The explanation becomes “because you failed earlier,” not “because I choose this now.”

## 10.5 Self-protection without self-disclosure

The protective account can operate **without requiring the self to be named**. Its effectiveness is a separate assessment.

The operator may never say:

- “I want X.”
- “I dislike Y.”
- “I benefit from this.”
- “I am refusing.”
- “I control the information.”
- “I would rather blame you than negotiate.”

Instead, the operator speaks through impersonal status claims: *already decided, already solved, too late, no time, nothing can be done.*

---

# 11. Cost export and burden transfer

PAST does not only shift moral blame. It can transfer several burdens from the operator to the counterpart.

## 11.1 Practical cost

The counterpart may lose time, access, inclusion, opportunity, money, or contact because the remedy is delayed or suppressed.

## 11.2 Verification burden

A closure claim can impose additional verification work. Whether it does depends on what the counterpart already knows and the information available. Where that burden is established, it can include:

- contacting an institution;
- checking a policy;
- obtaining documents;
- calling a third party;
- reconstructing messages;
- discovering an exception;
- testing the claim through action.

The cost asymmetry is an additional observation to establish, not a consequence of the PAST label. A self-contained exchange can already contain the refutation.

## 11.3 Cognitive burden

Attention is redirected from:

> “What can we do now?”

to:

> “What happened earlier, and was it my fault?”

The record contains both a current problem and a backward-looking accusation; the counterpart’s actual cognitive effort is a further effect assessment.

## 11.4 Emotional burden

The counterpart may experience:

- guilt;
- shame;
- confusion;
- urgency;
- futility;
- self-doubt;
- fear of being unreasonable;
- pressure to abandon the remedy.

## 11.5 Consequence burden

The counterpart may suffer the consequences of the operator’s preferred outcome while also being told those consequences are self-caused.

## 11.6 Accountability burden

The response can condition further negotiation on defending the past. Record that demand separately from whether the counterpart complies or present action is delayed.

## 11.7 Illustrative burden allocation

This describes a case with the listed benefits and costs established; it is not an equation or a universally required outcome.

```text
Operator retains:
preferred outcome + control + plausible innocence

Counterpart receives:
blocked remedy + practical cost + verification burden +
retrospective blame + emotional labor
```

This asymmetry is central to the controlling potential of repeated PAST.

---

# 12. Dual distortion of intention

Two different intentions may be distorted in the same episode.

## 12.1 Concealment of the operator’s real intention

The operator’s real present-tense position may be:

- “I want the existing outcome.”
- “I do not want to compromise.”
- “I do not want you to discover or use the remedy.”
- “I prefer the burden to remain with you.”
- “I want the decision to stay under my control.”

PAST conceals that position behind an impossibility claim.

## 12.2 Misrepresentation of the counterpart’s intention

The counterpart may be saying:

> “Let us solve this now.”

The operator may reframe that request as:

- a late complaint;
- an accusation;
- proof of irresponsibility;
- an attempt to reopen something illegitimate;
- a demand that cannot be satisfied;
- evidence that the counterpart failed before.

The problem-solving intention is denied. The counterpart is made to defend motivation and history instead of exercising the remedy.

## 12.3 The dual distortion

```text
Operator's actual intent:
preserve preferred outcome / avoid remedy
            |
            v
concealed as:
"nothing can be done"

Counterpart's actual intent:
solve or renegotiate now
            |
            v
reframed as:
"you are complaining too late about what you failed to do"
```

This dual distortion strengthens the self-protective narrative. The operator appears practical; the counterpart appears belated and blameworthy.

---

# 13. The denial cascade

PAST denies present feasibility and suppresses represented agency. The table maps these core operations and additional denials that can accompany them. A particular preference, the counterpart's actual intent, remedy knowledge, and effects on either actor require their own evidence.

| Layer | What is denied or overwritten |
|---|---|
| **1. Denial of present feasibility** | A remedy that exists is represented as unavailable or too late. |
| **2. Denial of present agency** | The operator’s ability to choose, cooperate, permit, disclose, or compromise is concealed. |
| **3. Denial of present preference** | The operator’s “I want” or “I refuse” is recoded as an impersonal fact. |
| **4. Denial of the counterpart’s problem-solving intent** | A request to solve the matter now is reframed as a late complaint or past failure. |
| **5. Denial of negotiability** | Costs, tradeoffs, and alternatives are treated as though they cannot be discussed. |
| **6. Denial of present responsibility** | The operator’s current contribution to the impasse is removed from the causal account. |
| **7. Denial of remedy information** | In PAST-C, the existence or requirements of the remedy are concealed or misrepresented. |
| **8. Denial of cost allocation** | The burdens imposed on the counterpart are treated as self-caused rather than consequences of the operator’s present stance. |

For an established present-refusal configuration, the compressed denial sequence is:

> **“I am refusing a feasible solution now” becomes “there is no feasible solution now,” which becomes “there is no solution because of what you did earlier.”**

When the additional premises are established, these denials can reinforce the self-protective account:

- denying feasibility protects the desired outcome;
- denying agency protects the operator from accountability;
- denying preference protects self-image;
- denying the counterpart’s intent justifies criticism;
- denying negotiability closes the decision;
- withholding remedy information obstructs one route to correction;
- denying present responsibility completes the blame transfer.

These are representational functions. The table and list do not establish a particular intention, concealment extension, or successful protection without the corresponding evidence.

---

# 14. The PAST acronym

## P — Present remedy remains

At `t0`, a meaningful corrective, alternative, or mitigating action remains available.

Evidence may include:

- explicit statements in the dialogue;
- later successful action with evidence that the same remedy was feasible at `t0`;
- confirmation by a third party;
- a reversible schedule or plan;
- an available workaround or exception;
- clear contextual facts;
- later conduct with an explicit evidential bridge establishing the earlier option, rather than later availability alone.

## A — Assert closure or impossibility

The operator states or implies that the matter is:

- solved;
- handled;
- finished;
- settled;
- decided;
- fixed;
- too late;
- impossible;
- no longer changeable;
- beyond discussion.

The claim may be explicit or embedded in status language.

## S — Shift blame backward

The alleged closure is attributed to something the counterpart did or failed to do earlier:

- “You should have said that Thursday.”
- “You should have sent it in February.”
- “If you had warned me before I left…”
- “You waited too long.”
- “You missed your chance.”
- “This happened because you did not ask earlier.”

## T — Terminate present agency or negotiation

T requires both G (demonstrated suppression in the assessed response) and ¬E (no meaningful engagement). Suppression can occur through:

- omission;
- evasion;
- repetition of closure;
- refusal to answer;
- dismissal without evaluation;
- misleading reassurance;
- information control;
- changing the topic from feasibility to fault;
- making continued inquiry appear unreasonable.

## 14.1 Strict rule

```text
PAST = P AND A AND S AND T
P = R; A = A; S = B; T = G AND NOT E
```

All four elements are required for a strict positive classification.

---

# 15. Formal variables and logical representation

## 15.1 Scope and core variables

Use the episode, actor, response, objective, remedy-domain, constraints, and time definitions in §7.

| Predicate | Required assessment in the fixed scope |
|---|---|
| `R` | A meaningful present remedy exists at `t0`. |
| `A` | The operator asserts or clearly implies the closure under assessment. |
| `B` | The operator attributes that alleged closure to the counterpart's earlier conduct. The fault itself need not be true. |
| `G` | The response demonstrably suppresses consideration, disclosure, or exercise of the option, for example by dismissing it or blocking remedy-focused negotiation. Audience acceptance and ultimate failure of the remedy are separate. |
| `E` | The response meaningfully engages the option's actual feasibility, requirements, costs, or tradeoffs. A token mention followed by evasion does not establish E. |
| `K` | At the relevant disclosure/withholding opportunity, the operator knows the remedy is meaningfully available under the assessed scope. |
| `D` | A relevant opportunity to disclose the remedy or enabling information exists in the assessed response. |
| `W` | Material remedy-relevant information is withheld, evaded, or misrepresented in that response. Trivial omission does not qualify. |

\[
\mathrm{PAST}_e := R_e\land A_e\land B_e\land G_e\land\neg E_e,
\qquad
\mathrm{PAST\!\text{-}\!C}_e := \mathrm{PAST}_e\land K_e\land D_e\land W_e.
\]

The mnemonic has exactly this crosswalk: **P = R; A = A; S = B; T = G ∧ ¬E**. C in PAST-C names concealment; closure uses A. T is not G alone. Every mnemonic formula denotes conjunction.

Knowledge is time-specific and factive. Knowing that an objective is incomplete does not establish knowing a live remedy. Later learning does not establish earlier knowledge; a retrospective admission or other evidence can establish earlier knowledge when it actually concerns that time. If the disclosure opportunity differs from `t0`, establish the availability and knowledge continuity needed to assess the same remedy; otherwise segment the episode and assess each response at its own decision time.

The predicates are not assumed logically independent. Under these scoped definitions **B entails A** and **K entails R**. Resolve contradictory annotations before classification. If B or K is supported while its consequent is unresolved, the affected finding needs review; a contradicted consequent is an inconsistency requiring review. A reviewer can conclusively derive A or R from the established scoped premise and registered implication, document its evidence, and resubmit a supported annotation. The classifier does not perform that evidential act or automatically promote raw flags. B⇒A review affects both base and modifier; K⇒R review affects the modifier while preserving an independently assessable base. G concerns the response's suppression of an option's consideration; whether that option is actually feasible is assessed by R. E and G are distinct: substantive discussion can coexist with a separate restrictive act. No automatic E/G complement rule applies. When E and G are both supported for the same response, the strict PAST conjunction is false because ¬E is false; record other conduct separately. If discussion and suppression occur at different times, assess separate responses.

PAST-C supplies additional knowledge/opportunity/withholding findings. Deliberately selecting withholding, pursuing a particular protective purpose, and achieving it are separately assessed claims. State each firmly when its own premises establish it; none requires repetition or an explicit admission as a universal condition.

## 15.2 Particular protective claims

Self-protection is the canonical representational function of supported PAST. For a particular interest x, define Iₓ = the interest exists; Lₓ = the live remedy would alter that interest; and Hₓ = the closure account protects its represented position. Define:

\[
Q_x := \mathrm{PAST}\land I_x\land L_x\land H_x.
\]

Qₓ establishes that specific protective relation, not conscious purpose or achieved protection. Let Pₓ mean the operator deliberately uses the account to protect x and Sₓ mean that protection actually succeeds. Assess Qₓ ∧ Pₓ and Qₓ ∧ Sₓ separately. Benefit counts, repetition, knowledge, and outcome agreement cannot substitute for a contradicted or unresolved required claim. Deliberate withholding is also a separately evidenced act, not an automatic synonym for K ∧ D ∧ W.

## 15.3 World state and attributed account

```text
Established world proposition: R is true.
Attributed claim: Says(operator, the scoped closure, t0).
Attributed causal account: the counterpart's past removed the current option.
Established response conduct: G is true and E is false.
Separately assessed effects: belief, later action, recovery, and ultimate outcome.
```

The false content of an attributed assertion is not an accepted fact. In PAST-C, K/D/W additionally establish knowledge at the relevant opportunity and material withholding. Audience acceptance is not required.

## 15.4 Preference illustration

Let x and y be complete alternative courses of action under the same scope; x leaves the arrangement unchanged and y implements a remedy. Write x ≻ₒ y when operator o strictly prefers x to y. This is a preference relation over comparable alternatives, not arithmetic on an outcome and a remedy.

When preference and refusal are established, the account can be reconstructed as: x ≻ₒ y; y remains feasible; the operator refuses y while representing y as unavailable because of the counterpart's past. A later realization of x is a further outcome fact. Preference alone does not establish PAST, and PAST alone does not establish this preference.

---

# 16. The strictly closed classifier

### Three-valued evidence assessment

For each proposition, use **supported (TRUE)**, **contradicted (FALSE)**, or **unresolved (UNKNOWN)**. FALSE means the evidence establishes the negation, not merely that support is missing. Validate scope and dependencies first. Then:

\[
\operatorname{AND}_3(v_1,\ldots,v_n)=
\begin{cases}
\mathrm{FALSE} & \text{if any conjunct is FALSE},\\
\mathrm{TRUE} & \text{if all conjuncts are TRUE},\\
\mathrm{UNKNOWN} & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]

Negation exchanges TRUE and FALSE and preserves UNKNOWN. Thus unresolved engagement does not establish non-engagement. A contradicted required condition defeats the conjunction even when another condition is unresolved. Unresolved prerequisites and inconsistent dependent annotations trigger review before aggregation; review status is not a fourth truth value or a positive finding. This assessment algebra combines validated premises; it does not extract facts or replace inference over the source record.

| R | A | B | G | E | Structural assessment after dependency review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | FALSE | Supported PAST |
| TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | Contradicted PAST; meaningful engagement is established |
| TRUE | TRUE | UNKNOWN | TRUE | FALSE | Unresolved PAST |
| TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | UNKNOWN | Unresolved PAST |
| UNKNOWN | TRUE | FALSE | TRUE | FALSE | Contradicted PAST despite unresolved R |
| FALSE | TRUE | TRUE | TRUE | FALSE | Contradicted PAST; ensure K is not simultaneously supported |
| TRUE | FALSE | TRUE | TRUE | FALSE | Needs review: B entails A and the consequent is contradicted |
| TRUE | UNKNOWN | TRUE | TRUE | FALSE | Needs review: resolve A before the affected finding is assessed |

Return the base and concealment results separately. Supported PAST can coexist with unresolved or contradicted PAST-C. For records passing dependency review, a false base makes the conjunctive extension false; a false concealment condition can make PAST-C false while the base is unresolved. Review of an affected finding takes precedence over aggregation. Candidate retrieval labels and numerical retrieval scores are not classification or confidence levels.

The necessary conditions define the classification. “Mixed conduct” can describe other features of a response, but does not replace the strict FALSE result when E is TRUE or another required conjunct is FALSE.

---

# 17. Decision algorithm and reference code

## 17.1 Human-readable algorithm

1. Fix episode, actors, objective, remedy domain, constraints, response, and `t0`.
2. Establish R/A/B/G/E separately; identify K/D/W at the relevant disclosure opportunity.
3. Record supporting passages, counterevidence, and inference steps. Later success requires an earlier-feasibility bridge; an attributed claim is not automatically an established fact.
4. Review semantic dependencies and scope. A supported B with unresolved/contradicted A sends both findings for review; supported K with unresolved/contradicted R sends the modifier for review. A reviewer may record a conclusive prerequisite derivation and resubmit the annotation. The classifier preserves raw flags.
5. Apply the three-valued base and concealment conjunctions. Preserve both results.
6. Assess deliberate withholding, a particular protective relation, purpose, and success separately. Record initial suppression and later recovery at their respective times.

## 17.2 Executable assessment reference

This reference is a source-level combination of validated predicates. It is not an application implementation, text extractor, or empirical accuracy claim. Inputs must be exact enum members. A record with unresolved or inconsistent required implications returns needs_review for the affected finding instead of a truth assessment. Independent base findings remain available when only the concealment dependency needs review. Review status is separate from the three truth assessments; None marks no assessment while review is pending. Invalid input types raise TypeError.

```python
from enum import Enum


class Truth(Enum):
    TRUE = "supported"
    FALSE = "contradicted"
    UNKNOWN = "unresolved"


def require_truth(*values):
    if any(type(value) is not Truth for value in values):
        raise TypeError("Use Truth members; booleans, strings, and None are invalid")


def and3(*values):
    require_truth(*values)
    if any(value is Truth.FALSE for value in values):
        return Truth.FALSE
    if all(value is Truth.TRUE for value in values):
        return Truth.TRUE
    return Truth.UNKNOWN


def not3(value):
    require_truth(value)
    return {
        Truth.TRUE: Truth.FALSE,
        Truth.FALSE: Truth.TRUE,
        Truth.UNKNOWN: Truth.UNKNOWN,
    }[value]


def dependency_issue(values, antecedent, consequent):
    if values[antecedent] is not Truth.TRUE or values[consequent] is Truth.TRUE:
        return ()
    kind = ("inconsistent" if values[consequent] is Truth.FALSE
            else "unresolved_prerequisite")
    return ({"kind": kind, "requires": f"{antecedent} implies {consequent}"},)


def assessment_result(value, issues):
    return {
        "review_status": "needs_review" if issues else "ready",
        "value": None if issues else value,
        "issues": issues,
    }


def classify_episode(
    present_remedy,
    closure_asserted,
    retrospective_blame,
    agency_suppressed,
    remedy_engaged_meaningfully,
    knowledge=Truth.UNKNOWN,
    disclosure_opportunity=Truth.UNKNOWN,
    material_withholding=Truth.UNKNOWN,
):
    values = dict(R=present_remedy, A=closure_asserted, B=retrospective_blame,
                  G=agency_suppressed, E=remedy_engaged_meaningfully,
                  K=knowledge, D=disclosure_opportunity, W=material_withholding)
    require_truth(*values.values())
    # A reviewer establishes scope and any prerequisite derivations first.
    # Raw flags are never promoted or overwritten here.
    base_issues = dependency_issue(values, "B", "A")
    concealment_issues = base_issues + dependency_issue(values, "K", "R")
    past = None if base_issues else and3(
        values["R"], values["A"], values["B"], values["G"], not3(values["E"]))
    past_c = None if concealment_issues else and3(
        past, values["K"], values["D"], values["W"])
    return {
        "past": assessment_result(past, base_issues),
        "past_c": assessment_result(past_c, concealment_issues),
        "assessments": values,
    }
```

## 17.3 Particular protective-claim reference

This module uses the same Truth enum and and3 function. Its inputs are assessments of the named propositions, not counts of suggestive features. The general representational function follows the canonical base classification; the particular relation, intention, and success require their own complete conjunctions.

```python
def assess_protective_claim(
    *, past, interest_exists, remedy_alters_interest,
    account_protects_interest, purpose, success,
):
    require_truth(past, interest_exists, remedy_alters_interest,
                  account_protects_interest, purpose, success)
    relation = and3(past, interest_exists, remedy_alters_interest,
                    account_protects_interest)
    return {
        "representational_function": past,
        "particular_protective_relation": relation,
        "particular_protective_purpose": and3(relation, purpose),
        "successful_particular_protection": and3(relation, success),
    }
```

A conclusive text-grounded inference can establish a real participant's intention. This algebra combines such assessments; it does not manufacture intention from benefit or repetition.

---

# 18. Illustrative PAST trajectories

These are possible trajectories, not a formal state machine or a mandatory chronology. Assess response-level predicates and time separately; a complete episode need not contain every illustrative stage.

```text
Live remedy at t0
→ Remedy raised or relevant in context
→ Closure and retrospective blame (order can vary)
→ Response suppresses the option without meaningful engagement
→ Counterpart may accept closure, reject it, disengage, or verify
→ Remedy may be recovered, remain unused, or later become unavailable
```

PAST-C adds known remedy information, a relevant disclosure opportunity, and material withholding. A follow-up may elicit disclosure, continued withholding, a correction, or independent discovery. Only the actual record establishes which transition occurs.

Outcome capture is an additional finding: establish a particular preferred result, its realization, and the relevant protective relation. Neither the base maneuver nor its concealment extension entails that result. A rejected account can still instantiate the maneuver; later recovery does not erase established earlier suppression.

---

# 19. Counterfactual and diagnostic tests

These questions guide predicate assessment. No isolated lexical clue proves PAST; a single complete record can establish every required premise and therefore prove the scoped classification.

## 19.1 The present-remedy test

> **What exactly could still be done at `t0`?**

The answer must be concrete. “They could have been nicer” is too vague. “The photograph could still be submitted through the school office that day” is specific.

## 19.2 The honest-ownership test

Replace the impossibility claim with a direct preference statement:

> “It is too late” → “I do not want to change it.”

Establish whether the revised sentence describes an evidenced preference or refusal. A plausible paraphrase is not evidence by itself; even established refusal requires the remaining PAST predicates.

## 19.3 The past-removal test

Remove the backward-blame clause:

> “You should have said this Thursday.”

Then ask:

> **What present reason remains for refusing the remedy?**

If no independent constraint remains, the past may be performing the entire work of closure.

## 19.4 The cost-versus-impossibility test

Ask:

> **Is the remedy impossible, or merely inconvenient, costly, embarrassing, undesirable, or less ideal?**

Substantive engagement with the actual costs establishes E for that response. Treating cost as impossibility establishes false closure only when a meaningful remedy remains under those costs and constraints.

## 19.5 The disclosure test

Ask:

> **What information would allow the counterpart to act now, and was that information supplied when requested?**

Establish K/D/W and the base conjunction. Missing disclosure alone does not establish knowledge, materiality, or the whole maneuver.

## 19.6 The correction test

When the counterpart or a third party proves that the remedy exists, what happens?

- Record correction and reopened negotiation at their later time. They do not negate an established earlier intentional act. They inform an unresolved earlier assessment only when their content supports an inference about that earlier time.
- Record continued closure and its relation to what the operator then knew. Persistence can support a particular intention when the evidential connection is shown; it is not an automatic intent score.

## 19.7 The benefit-alignment test

Ask:

> **Does the alleged impossibility consistently preserve the operator’s preference or advantage?**

Compare repeated alignment with a specified competing explanation, sampling process, and roles. No universal probability baseline or automatic inference of purpose follows from repetition.

## 19.8 The independent-verification test

If verification establishes that the same scoped remedy existed at the assessed time, it refutes the corresponding closure claim. Recovery alone does not establish the operator’s earlier knowledge or material withholding. Record each additional premise explicitly.

## 19.9 The symmetric-treatment test

Would the operator treat the same delay as “still solvable” if the remedy favored the operator? Directional inconsistency may reveal preference disguised as principle.

## 19.10 The direct-question test

A direct question such as:

> “What exactly do we need to do to solve this now?”

creates a high-quality disclosure opportunity. Responding with past blame rather than remedy information is a strong interactional marker.

---

# 20. Mechanism: fabricated temporal impossibility

**Fabricated temporal impossibility** is the immediate mechanism at the center of PAST.

> **A still-live option is represented as unavailable because its supposed opportunity is located exclusively in the past.**

The mechanism may be explicit:

- “It is too late.”
- “There is no time anymore.”
- “Nothing can be changed now.”

Or implicit:

- “That was decided Thursday.”
- “Everything is already handled.”
- “It was supposed to be done in February.”
- “I already left.”
- “It is already scheduled.”

The word **fabricated** has two possible evidentiary uses.

## 20.1 Structural use

The closure is false under the established remedy scope. The record can separately leave the operator’s knowledge unresolved. An unsupported closure claim without an established remedy is not enough for supported PAST.

In this mode, “fabricated” describes the **constructed representation in the discourse**, not necessarily a consciously planned lie.

## 20.2 Intentional use

Intentional fabrication is established when the record establishes deliberate construction or maintenance of the false account. Knowledge of the remedy, deliberately selected withholding, admissions, and conclusive contextual relations can establish that act. Evidence must concern the relevant time and purpose. Benefit, access to information, later learning, or repetition alone does not prove deliberate fabrication.

State intentional conduct directly when the premises establish it. Assess a particular protective purpose and whether it succeeds separately.

## 20.3 Time as a counterfeit authority

PAST gives time an authority it does not actually possess. The earlier moment is treated as the only legitimate decision point. The present is stripped of status.

This may be called **temporal monopolization**:

> The operator treats one past opportunity as the exclusive point at which choice was permitted, even though meaningful choice persists.

## 20.4 The past as a moral weapon

The past does two jobs:

1. it allegedly explains why the remedy is gone;
2. the account can represent the loss as deserved; that normative representation requires its own textual evidence.

This combination makes the closure appear both factual and morally justified.

## 20.5 The mechanism in one line

> **The operator uses the past to counterfeit the end of present choice.**

---

# 21. PAST-C: the concealment modifier

**C stands for Concealment**, specifically concealment of the present remedy or of solution-relevant information.

> **PAST-C is supported PAST with knowledge of the scoped live remedy at a relevant disclosure opportunity and material withholding, evasion, or misrepresentation of its enabling information.**

## 21.1 Why PAST-C is more serious

PAST-C establishes K/D/W in addition to the structural maneuver. Those additional facts establish material withholding of a known remedy at a relevant opportunity. Assess deliberate selection, a particular protective purpose, and achieved obstruction separately.

The operator does not merely say:

> “No remedy exists.”

The operator also controls the information that would reveal:

> “A remedy does exist.”

## 21.2 The three mandatory concealment elements

### K — Knowledge

At the relevant withholding/disclosure opportunity, the text establishes knowledge of the remedy’s current availability or enabling information under the same scope. Evidence can establish knowledge of an open submission route, an available exception, or actionable requirements. Knowing merely that the status is incomplete or an objective unmet is insufficient. Access to information alone is not knowledge; later learning is not earlier knowledge. A retrospective admission can establish earlier knowledge when it actually states that earlier awareness.

### D — Disclosure opportunity

The operator had a relevant disclosure opportunity; a direct question is one route, for example:

- “Can this still be fixed?”
- “What do we need to do now?”
- “Was my item actually submitted?”
- “What exactly is missing?”
- “Who can we contact?”
- “Is the decision truly irreversible?”

### W — Material withholding

The operator:

- omits the remedy;
- gives only partial truth;
- uses vague reassurance;
- repeats closure;
- changes the subject;
- supplies blame instead of information;
- falsely describes status;
- denies access to verification;
- or misstates requirements.

## 21.3 Materiality threshold

W requires remedy-relevant information whose omission or misrepresentation materially affects the represented option or a practical route to it. Explain that relation; an actual belief change or final outcome is not required. Relevant relations include information that would have:

- changed the counterpart’s belief about feasibility;
- allowed immediate action;
- reopened negotiation;
- enabled verification;
- reduced harm or delay;
- exposed the operator’s preference as the real obstacle.

## 21.4 Material obstruction without a success assumption

PAST-C establishes a known live remedy, a relevant opportunity, and material withholding within supported PAST. The withheld information bears on the false closure; withholding does not entail that the counterpart remains unaware. Section 7 proves the invalidity of inferring nondiscovery from nondisclosure.

```text
The operator knows a live remedy at the relevant opportunity.
The operator materially withholds its enabling information.
The closure/backward-blame response suppresses the option without engagement.
Therefore, the scoped PAST-C conjunction is satisfied.
Independent discovery can still occur.
```

## 21.5 PAST-C and self-protection

The concealment supports the represented closure and suppresses a route to its correction. A particular preference, deliberate concealment, and actual preservation require their own premises. Disclosure can expose available agency without establishing that the operator had a particular private motive. When the record establishes that motive and its use, state the finding directly.

## 21.6 Sharp distinction

> **PAST presents a live option as closed because of the counterpart’s past. PAST-C adds material withholding of the known remedy at a relevant disclosure opportunity.**

---

# 22. Forms of remedy concealment

Concealment is not limited to silence.

## 22.1 Total omission

The operator does not mention the live remedy at all.

## 22.2 Partial truth

The operator supplies a fact that is technically true but materially incomplete:

> “It was supposed to be submitted in February.”

The omitted fact is:

> “It can still be submitted now.”

## 22.3 Misleading reassurance

The operator says:

- “Everything is all right.”
- “It is solved.”
- “Do not worry.”
- “I handled it.”

The status language can misleadingly represent completion while the objective remains incomplete. Identify the intended scope from the record; actual confidence or reliance is a separate effect.

## 22.4 Status substitution

The operator answers a question about outcome with a label about process:

- Asked: “Was my photograph submitted?”
- Answered: “The picture issue is solved.”

The response sounds responsive but does not supply the requested fact.

## 22.5 Blame substitution

The operator answers a remedy question with accusation:

- Asked: “What can we do now?”
- Answered: “You should have done this months ago.”

Blame replaces solution-relevant information.

## 22.6 False deadline

The operator implies that a deadline eliminated the remedy when the deadline was flexible, extendable, irrelevant, or not actually passed.

## 22.7 Exception suppression

A general rule is stated while a known exception, appeal, workaround, or alternative route is omitted.

## 22.8 Gatekeeping

The operator controls contact details, documents, passwords, institutional access, transportation, or permissions required to exercise the remedy.

## 22.9 Semantic narrowing

The operator defines “solved” according to the operator’s objective rather than the shared or counterpart objective.

For example, “the picture issue is solved” may mean only “I submitted my picture,” while the counterpart reasonably understands it to mean “all required pictures were submitted.”

## 22.10 Repetition as concealment

Repeatedly saying “it is already solved” can become a concealment technique when repetition prevents the conversation from reaching the missing fact.

## 22.11 Evasive overload

The operator supplies many peripheral details about the past, making it difficult to isolate the simple present question.

## 22.12 Contradictory specificity

The operator is highly specific about the counterpart’s past fault but vague about current options. This asymmetry can be evidentially important.

---

# 23. Evidence for intention: separate claims and direct findings

Intention is established by evidence, in real records and fiction alike. An explicit admission is one evidential route; a valid inference from established contextual premises is another. Neither recurrence nor a confession is universally required. Do not treat the following distinctions as an ordinal confidence scale or automatic ladder.

| Claim | Required evidence and appropriate expression |
|---|---|
| Structural maneuver | R/A/B/G/¬E. “This exchange establishes PAST.” |
| Remedy knowledge | Awareness of the scoped remedy at the relevant opportunity. “The operator knew the remedy was available then.” |
| Foreseeability | Evidence that the specified effect was foreseeable under the actor’s information. Do not equate foreseeability with chosen purpose. |
| PAST-C | Supported base plus K/D/W. “This exchange establishes PAST-C.” |
| Deliberately selected withholding | Evidence that withholding or misrepresentation was deliberately performed. “The operator intentionally concealed this remedy information.” |
| Particular protective purpose | Evidence that the act was used to protect the specified interest or prevent the specified action. State that purpose directly. |
| Observed success | Evidence that the specified protected result or obstruction actually occurred. Knowledge and purpose do not entail success. |

Evidence can include contemporaneous statements, retrospective admissions about the assessed time, demonstrated selective conduct, and contradictions whose relevant premises are established. Being involved in a process, having access to information, benefiting, or repeating a claim does not alone establish knowledge or deliberate purpose.

A complete single exchange can establish a deliberate act and its purpose. When a record states that the operator knew the remedy, chose to withhold its requirements, and did so to maintain the false closure, those premises establish intentional concealment. When a record supplies only benefit or ambiguous omission, leave the specific mental-state claim unresolved. Later honest correction can establish a change in conduct; it does not cancel a proved earlier deliberate act.

The correct writing rule is: **state the supported conclusion, show its premises, and mark only the genuinely missing claims unresolved.**

---

# 24. Relationship to DARVO

**DARVO** stands for **Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender**. Jennifer J. Freyd introduced the term to describe a response that may occur when a wrongdoer is confronted or held accountable. Subsequent research has examined exposure to that response, victim self-blame, credibility judgments, DARVO use, and measurement. Patterna distinguishes the **complete DARVO response** from the broader family defined in the [canon](DARVO_FAMILY_CANON.md).

**PAST is a temporal maneuver within the DARVO family.** FATE is a causal and evidential maneuver within the same family. Their family membership is canonical; a complete DARVO response must be assessed against its own conditions.

## 24.1 Deny

The central denial concerns a meaningful present option and associated agency. Further denials can accompany it and must be identified from the record:

- denial that a present option remains;
- denial that the operator has present agency;
- denial that the operator is making a choice;
- denial of the counterpart’s solution-seeking intention;
- denial of present responsibility;
- in PAST-C, denial or concealment of remedy information.

The denial is not limited to “that event did not happen.” It is denial of the actual structure of the current decision.

## 24.2 Attack / blame

The attack is often retrospective and moralized:

- “You should have acted earlier.”
- “You caused this.”
- “You never told me.”
- “You missed the chance.”
- “This is your fault because you delayed.”

The counterpart's past is made responsible for the asserted present impossibility. This adverse attribution supplies the family-level blame operation. A separate attack used to disqualify the counterpart or claim is required for the complete DARVO response.

## 24.3 Reverse

The core reversal concerns represented agency and responsibility:

- the operator currently blocking or concealing the remedy appears constrained;
- the counterpart seeking the remedy appears responsible for the blockage.

The operator may also be represented as suffering from the counterpart's past conduct or unreasonable demands. Those further role assignments must be evidenced; appearing constrained does not by itself establish the operator-as-harmed predicate of the complete response.

## 24.4 The precise relationship

```text
Supported PAST establishes DARVO-family membership.
Supported FATE establishes DARVO-family membership.
Neither alone establishes the complete DARVO response.
The complete DARVO response does not automatically establish PAST or FATE.
```

PAST specializes the family's temporal mechanism: present feasibility is distorted through a past-causal account. It can occur outside a confrontation about wrongdoing and without representing the operator as the victim. The complete response requires all its linked conditions, including both represented roles. Co-occurrence with FATE or the complete response concerns the same scoped incident, not pooled findings from unrelated exchanges.

## 24.5 Canonical family membership

The canonical family organizes three shared operations and their protective orientation:

- denial suppresses an accountability-relevant fact or relationship;
- blame or disqualification is directed at the counterpart;
- reversal reorganizes represented agency, contribution, or responsibility;
- the distorted account protects the operator's represented position.

Use **“PAST is a temporal maneuver within the DARVO family.”** This inclusion is Patterna's organizing definition; it does not supply missing evidence for an incident or transfer empirical findings about the complete response to every family member. Specific interests, knowledge, intention, and successful protection retain separate evidential treatment.

## 24.6 The difference in one contrast

> **The complete DARVO response rewrites who harmed whom. PAST rewrites whether anything can still be done—and then uses that represented closure to decide who is blamed. Both belong to the DARVO family.**

## 24.7 Current empirical context

The empirical DARVO literature does not validate PAST, but it provides relevant context for studying defensive blame reversal. Research has reported associations between DARVO exposure and victim self-blame, effects on perceived victim and perpetrator credibility, associations between self-reported DARVO use and victim-blaming attitudes or sexual harassment perpetration, and a 2026 short-form DARVO measure associated with trauma-related symptoms after controlling for trauma history.

These findings justify investigating whether PAST can be reliably distinguished as a narrower temporal mechanism. They do not establish the validity, prevalence, or effects of PAST itself.

---

# 25. Textual and linguistic indicators

No phrase proves PAST on its own. The following markers identify candidate passages.

## 25.1 Closure lexicon

- already solved;
- already handled;
- already decided;
- settled;
- finished;
- over;
- too late;
- no time;
- nothing can be done;
- cannot be changed;
- the deadline passed;
- that was the agreement;
- it is already scheduled;
- the opportunity is gone.

## 25.2 Backward-blame lexicon

- you should have;
- if you had;
- because you did not;
- you waited;
- you never told me;
- you failed to ask;
- you missed the chance;
- you should have said it before;
- this is what happens when you delay;
- you had your opportunity.

## 25.3 Temporal anchors

- Thursday;
- February;
- before I left;
- last week;
- months ago;
- when we first discussed it;
- before the deadline;
- at the time;
- earlier.

The specific past date can create an appearance of objective finality even when it has no present causal force.

## 25.4 Passive and impersonal constructions

- “It was decided.”
- “It cannot happen.”
- “There is no way.”
- “That is already done.”
- “The matter is closed.”

These constructions omit the current decision-maker.

## 25.5 Vague reassurance

- “Everything is fine.”
- “It is taken care of.”
- “Do not worry.”
- “I settled it.”

Reassurance is PAST-relevant when it conceals a materially incomplete objective and prevents inquiry.

## 25.6 Counterfactual moralization

“If only you had…” can be used to understand causation. In PAST, it is used to justify refusing an available present correction.

## 25.7 Temporal absolutism

An earlier preferable time is treated as the only possible time.

## 25.8 Question-answer mismatch

- Question: current feasibility.
- Answer: past fault.

This mismatch is one of the clearest pragmatic indicators.

## 25.9 Repeated non-answer

The counterpart asks the same remedy-focused question multiple times, while the operator repeats closure or blame without supplying the missing fact.

## 25.10 Selective detail

The operator provides precise detail about when the counterpart failed but vague or no detail about what can be done now.

## 25.11 Modal substitution

- Asked: “Will you?”
- Answered: “It cannot be done.”

A question about willingness receives an answer about possibility.

## 25.12 Status ambiguity

Words such as “solved,” “handled,” or “done” are used without specifying whose objective has been completed.

---

# 26. Interactional sequence indicators

Analyze linked response sequences. These examples are retrieval patterns, not mandatory stages or substitutes for the canonical conjunction.

## 26.1 Illustrative sequence

```text
1. Counterpart asks about a present problem.
2. Operator gives closure language or reassurance.
3. Counterpart notices missing information and asks again.
4. Operator introduces a past missed opportunity.
5. Counterpart asks what can be done now.
6. Operator repeats closure, blame, or evasion.
7. Counterpart abandons the remedy or independently verifies it.
8. A remedy is later shown to have existed.
```

## 26.2 Illustrative PAST-C sequence with later recovery

```text
Direct remedy question
+ operator knowledge
+ nonresponsive closure
+ past blame
+ withheld enabling information
+ later independent discovery
```

Later discovery is not a concealment requirement; a complete initial record can establish K/D/W without it.

## 26.3 Repair resistance

Responses to clarification provide additional conduct to assess. Record whether clarification produces:

- renewed blame;
- a new reason for impossibility;
- topic shifting;
- anger at verification;
- denial of the newly established facts;
- minimization of the omitted information;
- insistence that the issue was “still already solved.”

## 26.4 Moving closure

A moving closure occurs when one impossibility claim is disproved and another appears:

1. “It is too late.”
2. Proof shows it is not too late.
3. “It is too inconvenient.”
4. A workaround is offered.
5. “You should not be asking after what you did.”

The shifting rationale suggests that the stable element is not the constraint but the operator’s refusal.

---

# 27. Computational and annotation heuristic

Separate candidate retrieval, evidence extraction, and assessment. A retrieval heuristic ranks passages. A validated predicate record supports conclusive logical aggregation under §17. Extraction reliability and broader system performance require evaluation in the actual configuration; no blanket incapacity or accuracy claim follows from this source specification. Application integration remains a separate implementation.

## 27.1 Required annotation objects

For each episode, extract:

1. present decision point;
2. proposed or discoverable remedy;
3. evidence of feasibility;
4. closure statement;
5. past-blame statement;
6. operator engagement or non-engagement;
7. agency effect;
8. knowledge and disclosure evidence;
9. operator benefit or preference evidence;
10. later correction or verification.

## 27.2 Candidate detection features

### Lexical features

- closure terms;
- “already” constructions;
- “too late” terms;
- “should have / if you had” terms;
- explicit past dates;
- impossibility modals.

### Semantic features

- present-remedy question;
- response does not answer current feasibility;
- response substitutes past criticism;
- later text confirms remedy existed;
- stated reason describes inconvenience rather than impossibility.

### Interaction features

- repeated question;
- repeated non-answer;
- status reassurance followed by discovered incompletion;
- contradiction after third-party verification;
- persistence after correction.

## 27.3 Retrieval-only score

The following weights are an unvalidated work-queue ordering heuristic. They are not probabilities, confidence scores, diagnostic scales, or PAST/PAST-C decision thresholds. A high retrieval rank cannot supply missing K/D/W or override a contradicted core condition. Feature flags mean “this retrieval feature was detected,” not “this analytical predicate is true.” Unknown feature detection defaults to absent for ranking only and leaves analytical evidence unresolved.

## 27.4 Strict retrieval reference

```python
RETRIEVAL_WEIGHTS = {
    "present_remedy_supported": 2,
    "closure_language": 2,
    "backward_blame": 2,
    "current_question_past_answer_mismatch": 2,
    "present_agency_suppressed": 2,
    "vague_reassurance": 1,
    "passive_agency_masking": 1,
    "remedy_later_succeeded": 2,
    "direct_question_nonanswer": 2,
    "operator_knowledge_supported": 2,
    "material_concealment": 2,
    "genuine_irreversible_constraint": -3,
    "preference_or_cost_stated_transparently": -2,
    "remedy_meaningfully_negotiated": -2,
}


def candidate_score(features):
    unknown_keys = set(features) - set(RETRIEVAL_WEIGHTS)
    if unknown_keys:
        raise ValueError(f"Unknown retrieval features: {sorted(unknown_keys)}")
    if any(type(value) is not bool for value in features.values()):
        raise TypeError("Retrieval feature flags must be booleans")
    return sum(weight for name, weight in RETRIEVAL_WEIGHTS.items()
               if features.get(name, False))
```

The possible range is −7 through 20, including negative totals. Sort candidates by this score only when that heuristic serves the retrieval task; use no bands labelled “strong PAST” or “strong PAST-C.” Later success is a retrieval cue, not proof of earlier feasibility. The legacy feature name `genuine_irreversible_constraint` retrieves constraint evidence; a constraint excludes PAST only if the analytical assessment establishes R false under the full remedy scope.

## 27.5 Extraction evaluation targets

Evaluate the actual extractor and configuration on:

- unstated feasibility;
- sarcasm;
- missing context;
- genuine deadlines;
- practical costs;
- conflicting reports;
- indirect knowledge;
- fictional narration;
- who controls the remedy;
- whether “solved” is materially misleading.

Measure error and unresolved rates against reviewed evidence annotations. Route scope/dependency conflicts for review. The reference conjunction is deterministic once valid premise assessments are supplied; successful aggregation is not proof of accurate extraction.

---

# 28. Worked examples

The provenance of the original illustrative material is **unknown**. It is neither verified corpus evidence nor known to be fictional/anonymized. The original episode and dialogue wording is preserved below. Original “hidden statements” and “PAST conversions” are retained as analytical reconstructions, not participant quotations or additional facts. Newly added complete variants are explicitly constructed. Article case studies await the anonymized corpus.

## 28.1 Example A — Missing school photograph

### Original illustrative episode — provenance unknown

The counterpart asks whether required photographs were submitted. The operator says that everything is “all right” and “already solved.” The operator does not say that the counterpart’s photograph was not submitted. When questioned again, the operator says the photograph should have been sent months earlier. The counterpart later contacts the institution, learns that the photograph can still be submitted, and submits it.

**Assessment of the original material.** Provenance is unknown; this is original illustrative material, not verified conversation evidence. Later successful submission establishes later availability. Earlier availability requires a continuity or retrospective bridge. Blaming the missing photograph on late submission does not, by itself, establish that the alleged present closure was attributed to that fault. The meaning of “solved” must be established against the counterpart’s objective.

| Predicate/claim | Current assessment of the abbreviated original |
|---|---|
| R at the initial inquiry | Unresolved without the earlier-feasibility bridge |
| A | Candidate closure language; its scope requires interpretation |
| B | Unresolved linkage between the cited past fault and the alleged present closure |
| G and E | Establish suppression and absence of substantive engagement for the selected response, not assumed audience belief |
| K/D/W | Assess separately; knowledge of missing submission does not establish knowledge of a remedy |
| Base and modifier | No positive finding from the abbreviated record; unresolved pending missing premises and dependency review |

The original material does not establish that the operator preserved the final result; the described counterpart eventually submits. Recovery does not erase an earlier maneuver if its premises are established, but cannot supply those premises retroactively without a bridge.

### Original analytical reconstructions — not additional evidence

> “Your photograph is not there. It can still be submitted, but I did not submit it and I am not helping you do so now.”

> “The picture issue is solved. You should have submitted your photograph in February.”

The first reconstruction includes feasibility and refusal that must be independently established. Reassurance can function as misleading closure when its scope is established; it does not prove actual audience belief. The operator’s private purpose and final success remain separate.

### Original illustrative alternative

> “Your photograph was not submitted. It was originally due in February, but the school may still accept it. Let us confirm the current procedure.”

This acknowledges an unmet objective and opens verification without asserting feasibility that is not yet established in that speaker’s account.

**Explicitly constructed complete variant A+ (new in this revision).** These are stipulated illustrative facts and invented dialogue, not an anonymized corpus record.

- Scope: counterpart’s missing photograph, institution’s current upload route, 14:00 today, the stated submission conditions.
- Stipulated evidence: the institution accepts the counterpart’s valid photograph through its current upload link until 17:00; the counterpart has the photograph and access. At 13:55 the operator read and understood those current requirements. The route remains open throughout the assessed response.

```text
Counterpart, 14:00: My photograph is missing. Can I still submit it today?
What link or requirement would let me do that?
Operator, 14:01: No option remains for your photograph now because you
should have sent it in February. I will not answer questions about
submitting it today. That discussion is closed.
```

The stipulated facts establish R and K at the relevant opportunity. The response establishes A, B, G, and ¬E; the question establishes D; withholding the known actionable link while representing every option as gone establishes W. **This constructed exchange establishes PAST and PAST-C.** No audience acceptance, recurrence, private preferred result, or successful obstruction is required. If the counterpart later obtains the link and submits, that recovery coexists with the earlier maneuver. A particular protective purpose requires its own evidence.

---

## 28.2 Example B — New Year’s Eve schedule

### Original illustrative episode — provenance unknown

A couple previously agreed to divide Christmas between two families. One partner assumed New Year’s Eve would also be divided. At approximately 7 p.m., both family locations remained reachable and there was time for a compromise. The operator says the evening will occur only at the operator’s family home. When the counterpart proposes dividing the remaining hours, the operator says the plan was decided on Thursday and the counterpart should have raised the issue then.

The episode states a practical compromise remains, supporting R within its illustrative scenario. A prior Thursday decision does not alone establish a universal present-closure claim; the interpretation must show that it is used to exclude current alternatives. The record must also establish G and ¬E in the assessed response. The prior confident annotation supplied these interpretations without spelling out their evidential bridge. Do not infer an actually obtained desired evening from a stated preference.

### Original analytical reconstructions — not additional evidence

> “I prefer to remain here and do not want to divide the evening.”

> “It was decided Thursday. You should have said something then. There is no time now.”

“There is no time now” is part of the original reconstruction, not an extra line silently added to the original episode. Use B+ below for an explicitly complete positive case.

### Original illustrative alternative

> “We misunderstood each other. It is still possible to divide the evening, but I prefer to stay here because changing plans now would be inconvenient. Let us discuss whether that cost outweighs the compromise.”

**Explicitly constructed complete variant B+ (new in this revision).** At 19:00, the parties can reach both locations and implement the specified split before the agreed end time, with the stated travel costs acceptable under the scenario’s constraints. These feasibility facts are stipulated; no travel estimate is inferred from a clock time alone.

```text
Counterpart: We can still divide the remaining hours. Will you discuss
that option now?
Operator: Nothing can be changed now because you should have raised
this on Thursday. I will not discuss any current alternative.
```

R is established by the stipulated logistics. The response asserts closure, attributes it to past conduct, blocks remedy discussion, and supplies no meaningful engagement: A/B/G/¬E are supported. **This constructed exchange establishes PAST.** Knowledge, material withholding, a preferred outcome, and actual success are not supplied by the construction and remain separately assessed.

---

## 28.3 Example C — The light left on

### Original illustrative episode — provenance unknown

The counterpart repeatedly asks what would allow an immediate decision to be changed. The operator says the counterpart should have spoken before the operator left home because a light was left on and the operator now needs to return. The light creates a competing task or inconvenience, but the text does not establish that it makes the requested action impossible.

**Assessment of the original material.** The absence of proof that the light makes the alternative impossible is not proof that an alternative is feasible. The original record does not specify a complete route, timing, and constraints; R remains unresolved. Do not call the real obstacle “mere preference” or assert a deliberate refusal from this gap. If no other required conjunct is contradicted, the strict finding remains unresolved after dependency review. The original preserves a useful unresolved case.

### Original analytical reconstruction — not additional evidence

> “You should have told me before I left. Now I have to go back, so nothing can be changed.”

### Original illustrative alternative, conditional on actual feasibility

> “Changing the plan is still possible, but I need to return home first, and that creates a cost.”

This is an honest alternative only if its feasibility claim is true under the actual constraints; the original abbreviation does not establish that fact.

**Explicitly constructed contrast C+ (new in this revision).** The light can be switched off during a ten-minute stop, after which the stated alternative remains feasible within the same time, safety, and travel constraints. The counterpart proposes that exact route. The operator answers:

```text
You should have told me before I left. Now I have to go back, so nothing
can be changed. I will not discuss that route or any current alternative.
```

These stipulated facts and this response establish R/A/B/G/¬E, so **C+ establishes PAST**. In the contrasting C− construction, an established binding constraint excludes every meaningful route at `t0`; R is false and PAST is contradicted. The mere existence of a return trip proves neither construction.

---

## 28.4 Example D — An already scheduled elective action

### Original illustrative episode — provenance unknown

A character responds to concerns about the timing or risk of an elective action by saying, “It is already scheduled.”

Scheduling establishes a prior commitment, not impossibility. If this is the complete response and there is no backward attribution, B is false and PAST is contradicted. If it is an excerpt, omitted context remains unresolved.

The original illustrative lines below are preserved. Their assessments require the complete response and stated feasibility conditions; they are not newly discovered corpus quotations.

| Original illustrative wording | Assessment under the specified complete-response scope |
|---|---|
| “It is scheduled, and I prefer to proceed.” | No backward attribution; PAST contradicted. |
| “It is scheduled, but postponement is possible. Here are the costs.” | Meaningful engagement is stipulated; E true, PAST contradicted. |
| “It is scheduled, so we cannot reconsider it.” | No backward blame in this complete response; PAST contradicted, even if another closure mechanism is established. |
| “You should have objected when it was scheduled; now nothing can be changed,” despite present feasibility. | A/B and stipulated R; complete a positive constructed variant by explicitly establishing G and ¬E rather than silently presuming them. |
| Same statement while concealing a known cancellation or postponement option after direct questions. | Establish the base and same-time K/D/W. With those premises complete, PAST-C is supported. |

---

## 28.5 Minimal dialogue

### Original illustrative material — provenance unknown

```text
Counterpart: Can this still be changed?
Operator: No. You should have told me on Thursday.
Evidence: The change remains practically available at t0.
```

For a complete constructed positive variant, stipulate that this is the full assessed response, it dismisses the live option and ends remedy negotiation, and no meaningful engagement occurs. Under these explicit premises, R/A/B/G/¬E establish PAST.

The original extension is retained:

```text
Counterpart: What exactly would we need to do now?
Operator: Repeats the blame and withholds the known requirement.
```

In a complete constructed extension, the operator knows at this opportunity that the requirement enables the same live remedy, and withholding it is material. With the supported base, K/D/W establish PAST-C. The construction supplies stated premises rather than pretending they were original evidence.

---

## 28.6 Counterexample — Genuine deadline

### Original illustrative dialogue — provenance unknown

```text
Counterpart: Can the application still be filed?
Operator: No. The portal closed yesterday, the agency confirms no exceptions,
and neither of us has authority to reopen it. I wish we had filed earlier.
```

The operator’s reported agency confirmation is an attributed claim, not independently established closure. R is unresolved from that claim alone. The complete wording also does not attribute closure to the counterpart’s fault; B is false on that scope, independently contradicting PAST.

**Explicitly constructed unavailable-remedy variant.** Stipulate that every route in the specified application domain is closed at `t0`, including exceptions and alternatives, and that the operator’s constraint report is accurate. R is then false and PAST is contradicted. Neither a portal closure alone nor a reported assertion proves this universal fact.

---

## 28.7 Counterexample — Honest refusal

### Original illustrative dialogue — provenance unknown

```text
Counterpart: We can still divide the evening.
Operator: Yes, we can. I do not want to because I am exhausted and changing
locations would cost us two hours. I know that disappoints your family.
```

For the complete response shown, backward attribution of alleged closure is absent. The speaker acknowledges an option, owns refusal, and offers costs for discussion. B is false; if the discussion is meaningful, E is true as well. Either validated contrary requirement suffices to contradict PAST. Whether the refusal is fair is a separate question.

---

# 29. Differential classification and exclusions

A useful construct must specify what it is not.

| Neighboring pattern | Why it is not necessarily PAST |
|---|---|
| **Genuine temporal impossibility** | The remedy is truly unavailable and the constraint is accurately stated. |
| **Honest refusal or preference** | The speaker acknowledges the option and owns unwillingness. |
| **Transparent cost-based objection** | The remedy exists, but costs, risks, or tradeoffs are openly discussed. |
| **Ordinary retrospective accountability** | Past fault is discussed while the current remedy is also engaged. |
| **Simple omission** | Information is missing, but there is no closure assertion or backward blame. |
| **Premature closure without blame** | A live option is closed, but the counterpart’s past is not made the cause. |
| **Stonewalling** | The speaker refuses discussion without constructing a past-caused impossibility. |
| **Decision freezing** | “It was already decided” is treated as sufficient, but no backward blame appears. |
| **Commitment escalation** | Prior investment is used to justify continuation, but present feasibility is not necessarily falsified or blamed on the counterpart. |
| **Mistaken temporal belief** | The operator incorrectly believes the remedy is gone; intentionality requires more evidence. |
| **Boundary-setting** | A person may decline a request and state a present boundary without denying feasibility or shifting blame. |
| **Complete DARVO response without PAST** | Denial, attack, and role reversal occur without manipulation of current temporal feasibility. |
| **Past-caused genuine constraint** | Established constraints exclude every meaningful remedy in the assessed domain at t0; one irreversible barrier to one route is insufficient. |
| **Technical possibility without meaningful feasibility** | An option exists in theory but is unsafe, unlawful, prohibitively costly, or ineffective. |

## 29.1 The most important exclusion

> **PAST cannot be established merely because someone says “too late” and blames delay. The analyst must establish that a meaningful present remedy still existed.**

## 29.2 Past fault may be true

A key safeguard is:

> **The counterpart may genuinely have failed earlier, and the operator may still be performing PAST now.**

PAST does not require the past accusation to be false. It requires an evidenced live remedy and the full A/B/G/¬E configuration. Past fault alone does not entail closure; an unsupported inference alone does not establish a false conclusion.

## 29.3 Unfairness is not sufficient

A direct, unfair refusal is not PAST if it accurately acknowledges the live option. PAST specifically represents a meaningful present option as closed because of past conduct and suppresses its consideration. Refusal and preference are separately evidenced configurations.

---

# 30. From isolated episode to abusive pattern

PAST classifies an episode-level communication maneuver. A particular abusive act and a sustained control pattern have their own criteria. One complete exchange can establish an act; recurrence, direction, power, knowledge, and impact can establish additional pattern-level claims when supported.

## 30.1 Pattern-strengthening features

A repeated series is more concerning when:

- the false closure consistently benefits the same operator;
- the counterpart’s remedies are repeatedly discoverable only through independent verification;
- the operator controls key information, documents, access, schedules, transportation, money, or institutional contacts;
- direct remedy questions repeatedly receive blame rather than answers;
- the operator persists after correction;
- the operator becomes hostile when the counterpart verifies facts;
- the alleged rules are applied asymmetrically;
- the counterpart’s costs accumulate;
- the operator’s preferences repeatedly override shared welfare;
- the operator avoids admitting preference or responsibility in each episode.

## 30.2 The directional asymmetry test

A directional pattern can be recorded descriptively:

```text
False closure repeatedly protects operator preference
and repeatedly limits counterpart agency.
```

Directional benefit does not by itself establish strategy. Specify competing explanations, actor roles, exposure, sampling, and dependence before any probabilistic inference. Stable role differences, correlated errors, or selective inclusion can produce asymmetry without deliberate selection. Connect benefit evidence to established knowledge and conduct rather than assuming a uniform random-error baseline.

## 30.3 The repair-resistance test

Record responses to correction and assess their evidential relation to knowledge and deliberate conduct. Repair resistance is additional evidence, not a necessary property of every established controlling act.

Evidence includes:

- rejecting proof without engagement;
- inventing a new closure reason;
- escalating blame after correction;
- punishing verification;
- refusing to disclose requirements;
- rewriting the earlier exchange;
- claiming the remedy “does not count” after it succeeds.

## 30.4 The self-over-others interpretation

In any evidence-grounded analysis, a complete episode or linked series can establish the following claims when their particular premises are present:

- prioritizes a preferred outcome over the interests or welfare of others;
- conceals the preference rather than negotiating it;
- suppresses others’ ability to act;
- transfers blame and cost outward;
- protects self-image and control at the expense of shared reality.

This is a strong behavioral interpretation. It should not be converted automatically into a psychiatric diagnosis.

## 30.5 Relationship to narcissistic-style behavior

PAST may be compatible with narcissistic-style dynamics such as:

- entitlement to preferred outcomes;
- resistance to accountability;
- self-image protection;
- externalization of blame;
- instrumental treatment of others’ agency;
- concealment of self-serving motives;
- low willingness to negotiate costs imposed on others.

However, none of these observations establishes narcissistic personality disorder. The same communication sequence can occur in many personalities and contexts.

## 30.6 Separately assessed properties of abusive conduct

The following are properties to establish when relevant to a particular act or pattern. They are not a support-count threshold, and recurrence is not necessary for a conclusive act-level finding. The conclusion must state its own required premises. Assess whether the conduct is:

- repeated;
- intentional or knowingly maintained;
- used under a power imbalance;
- materially harmful;
- resistant to correction;
- accompanied by information control;
- accompanied by punishment, intimidation, isolation, or retaliation;
- used to systematically reduce the counterpart’s autonomy.

---

# 31. Hypothesized functions and effects

These sections distinguish particular relations that a case can establish from population effects proposed for testing. A supported case can establish a specific outcome or purpose. Frequency, prevalence, general effects, and effect sizes require corresponding empirical studies; no universal outcome follows from the classifier.

## 31.1 Functions for the operator

### Preserve the preferred outcome

The operator obtains X while avoiding negotiation over Y.

### Avoid present accountability

The operator does not have to admit refusal, preference, concealment, or control.

### Preserve self-image

The operator appears constrained, practical, or victimized rather than self-serving.

### Maintain decision authority

The operator controls whether the matter remains open.

### Preserve plausible deniability

The operator can later claim merely to have described timing or logistics.

### Control information

In PAST-C, the operator materially withholds a relevant route to recognizing or using the remedy; independent knowledge and recovery remain possible.

### Reverse causal responsibility

The person blocking the remedy appears powerless; the person seeking it appears responsible.

## 31.2 Effects on the counterpart

### Reduced perceived agency

The counterpart may stop proposing or pursuing available remedies.

### Misplaced self-blame

The counterpart may believe a current loss is entirely caused by an earlier failure.

### Cognitive diversion

Attention moves from solving the present to reconstructing and defending the past.

### Verification burden

The counterpart may incur verification work when the relevant facts are not already available; measure or establish that work rather than assuming it.

### Learned futility

Repeated false closure may teach the counterpart that problem-solving is pointless or punished.

### Epistemic dependence

When the operator controls information, the counterpart may become dependent on the operator’s account of what is possible.

### Temporal confusion

The counterpart may struggle to separate:

- what should have happened;
- what did happen;
- what can still happen.

### Emotional destabilization

Blame plus hidden feasibility may create guilt, urgency, confusion, and distrust of one’s own judgment.

## 31.3 System-level effects

In family, institutional, workplace, or caregiving contexts, repeated PAST may:

- distort joint decision-making;
- undermine informed consent;
- interfere with coordination;
- generate preventable costs;
- isolate the counterpart from third-party information;
- normalize unilateral action;
- make records and timelines sites of control.

---

# 32. Coding protocol and evidence standards

## 32.1 Episode segmentation

Include:

- the initiating problem or question;
- the operator’s closure statement;
- the counterpart’s follow-up;
- the past-blame statement;
- any remedy-focused question;
- any later verification, correction, or successful action.

## 32.2 Define `t0`

State the exact moment, assessed response, actors, objective, remedy domain, and constraints. Feasibility can change over time; knowledge belongs to the relevant disclosure opportunity. A different time requires a supported continuity or retrospective bridge, or a separate assessment.

## 32.3 Specify the remedy

Describe the concrete action, not a general wish.

Good:

> “Submit the photograph through the school office that afternoon.”

Weak:

> “Fix the problem somehow.”

## 32.4 Establish feasibility evidence

Acceptable evidence includes:

- later successful performance with an explicit continuity or retrospective bridge to feasibility at t0;
- established authoritative confirmation, distinguished from a participant merely claiming that confirmation occurred;
- explicit admission;
- documented policy;
- clear timing and logistics;
- the operator’s own contradictory behavior when the contradiction is demonstrated under the same scope.

An attributed assertion does not automatically establish its content. Explicit and conclusive contextual evidence have equal standing; document the inferential bridge.

## 32.5 Record closure language

Quote or closely paraphrase the exact words.

## 32.6 Record backward blame

Identify both:

- the past conduct cited;
- the claimed causal link to present closure.

## 32.7 Record engagement

Code one:

- engaged;
- partially engaged;
- omitted;
- ignored;
- dismissed;
- misrepresented;
- unknown.

## 32.8 Record suppression and later recovery separately

Record G for the assessed response: what option was dismissed, concealed, or blocked, and at what time. Separately record whether the counterpart accepted the closure, whether discussion later reopened, whether a remedy was recovered, and the ultimate outcome, each with evidence and time. A subsequent recovery does not erase established earlier suppression. Mere attempted persuasion without demonstrated suppression does not automatically establish G.

## 32.9 Assess PAST-C separately

Record:

- knowledge of the live remedy at the relevant opportunity, not merely later awareness;
- disclosure opportunity;
- withheld information;
- material consequence;
- persistence after questioning or correction.

## 32.10 Assess preference and benefit

For the deeper thesis, record:

- apparent preferred outcome;
- how the remedy threatens it;
- how closure benefits the operator;
- whether the benefit repeats across episodes.

## 32.11 Record alternative explanations

Assess competing explanations that remain admissible under the established premises, including where relevant:

- genuine deadline;
- misunderstanding;
- false belief;
- memory error;
- safety constraint;
- proportional cost;
- incomplete narrative;
- legitimate boundary;
- third-party restriction.

## 32.12 Assign findings and review status

| Finding | Evidence rule |
|---|---|
| Supported PAST | The scoped R/A/B/G/¬E conjunction is supported after dependency review. |
| Contradicted PAST | A required conjunct is contradicted after dependency review. |
| Unresolved PAST | No required conjunct is contradicted and at least one is unresolved. |
| PAST-C | Independently report the assessment of the base with K/D/W; a complete single episode is sufficient. |
| Needs review | A dependent annotation has an unresolved or contradicted prerequisite, or the scope is not coherent. Review before aggregating the affected finding. |
| Particular protective relation/purpose/success | Assess the corresponding necessary premises separately. No evidence count can compensate for a false or missing requirement. |
| Retrieval candidate | A work item for assessment, not a positive finding or confidence grade. |

Explicit and contextual evidence are judged by premise support and inference validity. A conclusive contextual deduction is not “moderate confidence” merely because its conclusion was not confessed. Preserve uncertainty only where the record or derivation actually leaves a claim unresolved.

## 32.13 Reliability principle

> **A coder must be able to point to evidence for each required element. A compelling overall impression is not a substitute for a complete code.**

When coders disagree, ask which element lacks shared evidence—especially present feasibility, meaningful engagement, or knowledge.

---

# 33. Suggested annotation schema

## 33.1 Human coding form

| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Episode and message identifiers | Stable IDs and exact source passages |
| Provenance | Original record / reported account / constructed / unknown; preserve distinctions |
| Scope | Operator, counterpart, assessed response, t0, objective, remedy domain, and practical constraints |
| R/A/B/G/E | Separate supported/contradicted/unresolved assessments with evidence and derivation |
| K/D/W | Separate assessments at the relevant disclosure opportunity and same remedy scope |
| Dependency review | B⇒A and K⇒R reviewed; conflicts or unresolved prerequisites routed for review |
| Initial suppression | Response act and time, distinct from audience acceptance |
| Later recovery | Evidence and time; unknown if not recorded |
| Deliberate withholding | Separate act assessment and evidence |
| Particular interest and protective relation | Identified interest and necessary connection to the account |
| Protective purpose | Separate evidence-supported assessment |
| Observed success | Separate outcome assessment; no automatic derivation from purpose |
| Findings | Base and PAST-C, each with review status and assessment |
| Alternatives and counterevidence | Admissible alternatives, contrary facts, and missing premises |
| Pattern links | Related episode IDs; no pooling of missing predicates across unrelated incidents |

## 33.2 Machine-readable original-case assessment

The JSON below assesses original illustrative Example A rather than silently converting it into a complete positive case. Provenance remains unknown. Later submission does not establish earlier feasibility by itself. The original intent-level integer is removed in favor of separate knowledge, deliberate-act, purpose, and outcome assessments. Serialized strings require explicit conversion to Truth members before calling the Python reference; the reference intentionally rejects raw strings.

```json
{
  "definition_version": "PAST extended 2.1",
  "episode_id": "ORIGINAL-ILLUSTRATION-A",
  "provenance": "unknown",
  "scope": {
    "operator": "operator",
    "counterpart": "counterpart",
    "t0": "initial inquiry; exact timestamp not supplied",
    "objective": "submit the counterpart's missing photograph",
    "remedy_domain": "meaningful current submission routes",
    "constraints": "incompletely specified",
    "assessed_response": "initial closure and past-blame exchange"
  },
  "present_remedy": "submit missing photograph to school",
  "later_evidence": [
    "institution later accepted submission",
    "counterpart later submitted successfully"
  ],
  "missing_bridge": "establish that the same route was available at the initial inquiry",
  "closure_text": "Everything is already solved",
  "blame_text": "You should have sent it in February",
  "assessments": {
    "R": "unresolved", "A": "unresolved", "B": "unresolved",
    "G": "unresolved", "E": "unresolved", "K": "unresolved",
    "D": "supported", "W": "unresolved"
  },
  "findings": {
    "past": {"review_status": "ready", "value": "unresolved"},
    "past_c": {"review_status": "ready", "value": "unresolved"}
  },
  "operator_preferred_outcome": {"value": "unresolved"},
  "deliberate_withholding": {"value": "unresolved"},
  "protective_purpose": {"value": "unresolved"},
  "initial_suppression": {"value": "unresolved", "time": "initial inquiry"},
  "later_recovery": {"value": "supported", "time": "later submission", "scope": "original illustrative scenario"},
  "successful_obstruction": {"value": "contradicted", "scope": "preventing the eventual submission in the original illustrative scenario"},
  "note": "Ready means no flagged dependency inconsistency, not that the record is complete or verified. This is illustrative assessment, not corpus evidence."
}
```

For the explicitly constructed A+ variant, the input assessments are R/A/B/G/K/D/W supported and E contradicted. Both findings are supported after review. Any purpose or success assessment must still refer to its own stipulated or evidenced premise.

## 33.3 Pattern-level record

Aggregate frequency, duration, context, direction, access to information, correction responses, recovery methods, and cumulative outcomes across linked episodes. Preserve episode-level findings and gaps. A repeated pattern is an additional conclusion with its own evidence; aggregation cannot manufacture a missing premise for one episode.

---

# 34. Research program and testable hypotheses

The definitions and deductive results are stated above. The following program tests annotation reliability and specified population-level effects; these empirical tasks do not condition the validity of the proofs or established cases.

## 34.1 Phase 1 — Construct refinement

- assemble a corpus containing genuine impossibility, direct refusal, ordinary blame, decision freezing, PAST, and PAST-C;
- include both positive and difficult negative cases;
- have independent coders classify each variable;
- track disagreements by element;
- refine definitions without using knowledge of desired outcomes.

## 34.2 Phase 2 — Inter-rater reliability

Test agreement for:

- present feasibility;
- closure;
- backward blame;
- remedy engagement;
- agency suppression;
- knowledge;
- disclosure opportunity;
- material withholding;
- operator benefit.

If coders cannot reliably distinguish meaningful feasibility from imaginable possibility, revise the coding procedure before making reliability or deployment-readiness claims. That evaluation does not negate the remedy-witness proof or a separately established case.

## 34.3 Phase 3 — Vignette experiments

Use two comparisons with explicit manipulated facts.

**Framing with feasibility fixed.** Hold the objective, available remedy, practical constraints, and relevant actor knowledge constant. Compare direct refusal, transparent cost discussion, and a false closure/backward-blame response. These contrasts vary framing while the remedy remains available.

**Disclosure within an available-remedy scenario.** Specify what the operator, counterpart, and observer know. Compare an ordinary PAST condition without the additional concealment facts against a condition establishing K/D/W, or explicitly manipulate disclosure while holding operator knowledge fixed. PAST-C entails PAST, so “PAST versus PAST-C” requires operationally distinguished conditions. State that the contrast includes the information/disclosure manipulation rather than claiming all facts are identical.

**Separate feasibility comparison.** Compare an available remedy against a genuinely unavailable remedy under explicitly different constraints. An accurate impossibility statement belongs in the unavailable-remedy condition. This tests sensitivity to feasibility, not a pure framing effect under constant facts.

Preserved illustrative response wording:

| Condition | Response |
|---|---|
| Direct preference with available remedy | “It can still be changed, but I do not want to change it.” |
| Separate genuinely unavailable-remedy condition | “The institution closed submissions, and no exception exists.” |
| False closure with available remedy | “It is too late because you should have done it in February.” |
| Concealment manipulation | Same false closure plus known actionable information withheld after a relevant question. |
| Transparent costs with available remedy | “It can be changed, but doing so will cost two hours and a fee.” |

Measure perceived feasibility, responsibility, operator/counterpart agency, self-blame, problem-solving, coercion, confusion, trust, and verification behavior. Predefine each contrast and which actor/observer facts differ.

## 34.4 Proposed hypotheses

- **H1:** PAST will reduce observers’ estimates that a present remedy remains available compared with direct refusal, even when facts are identical.
- **H2:** PAST will shift causal responsibility toward the counterpart’s past conduct and away from the operator’s present choice.
- **H3:** PAST will reduce perceived present agency for the counterpart.
- **H4:** PAST will reduce attributed agency to the operator while the operator retains actual decision control.
- **H5:** In the specified disclosure comparison, the PAST-C condition will have stronger effects than the base condition without those additional concealment features, mediated by reduced access to corrective information.
- **H6:** Repeated PAST will produce greater learned futility and self-blame than a single episode.
- **H7:** PAST effects will be stronger when the operator controls exclusive solution-relevant information.
- **H8:** The effects of PAST will be mediated by perceived inevitability.
- **H9:** The effects of PAST will be mediated by reduced recognition of the operator’s present preference.
- **H10:** Explicit education separating past fault from present feasibility will reduce PAST’s influence.
- **H11:** Persistence after correction will increase perceived intentionality and deception.
- **H12:** Directionally self-benefiting PAST across multiple episodes will be judged more controlling than randomly distributed false closure.
- **H13:** Question-answer mismatch will be a reliable linguistic marker of PAST-C candidates.
- **H14:** Transparent cost-based objections will be judged less manipulative than impossibility claims, even when both produce the same outcome.
- **H15:** PAST will explain variance in perceived coercion beyond generic hostility or negativity.

## 34.5 Validity questions

| Validity domain | Question |
|---|---|
| Reliability | Can coders agree on scoped R/A/B/G/E/K/D/W and dependency review? |
| Convergent validity | Does PAST correlate with blame shifting, information control, DARVO exposure, or coercive-control measures? |
| Discriminant validity | Can PAST be distinguished from genuine deadlines, refusal, stonewalling, and retrospective criticism? |
| Predictive validity | Does repeated PAST predict reduced problem-solving, greater self-blame, or increased dependence on independent verification? |
| Incremental validity | Does PAST explain effects beyond conflict intensity, negativity, or hostility? |
| Ecological validity | Does the sequence appear in naturalistic dialogue and reports? |
| Cross-context validity | Does it generalize across family, workplace, institutional, and fictional settings? |
| Mechanism validity | Are effects mediated by perceived impossibility, agency erasure, and blame transfer? |

## 34.6 Claim-specific evaluation and counterevidence

- Low agreement about feasibility challenges the annotation procedure and its reliability claim.
- Failure to distinguish the defined predicates from neighboring cases challenges the operationalization or a particular annotation, which must be reviewed against its premises.
- If backward blame adds no measured explanatory value beyond negativity, that challenges the corresponding incremental-effect hypothesis.
- If concealment conditions do not differ in the specified outcomes, that challenges the corresponding H5 effect or mediation hypothesis, not the definitional distinction between base and modifier.
- If hostility or conflict severity explains the measured effects, revise the associated effect/mechanism hypotheses.
- If the response does not alter perceived agency or responsibility in the sampled setting, report that result for the tested perception hypotheses.

The witness proof remains valid, and a closed case remains established, when an unrelated population effect is absent. Definitions, deductions, case findings, empirical reliability, general effects, and deployment performance are distinct claims with distinct evaluation targets.

---

# 35. Ethical and interpretive safeguards

## 35.1 Match each conclusion to its criteria

Assess a particular abusive act, a sustained coercive pattern, and a diagnostic conclusion against their own criteria. One complete episode can establish a particular act. A PAST label alone supplies no missing premise for those further conclusions, and repetition is not a universal prerequisite for an act-level finding.

## 35.2 Require meaningful feasibility

Do not code PAST because a remedy is imaginable. Establish that it was practically relevant at `t0`.

## 35.3 Separate fault from feasibility

The counterpart may have made a real earlier mistake. The analytic issue is whether that mistake actually removed the present option.

## 35.4 Record costs and risks

A remedy can be technically available but unreasonable or unsafe. Honest disclosure of real constraints is not PAST.

## 35.5 Distinguish structure from intention

Assess structure, knowledge, deliberately selected conduct, and purpose separately. Establish intention from the relevant explicit or conclusive contextual premises. Generic knowledge, benefit, persistence, or access alone does not establish every mental-state claim.

## 35.6 Preserve counterevidence

Record facts that weaken the preferred interpretation. A useful construct must survive adversarial testing.

## 35.7 Avoid gendered attribution

Use operator and counterpart. The maneuver is not inherently associated with a sex, parental role, or demographic group.

## 35.8 Treat reports as reports

In real-world submissions, distinguish:

- what the reporter directly observed;
- what the reporter inferred;
- what a third party confirmed;
- what remains disputed.

## 35.9 Do not use the acronym as a verdict

The code is an analytical shorthand, not proof of legal wrongdoing or clinical disorder.

## 35.10 Separate logical findings from subsequent decisions

Subsequent institutional or professional decisions have their own standards and purposes. Do not introduce external corroboration as a universal prerequisite for a logical finding when a self-contained record already establishes every required premise.

## 35.11 Strong language should follow strong evidence

It is appropriate to call a textually demonstrated concealment intentional when the character knows the remedy, is directly asked, and withholds it to preserve the false closure. It is not appropriate to infer the same level of purpose from one ambiguous sentence.

---

# 36. Publication-ready formulations

## 36.1 Formal definition of PAST

> **The PAST maneuver is a temporal maneuver within the DARVO family in which the operator represents a meaningful present remedy as temporally closed, attributes that alleged closure to the counterpart’s past conduct, and suppresses present agency concerning the option without meaningfully engaging it.**

## 36.2 Formal definition of fabricated temporal impossibility

> **Fabricated temporal impossibility is the false representation that time has removed a meaningful option that remains available under the same objective, remedy domain, constraints, and decision time. Deliberate construction is separately established; costs belong in the feasibility assessment.**

## 36.3 Formal definition of PAST-C

> **PAST-C is the PAST maneuver with concealment: the operator knows or is shown to know a present remedy, has a relevant opportunity to disclose it, and withholds, evades, or misrepresents the remedy while maintaining closure and retrospective blame.**

## 36.4 Core self-protection thesis

> **PAST is a self-protective temporal maneuver that hides present agency behind false closure attributed to the counterpart's past conduct. The account protects the operator's represented position by making current choice appear externally constrained. A particular preferred outcome, deliberate concealment, transferred cost, and successful protection require their own evidence.**

## 36.5 Extended thesis paragraph

> PAST is a temporal maneuver within the self-protective DARVO family. The operator represents a meaningful present option as unavailable and attributes the alleged closure to the counterpart's past conduct, suppressing consideration of current agency. The account makes the operator appear constrained and the counterpart responsible for the impasse. Particular preferences, knowledge, purpose, and achieved protection require their own evidence. PAST-C adds supported knowledge of the remedy, a relevant disclosure opportunity, and material withholding.

## 36.6 DARVO relationship paragraph

> PAST and FATE are maneuvers within the DARVO family. PAST denies available present agency, directs blame backward, and reverses represented responsibility through false present closure. FATE obscures material contribution and uses the outcome to vindicate misleading blame. Their shared family membership does not establish a complete DARVO response; that configuration requires its own linked denial, disqualifying attack, paired victim–offender representation, and supported responsibility distortion.

## 36.7 Plain-language definition

> A solution still exists. The character presents it as unavailable, suppresses its consideration, and makes the other person responsible for a past omission that did not actually eliminate the present option. The record must separately establish any particular preference or deliberate purpose.

## 36.8 Sharp formulations

> **PAST represents a live present option as a past-caused impossibility and suppresses its consideration.**

> **PAST uses the past to counterfeit the end of present choice.**

> **In an established refusal configuration, the operator converts “I will not” into “we cannot because you did not.”**

> **The maneuver protects the self’s freedom to choose while denying that the self is choosing.**

> **The response suppresses current agency and transfers represented responsibility backward. The counterpart’s acceptance or later action is separately observed.**

> **Where desire and refusal are established, PAST recodes them as necessity and impossibility while assigning blame backward.**

## 36.9 PAST-C formulation

> **PAST-C is supported PAST plus knowledge of the scoped live remedy at a relevant disclosure opportunity and material withholding, evasion, or misrepresentation of its enabling information. Independent discovery can defeat the account without undoing the maneuver.**

## 36.10 Pattern-level formulation

> **When repeated, directionally self-benefiting, and resistant to correction, PAST can function as a control pattern: the same character repeatedly determines what is supposedly possible, obtains the preferred outcome, conceals the present choice, and makes others responsible for the costs.**

---

# 37. Quick-reference card

**Canonical classification:** PAST is the temporal maneuver within the DARVO family; FATE is its causal and evidential maneuver. Supporting either does not supply missing conditions for the complete DARVO response. Specific interests, knowledge, intention, and success remain separately assessed.

## PAST in one line

> **A live present option is falsely framed as closed, the closure is blamed on the other person’s past conduct, and present problem-solving is shut down.**

## The acronym

| Letter | Question |
|---|---|
| **P** | Does a meaningful remedy still exist now? |
| **A** | Is the matter represented as solved, settled, too late, impossible, or already decided? |
| **S** | Is that alleged closure blamed on what the counterpart did or failed to do earlier? |
| **T** | Are both G (suppression) and ¬E (no meaningful engagement) established for the same response? |

## PAST-C

| Element | Question |
|---|---|
| **K** | Did the operator know this scoped remedy was available at the relevant disclosure opportunity? |
| **D** | Was there a relevant disclosure opportunity? |
| **W** | Was the remedy materially withheld or misrepresented? |

```text
PAST = R AND A AND B AND G AND NOT E
Mnemonic: P=R; A=A; S=B; T=G AND NOT E
PAST-C = PAST AND K AND D AND W
```

## The deepest logic

The following trajectory adds an evidenced preference, deliberate concealment, and successful outcome capture to the base maneuver. Those additional findings are not prerequisites for PAST.

```text
I want X.
Y remains possible.
I refuse or suppress Y.
I conceal that refusal.
I say Y is impossible because you failed earlier.
I obtain X and make you responsible for the result.
```

## Three fastest analytic questions

1. **What can still be done now?**
2. **Does the response honestly address that option?**
3. **Or does it replace the present question with past blame and closure?**

## Minimum evidence for publication

Quote or establish:

1. the present remedy;
2. the closure statement;
3. the backward-blame statement;
4. demonstrated suppression in the assessed response;
5. established absence of meaningful engagement in that same response.

For PAST-C, also establish:

6. knowledge at the relevant opportunity;
7. disclosure opportunity;
8. material concealment.

After dependency review, any false conjunct defeats the strict conjunction; otherwise all must be supported for a positive finding. Preserve separate base and modifier assessments.

---

# 38. Glossary

| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| **Agency asymmetry** | The operator retains actual agency while denying it; the counterpart loses practical agency while receiving blame. |
| **Agency laundering** | Transformation of a present preference or refusal into an apparently impersonal consequence of time or circumstance. |
| **Backward blame** | Assignment of responsibility to the counterpart’s earlier conduct for an alleged present closure. |
| **Causal responsibility laundering** | Removal of the operator’s present action from the causal story and substitution of the counterpart’s past fault. |
| **Closure assertion** | Language representing a matter as solved, settled, impossible, too late, or beyond negotiation. |
| **Concealed remedy** | Solution-relevant information known to the operator but withheld or misrepresented when it could enable present action. |
| **Counterpart** | The character seeking information, negotiation, verification, correction, or a remedy. |
| **DARVO family** | The canonical family of self-protective maneuvers that distort represented agency, contribution, or responsibility through denial, counterpart-directed blame or disqualification, and reversal. |
| **Complete DARVO response** | The specific linked denial, disqualifying attack, and paired victim–offender reversal; its supported assessment also establishes answerability and material distortion. |
| **Decision freezing** | Treating a prior decision or schedule as self-enforcing without necessarily adding backward blame. |
| **Denial cascade** | The core denial of feasibility and suppression of agency, with further denials of preference, intent, negotiability, responsibility, or remedy information where separately established. |
| **Fabricated temporal impossibility** | Representation of a live option as unavailable because its supposed opportunity is located only in the past. |
| **FATE** | The DARVO family's causal and evidential maneuver: obscured material contribution and reuse of a matching outcome to vindicate misleading blame. |
| **Material omission** | Withholding information with a demonstrated material relation to understanding or using the remedy; successful ignorance or obstruction is separately assessed. |
| **Modal conversion** | Transformation of unwillingness (“will not”) into impossibility (“cannot”). |
| **Operator** | The character performing the PAST sequence. |
| **Outcome capture** | Obtaining or preserving a preferred result by presenting it as inevitable rather than chosen. |
| **PAST** | The DARVO family's temporal maneuver: Present remedy remains; Assert closure; Shift blame backward; Terminate present agency. |
| **PAST-C** | PAST with knowledge at the relevant opportunity, relevant disclosure opportunity, and material withholding of remedy information; purpose and success separate. |
| **Present agency** | Capacity to perceive, choose, negotiate, verify, or implement a live option now. |
| **Present remedy** | A current action capable of correcting, changing, preventing, or mitigating the outcome. |
| **Remedy suppression** | Communication that prevents or delays recognition or use of a present remedy. |
| **Retrospective blame** | Blame directed to a past act or omission and used to explain alleged present closure. |
| **Self-protective agency concealment** | Representing present choice as externally constrained, preserving the operator's claimed position; a particular interest, knowledge, purpose, and successful protection require separate evidence. |
| **Status substitution** | Answering a concrete outcome question with an ambiguous label such as “solved” or “handled.” |
| **Temporal displacement** | Movement of the conversation from current feasibility to a past missed moment. |
| **Temporal monopolization** | Treating one past opportunity as the only legitimate decision point despite continuing present feasibility. |
| **Temporal non sequitur** | The unsupported inference from past fault to present impossibility. |
| **Volition-to-constraint conversion** | Recasting “I do not want to” as “it cannot be done.” |

---

# 39. References

The references below ground the discussion of DARVO. **PAST, fabricated temporal impossibility, PAST-C, self-protective agency concealment, agency laundering, and outcome capture are project-defined terms and are not attributed to these authors.**

Durland, M. L., Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2026). Assessing perpetrator responses to confrontation: Associations with a DARVO-SF and posttrauma symptoms in two different populations. *Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 27*(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2025.2599757

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

Harsey, S. J., Adams-Clark, A. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2024). Associations between defensive victim-blaming responses (DARVO), rape myth acceptance, and sexual harassment. *PLOS ONE, 19*(12), e0313642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313642

Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2020). Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO): What is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility? *Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29*(8), 897–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695

Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2023). The influence of Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender and insincere apologies on perceptions of sexual assault. *Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38*(17–18), 9985–10008. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231169751

Harsey, S. J., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: DARVO and victim self-blame. *Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26*(6), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1320777

Freyd, J. J. (n.d.). DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Freyd Dynamics Lab, University of Oregon. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

---

# 40. Version 2.0 change log

Historical record of the original Version 2.0 expansion of Version 1.0, before canon alignment. Its earlier family description is superseded by the current canon; the list records what that version introduced:

1. **Self-protective agency concealment** as the deep functional logic.
2. **Outcome capture** as the result of disguising preference as inevitability.
3. The **modal conversion** from “I will not” to “we cannot.”
4. **Causal responsibility laundering** and **agency asymmetry**.
5. The four protections of the self: preference, control, image, and accountability.
6. The outward transfer of practical, cognitive, emotional, and verification costs.
7. The **dual distortion of intention**: concealment of the operator’s preference and misrepresentation of the counterpart’s problem-solving intent.
8. An expanded eight-layer denial cascade.
9. A formal preference model and world-state/message-state distinction.
10. A state-machine representation.
11. Ten counterfactual and diagnostic tests.
12. A detailed account of concealment forms within PAST-C.
13. A five-level evidence ladder for intention.
14. A refined account of PAST as a proposed temporal subroutine of DARVO.
15. Computational candidate features and a nonvalidated screening heuristic.
16. Expanded worked examples and honest-alternative contrasts.
17. Pattern-level criteria for a stronger abuse or control interpretation.
18. A full annotation schema and machine-readable example.
19. Additional hypotheses focused on self-protection, agency attribution, and directional benefit.
20. An updated DARVO reference list including the 2026 DARVO-SF publication.

---

# 41. Version 2.1 correction record

12 September 2026. This source revision preserves the original Version 2.0 history and canon-alignment record while correcting the active content:

- one scoped PAST conjunction and the exact T = G ∧ ¬E mnemonic crosswalk;
- strict three-valued assessment with separate dependency-review status and base/modifier outputs;
- proved remedy-witness and past-fault results, corrected concealment inference, and separate temporal suppression/recovery;
- remedy-specific knowledge at the relevant opportunity, with independent intention, protective relation, and success findings;
- illustrative trajectories and evidence-qualified preference/outcome accounts;
- retrieval-only scores, corrected original-example assessments, explicit constructed positive/negative variants, and provenance preservation;
- consistent JSON, evidence parity for conclusive contextual reasoning, and conclusion-specific single-episode rules;
- correctly separated framing/feasibility comparisons and claim-specific empirical evaluation.

The appended [review resolution record](PAST_SOURCE_REVIEW.md#source-correction-status--12-september-2026) reports source-level verification. This document does not assert application adoption or population validation.

---

## End note

The central contribution of the framework is not the observation that people sometimes blame the past. It is the identification of a more exact sequence:

> **A present remedy exists. The operator denies its present availability, suppresses consideration of current agency, and makes the counterpart's past the cause of an alleged impossibility. This temporal maneuver belongs to the DARVO family. Where knowledge, disclosure opportunity, and material withholding are established, PAST-C also applies.**

The logic is therefore simultaneously temporal, modal, causal, interpersonal, and self-protective.

> **PAST makes an available present option appear lost to the past and assigns that supposed loss to the counterpart.**