Analytical Audit Register

Purpose

This register distinguishes three separate accomplishments:

1. Propositional analysis — claims extracted, normalized, assigned permanent IDs, and indexed.
2. Documented analytical examination — labelled tension audits, scope checks, or paragraph/section-level review narratives appear in the research record.
3. Independently verified audit — a separate, traceable check of relevant source passages and the applicable methodology has been completed, recorded, and signed off at the stated scope.

Completion of one does not establish completion of another. A heading count demonstrates documentation coverage only, not accuracy, adequacy, logical soundness, or independent human verification.

Current Coverage — October 28, 2026

The following is a repository-source inventory, updated from the earlier October 14 snapshot. It does not certify that every line has been independently reviewed.

Source	Formal audit headings	Documented status
Foreword	0	Opening 0:0.1–0:0.6 plus Sections I–XII through 0:12.14 compared: 604 IDs; one hundred thirteen open findings; first-pass coverage complete, editorial reconciliation and independent certification pending
Papers 1–5	0 each	Analysis complete; retrospective audits needed
Paper 6	0	9 tension-audit blocks (Introduction and Sections 1–8); independent audit unverified
Paper 7	0	Analysis complete; retrospective audit needed
Paper 8	7	Introduction and Sections 1–6 have audit documentation; independent certification not established
Paper 9	6	Introduction, Sections 1–4 and Section 8 documented; check Sections 5–7
Paper 10	0	In progress: 44 propositions through 10:1.2; five bounded paragraph assessments

Each row distinguishes existing analytical work from formally labelled audit documentation. For an individual paper's proposition count and detailed progress, follow the Master Proposition Index.

Count convention: The formal-heading column counts explicit Introduction/Section — Analytical Audit headings in committed paper pages. A separate tension audit or a paragraph-specific audit is reported in the adjacent column rather than silently treated as equivalent. Number of headings does not measure quality or constitute certification.

What changed since October 14: Paper 6's existing tension-audit blocks are now disclosed separately. Paper 10 now appears with its exact registered scope. Paper 8 and Paper 9 retain the previously noted counts of seven and six formal audit headings. No retrospective audit was represented as newly completed merely by updating this table.

Independent audit certification: This register does not yet establish an independently verified, full-paper audit for any listed source. This statement concerns the certification evidence in this register, not whether previous analytical work had merit.

Automatic Repository Integrity Check (Installed October 28)

The Atlas repository now includes a read-only, repeatable bookkeeping check, scripts/atlas-qc.mjs.

Run from the project root:

npm run qc:atlas

A machine-readable report is available with npm run qc:atlas:json.

For in-progress Paper 10 and later papers, the script checks sequential, unique proposition IDs; correspondence between permanent IDs and Master Index links; registration counts on the paper page; sidebar links to each registered paragraph; and the matching proposition count on this audit-register page. A mismatch exits with an error rather than silently accepting stale documentation.

The check also reports, but does not retroactively change, classification vocabulary outside the published core legend (AQ-001) and the legacy logic-build commands pointing to an absent tracked file (AQ-002).

A GitHub Actions workflow, Atlas research integrity, is configured to execute these checks on relevant pushes and pull requests. Execution verified: GitHub Actions run #2 completed successfully on October 28, 2026, validating the 44 registered Paper 10 IDs, their five paragraph-entry links, and the audit-row count. AQ-001 and AQ-002 were reported as warnings, not resolved. The workflow reports failed checks, but does not by itself prevent direct commits; mandatory branch-protection rules have not been established.

Limits of automation: Passing this check establishes only the consistency of named repository records. It does not validate the canonical text against editions, prove proposition completeness or logical consistency, check the accuracy of classifications, independently audit all papers, verify human reviews, or certify scientific claims. The currently frozen Foreword and Papers 1–9 are deliberately not made subject to a new retroactive ID-rewriting rule; those records need separately documented retrospective audits.

Canonical-Order Retrospective Audits — Now Underway

The Retrospective Audit Program now starts at the Foreword and moves forward in the source's original order. This does not repeat or renumber the original proposition analysis.

Documented bounded comparisons: Foreword opening and Sections I–XII through 0:12.14. The full frozen register UB-FWD-P001–UB-FWD-P604 was source-mapped: four opening findings (RA-FWD-001–004), fourteen Section I (RA-FWD-005–018), seven Section II (RA-FWD-019–025), eleven Section III (RA-FWD-026–036), ten Section IV (RA-FWD-037–046), eight Section V (RA-FWD-047–054), nine Section VI (RA-FWD-055–063), seven Section VII (RA-FWD-064–070), seven Section VIII (RA-FWD-071–077), six Section IX (RA-FWD-078–083), six Section X (RA-FWD-084–089), twelve Section XI (RA-FWD-090–101), and twelve Section XII (RA-FWD-102–113). All 113 remain OPEN, not human-approved corrections. The opening and all Sections I–XII received AI-assisted first-pass source comparisons, not independent human certification. No canonical Foreword unit remains pending a first-pass comparison; reconciliation, cross-paper checks and controlled closeout remain outstanding.

Editorial reconciliation initiated, NOT certified: The Foreword decision worklist proposes bounded interpretations for high-risk cases. The exhaustive priority ledger classifies all 113 OPEN findings into 33 P1 / 41 P2 / 39 P3, with one editor-approved interpretive reading (RA-FWD-096, October 28, 2026) and zero formal finding closures. The approved reading preserves the narrator's claimed deduction as enthymematic / formally underdetermined unless an additional metaphysical bridge is justified; it grants no proof of soundness or contradiction. No original Foreword proposition, tension disposition, classification, or public evidence status was changed.

The formal-heading count for the frozen Foreword document remains zero: these retrospective audit notes live in separate files to preserve approved source records. Do not confuse the new audit-page documentation with independent human verification of the Foreword.

Required Analytical Checkpoints

Each retrospective or new section audit must evaluate or explicitly mark out of scope:

1. Canonical source coverage and paratext exclusions
2. Proposition atomicity, completeness, and permanent-ID integrity
3. Lexical meaning, universal quantifiers, exceptions, and scope
4. Narrator attribution and epistemic or modal qualifications
5. Jurisdiction, referents, and descriptive levels
6. Temporal, eternal, and counterfactual qualifications
7. Cross-proposition dependencies and other-paper references
8. Apparent tensions and genuinely supported reconciliation attempts
9. Formal contradiction testing under identical relevant predicates and scope
10. Unresolved issues, documented limits, disposition, and human-review scope

Open Quality-Control Exceptions — Not Quietly Resolved

AQ-001 — Classification code vocabulary drift

The published Propositional Logic Methodology provides a finite classification legend (including LOG, THEO, COS, HIST, SCI, MOR, REV, and META). Some older and newer paper records additionally use codes such as DEF, REL, ONT, EPI, PERS, CAU, and MOD as classification components, without a matching complete classification legend.

Disposition: OPEN — controlled vocabulary reconciliation required. Until reviewed, these should not be presented as universally validated categories. Determine whether each code is a separately defined subtype, an assertion-mode term, or an unsupported classification. Preserve frozen wording and permanent IDs; any correction requires the documented reconciliation procedure. New analysis should prefer defined classifications and put epistemic/relational details in their own notes unless a code is formally adopted.

AQ-002 — Declared validation scripts missing from tracked source

The tracked package.json lists commands logic:validate, logic:preview, and logic:build invoking scripts/logic-build.mjs; the inspected GitHub tree does not contain that file.

Disposition: OPEN — build-script dependency/repository tracking check required. This does not prove the hosted website is broken or that no local script exists. It means those declared CLI checks cannot be assumed runnable from a fresh checkout. Do not claim that the repository's declared logic-validation command has run successfully until its implementation is present and tested.

AQ-003 — Formal audit coverage does not advance automatically with proposition registration

Documented paragraph review blocks in Paper 10 did not trigger an update of this register. The October 14 snapshot therefore fell behind the registered Paper 10 work.

Disposition: AUTOMATED BOOKKEEPING CHECK INSTALLED; INITIAL WORKFLOW RUN VERIFIED PASSING (2026-10-28). Paper 10 and later paper updates are checked against the Master Index, sidebar, and this ledger using npm run qc:atlas. This is a reporting control, not a branch-protection rule. A passing run does not imply a completed independent audit. Continue to update the audit-disposition narrative at substantive section milestones.

Audit Status Definitions

Analysis Complete: The paper's registered propositional analysis has reached its approved end. This is not the same as audit verification.

Documented: An explicitly labelled analytical review exists. Its methodological completeness remains subject to verification.

Verified: The audit has been checked against the applicable methodology and source material, with reviewer identity or review method, scope, evidence, date, and disposition recorded.

Partial: Only part of the relevant source has the requisite documented checks.

Retrospective Review Required: Earlier analysis exists, but equivalent formal audit documentation has not been established.

Preservation Rule

Previously frozen papers and permanent proposition identifiers must remain unchanged during retrospective auditing. New findings and code-vocabulary exceptions belong first in this separate register.

Any necessary changes to frozen material require explicit reconciliation, documented justification, validation, and a new archival snapshot. A newly written status note is not evidence that those steps have occurred.

Next Audit Priorities

1. Conduct a controlled Foreword first-pass closeout review of the 113 open findings, with special attention to modal strength, the Universal-Absolute deduction's missing bridging premise, and the bracketed author-attribution/paratext boundary in 0:12.14. Do not certify whole-Foreword consistency without review.
2. Reconcile the 113 open Foreword findings (four opening, fourteen Section I, seven Section II, eleven Section III, ten Section IV, eight Section V, nine Section VI, seven Section VII, seven Section VIII, six Section IX, six Section X, twelve Section XI and twelve Section XII) only after the appropriate human review; protect all existing permanent IDs.
3. Advance retrospectively through Papers 1–7 once the Foreword's units have received their source-level audits.
4. Verify the specific nature and coverage of Paper 9 Sections 5–7; do not equate missing headings with missing reasoning.
5. Establish a full-section audit record for Paper 10 before marking that paper complete; continue its existing ongoing proposition work.
6. Resolve classification vocabulary under AQ-001 and the missing-script issue under AQ-002 through separate controlled procedures.

Related Resources

• Canonical-order Retrospective Audit Program
• Foreword Retrospective Audit — Opening Findings
• Master Proposition Index
• Paper 6 Analysis
• Paper 8 Analysis
• Paper 9 Analysis
• Paper 10 — Work in Progress
• Human Editorial Review