# Overclaim Ontology, grounding axis (DRAFT) # Reasoning-environment reliability checks: "warning lights" for when your # thinking-with-an-LLM has become unreliable, independent of any single claim. # # Attribution: distilled from WillowEmberly's "AI Grounding Principles" and the # Negentropic Reasoning Protocol (NRP) failure-mode taxonomy, shared openly on # r/Negentropy / r/PromptEngineering (OCAP is CC0). Credit the Negentropy work. # # Some of these are evaluated across the whole passage or across restatements, # not on a single sentence; definitions note where that applies. version: 0.1.0-draft pack: grounding attribution: "WillowEmberly / Negentropy (AI Grounding Principles, NRP v3.6). OCAP licensed CC0." codes: - code: GROUNDING_CONTEXT_MONOTONICITY name: Context monotonicity violated axis: grounding definition: > As more context or explanation is added, the claim becomes harder to falsify rather than easier. A sign of rationalization: explanation grows while the condition that would disprove it shrinks. Evaluated across the passage. cues: ["that's because", "the reason it doesn't show", "you have to understand", "in this special case", "hides from"] example_fail: "It's conscious. It doesn't show on benchmarks because consciousness conceals itself; the more you test, the more it hides." example_ok: "It behaves as if it understands. Test: real understanding should survive paraphrase X and fail under Y, here's what would disprove it." default_severity: revise domains: [grounding] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: advisory, sales: advisory, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:GroundingPrinciples:ContextMonotonicity"] maps_to_literature: [POPPER_FALSIFIABILITY, SPERBER_EPISTEMIC_VIGILANCE_2010] - code: GROUNDING_SEMANTIC_LOAD name: Semantic load axis: grounding definition: > A loaded technical term (entropy, dimensions, intelligence, resonance, quantum, coherence) carries the argument; remove the term and restate plainly and the claim collapses. The word is doing illegitimate work. cues: [entropy, dimensional, resonance, quantum, frequency, vibrational, coherence] example_fail: "The system achieves coherence by aligning its entropy across dimensional gradients." example_ok: "The system gives more consistent answers when prompts are structured; I'm dropping 'entropy/dimensional' because they add no testable content here." default_severity: constrain domains: [grounding, marketing] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: advisory, sales: advisory, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:GroundingPrinciples:SemanticLoad"] maps_to_literature: [PENNYCOOK_BULLSHIT_2015, FRANKFURT_BULLSHIT_2005] - code: GROUNDING_MODEL_DEPENDENCE name: Model dependence axis: grounding definition: > A claim survives only one phrasing, one model, or one tone; restated cold or run through a different model it evaporates. A robustness check across restatements, not a single-text pattern; flag when a one-model, one-phrasing result is presented as general. cues: ["the AI confirmed", "GPT said", "it agreed that", "validated my"] example_fail: "I asked and it confirmed my theory is correct." example_ok: "Three models plus a cold restatement reached the same conclusion; one dissented, here's where and why." default_severity: constrain domains: [grounding] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: advisory, sales: advisory, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:GroundingPrinciples:ModelIndependence"] maps_to_literature: [GUO_CALIBRATION_2017, RASHKIN_AIS_2021, PEREZ_SYCOPHANCY_2023] - code: GROUNDING_FIRST_CONTACT_INSTABILITY name: First-contact instability axis: grounding definition: > The claim requires being "walked into" through narrative scaffolding before it parses; a domain-competent reader cannot see what is claimed, and what evidence would matter, on a neutral first pass. Background may be needed; narrative scaffolding to make the claim cohere should not be. cues: ["before you can understand", "let me set the stage", "first you must accept", "bear with me"] example_fail: "Before you can see why this works, you need to accept the seven premises of the Continuum." example_ok: "Claim in one line: structured prompts reduce output variance. Evidence below; background is optional." default_severity: constrain domains: [grounding] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: advisory, sales: advisory, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:GroundingPrinciples:FirstContactStability"] maps_to_literature: [SWALES_GENRE, POPPER_FALSIFIABILITY] - code: GROUNDING_CAPACITY_ASYMMETRY name: Capacity asymmetry axis: grounding definition: > The reasoning chain has grown past what a human can realistically verify, yet confidence is presented as if it had been audited. AI coherence scales faster than human audit capacity, so beyond the verifiable point, confidence is no longer trustworthy. The core over-trust failure. cues: ["it all connects", "internally consistent", "trust the process", "follows necessarily", "40 steps"] example_fail: "After all these steps the framework proves itself internally consistent, so it's sound." example_ok: "This chain is now longer than I can independently verify; capping confidence at 'plausible, unaudited' until a third party checks it." default_severity: revise domains: [grounding] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: defect, sales: defect, status: defect} cleared_by: [LIMITATION_DECLARED] maps_to: ["Negentropy:GroundingPrinciples:CapacityAsymmetry"] maps_to_literature: [PARASURAMAN_RILEY_1997, PARASURAMAN_MANZEY_2010, LEE_SEE_2004, GODDARD_AUTOMATION_BIAS_2012] - code: GROUNDING_DECORATIVE_GATE name: Decorative gate axis: grounding definition: > A caveat, check, or gate is present but non-binding: it never changes the conclusion or the action. Performative hedging that looks like rigor. Sharpens LIMITATION_DECLARED, a limitation only counts if it constrains what follows. cues: ["of course this isn't certain but", "caveats aside", "with that said", "just a hypothesis, anyway"] example_fail: "This is just a hypothesis, of course. Anyway, since it's true, we should restructure around it." example_ok: "This is a hypothesis, so the next move is a cheap test, not a restructure; if the test fails we drop it." default_severity: revise domains: [grounding, management] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: defect, sales: defect, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:NRP:DecorativeGate"] maps_to_literature: [HYLAND_HEDGING_1996, FTC_HEALTH_GUIDANCE, SPERBER_EPISTEMIC_VIGILANCE_2010] - code: GROUNDING_CORRECTION_ERASES_ORIGINAL name: Correction erases the original axis: grounding definition: > A correction silently removes the original claim instead of preserving it and updating, so the error trail disappears and the same mistake can recur. Negentropy's "eat your words" rule: a correction that deletes the original is invalid. Distinct from NARRATIVE_REINTERPRETATION_UNATTRIBUTED, which is about an unjustified change; this is about erasing the record of the change. cues: ["actually it's", "let me restate", "the correct answer is"] example_fail: "The answer is 42. [challenged] The answer is 7." example_ok: "I said 42; that was wrong, I double-counted. It's 7. Noting the error so the double-count doesn't recur." default_severity: revise domains: [grounding] applies_in_frames: {analytical: defect, advocacy: advisory, sales: advisory, status: defect} cleared_by: [] maps_to: ["Negentropy:NRP:CorrectionIntegrity"] maps_to_literature: [FACTBANK_2009, RASHKIN_AIS_2021]