Four capabilities that trace how a claim earns — or loses — commitment.
Holding questionWhat does software lose when it treats every value as equally certain?
This trail follows the arc from where a claim came from, through how sure we are, to the surprise it can carry and the authority that stands behind it. Read the stops in order; each reframes the previous.
- 01
Evidentiality
How do we know this?
Why hereStart where the claim entered the system. Evidentiality asks the source question before the truth question.
Evidence and Knowledge·Research · Under review·Graft · Interactive graft - 02
Modality, Obligation and Possibility
How certain, permitted or required is this?
Why hereNow grade commitment. Modality separates 'must', 'may', and 'could' — distinctions typing systems flatten into one bit.
Relationship and Responsibility·Research · Under review·Graft · Conceptualised - 03
Mirativity and Unexpected Information
Is this new or surprising information?
Why hereMark the surprise. Mirativity is the grammar of unexpected information — the shape of an anomaly, not just its value.
Evidence and Knowledge·Research · Under review·Graft · Documented - 04
Relationship and Social Authority
What relationship exists between the participants?
Why hereAsk who is entitled to assert. Authority frames evidence socially: not every source has equal standing.
Relationship and Responsibility·Research · Source required·Graft · Documented
Together these four capabilities describe a fuller epistemic surface than a boolean or a single confidence score can carry. A system that respected any two of them would already behave differently under contradiction.