{"id":"causal-reading-paths","title":"A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion","regions":["shared-inquiry","reflexivity"],"question":"How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?","formulation":"The proposal records visited material, encountered assessments, and the point when a contribution is formed. Subsequent exploration belongs to a later evidential path. This is an exposure record, not a transcript of private reasoning.","representations":[{"name":"A reading route through problems","affords":"A reusable guide for another reader.","loses":"An authored route is not evidence that a particular thinker followed it.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"A time-bounded exposure record","affords":"Identifies material available before a particular contribution.","loses":"Availability does not prove causal influence or disclose every cognitive factor.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Recovering what was seen is valuable, but stronger causal claims need more evidence than visit order.","challenge":"Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-causal-reading-paths"],"next_move":{"text":"Create two contribution versions with immutable exposure cutoffs and verify that later visits are attached only to the later version.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?","Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"1e5c1a2e8f0b9261e58b0642d08a811d31d0ab48fce6f28882eea34106bead1c"}