{"id":"concepts-for-divergence","title":"A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes","regions":["representation","computation"],"question":"Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?","formulation":"One proposed pattern marks inputs that look similar under the current comparison but diverge after a particular operation. Repetition and context affect whether that difference deserves a persistent annotation.","representations":[{"name":"A named reasoning macro","affords":"Compresses a recurring qualification.","loses":"Can omit the operation and comparison under which divergence occurs.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"A parameterized concept with subcomponents","affords":"Retains context and adjustable thresholds.","loses":"Costs more to interpret and requires agreement on the parameters.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Surface similarity is not a guarantee of similar consequences, but divergence is not meaningful without a specified transformation.","challenge":"Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-concepts-for-divergence"],"next_move":{"text":"Encode the pattern with explicit comparison, operation, and outcome fields; test interpretation on examples from two domains.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?","Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"70b3970ed4f7df8f82ebe962845c9283e14c37e8093c4f3713ba495b5eeffee0"}