Proposed Term
Sender-Receiver Discrepancy
Context
The general, cause-agnostic phenomenon that what the sender intends and encodes is not what the receiver understands and decodes. Whatever the cause, the result is the same: sender and receiver talk past each other and fail to reach shared understanding. It is the foundational problem every model of communication exists to address — meaning is constructed by the receiver, not transmitted intact.
Specific, named causes already have (or are proposed as) their own anchors — Curse of Knowledge (#638), Four-Sides-Model mismatch (Schulz von Thun, #636) — and others span Hall's encoding/decoding, Shannon-Weaver noise, jargon, cultural gaps, and common-ground failure (Clark). This anchor is the umbrella over all of them.
Why it works as an LLM anchor: it makes a model treat "intended meaning ≠ received meaning" as a first-class risk — surface assumptions, define terms, and verify the message will actually land. Especially valuable when producing documentation for an audience whose prior knowledge is unknown. Jens's framing: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" — the receiver does the understanding; the sender can only calibrate.
Fits communication-presentation; relatives: curse-of-knowledge (#638), four-sides-model (#636), feynman-technique, problem-space-nvc, plain-english-strunk-white, bluf.
Honest note for reviewers: this is a cause-agnostic umbrella, not a single-proponent branded framework. If it reads as too broad for a standalone anchor, its natural home is a Semantic Contract composing the audience-calibration anchors above. Filed as an anchor per the proposer's intent — the anchor-vs-contract call is left to review.
LLM Activation Test Result
Model: Claude (Opus 4.8)
Prompt: "What concepts do you associate with 'sender-receiver discrepancy' / sender and receiver talking past each other?"
Response: The gap between message sent and message received; meaning is reconstructed by the receiver through their own knowledge, context, and assumptions; miscommunication arises regardless of specific cause (curse of knowledge, jargon, differing frames/Schulz von Thun, cultural gaps, Hall's encoding/decoding, Shannon-Weaver noise, failed common ground). Remedy: feedback loops, audience empathy, confirming understanding.
Honest caveat: the phenomenon is foundational and well-understood, but "sender-receiver discrepancy" is a descriptive umbrella spanning several named sub-concepts rather than one branded, single-proponent framework — reviewer's call on tier and on anchor-vs-contract.
Pre-submission Checklist
Proposed Term
Sender-Receiver Discrepancy
Context
The general, cause-agnostic phenomenon that what the sender intends and encodes is not what the receiver understands and decodes. Whatever the cause, the result is the same: sender and receiver talk past each other and fail to reach shared understanding. It is the foundational problem every model of communication exists to address — meaning is constructed by the receiver, not transmitted intact.
Specific, named causes already have (or are proposed as) their own anchors — Curse of Knowledge (#638), Four-Sides-Model mismatch (Schulz von Thun, #636) — and others span Hall's encoding/decoding, Shannon-Weaver noise, jargon, cultural gaps, and common-ground failure (Clark). This anchor is the umbrella over all of them.
Why it works as an LLM anchor: it makes a model treat "intended meaning ≠ received meaning" as a first-class risk — surface assumptions, define terms, and verify the message will actually land. Especially valuable when producing documentation for an audience whose prior knowledge is unknown. Jens's framing: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" — the receiver does the understanding; the sender can only calibrate.
Fits communication-presentation; relatives:
curse-of-knowledge(#638),four-sides-model(#636),feynman-technique,problem-space-nvc,plain-english-strunk-white,bluf.Honest note for reviewers: this is a cause-agnostic umbrella, not a single-proponent branded framework. If it reads as too broad for a standalone anchor, its natural home is a Semantic Contract composing the audience-calibration anchors above. Filed as an anchor per the proposer's intent — the anchor-vs-contract call is left to review.
LLM Activation Test Result
Model: Claude (Opus 4.8)
Prompt: "What concepts do you associate with 'sender-receiver discrepancy' / sender and receiver talking past each other?"
Response: The gap between message sent and message received; meaning is reconstructed by the receiver through their own knowledge, context, and assumptions; miscommunication arises regardless of specific cause (curse of knowledge, jargon, differing frames/Schulz von Thun, cultural gaps, Hall's encoding/decoding, Shannon-Weaver noise, failed common ground). Remedy: feedback loops, audience empathy, confirming understanding.
Honest caveat: the phenomenon is foundational and well-understood, but "sender-receiver discrepancy" is a descriptive umbrella spanning several named sub-concepts rather than one branded, single-proponent framework — reviewer's call on tier and on anchor-vs-contract.
Pre-submission Checklist