update

Author: denisecase

se100_the_ontological_neutrality_theorem.pdf

@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ \subsection*{Design Problems in Shared Representation}
 a neutral substrate satisfies both requirements if and only if
 its foundational layer excludes causal and normative commitments.
 Section~\ref{sec:implications} discusses the implications of this result for ontology design,
-clarifying what must be excluded from foundational layers
+clarifying the substrate-level exclusions and requirements,
 and what may be externalized to interpretive frameworks.
 Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} summarizes the resulting constraints
 and discusses their relevance for ontology design in accountability contexts.

sections/01_intro.tex

@@ -393,6 +393,6 @@ \subsection{The Ontological Neutrality Theorem}
 are structurally incompatible.
 
 The next section considers the implications of this result for ontology design,
-clarifying what must be excluded from foundational layers
+clarifying the exclusions and requirements at the substrate layer,
 and how interpretation, evaluation, and explanation
 may be externalized without loss of accountability.

sections/04_formal_dev.tex

@@ -12,13 +12,13 @@ \section{Implications for Ontology Design}
 without violating neutrality.
 
 %-----------------------------------------------------
-\subsection{What Must Be Excluded from the Substrate}
+\subsection{Substrate-Layer Exclusions}
 %-----------------------------------------------------
 
 The primary implication is negative but precise.
 A neutral ontological substrate must exclude,
-at the foundational level,
-assertions whose truth is framework-variant across admissible frameworks.
+at the foundational layer,
+assertions that are framework-variant across admissible frameworks.
 In particular, the substrate must not embed:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item normative commitments, such as
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ \subsection{What Must Be Excluded from the Substrate}
 while remaining silent on contested interpretations.
 
 %-----------------------------------------------------
-\subsection{What the Substrate Must Provide}
+\subsection{Substrate-Layer Requirements}
 %-----------------------------------------------------
 
 Although the constraints are restrictive,
@@ -62,8 +62,7 @@ \subsection{What the Substrate Must Provide}
 does not assert that all questions of
 entity individuation, persistence, or boundary demarcation
 are framework-independent.
-Many such questions (e.g.,
-the spatial or temporal granularity of an event,
+Many such questions (e.g. the spatial or temporal granularity of an event,
 the criteria for organizational continuity,
 or the recognition of informal institutions)
 are legitimately contested across admissible frameworks.
@@ -133,7 +132,7 @@ \subsection{Externalizing Interpretation Without Loss}
 
 This structural separation is independent of any
 specific representational technology,
-but imposes a clear constraint on admissible designs.
+but imposes a constraint on admissible designs.
 Implementations must ensure that causal and normative propositions
 are not asserted as substrate-layer commitments,
 but are instead represented as interpretive assertions
@@ -199,7 +198,7 @@ \subsection{Reification as a Boundary Mechanism}
 
 This observation reinforces the central conclusion:
 neutrality is not achieved by representational cleverness alone,
-but by disciplined exclusion of interpretive commitments from the foundational layer.
+but by disciplined exclusion of interpretive commitments from the substrate layer.
 
 %-----------------------------------------------------
 \subsection{Summary of Structural Constraints}
@@ -213,7 +212,7 @@ \subsection{Summary of Structural Constraints}
         framework-invariant referential structure:
         predicate symbols governing entity
         identity and persistence conditions;
-  \item assert no framework-variant proposition at the substrate layer
+  \item assert no framework-variant proposition at the substrate layer,
         in particular none whose truth conditions depend on causal or normative
         interpretation, regardless of current consensus
         among admissible frameworks;