gadeke-2026-guilt-insula — what each format carries

68 claims, 85 typed relations between them.

One source, three targets. Each row is a relation type the paper’s claim tree uses; each column is what became of it.

What MIRA has no predicate for — and what happens instead

37 of 85 relations (44%) are neither support nor opposition. They are not dropped and not flattened. MIRA imports a Discourse Graphs base schema in which relations are definable, and its AbstractRelationDef is a neutral root — it carries no supporting or opposing commitment — so each is declared in the document with a domain, a range and a description, and the edges are typed by that declaration.

• cg:requires (9) — a claim depends on another holding
• cg:entails (5) — a hypothesis entails its prediction — the deductive step
• cg:derived-from (5) — a prediction derived from its hypothesis (inverse of entails)
• cg:interprets (4) — one claim interprets another
• cg:part-of (4) — a component of another claim — one comparison, condition, measure or study of a proposition the target states whole; the target is weakened but not falsified by the source alone
• cg:scopes (3) — a scope constraint governs another claim’s validity
• cg:enables-method (3) — a result makes a downstream method possible
• cg:qualifies (1) — a claim narrows another’s applicability
• cg:dissociates-with (1) — the source and target jointly establish a dissociation — two claims whose difference across a condition, region, population or measure is itself the finding, neither bearing on the other’s truth (symmetric)

Declaring them under mira:supports would have been worse than dropping them: it would assert that a boundary condition is evidence for the claim it limits, which reverses the meaning.

What a reader who knows only core MIRA sees

Every relation keeps its own type — nothing is flattened into supports. 43 of the 80 edges are declared under mira:supports or mira:opposes, so a reader that follows only those two still gets their direction; the reason the edge was drawn is in the declaration rather than lost.

• supports (20) — under mira:supports
• requires (9) — neutral
• validates (8) — under mira:supports
• rules-out (7) — under mira:opposes
• confirms (7) — under mira:supports
• tests (7) — neutral
• entails (5) — neutral
• interprets (4) — neutral
• part-of (4) — neutral
• scopes (3) — neutral
• enables-method (3) — neutral
• in-tension-with (1) — under mira:opposes
• qualifies (1) — neutral
• dissociates-with (1) — neutral

What MIRA genuinely cannot carry

5 derived-from relations are not emitted as edges. This is not loss: derived-from is declared owl:inverseOf entails, and MIRA never materialises the reverse direction — its own 942-node demo graph emits no inverse edges either. A reader recovers each one from the forward edge and the declaration.

Beyond those, nothing. Every relation in this paper reaches the export, either as an edge or as the declared inverse of one.

What OXA maps only approximately

OXA drops dissociates-with (1). It is a neutral, symmetric contrast, and CiTO offers no predicate for one. cito:disagreesWith, which it carried until the #125 ruling, misstated it as disagreement, so it is omitted rather than mismapped. in-tension-with (1) maps to claimrel:contradicts — the nearest oppositional predicate. It overstates: a tension holds between two claims the paper asserts, both of which stand.

What no format carries

Verification — that a claim was checked, by what code, against what deposited data, with what result beside the published value. None of the three has a node for it.

This paper’s records: 12 verified, 3 partial, 2 blocked, 2 unattempted.

Generated by scripts/formats_report.py from the files in exports/, not from the converters’ mapping tables — a table says what a converter intends, the export says what it did.