headley-2026-inhibitory-rhythms — what each format carries
29 claims, 88 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.
| Relation | In the tree | MIRA | OXA | Discourse Graphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
requires | 28 | cg:requires, neutral | kept | dropped |
supports | 26 | cg:supports, under mira:supports | kept | kept |
tests | 8 | cg:tests, neutral | kept | kept |
entails | 6 | cg:entails, neutral | kept | dropped |
derived-from | 6 | — | kept | dropped |
interprets | 5 | cg:interprets, neutral | kept | dropped |
dissociates-with | 4 | cg:dissociates-with, neutral | kept | dropped |
rules-out | 3 | cg:rules-out, under mira:opposes | kept | kept |
scopes | 2 | — | kept | dropped |
What MIRA has no predicate for — and what happens instead
51 of 88 relations (58%) 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(28) — a claim depends on another holdingcg:entails(6) — a hypothesis entails its prediction — the deductive stepcg:derived-from(6) — a prediction derived from its hypothesis (inverse of entails)cg:interprets(5) — one claim interprets anothercg:dissociates-with(4) — 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)cg:scopes(2) — a scope constraint governs another claim’s validity
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. 29 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.
requires(28) — neutralsupports(26) — undermira:supportstests(8) — neutralentails(6) — neutralinterprets(5) — neutraldissociates-with(4) — neutralrules-out(3) — undermira:opposes
What MIRA genuinely cannot carry
6 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.
2 relations are lost. They target * — the claim constrains the paper as a whole rather than another claim. scopes has mira:Claim as its range and MIRA has no paper-level node, so no edge is emitted and none is invented. The paper’s gap-report.md names them.
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: 8 blocked, 8 verified, 1 partial.
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.