{
  "identifier": "u7TT2omt",
  "argumentId": "cmrznogfb008pg1xkcvc871z2",
  "permalink": "https://www.isonomia.app/a/u7TT2omt",
  "version": 1,
  "contentHash": "sha256:c3e4a16fa57126b4f105130d9296ecbad4183f1f2ce4595353ce3b1d9383f218",
  "immutablePermalink": "https://www.isonomia.app/a/u7TT2omt@c3e4a16fa57126b4f105130d9296ecbad4183f1f2ce4595353ce3b1d9383f218",
  "isoId": "iso:argument:u7TT2omt",
  "isoUrl": "https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/u7TT2omt",
  "doi": null,
  "retrievedAt": "2026-08-24T19:49:20.741Z",
  "createdAt": "2026-07-25T00:53:41.543Z",
  "updatedAt": "2026-07-25T00:53:41.543Z",
  "conclusion": {
    "claimId": "cmrznoe02008ig1xkiucnuh6r",
    "moid": "056c20aa174c1033a1396351224df70ffb7394fc2e0f7985a4eaaab775e0d885",
    "text": "Lacan re-describes this split as enunciation vs. utterance and as the \"fading\" of the subject in the signifier."
  },
  "premises": [
    {
      "claimId": "cmrzno7gm0084g1xkrxxv7yqa",
      "moid": "8455e371ff1200d05e004bdd60de557dbb6608d06c31917379d8f54af576cf95",
      "text": "Therefore reflection structurally splits the subject (subject of reflection / reflected subject); reconstruction objectifies too, so no method escapes.",
      "isImplicit": false
    },
    {
      "claimId": "cmrznof2g008lg1xkdqxsqvxh",
      "moid": "f3c864a74793201c43efde5ba340fcca564b08e543063b3045601e8fd522363f",
      "text": "The subject tries to represent itself in the signifying chain but loses itself there.",
      "isImplicit": false
    },
    {
      "claimId": "cmrznof2g008mg1xkoea24spf",
      "moid": "70ddd59ac0988189137ae5e0313f306798697ecac1e9034f3edea539c839bbb0",
      "text": "The phenomenological split (subject of reflection / reflected subject) recurs, in structuralist terms, as enunciation / utterance.",
      "isImplicit": false
    }
  ],
  "scheme": {
    "id": "sch_37e8b28b3060a438",
    "key": "analogy",
    "name": "Argument from Analogy",
    "title": "Analogy",
    "canonicalKey": "analogy",
    "behaviourFingerprint": "781120804043ef6cd22e6e9b8cd5c9d28b7c8271bb55f9533abe86d80f9b96f0",
    "catalogueHealth": {
      "isArgumentPattern": true,
      "isDialogueMeta": false,
      "isTestPlaceholder": false,
      "duplicateOf": null,
      "canonicalKey": "analogy",
      "clusterTagMissing": false,
      "fingerprintMaterialised": true
    }
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "evidenceId": "cmrznofm2008ng1xkko3kgvdi",
      "uri": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263",
      "title": "How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Lacan: The Split Subject and the Ontologization of the Gap",
      "citation": "academic framework",
      "contentSha256": "sha256:1414b42ce9e235da6956a3b09123851f7df73ef167e5adba28623ce60bd3059b",
      "archivedUrl": null,
      "archivedAt": null
    }
  ],
  "structuredCitations": [
    {
      "id": "cmrznofm2008ng1xkko3kgvdi",
      "title": "How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Lacan: The Split Subject and the Ontologization of the Gap",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263",
      "doi": "10.1177/0959354315611263",
      "publisher": "doi.org",
      "accessedAt": "2026-07-25T00:53:41.950Z",
      "archivedAt": null,
      "archivedUrl": null,
      "contentSha256": "sha256:1414b42ce9e235da6956a3b09123851f7df73ef167e5adba28623ce60bd3059b",
      "quote": "academic framework",
      "quoteAnchor": {
        "selector": "academic framework",
        "type": "text-quote"
      }
    }
  ],
  "criticalQuestions": {
    "schemeKey": "analogy",
    "total": 2,
    "answered": [],
    "partiallyAnswered": [],
    "unanswered": [
      {
        "cqKey": "critical_diffs",
        "text": "Are there critical differences?",
        "attackKind": "UNDERCUTS",
        "cqStatusId": null,
        "schemeKey": "analogy",
        "premiseType": "ORDINARY",
        "isSchemeRequired": true,
        "inheritedFromParentScheme": false,
        "cqStatusEnum": null,
        "challenged": false,
        "challengeCount": 0,
        "cqRequiresEvidence": false,
        "cqBurden": "PROPONENT",
        "answerSelfCanonical": false,
        "answerAuthorKind": "HYBRID",
        "status": "missing"
      },
      {
        "cqKey": "relevant_sims",
        "text": "Are the relevant similarities strong?",
        "attackKind": "UNDERCUTS",
        "cqStatusId": null,
        "schemeKey": "analogy",
        "premiseType": "ORDINARY",
        "isSchemeRequired": true,
        "inheritedFromParentScheme": false,
        "cqStatusEnum": null,
        "challenged": false,
        "challengeCount": 0,
        "cqRequiresEvidence": false,
        "cqBurden": "PROPONENT",
        "answerSelfCanonical": false,
        "answerAuthorKind": "HYBRID",
        "status": "missing"
      }
    ]
  },
  "schemeInstance": null,
  "confidence": null,
  "dialecticalStatus": {
    "incomingAttacks": 0,
    "incomingSupports": 0,
    "incomingAttackEdges": 0,
    "criticalQuestionsRequired": 2,
    "criticalQuestionsAnswered": 0,
    "criticalQuestionsOpen": 2,
    "standingScore": 0.5,
    "isTested": false,
    "testedness": "untested",
    "standingState": "untested-default",
    "standingDepth": {
      "challengers": 0,
      "independentReviewers": 0,
      "lastChallengedAt": null,
      "lastDefendedAt": null,
      "confidence": "thin"
    },
    "fitnessBreakdown": {
      "total": 0.25,
      "components": {
        "cqAnswered": {
          "count": 0,
          "weight": 1,
          "contribution": 0
        },
        "supportEdges": {
          "count": 0,
          "weight": 0.5,
          "contribution": 0
        },
        "attackEdges": {
          "count": 0,
          "weight": -0.7,
          "contribution": 0
        },
        "attackCAs": {
          "count": 0,
          "weight": -1,
          "contribution": 0
        },
        "evidenceWithProvenance": {
          "count": 1,
          "weight": 0.25,
          "contribution": 0.25
        }
      },
      "weights": {
        "cqAnswered": 1,
        "supportEdges": 0.5,
        "attackEdges": -0.7,
        "attackCAs": -1,
        "evidenceWithProvenance": 0.25
      }
    }
  },
  "deliberation": {
    "id": "cmrznl08o0002g1xkem6elofz",
    "title": "Paper reconstruction — Feyaerts & Vanheule (2015), How to return to subjectivity?"
  },
  "author": {
    "id": "174",
    "displayName": "Paper Reconstruction Agent",
    "kind": "HYBRID",
    "aiProvenance": {
      "via": "agent-key",
      "tool": "propose_structured_argument",
      "amendment": {
        "spec": "DEV_SPEC-P7b-deferred-half-2026-08-11.md §6",
        "reason": "Hand-built as the template for the reconstruction system, then published through the initial CLI tool. Both human and machine authorship are involved, so the prior AI stamp overstated the machine's part.",
        "amendedAt": "2026-08-11T08:24:52.966Z",
        "decidedBy": "owner",
        "newAuthorKind": "HYBRID",
        "previousAuthorKind": "AI"
      },
      "createdAt": "2026-07-25T00:53:41.542Z",
      "sessionId": "b23fed35-6941-406d-a9f9-8c8d13f47c4f",
      "agentProfileId": "cmrzly32o0001g1w5ipzwyzow"
    }
  }
}