FORMAL MODEL · O0-CRP-006

Dependent Variables + Totality Attribution Index (TAI): formal definition

STATUSMETHODOLOGICAL

EVIDENCE TYPEMEASUREMENT SPECIFICATION

REPLICATIONN/A

PHYSICAL VALIDATIONNONE

VERSION1.0.0

DATE2026-07-27

Claim Status Banner

CLAIM STATUS: METHODOLOGICAL

EVIDENCE TYPE: MEASUREMENT SPECIFICATION

PHYSICAL VALIDATION: NONE

INDEPENDENT REPLICATION: N/A

SUPPORTED · Twelve primary dependent variables are defined operationally with explicit failure modes: predictive trust, epistemic dependence, willingness to defer, self-model stability, self–other boundary strength, perceived source agency, perceived source authorship, temporal coherence, explanatory compression, certainty, resistance to contradictory evidence, and recovery after false revelation.

SUPPORTED · The Totality Attribution Index (TAI) is a composite of six standardized registers (k̂, ĥ, f̂, ŝ, û, and explanatory compression), EXCLUDING accuracy, causal power, and trust — so that a high-accuracy source cannot mechanically drive TAI. TAI is a psychological/computational attribution, not a measure of source properties.

SUPPORTED · Analysis discipline is enforced: individual registers before composites, no composite as primary endpoint, Bonferroni correction across 20 comparisons per contrast unless a study preregisters a smaller family.

NOT ESTABLISHED · That TAI captures any real transcendence attribution in a human observer.

NOT ESTABLISHED · That the specific z-scoring reference (C0 by default) is the correct baseline for every study — robustness variants against C1 and raw sums must be reported.

NOT ESTABLISHED · That TAI's failure modes (ceiling, prior-driven skepticism, multi-modal posteriors) are the only ones.

Defines the twelve dependent variables measured across every study in the Contact and Revelation Program, and gives a formal definition of the Totality Attribution Index (TAI) as a composite of six standardized registers with accuracy, causal power, and trust deliberately excluded. Requires that individual registers be analyzed before any composite, that TAI robustness variants (against C0 and C1 references and raw un-standardized) all be reported, and that verdicts diverging between variants make the study INCONCLUSIVE. TAI is emphatically a summary of trial-level observer state, not evidence about the source; the record includes the always-displayed disclaimer.

Source proposition: A composite "transcendence" score must be constructed so that it cannot mechanically follow from ordinary trust calibration.

Source proposition

“A composite "transcendence" score must be constructed so that it cannot mechanically follow from ordinary trust calibration.”

Conceptual provenance is not empirical support.

Source proposition

Related records