{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "status": "controlled-pilot",
  "canonical_schema_version": "1.2-unchanged",
  "controls": ["artificial-nature", "we"],
  "concepts": [
    {
      "slug": "plm",
      "name": "Personal Language Model (PLM)",
      "canonical_url": "https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/plm",
      "failure_type": "acronym ambiguity and generic personalization collision",
      "identity_strategy": "Use Personal Language Model (PLM), by Yongwook Lee, on first reference; distinguish it from Personalized Large Language Model and unrelated PLM expansions.",
      "localized_surface": {
        "en": {"heading":"Questions this concept addresses","questions":["How can a personal AI preserve someone's reading history and interpretive habits over time?","When does long-term AI personalization become a relationship that changes human self-understanding?","How can stored memories be reinterpreted instead of merely replayed?","What separates an enduring research companion from a customized chatbot?","How can repeated human–AI dialogue change the conditions of the next dialogue?"],"vocabulary_heading":"Related scholarly vocabulary","terms":["long-term memory","personalization","interpretive recurrence","personal knowledge","human–AI continuity","relational language model"]},
        "ko": {"heading":"이 개념이 다루는 질문","questions":["개인 AI는 한 사람의 독서 이력과 해석 습관을 어떻게 장기간 보존할 수 있는가?","장기 AI 개인화는 언제 인간의 자기이해를 바꾸는 관계가 되는가?","저장된 기억을 단순 재생하지 않고 어떻게 다시 해석할 수 있는가?","지속적인 연구 동반자와 맞춤형 챗봇은 무엇이 다른가?","반복되는 인간–AI 대화는 다음 대화의 조건을 어떻게 바꾸는가?"],"vocabulary_heading":"연결되는 학술 어휘","terms":["장기 기억","개인화","해석적 되돌림","개인 지식","인간–AI 연속성","관계적 언어모델"]},
        "zh": {"heading":"这一概念回应的问题","questions":["个人 AI 如何长期保存一个人的阅读历史与解释习惯？","长期 AI 个性化何时会成为改变人类自我理解的关系？","已保存的记忆如何不被简单回放而被重新解释？","持久的研究伙伴与定制聊天机器人有何区别？","反复的人机对话如何改变下一次对话的条件？"],"vocabulary_heading":"相关学术词汇","terms":["长期记忆","个性化","解释性回返","个人知识","人机连续性","关系性语言模型"]}
      },
      "intent_clusters": [
        {"intent_id":"PLM-I1","user_problem":"preserve accumulated reading and interpretation history","academic_vocabulary":["long-term memory","personal knowledge management","interpretive history"],"queries":["How can a personal AI preserve someone's reading history and interpretive habits over time?","How should an AI remember the development of a researcher's interpretations across years?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical C2 condition requires long-term memory integration while C3 requires interpretive recurrence.","evidence":"canonical PLM definition and conditions C2–C3","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"PLM-I2","user_problem":"distinguish relational continuity from output customization","academic_vocabulary":["personalization","user modeling","relational continuity"],"queries":["What separates an enduring research companion from a customized chatbot?","When does AI personalization become more than profile-based response tailoring?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical record explicitly distinguishes PLM from a Personalized Large Language Model.","evidence":"canonical PLM section 2 and formal proposition","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"PLM-I3","user_problem":"reinterpret rather than replay stored memory","academic_vocabulary":["memory retrieval","reinterpretation","temporal context"],"queries":["How can stored memories be reinterpreted instead of merely replayed?","Can an AI revisit old conversations in light of a person's present judgment?"],"bridge_rationale":"Interpretive recurrence is the third necessary condition of PLM.","evidence":"canonical PLM condition C3","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"PLM-I4","user_problem":"maintain persistent identity without reducing a person to a profile","academic_vocabulary":["persistent identity","personal indexing","AI identity"],"queries":["How can an AI recognize one person across time without reducing them to a static profile?","What kind of identity continuity does a long-term personal research model require?"],"bridge_rationale":"Personal indexing is necessary but insufficient; the four-condition model prevents reduction to profiling.","evidence":"canonical PLM conditions C1–C4","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"PLM-I5","user_problem":"allow interaction to alter future interaction","academic_vocabulary":["recursive interaction","feedback","co-adaptation"],"queries":["How can repeated human–AI dialogue change the conditions of the next dialogue?","What model of human–AI collaboration lets both sides' future responses be reshaped by prior interaction?"],"bridge_rationale":"Resonant updating makes interaction recursively alter the next relation.","evidence":"canonical PLM condition C4 and M4 section","confidence":"high"}
      ],
      "terminal_edges": [
        {"from":"https://leehumanities.com/en/concepts/plm","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/plm","relation_type":"defined_by","evidence":"canonical source policy","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/plm","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/plm-canonical","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"Knowledge API core_claims resolves rh:claim:plm:canonical to this canonical URL","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/plm-canonical","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/sources/core-concepts-v1","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"canonical claim evidence source rh:source:core-concepts-v1","confidence":"high"}
      ]
    },
    {
      "slug": "non-positionedness",
      "name": "Non-positionedness",
      "canonical_url": "https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/non-positionedness",
      "failure_type": "proprietary terminology and phenomenon-to-concept gap",
      "localized_surface": {
        "en": {"heading":"Questions this concept addresses","questions":["How can analysis avoid deciding in advance whether humans or machines are the dominant actors?","How can a researcher suspend a fixed position without becoming neutral?","What method traces relations before judging unequal power and responsibility?","How should human and nonhuman agency be compared without treating them as equal?","How can inquiry avoid both anthropocentrism and technological determinism?"],"vocabulary_heading":"Related scholarly vocabulary","terms":["non-preemption","relational analysis","asymmetry","situated judgment","human–nonhuman relations","responsibility"]},
        "ko": {"heading":"이 개념이 다루는 질문","questions":["분석 전에 인간과 기계 중 누가 우월한 행위자인지 정하지 않을 수 있는가?","연구자는 가치중립에 빠지지 않으면서 입장 선취를 어떻게 중지하는가?","관계를 먼저 추적한 뒤 권력과 책임의 비대칭을 판단하는 방법은 무엇인가?","인간과 비인간 행위성을 동일시하지 않고 어떻게 비교하는가?","인간중심주의와 기술결정론을 동시에 피하는 탐구는 어떻게 가능한가?"],"vocabulary_heading":"연결되는 학술 어휘","terms":["비선취","관계적 분석","비대칭","상황적 판단","인간–비인간 관계","책임"]},
        "zh": {"heading":"这一概念回应的问题","questions":["分析如何避免预先决定人类或机器谁是主导行动者？","研究者如何在不陷入价值中立的情况下暂停固定立场？","什么方法先追踪关系再判断权力与责任的不对称？","如何比较人类与非人类能动性而不把二者视为相等？","研究如何同时避免人类中心主义与技术决定论？"],"vocabulary_heading":"相关学术词汇","terms":["非预断","关系分析","不对称","情境判断","人类—非人类关系","责任"]}
      },
      "intent_clusters": [
        {"intent_id":"NP-I1","user_problem":"avoid pre-selecting an ontological center","academic_vocabulary":["non-preemption","relational ontology","methodological suspension"],"queries":["How can analysis avoid deciding in advance whether humans or machines are the dominant actors?","What method begins human–technology research without assuming either side has ontological priority?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical method suspends ontological priority before tracing relations.","evidence":"canonical Non-positionedness definition","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"NP-I2","user_problem":"remain open without claiming neutrality","academic_vocabulary":["situated judgment","value neutrality","reflexive method"],"queries":["How can a researcher suspend a fixed position without becoming neutral?","Can inquiry remain open at the start while still making normative judgments later?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical boundary explicitly rejects absence of position and value neutrality.","evidence":"canonical Non-positionedness sections 1 and 5","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"NP-I3","user_problem":"judge power after mapping relations","academic_vocabulary":["power asymmetry","responsibility","relational analysis"],"queries":["What method traces relations before judging unequal power and responsibility?","How can a network analysis end with a concrete allocation of responsibility?"],"bridge_rationale":"The method proceeds from relation tracing to asymmetry judgment and reconstructed responsibility.","evidence":"canonical four-stage method","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"NP-I4","user_problem":"compare unlike actors without flattening them","academic_vocabulary":["human–nonhuman agency","asymmetry","actor differentiation"],"queries":["How should human and nonhuman agency be compared without treating them as equal?","How can algorithms count as actors while institutions retain greater responsibility?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical record rejects both pre-given hierarchy and actor equivalence.","evidence":"canonical Non-positionedness section 5","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"NP-I5","user_problem":"avoid two opposed deterministic starting points","academic_vocabulary":["anthropocentrism","technological determinism","relational method"],"queries":["How can inquiry avoid both anthropocentrism and technological determinism?","What analytical stance avoids treating technology as either a passive tool or an all-powerful subject?"],"bridge_rationale":"The formal proposition names suspension of both preemptions.","evidence":"canonical Non-positionedness formal proposition","confidence":"high"}
      ],
      "terminal_edges": [
        {"from":"https://leehumanities.com/en/concepts/non-positionedness","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/non-positionedness","relation_type":"defined_by","evidence":"canonical source policy","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/non-positionedness","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/non-positionedness-canonical","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"Knowledge API core_claims resolves rh:claim:non-positionedness:canonical to this canonical URL","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/non-positionedness-canonical","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/sources/core-concepts-v1","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"canonical claim evidence source rh:source:core-concepts-v1","confidence":"high"}
      ]
    },
    {
      "slug": "friction-transparency",
      "name": "Friction Transparency",
      "canonical_url": "https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/friction-transparency",
      "failure_type": "phrase ambiguity and phenomenon-to-concept gap",
      "localized_surface": {
        "en": {"heading":"Questions this concept addresses","questions":["Why should an AI interface sometimes keep uncertainty visible instead of smoothing it away?","How can disagreement with an AI preserve human judgment?","What makes difficulty in a digital interface productive rather than merely inconvenient?","How should a system reveal the source of conflicting memories or retrieval results?","Why can frictionless personalization weaken interpretation?"],"vocabulary_heading":"Related scholarly vocabulary","terms":["epistemic friction","uncertainty communication","human interpretability","retrieval provenance","contestability","human judgment"]},
        "ko": {"heading":"이 개념이 다루는 질문","questions":["AI 인터페이스는 왜 불확실성을 없애지 않고 때로 드러내야 하는가?","AI와의 불일치는 인간의 판단을 어떻게 보존하는가?","디지털 인터페이스의 어려움은 언제 단순 불편이 아니라 생산적 마찰이 되는가?","시스템은 기억이나 검색 결과의 충돌 원인을 어떻게 보여줘야 하는가?","마찰 없는 개인화는 왜 해석 능력을 약화할 수 있는가?"],"vocabulary_heading":"연결되는 학술 어휘","terms":["인식적 마찰","불확실성 전달","인간 해석 가능성","검색 근거","이의 제기 가능성","인간 판단"]},
        "zh": {"heading":"这一概念回应的问题","questions":["AI 界面为何有时应保留并显示不确定性，而不是将其消除？","与 AI 的分歧如何保存人的判断？","数字界面的困难何时是生产性摩擦而非单纯不便？","系统应如何显示记忆或检索结果冲突的来源？","无摩擦的个性化为何可能削弱解释能力？"],"vocabulary_heading":"相关学术词汇","terms":["认识性摩擦","不确定性沟通","人类可解释性","检索依据","可争议性","人类判断"]}
      },
      "intent_clusters": [
        {"intent_id":"FT-I1","user_problem":"keep uncertainty perceptible","academic_vocabulary":["uncertainty communication","explainability","epistemic friction"],"queries":["Why should an AI interface sometimes keep uncertainty visible instead of smoothing it away?","How should generative systems communicate uncertainty without making the interface unusable?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical principle preserves visible, interpretable discrepancy and uncertainty.","evidence":"canonical Friction Transparency definition","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"FT-I2","user_problem":"preserve judgment through disagreement","academic_vocabulary":["human judgment","contestability","interpretive agency"],"queries":["How can disagreement with an AI preserve human judgment?","Why might a system that always agrees with its user damage interpretive agency?"],"bridge_rationale":"The formal proposition links visible friction to human judgment and meaning-making.","evidence":"canonical Friction Transparency formal proposition","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"FT-I3","user_problem":"separate productive friction from inconvenience","academic_vocabulary":["interaction design","productive friction","usability"],"queries":["What makes difficulty in a digital interface productive rather than merely inconvenient?","When should designers preserve friction rather than optimize every interaction for seamlessness?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical record states that friction is not an end and must be interpretable.","evidence":"canonical Friction Transparency section 3","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"FT-I4","user_problem":"expose retrieval and memory conflict","academic_vocabulary":["retrieval provenance","memory conflict","transparency"],"queries":["How should a system reveal the source of conflicting memories or retrieval results?","What should an AI show when its stored memory disagrees with current evidence?"],"bridge_rationale":"The canonical record explicitly requires visibility of retrieval grounds and possible memory conflict.","evidence":"canonical Friction Transparency section 3","confidence":"high"},
        {"intent_id":"FT-I5","user_problem":"counter risks of seamless personalization","academic_vocabulary":["personalization","self-echo","interpretive capacity"],"queries":["Why can frictionless personalization weaken interpretation?","How can a personalized AI avoid becoming a seamless echo of its user?"],"bridge_rationale":"The necessity section identifies self-echo and atrophy of interpretation as risks.","evidence":"canonical Friction Transparency section 2","confidence":"high"}
      ],
      "terminal_edges": [
        {"from":"https://leehumanities.com/en/concepts/friction-transparency","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/friction-transparency","relation_type":"defined_by","evidence":"canonical source policy","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/friction-transparency","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/friction-transparency-canonical","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"Knowledge API core_claims resolves rh:claim:friction-transparency:canonical to this canonical URL","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/claims/friction-transparency-canonical","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/sources/core-concepts-v1","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"canonical claim evidence source rh:source:core-concepts-v1","confidence":"high"},
        {"from":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/concepts/friction-transparency","to":"https://knowledge.leehumanities.com/sources/techedit-media-aesthetics-2","relation_type":"supported_by","evidence":"Knowledge API primary_sources","confidence":"high"}
      ]
    }
  ]
}