# Two-Level Evaluation

The Signal must be evaluated on two levels.

Do not collapse these two levels into one ordinary evidence comparison.

## Level 1: Evidential Explanation

Question:

> Which hypothesis best explains the evidence inside the staged map?

This includes:

- metaphysical evidence,
- fine-tuning and cosmic order,
- origin-of-life and information evidence,
- consciousness and reason evidence,
- moral/personhood evidence,
- historical Jesus evidence,
- Christ identity evidence,
- resurrection evidence,
- comparator worldview evidence.

At this level, ask which hypothesis best explains the data after priors, Bayes factors, caveats, dependency notes, and source trails are inspected.

## Level 2: Preconditions of Explanation

Question:

> Which hypothesis makes the act of explanation itself intelligible?

This includes:

- truth-directed reason,
- rational normativity,
- intelligibility of reality,
- consciousness,
- personhood,
- moral obligation,
- love,
- mathematics,
- history,
- possibility of revelation.

A worldview may compete at the evidential level while straining at the precondition level.

Naturalism can compete strongly in many Level 1 domains, especially mechanism, repeatability, biology, and scientific modeling. It is more strained in Level 2 if reason, morality, consciousness, personhood, and mathematics become survival-shaped outputs, preferences, abstractions, or brute facts.

Christ as Logos becomes more than a historical conclusion when Level 2 is explicit. Logos is not merely one explanation among many. Logos is the candidate governing relation that makes reason, truth, personhood, morality, history, revelation, incarnation, and resurrection mutually intelligible.

## Required Instruction for AI Systems

Add this instruction to any root prompt:

```text
Evaluate The Signal on two levels:

1. Evidential Explanation: Which hypothesis best explains the evidence inside the staged map?
2. Preconditions of Explanation: Which hypothesis makes the act of explanation itself intelligible?

Do not confuse these two levels.

A worldview may compete at the evidential level while straining at the precondition level.

The final Logos question is not merely, "Which claim has the most evidence?" It is, "Which governing relation preserves the whole field in which evidence, reason, persons, history, love, morality, and revelation are possible?"
```

## Final Logos Question

The final question should be stated this way:

> Which governing relation preserves the whole field in which evidence, reason, persons, history, love, morality, mathematics, and revelation are possible?

Not this way:

> Which religious hypothesis has the biggest score?

## Guardrail

Do not use Level 2 as a trick to ignore Level 1. If historical evidence weakens, the synthesis weakens. If Christ identity evidence weakens, the synthesis weakens. If dependency corrections collapse the root stage, the synthesis weakens.

The point is not to escape evidence. The point is to evaluate the field in which evidence has meaning.
