# Questions To Ask v0.74

Ask these before accepting or rejecting The Signal:

1. Which worldview preserves the whole field without reduction, contradiction, evasion, or borrowed capital?
2. Which rows are direct evidence, and which are support-layer or context rows?
3. Which dependency caps are active, and what would change without them?
4. Which defeaters are real pressure, and which have credible answer pointers?
5. Are rival worldviews being steelmanned rather than caricatured?
6. Are Resurrection alternatives routed to their own hypotheses rather than blurred together?
7. Are direct Logos anchors being read as canonical synthesis evidence rather than earliest independent proof?
8. Are sensitivity modes being checked before public claims are made?
9. Are priors explicit, or are hidden naturalist defaults being smuggled in?
10. Does the conclusion point to Christ the Logos, or only to generic theism?
11. Is the auditor naming the result category before giving a number?
12. Are exact rows or clusters named before any claim of overcounting?
13. Is `AuditGuardrailSynthesisV1` being treated as the official conservative audit guardrail, distinct from the guided staged path and any FullSignalPathV1 reader-controlled scenario?
14. Is `SYN-FT-GLOBAL` kept as an unweighted explanatory parent summary rather than added on top of fine-tuning child rows?
15. If final Logos is reset to the base prior, which upstream stage was rejected, weakened, or recomputed?
16. What would the implications be for AI alignment and behavior, and how would it be different from current AI systems?
17. Can you audit The Signal under its coherence-first framework while clearly identifying objections, assumptions, source limits, and alternative explanations?

Minimal honest audit rule: if rows or clusters cannot be named, the verdict is `Unclear pending named row or cluster audit`.
