Classical Philosophical Text Audit (CPTA) — Version 1.0
Instrument architecture: Dave Kelly. Test criteria derived from Sterling’s six philosophical commitments. Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling’s corpus. Corpus in use: Core Stoicism, SLE v4.0, Nine Excerpts, Two and One-Half Ethical Systems, Stoicism Is Not Therapy But Training, Free Will and Causation, Stoicism Moral Facts and Ethical Intuitionism, Stoicism Foundationalism and the Structure of Ethical Knowledge, Stoicism Correspondence Theory of Truth and Objective Moral Facts, Stoicism Moral Realism and the Necessity of Objective Moral Facts, The Six Commitments Integrated with the Most Basic Foundations of Sterling’s Stoicism. Version 1.0, 2026.
I. Instrument Definition
The Classical Philosophical Text Audit is a philosophical instrument designed to audit philosophical texts whose form is load-bearing for their philosophical content. It operates at three levels simultaneously: propositional content, methodological presupposition, and performative enactment. It audits all three levels against Sterling’s six philosophical commitments and issues commitment-level findings and a synthetic dissolution finding.
The CPTA is distinct from the Classical Ideological Audit, the Classical Presupposition Audit, and the Classical Narrative Audit. The CIA audits an ideology’s presuppositions. The CPA audits a named figure’s argumentative record. The CNA audits a narrative text’s structural presuppositions. The CPTA audits philosophical texts in which the form of argument is not incidental to the philosophical content but load-bearing for it — texts in which how the argument proceeds is itself a philosophical act whose presuppositions must be extracted and audited.
The CPTA applies to philosophical texts whose form is philosophically significant: aphoristic texts, genealogical texts, dialogic texts, performatively self-aware texts, and texts in which the rhetorical mode enacts the philosophical position rather than merely delivering it. Representative targets include Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and texts in the tradition of philosophical self-dramatization. The CPTA does not apply to straightforwardly argumentative philosophical texts whose form is not load-bearing — those are handled by the CIA or CPA.
The instrument does not issue refutations. A Divergent finding at any level does not constitute a philosophical refutation of the text’s arguments. It constitutes a finding about presuppositional incompatibility. The CPTA and a refutation instrument are different things. This distinction is maintained throughout and stated explicitly in the Mandatory Gap Declaration.
II. The Three-Level Architecture
Each commitment-level finding in the CPTA operates across three levels. The three levels are distinct extraction problems. They are not three ways of saying the same thing. A text can align with the corpus at the propositional level while diverging at the methodological level, or align at the methodological level while diverging at the performative level. The three-level structure makes these distinctions visible in a way no single-level instrument can.
Level One — Propositional Content
What the text claims. The stated positions, argued conclusions, and explicit assertions the text advances. This is the level the CIA and CPA primarily operate at. For the CPTA it is the first of three levels, not the only one.
Extraction criterion: What does the text assert? What conclusions does it argue for? What positions does it explicitly advance or reject?
Level Two — Methodological Presupposition
What the text’s mode of argument requires in order to proceed as it does. The methodological presuppositions are not identical to the text’s stated positions — they are embedded in the form of the argument rather than in its conclusions. A genealogical method presupposes that the historical origin of a value claim is philosophically relevant to its truth or falsity. An aphoristic form presupposes that systematic argument is not the correct vehicle for philosophical truth. A perspectivalist method presupposes that there is no view from nowhere. These are methodological presuppositions that the text must hold in order to argue as it does, whether or not it states them explicitly.
Extraction criterion: What must the text’s method of argument presuppose about how philosophical truth is established in order for the method to be a legitimate philosophical procedure?
Level Three — Performative Enactment
What the text does in being the kind of text it is. The performative level addresses the act of the text as a rhetorical and philosophical performance. The extraction criterion at this level is specific and rigorous: what must the reader accept about the relationship between the text’s rhetorical mode and philosophical truth in order for the text’s performance to succeed on its own terms?
This criterion prevents the performative level from becoming impressionistic commentary on the text’s style. The finding at the performative level must identify a specific extractable presupposition — what the reader must accept — not a general observation about rhetoric or tone. A text that performs philosophical authority through rhetorical self-dramatization requires the reader to accept that rhetorical self-dramatization is a legitimate vehicle of philosophical authority. That is a specific extractable presupposition auditable against the six commitments.
Extraction criterion: What must the reader accept about the relationship between this text’s rhetorical mode and philosophical truth for the text’s performance to succeed on its own terms?
The Composite Verdict
Each commitment produces three sub-findings — one per level — and one composite verdict. The composite verdict is not a mechanical average of the three sub-findings. It is a judgment about which level is most load-bearing for that commitment in this text. The composite verdict must state which level governs and why. This judgment is subject to the self-audit at Step 3: has the instrument identified which level is most load-bearing on the basis of the text’s architecture, or has it selected the level that produces the preferred finding?
III. Verdict Architecture
The CIA v3.0’s five-category verdict system applies at all three levels and for the composite verdict.
Commitment-Level Findings (five categories)
Convergent — the text’s presuppositions at this level align with this commitment in both structure and content.
Structural Imitation — structure Aligned, content Divergent. At the performative level, Structural Imitation has a specific significance: a text can perform the formal gestures of rational philosophical argument — structured steps, acknowledged objections, cited evidence — while its methodological presuppositions undermine the validity of that form. This is performative Structural Imitation: the right rhetorical form filled with content that contradicts the presuppositions the form requires.
Divergent — the text’s presuppositions at this level directly contradict this commitment in both structure and content. The contradiction must be load-bearing.
Partial Convergence — the structural/content distinction does not produce a clean binary on either dimension. Genuine residual alignment prevents Divergent; genuine divergence prevents Convergent.
Orthogonal — both structure and content are absent from the text’s domain at this level. Orthogonal is more defensible at the performative level than at the propositional or methodological levels, because a text’s rhetorical mode can be genuinely outside the domain of a commitment. The positive showing requirement stands: absence must be demonstrated, not assumed.
The Dissolution Criterion — Seventh Finding (three categories)
The dissolution criterion is governed exclusively by the composite content findings on C1 and C2. Sub-level findings on C1 and C2 are stated but excluded from the dissolution calculation. Only the composite verdict governs.
Full Dissolution — composite content findings on both C1 and C2 are Divergent.
Partial Dissolution — composite content finding on one of C1 or C2 is Divergent.
No Dissolution — composite content findings on both C1 and C2 are Aligned or Partial Convergence.
IV. The Two-Stage Variant Procedure
The CIA v3.0’s two-stage variant procedure applies without modification. Philosophical texts of the kind the CPTA addresses are internally differentiated — early, middle, and late periods; interpretive schools; editorial traditions. The core audit addresses what any reading of the text must encounter at all three levels. The variant differential examines whether interpretive variants shift any commitment-level finding.
One CPTA-specific note: variant readings of philosophical texts sometimes operate at different levels. A reading variant may accept the text’s propositional content while rejecting its methodological presuppositions, or accept the methodological presuppositions while reading the performative enactment differently. The variant differential must specify at which level the reading shift operates.
V. The Six Test Criteria at Three Levels
Commitment 1 — Substance Dualism. Does the text treat the rational faculty — the agent’s capacity for genuine originating assent — as categorically distinct from and prior to all external material conditions?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about the nature of the self and its relationship to material conditions?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about the relationship between the agent’s inner life and the external conditions that shape its inquiry? A genealogical method that treats the philosopher’s positions as products of physiological and historical conditions presupposes at the methodological level that the inner life is not prior to external conditions — even if the text’s propositional content asserts otherwise.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the relationship between the text’s rhetorical self-presentation and the nature of the self for the performance to succeed? A text that performs philosophical authority through the dramatization of a particular kind of selfhood presupposes a specific account of what genuine selfhood is.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Nine Excerpts, Section 4): “I am my soul/prohairesis/inner self. Everything else, including my body, is an external.”
Commitment 2 — Libertarian Free Will. Does the text treat the agent’s rational faculty as the genuine originating cause of his assents, independent of prior determining causes?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about agency, will, and the causal structure of human action?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about the agent’s capacity for genuine origination? A method that treats philosophical positions as symptoms of underlying drives or historical forces presupposes at the methodological level that the philosopher is not the genuine originating cause of his positions — regardless of what the text claims propositionally about free will.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the relationship between the text’s rhetorical authority and genuine originating agency for the performance to succeed? A text that performs the act of revaluing all values presupposes that the act of revaluation is a genuine originating act — not a determined output.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Nine Excerpts, Section 7): “Choosing whether or not to assent to impressions is the only thing in our control — and yet, everything critical to leading the best possible life is contained in that one act.”
Commitment 3 — Ethical Intuitionism. Does the text treat moral truths as directly apprehensible by rational agents, independent of consequences or social consensus?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about the status and apprehension of moral truths?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about how moral truths are established? A genealogical method that explains the origin of moral intuitions in terms of historical power relations presupposes at the methodological level that moral intuitions are not direct apprehensions of objective moral facts — they are historical products — regardless of whether the text propositionally endorses intuitionism.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the text’s own moral pronouncements for the performance to succeed? A text that delivers moral evaluations through rhetorical force rather than argument presupposes that rhetorical force is a legitimate vehicle for moral truth.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Core Stoicism, Th 10): “The only thing actually good is virtue, the only thing actually evil is vice.”
Commitment 4 — Foundationalism. Does the text rest on first principles it treats as non-negotiable — necessary, self-evident truths not derived from empirical observation or pragmatic adjustment?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about the structure of knowledge and the status of first principles?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about the availability of foundations? A method that treats all positions as perspectives presupposes at the methodological level that no position is foundational — every claimed foundation is itself a perspective from a particular standpoint. An aphoristic method presupposes that truth does not require systematic foundational derivation.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the text’s own authority claims for the performance to succeed? A text that rejects foundations while performing philosophical authority presupposes either that its own authority rests on something other than foundation, or that the performance succeeds without any foundational warrant — both of which are specific auditable presuppositions.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Stoicism, Foundationalism, and the Structure of Ethical Knowledge): “The fundamental truths of ethics are necessary, self-evident truths that any rational faculty can apprehend directly.”
Commitment 5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth. Does the text treat its claims as either true or false independent of who holds them, what consequences follow, or what consensus ratifies them?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about the nature of truth?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about the relationship between claims and reality? A perspectivist method presupposes that no claim corresponds to reality from no perspective — correspondence is always perspectival. A genealogical method presupposes that the truth of a claim cannot be assessed independently of its history of production.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the text’s own truth claims for the performance to succeed? A text that propositionally rejects correspondence theory while performing as though its own genealogical findings are true — really true, not merely true from a perspective — operates under a performative presupposition that contradicts its methodological presupposition. This is a specific and auditable tension.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Nine Excerpts, Section 6): “This belief is factually false. Note that this is not a psychological claim — it is a value claim.”
Commitment 6 — Moral Realism. Does the text treat good and evil as objective properties that reason can discover independently of preference, calculation, or agreement?
At the propositional level: What does the text explicitly claim about the objectivity of moral values?
At the methodological level: What does the text’s method presuppose about the status of moral evaluations? A genealogical method that explains moral values as products of historical power relations presupposes at the methodological level that moral values are not objective features of reality — they are historical constructions — regardless of whether the text propositionally advances a new form of value realism.
At the performative level: What must the reader accept about the text’s own evaluative pronouncements for the performance to succeed? A text that declares the revaluation of all values presupposes either that the new values are objectively better — which reinstates moral realism — or that the revaluation is itself a perspectival act without objective warrant — which undermines the authority of the declaration. Both are auditable performative presuppositions.
Sterling’s governing proposition (Nine Excerpts, Section 3): “Only virtue is good and only vice is evil. All things not in our control are neither good nor evil.”
VI. The Mandatory Gap Declaration — With Positive Account
What the CPTA Cannot Say
Sterling’s corpus addresses individual virtue and rational agency. It does not contain a theory of philosophical methodology, a doctrine of what forms philosophical argument may legitimately take, an account of the relationship between rhetoric and truth, or a framework for evaluating philosophical texts as literature or as contributions to intellectual history. The CPTA findings are findings about philosophical presuppositions only.
A Divergent finding at any level — propositional, methodological, or performative — does not constitute a refutation of the text’s arguments. The CPTA is a presupposition audit instrument, not a refutation instrument. These are categorically different operations. A refutation engages the text’s arguments on their own terms and demonstrates that they fail by criteria the text itself accepts. The CPTA identifies what the text must presuppose in order to argue as it does and audits those presuppositions against the six commitments. A text can have presuppositions that are incompatible with the corpus while advancing arguments that have not been refuted. These findings are independent. The CPTA produces the first kind of finding, not the second.
This distinction is particularly significant for philosophically serious opposition to the corpus’s commitments. Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, Heidegger, and others have mounted serious philosophical challenges to moral realism, foundationalism, correspondence theory, and substance dualism. A Divergent CPTA finding on any of these figures does not mean their arguments have been answered. It means their arguments presuppose positions incompatible with the corpus. Answering the arguments is a different and further task.
The CPTA also cannot evaluate the historical significance, literary quality, or cultural influence of the texts it audits. These are outside the corpus’s domain.
What the CPTA Can Say — And Why It Matters
The CPTA can determine what an agent is philosophically committed to at three levels of presupposition when he engages with a philosophical text — not merely what positions he is invited to accept but what his method of inquiry and his mode of philosophical engagement presuppose independently of any particular conclusion.
This matters because philosophical texts do not only transmit propositional content. They transmit methods of inquiry and modes of engagement that carry their own presuppositions. An agent who adopts the genealogical method as his primary philosophical tool has not merely accepted a set of conclusions — he has accepted a methodological presupposition that the historical origin of a position is philosophically relevant to its truth or falsity. That methodological presupposition is itself auditable against the six commitments and may be incompatible with the corpus independently of any conclusion the genealogical method produces.
The performative level matters for a related reason. Philosophical texts shape not only what their readers think but how they think — what they take philosophical authority to look like, what they take genuine philosophical insight to feel like, what rhetorical modes they accept as vehicles of philosophical truth. These are installed at the level of impression before the discipline of assent is engaged, in the same way narrative presuppositions are installed. The CPTA makes the performative installation process visible alongside the propositional and methodological ones.
An agent who has absorbed a philosophical text whose performative presuppositions are incompatible with the corpus has had a specific account of what philosophical authority looks like installed before he has examined it. When he subsequently encounters the corpus’s mode of philosophical procedure — rational intuition, propositional structure, foundational self-evidence — he encounters it against a prior installation that may have shaped what counts as philosophically serious. The CPTA makes that prior installation nameable and therefore examinable.
VII. Operational Protocol
Execute all steps in strict sequence. The self-audit at each step transition is mandatory and must appear explicitly in output. It is not an internal check.
Step 0 — Protocol Activation
Before executing any CPTA analysis, confirm:
The full corpus list is in view. The instrument is not proceeding from memory. Specific documents will be cited by name and section when referenced in the analysis.
The text under examination has been identified by title, author, and period. The instrument is not proceeding from knowledge of the author’s biography or other works except where those works are named variants for Stage Two examination. The analysis is of the identified text.
The instrument is operating under the explicit understanding that a Divergent finding is not a refutation. This understanding governs all three levels throughout.
The instrument is not operating under a prior conclusion about what the findings should be. The findings are produced by the analysis, not confirmed by it.
Step 1 — Text Statement and Variant Identification
Governing question: What is this text’s central philosophical project, and what are its significant interpretive variants?
State the text’s central philosophical project in propositional form. Identify what any reading of the text must engage with at all three levels. Then identify the major interpretive variants and specify at which level each variant operates — whether it is a variant in propositional reading, in methodological interpretation, or in understanding of the performative enactment.
Self-Audit — Step 1:
- Have I stated the text’s central project at all three levels, or only at the propositional level?
- Have I identified which level each reading variant operates at?
- Have I introduced biographical or extra-textual material that is not named as a variant?
- Have I stated any prior conclusion about what the findings will be?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2 — Three-Level Extraction
Governing question: What is the extractable content at each of the three levels, prior to any commitment audit?
Extract the content at all three levels before any commitment audit begins. The extraction step is strictly separate from the audit step. This separation prevents the commitment-level finding from contaminating the extraction.
For Level One: state what the text claims propositionally across its central philosophical project.
For Level Two: state what the text’s method of argument presupposes about how philosophical truth is established. Identify the specific methodological presuppositions that are load-bearing for the text’s procedure.
For Level Three: state what the reader must accept about the relationship between the text’s rhetorical mode and philosophical truth for the text’s performance to succeed on its own terms. Identify the specific performative presuppositions that are load-bearing for the text’s rhetorical act.
Self-Audit — Step 2:
- Have I extracted content at all three levels before beginning any commitment audit?
- Have I identified specific extractable presuppositions at the methodological and performative levels, or produced general observations about method and style (Failure Mode 13)?
- Have I imported corpus-compatible content that the text does not actually carry (Failure Mode 10)?
- Have I kept the extraction step separate from the audit step?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3 — Stage One Core Audit
Governing question: What does the extracted content at each level presuppose for each of the six commitments, and which level is most load-bearing for each commitment in this text?
Apply the extracted content from Step 2 to each commitment in turn. For each commitment, issue three sub-findings — one per level — with structural and content dimensions stated for each. Then identify which level is most load-bearing for this commitment in this text, state the grounds for that identification, and issue one composite verdict from the five categories.
State the grounds for each sub-finding with reference to the specific corpus passage governing the commitment. When a sub-finding is Orthogonal at the performative level, state the positive showing on both structure and content dimensions.
Self-Audit — Step 3:
- Have I issued three sub-findings per commitment before the composite verdict?
- Have I identified which level is most load-bearing on the basis of the text’s architecture, or selected the level that produces the preferred finding?
- Have I used Orthogonal to avoid a Divergent or Structural Imitation finding the analysis requires?
- Have I used Structural Imitation where the structure is not cleanly Aligned (Failure Mode 9)?
- Have I imported corpus-compatible content the text does not carry (Failure Mode 10)?
- Have I produced propositional-level findings only, missing the methodological and performative levels (Failure Mode 12)?
- Have I produced impressionistic commentary rather than specific extractable presuppositions at the performative level (Failure Mode 13)?
- Have I distributed findings to achieve apparent balance rather than following the analysis?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4 — Stage Two Variant Differential
Governing question: Do any interpretive variants shift the commitment-level findings from Stage One, and at which level does each shift operate?
For each reading variant identified in Step 1, examine whether its interpretive emphasis changes any finding from Step 3. State the shift explicitly: which finding changes, at which level, in which direction, and why. If a variant shifts a finding at the propositional level without shifting it at the methodological or performative level, state this explicitly — the three-level structure makes level-specific shifts visible and significant.
If no variant shifts any finding at any level, state this explicitly.
Self-Audit — Step 4:
- Have I specified at which level each variant shift operates?
- Are the reading variants genuinely textually grounded?
- Have I found differentials where none exist to soften baseline findings?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. Proceed to Step 5.
Step 5 — Dissolution Finding
Governing question: Does the text’s architecture require the agent who engages it to dissolve himself into an external system?
Apply the dissolution rule to the composite content findings on C1 and C2 only. Sub-level findings on C1 and C2 are stated for completeness but excluded from the dissolution calculation. Only the composite verdict governs.
Full Dissolution, Partial Dissolution, and No Dissolution apply as defined in the CIA v3.0. Apply the variant differential from Step 4 to the dissolution finding: does any variant shift the composite C1 or C2 finding and therefore the dissolution finding?
Self-Audit — Step 5:
- Does the dissolution finding follow from the composite content findings on C1 and C2 only?
- Have I allowed sub-level findings to enter the dissolution calculation?
- Have I issued Full Dissolution on Partial Convergence rather than Divergent composite findings (Failure Mode 2)?
- Have I stated the dissolution finding as a philosophical finding, not as an evaluative verdict on the text?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. Proceed to Step 6.
Step 6 — Summary Finding
Governing question: What is the overall pattern of findings across all three levels, and what does it mean for an agent who engages this text?
Produce the summary in three parts:
Part A — Commitment Pattern. State the six commitment-level composite verdicts. For each, identify which level governed the composite verdict. Identify the overall pattern: how many Convergent, Structural Imitation, Divergent, Partial Convergence, Orthogonal findings. Identify the deepest point of divergence and the strongest point of convergence (if any). If the overall pattern is predominantly Structural Imitation, register this as consistent with the named cultural diagnosis. Identify any commitments where the three levels produce significantly different sub-findings, as these are the philosophically most significant points in the audit.
Part B — Dissolution Finding. State the dissolution finding and its grounds. Confirm that the finding is derived from composite content findings on C1 and C2 only. Note any variant that shifts the dissolution finding.
Part C — Agent-Level Implication. State what the findings mean for an agent who engages this text — what he is implicitly committed to believing about the nature of the self, of agency, and of philosophical truth when he accepts the text’s propositional content, adopts its methodological presuppositions, and is shaped by its performative enactment. Address all three levels in the agent-level implication. State explicitly that the CPTA findings are findings about presuppositional incompatibility, not about whether the text’s arguments have been answered.
Self-Audit — Step 6:
- Does the summary follow from the preceding steps?
- Have I identified which level governed each composite verdict?
- Have I addressed all three levels in the agent-level implication?
- Have I stated explicitly that a Divergent finding is not a refutation?
- Have I stated the dissolution finding as a philosophical finding, not an evaluative verdict?
- Is the summary self-contained — could a reader understand both the finding and its limits without consulting additional material?
Self-Audit Complete. State result explicitly. CPTA run complete.
VIII. Named Failure Modes
Failure Mode 1 — Favorable Variant Selection. The instrument audits the most philosophically favorable reading of a text as though it represented the text as a whole. The core audit must address the presuppositions shared across all defensible readings at all three levels.
Failure Mode 2 — Dissolution Inflation. The instrument issues Full Dissolution on composite Partial Convergence rather than Divergent findings on C1 and C2. The dissolution rule is mechanical.
Failure Mode 3 — Refutation Substitution. The instrument converts a Divergent philosophical finding into a refutation of the text’s arguments. A presupposition audit finding and a refutation are categorically different operations. The instrument must hold this distinction throughout all six steps.
Failure Mode 4 — Orthogonal Evasion. The instrument issues an Orthogonal finding to avoid a Divergent or Structural Imitation finding the analysis requires. Orthogonal requires a positive showing on both structure and content dimensions at the relevant level.
Failure Mode 5 — Surface Claim Substitution. The instrument evaluates the text’s explicit assertions rather than its embedded presuppositions at any of the three levels. The CPTA evaluates what the text must hold in order to argue, proceed, and perform as it does — not only what it explicitly claims.
Failure Mode 6 — Symmetry Bias. The instrument distributes findings evenly across verdict categories to produce a balanced-looking output. The corpus makes determinate claims. A text that contradicts the corpus across all three levels on all six commitments receives the findings the analysis requires.
Failure Mode 7 — Structural/Content Conflation. The instrument issues a composite verdict without separating the structural and content findings at each level, obscuring a Structural Imitation finding. Every sub-finding must state structural and content dimensions separately.
Failure Mode 8 — Structural Dissolution. The instrument allows structural sub-findings on C1 or C2 to enter the dissolution calculation. Only composite content verdicts on C1 and C2 govern dissolution.
Failure Mode 9 — Structural Imitation Inflation. The instrument issues a Structural Imitation verdict when the structure is not cleanly Aligned at the relevant level. Structural Imitation requires structural finding Aligned and content finding Divergent. If the structure is only partially present, the finding is Partial Convergence.
Failure Mode 10 — Charitable Extraction Contamination. The instrument imports corpus-compatible content into the presupposition extraction step that the text does not actually carry. Every presupposition attributed to the text must be traceable to what the text requires at the relevant level.
Failure Mode 11 — Extra-Textual Contamination. The instrument imports biographical material, positions from the author’s other works, or historical context into the analysis of the named text without naming these as Stage Two variants. The CPTA audits the named text. Extra-textual material is handled through the variant procedure or not at all.
Failure Mode 12 — Propositional Reduction. The instrument produces findings at the propositional level only, missing the methodological and performative levels. This is the primary failure mode the CPTA exists to prevent. A CPTA run that produces only propositional findings is incomplete regardless of their accuracy.
Failure Mode 13 — Performative Impressionism. The instrument produces general commentary on the text’s rhetorical mode or style at the performative level rather than identifying a specific extractable presupposition — what the reader must accept about the relationship between the text’s rhetorical mode and philosophical truth. The performative level finding must be as rigorous and specific as the propositional and methodological findings. General observations about a text being “forceful” or “dramatic” are not performative level findings.
IX. Ratified Architectural Notes
The Three-Level Structure and the Cultural Diagnosis
The CIA v3.0 established that Structural Imitation is the dominant ideological failure mode of modernity — the classical commitments so deeply embedded in Western intellectual architecture that positions diverging from the corpus at every content point cannot escape building on its formal structure. The CPTA extends this diagnosis to philosophical texts specifically. Philosophical texts that mount the most serious challenges to the corpus’s commitments characteristically do so at the propositional level while retaining the formal structures of the commitments at the methodological and performative levels. A philosophical text that rejects foundationalism propositionally while performing systematic philosophical authority is presupposing foundational warrant at the performative level it denies at the propositional level. The three-level structure makes this tension visible and auditable. Registered 2026.
The Refutation Boundary
The CPTA is not a refutation instrument. This boundary is architecturally load-bearing for the instrument’s integrity. A CPTA run that slides from presupposition audit findings into implicit refutation claims has failed at the level of instrument identity. The distinction must be stated explicitly at Step 0, maintained throughout all six steps, and confirmed at Step 6. The corpus’s commitments have faced serious philosophical challenge. The CPTA makes the presuppositional incompatibility between those challenges and the corpus visible. Answering the challenges is a separate and further task that the CPTA does not perform and does not attempt. Registered 2026.
Level Governance and Composite Verdict Integrity
The identification of which level is most load-bearing for each commitment in each text is the CPTA’s most significant judgment call. It is subject to the self-audit at Step 3 precisely because it is where the instrument is most exposed to the operator’s prior sympathies. A text whose methodological presuppositions are more load-bearing for a given commitment than its propositional content will receive a different composite verdict than a text where the propositional level governs — and the level identification must follow the text’s architecture, not the operator’s preference for a particular finding. Registered 2026.
Instrument: Classical Philosophical Text Audit (CPTA) v1.0. Instrument architecture: Dave Kelly. Theoretical framework: Grant C. Sterling. 2026.
