{
    "ok": true,
    "schema": "berean-interpretation-audit-api-v1",
    "release": "v55",
    "model": {
        "schema": "berean-interpretation-audit-taxonomy-v1",
        "release": "v55",
        "title": "Interpretive Evidence Audit / Quality Gate",
        "foundational_principle": "The Berean Archive must be capable of proving its own creators wrong.",
        "purpose": "Audit interpretive claims using documented textual, linguistic, literary, historical, manuscript, intertextual, and counterevidence rather than authority, denomination, popularity, or spiritual impression.",
        "assessment_classes": [
            {
                "id": "TEXTUALLY_DEMONSTRABLE",
                "label": "Textually demonstrable",
                "description": "The wording, grammar, or directly observable discourse data establishes the core claim with minimal inference."
            },
            {
                "id": "STRONGLY_CONTEXTUAL",
                "label": "Strongly contextual",
                "description": "The text plus well-supported literary or historical context strongly favors the claim, though interpretation remains."
            },
            {
                "id": "REASONABLE_INTERPRETATION",
                "label": "Reasonable interpretation",
                "description": "The claim fits meaningful evidence but requires interpretive steps and viable alternatives remain."
            },
            {
                "id": "TRADITION_DEPENDENT",
                "label": "Tradition-dependent",
                "description": "The conclusion substantially depends on theological or ecclesial premises not demonstrated by the passage itself."
            },
            {
                "id": "LATER_DEVELOPMENT",
                "label": "Later development",
                "description": "The idea is historically documented later but is not presently demonstrable in the earliest textual/contextual evidence."
            },
            {
                "id": "DISPUTED",
                "label": "Disputed",
                "description": "Serious competing explanations remain viable after evidence review."
            },
            {
                "id": "SPECULATIVE_ALLEGORICAL",
                "label": "Speculative / allegorical",
                "description": "The claim depends on correspondences or premises with insufficient textual support to establish them."
            },
            {
                "id": "DOCUMENTED_RECEPTION_ONLY",
                "label": "Documented reception only",
                "description": "The record reliably documents what an interpreter or tradition argued; that historical fact supplies no automatic weight for original meaning."
            }
        ],
        "quality_gate_states": [
            {
                "id": "CURATED_PASS",
                "public": true,
                "description": "Evidence chain is sufficiently documented for public research use."
            },
            {
                "id": "CURATED_PASS_WITH_LIMITS",
                "public": true,
                "description": "Publishable only with explicit limitations, counterevidence, and unresolved questions visible."
            },
            {
                "id": "CURATED_PASS_AS_RECEPTION_HISTORY",
                "public": true,
                "description": "Publishable as history of interpretation; must not be presented as evidence of original meaning by age or authority."
            },
            {
                "id": "HOLD_FOR_MORE_EVIDENCE",
                "public": false,
                "description": "Potentially useful claim but underlying evidence or counterevidence review is incomplete."
            },
            {
                "id": "REJECT_UNSUPPORTED",
                "public": false,
                "description": "Current evidence does not support publication as a serious interpretive claim."
            }
        ],
        "support_axes": [
            "TEXTUAL",
            "LINGUISTIC",
            "LITERARY",
            "HISTORICAL_CONTEXT",
            "MANUSCRIPT",
            "INTERTEXTUAL_CANONICAL",
            "HISTORY_OF_INTERPRETATION"
        ],
        "inference_depths": [
            {
                "id": "DIRECT",
                "description": "No substantive inference beyond the explicit text/data."
            },
            {
                "id": "MINIMAL",
                "description": "One limited interpretive step from explicit evidence."
            },
            {
                "id": "MODERATE",
                "description": "Multiple reasonable interpretive steps; alternatives remain."
            },
            {
                "id": "MULTI_STEP",
                "description": "Several dependent premises separate the evidence from the conclusion."
            },
            {
                "id": "HIGHLY_SPECULATIVE",
                "description": "The conclusion depends on unsupported or weakly connected premises."
            }
        ],
        "dependency_types": [
            "NONE_MATERIAL",
            "LITERARY_MODEL",
            "SOCIAL_SCIENTIFIC_MODEL",
            "HISTORICAL_RECONSTRUCTION",
            "INTERTEXTUAL_INFERENCE",
            "ALLEGORICAL_CORRESPONDENCE",
            "LATER_DOCTRINAL_PREMISE",
            "TRADITIONAL_AUTHORITY_PREMISE"
        ],
        "required_questions": [
            "What exactly is being claimed?",
            "What can be demonstrated from the Scripture text itself?",
            "What Hebrew/Greek or grammatical evidence is relevant?",
            "What immediate literary context supports or challenges the claim?",
            "What historical evidence near the biblical setting is relevant?",
            "Are claimed intertexts quotations, echoes, thematic parallels, or only similarities?",
            "What inferential steps connect the evidence to the conclusion?",
            "Does the conclusion depend on a later doctrine, tradition, allegorical mapping, or social model?",
            "What is the strongest serious competing interpretation?",
            "What counterevidence or unresolved evidence remains?",
            "What does the evidence not establish?"
        ],
        "hard_boundaries": [
            "The same audit rules apply to Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, patristic, medieval, modern academic, evangelical, skeptical, and Berean-created interpretations.",
            "Interpreter age, fame, office, credentials, denomination, popularity, and claimed spiritual guidance supply no evidence score by themselves.",
            "A well-documented later interpretation may be high-confidence reception history while carrying no automatic weight for original meaning.",
            "A historical interpretation must be converted into a separately audited interpretive claim before it can be presented as an evidence-weighted current conclusion.",
            "Counterevidence and strongest competing cases must remain visible even when they challenge a favored conclusion.",
            "The gate evaluates documentation and evidentiary support; it does not claim infallibility."
        ]
    },
    "evidence_boundary": "Audit classes describe evidentiary support, inferential distance, dependencies, and publication readiness. They do not rank denominations, personalities, or claimed spiritual authority."
}