{
    "ok": true,
    "schema": "berean-interpretive-context-api-v1",
    "release": "v52",
    "model": {
        "schema": "berean-interpretive-context-taxonomy-v1",
        "release": "v52",
        "title": "Interpretive Context / Literary Structure / History of Interpretation foundation",
        "foundational_principle": "The Berean Archive must be capable of proving its own creators wrong.",
        "purpose": "Expose linguistic, literary, historical, cultural, manuscript, canonical, and scholarly evidence without collapsing Scripture, external evidence, interpretation, or synthesis into one authority layer.",
        "statement_layers": [
            {
                "id": "SCRIPTURE_TEXT",
                "label": "Scripture says",
                "description": "Observed textual data, wording, grammar, discourse structure, and explicitly recorded narrative facts."
            },
            {
                "id": "HISTORICAL_EVIDENCE",
                "label": "Historical evidence indicates",
                "description": "External or contextual evidence such as ancient texts, archaeology, inscriptions, papyri, legal/customary evidence, material culture, and historically bounded reconstructions."
            },
            {
                "id": "SCHOLAR_INTERPRETATION",
                "label": "Scholar argues",
                "description": "An attributed interpretation or reconstruction proposed by an identifiable scholar, tradition, article, book, lecture, or other source."
            },
            {
                "id": "BEREAN_SYNTHESIS",
                "label": "Berean synthesis",
                "description": "An evidence-weighted Archive assessment that must expose supporting evidence, counterevidence, uncertainty, and what the assessment does not establish."
            }
        ],
        "literary_observation_classifications": [
            {
                "id": "DIRECTLY_OBSERVABLE",
                "label": "Directly observable"
            },
            {
                "id": "STRONGLY_SUPPORTED",
                "label": "Strongly supported"
            },
            {
                "id": "PLAUSIBLE_SCHOLARLY_INTERPRETATION",
                "label": "Plausible scholarly interpretation"
            },
            {
                "id": "DISPUTED",
                "label": "Disputed"
            },
            {
                "id": "SPECULATIVE",
                "label": "Speculative"
            }
        ],
        "interpretive_confidence": [
            {
                "id": "TEXTUALLY_DEMONSTRABLE",
                "label": "Textually demonstrable",
                "description": "The grammar/text directly supports this."
            },
            {
                "id": "HISTORICALLY_STRONGLY_SUPPORTED",
                "label": "Historically strongly supported",
                "description": "Multiple or strong historical evidence streams support the reconstruction."
            },
            {
                "id": "STRONG_INTERPRETIVE_CASE",
                "label": "Strong interpretive case",
                "description": "Several evidence streams converge but interpretation is still involved."
            },
            {
                "id": "PLAUSIBLE",
                "label": "Plausible",
                "description": "Fits available evidence but alternatives remain viable."
            },
            {
                "id": "DISPUTED",
                "label": "Disputed",
                "description": "Serious scholarship supports competing interpretations."
            },
            {
                "id": "SPECULATIVE",
                "label": "Speculative",
                "description": "Interesting possibility with insufficient evidence."
            }
        ],
        "intertextual_relationship_classifications": [
            {
                "id": "DIRECT_QUOTATION",
                "label": "Direct quotation"
            },
            {
                "id": "EXPLICIT_CITATION",
                "label": "Explicit citation"
            },
            {
                "id": "STRONG_VERBAL_ECHO",
                "label": "Strong verbal echo"
            },
            {
                "id": "THEMATIC_PARALLEL",
                "label": "Thematic parallel"
            },
            {
                "id": "POSSIBLE_ALLUSION",
                "label": "Possible allusion"
            },
            {
                "id": "WEAK_SPECULATIVE_SIMILARITY",
                "label": "Weak/speculative similarity"
            }
        ],
        "machine_detection_states": [
            {
                "id": "CURATED_HUMAN_REVIEWED",
                "public": true,
                "description": "Human-curated and reviewed record."
            },
            {
                "id": "MACHINE_SUGGESTION_REVIEWED_ACCEPTED",
                "public": true,
                "description": "Machine-suggested pattern accepted after human/source review."
            },
            {
                "id": "MACHINE_SUGGESTION_UNCURATED",
                "public": false,
                "description": "Machine-detected possibility; must not render as an established or curated observation."
            },
            {
                "id": "MACHINE_SUGGESTION_REJECTED",
                "public": false,
                "description": "Machine suggestion rejected during review."
            }
        ],
        "strongest_version_principle": "Competing positions must be represented using their strongest serious formulation, with their own reasoning and evidence, rather than caricatures.",
        "evidence_before_authority_workflow": [
            "Identify the claim made by a scholar, tradition, video, book, article, or community contributor.",
            "Identify the evidence the claim relies upon.",
            "Acquire or cite the primary/underlying source where possible.",
            "Compare serious supporting and competing scholarship.",
            "Record counterevidence and unresolved problems.",
            "Classify confidence by claim, not by the fame or authority of the interpreter.",
            "Expose the provenance chain to the user."
        ],
        "hard_boundaries": [
            "Scripture text, historical evidence, scholar interpretation, and Berean synthesis remain visibly separate.",
            "Spiritual impressions may be discussed as theology but never rank documentary evidence.",
            "Machine-detected literary patterns are suggestions until curated and sourced.",
            "Similarity does not by itself establish quotation, allusion, dependence, fulfillment, or identical meaning.",
            "External historical context must not override the Scripture text.",
            "A famous scholar or historic tradition is not authoritative merely by reputation.",
            "Counterevidence must remain visible even when it challenges an interpretation favored by Archive contributors."
        ],
        "extensions": [
            {
                "release": "v55",
                "title": "Interpretive Evidence Audit / Quality Gate",
                "features": [
                    "same evidence rules across traditions",
                    "explicit inference depth and dependencies",
                    "counterevidence and strongest competing case required",
                    "reception history cannot self-promote into original-meaning evidence"
                ]
            }
        ]
    },
    "evidence_boundary": "The taxonomy labels evidence and interpretation layers; it does not make an interpretation authoritative or upgrade a claim beyond its own sourced evidence."
}