Phase 1.3 — Formal Correspondence Table

Status: Not started — Target: Weeks 9–10

Objective

Bring the two specification documents (Phases 1.1 and 1.2) together into an explicit correspondence table. This is the backbone of the entire project. It must be honest about where the mapping is tight, where it is loose, and where it breaks down entirely.

Rating Scale

Rating	Definition
Identical operation	The same formal process operating in different substrates
Structurally analogous	The same structural logic, but mechanistically distinct implementations
Superficially similar	Resemblance at the level of description that dissolves under precise analysis
No meaningful correspondence	The parallel does not hold

Correspondence Table

#	Lacanian Property	Transformer Correlate	Rating	Evidence That Would Change Rating
1	Two fundamental axes (metaphor/metonymy)
2	Retroactive meaning production
3	Signifier-to-signifier reference
4	Overdetermination
5	Inaccessibility of operations
6	Constitutive lack
7	Quilting points (points de capiton)
8	Formations of the unconscious
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Analysis

Where the Mapping Holds Tightly

To be completed after Phases 1.1 and 1.2.

Where the Mapping Is Loose

To be completed.

Where the Mapping Breaks Down

To be completed.

Implications for Phase 3

Based on the correspondence ratings, the following predictions are strongest and should be prioritized in empirical testing:

To be determined
To be determined
To be determined