Attack-Type Matching
Definition
Attack-type matching routes criticism toward the commitments a claim actually makes. A binding claim, for example, can be examined through its actuator, regulated error, or asserted effect. The routes are examples, not exclusive permissions: a claim may expose several attack surfaces and belong to several types.
Relevance to the target must be established. A successful argument is assessed on its substance, not on whether its author used the table's labels. The result remains separate from its implementation in governed correction.
Type and formal status
E: Derived, Mixed. The page organizes existing distinctions as exposition and proposes a CV classification. Its count and grouping remain revisable.
A: The table has an accuracy burden: whether it routes a challenge to the claim and permits relevant evidence to reach it. Calling a table navigational does not exempt its mappings from error.
The matching table
| Claim type | Examples of relevant examination |
|---|---|
| Frame condition | Challenge premises, internal consistency, claimed entailment, or application; distinguish declining premises from refuting a conditional inference |
| Stipulation | Decline its use, identify ambiguity or inconsistent application, or challenge a claimed consequence of adopting it |
| Carving or count | Counter-instance, missing category, unnecessary split, or a better organizing account |
| Binding | Misidentified actuator, regulated error, target, or claimed effect |
| Coupled controller | Failed mutual regulation, a controlled removal test, or a counterexample to the claimed emergent function |
| Role topology | Missing function, invalid ordering or dependency, or a realization that contradicts claimed coverage |
| Authority claim | Misattribution, conflict with the source's actual statement, inapplicable scope, or challenge to the authority asserted |
| World-mapping claim | Predictive or explanatory failure within the claimed scope |
| Continuity claim | Misidentified lineage, unsupported identity criterion, or a break in the claimed continuity |
| Answerability claim | A relevant blocked update path, capture, or a misclassification of effective correction |
These rows overlap. A concrete case can test more than one commitment. Outcomes can include retention with scoped support, inconclusive examination, revision, status change, deletion, or demonstrated dependency, as specified in outcomes-of-attack.
A frame-internal claim does not become empirically immune merely by being labeled FT. Distinguish the logical conditional from an assertion that its premises or conclusions apply to a case. A stipulation fixes usage; claims about that usage and its consequences remain assessable. An authority-canonical claim must accurately represent its source as well as state why the source has the attributed authority.
What it regulates
The table prevents burdens from being silently transferred between claims. It also prevents a claim from escaping its actual burdens by switching labels during a dispute.
What regulates it
Read the full target, not only its compressed row. The relevance procedure requires a reason for excluding a challenge and permits that reason to be contested. Self-sealing review checks whether the table protects claims from evidence. Stronger formulations can be adopted where their arguments warrant them.
Valid attack surface
Show that a row misstates a claim's commitments, omits a relevant route, falsely makes routes exclusive, or conflates evidence with uptake. A useful general argument can apply to several types without making those types identical.
What happens if isolated
A table used without examining the target can become a gatekeeping device. Missing this particular table does not make all objections equally sound; relevance can be established by other explicit reasoning.
What larger property emerges from the coupling
The table makes criticism easier to locate and evaluate while keeping the mapping itself correctable. It supports retained correction without installing procedural immunity.
What would actually kill the claim
The classification needs revision if it systematically misroutes relevant criticism or cannot be applied without arbitrary retyping. A different classification can preserve or improve the same function; declining these labels does not forfeit the capacity to reason about relevance.
Prohibited misreadings
- One type, one permissible attack: claims can have several commitments.
- A matched attack as an established defeat: examination still has to establish its result.
- An unmatched label as an invalid argument: inspect the connection to the target.
- A routing table without an accuracy burden: its assignments can be wrong.
See also
The Same-Level Attack Rule · The Outcomes of Attack · Causal Falsifiability · Refutation and Frame Declension · The Self-Sealing Test · The Falsification Standard · The Attack-Surface Matrix · The Category-Error Atlas