Captured-Propagation
Captured-propagation names a proposed fourth Theodicyte that the no-fourth argument excludes when it means only failure of the aim of handing-on. That exclusion is a classification within the self–world–medium decomposition, not a claim that transmission cannot be captured, misdirected, or harmful.
The category question
The three Theodicytes name single-term absolutizations: world-relation, self, and medium. A missing result is not another term taking the whole's place. Thus the unhanded-on does not become a fourth member merely by being a failure. This is the scoped result of the No-Fourth Argument.
Actual capture still requires analysis
If a controller redirects transmission, if an inherited instruction suppresses correction, or if propagated structure harms its recipients, there is a process to investigate. A failure can have an active cause even when its outcome is an absence. The cause may involve a named Theodicyte, installed compulsion, corrective capture, or a different proposed mechanism.
A successful transmission is also not automatically successful Telos. Telos retains the answerability predicate; raw persistence or output volume does not establish deserved continuation.
Use the distinction precisely
Specify whether “captured propagation” refers to the hypothetical fourth term-absolutization or to an actual controlled transmission. The former is the narrow category excluded here. The latter must be assessed on its mechanism and consequences, without treating this label as a reason to dismiss it.
Formal status
E: Derived, Exposition of the no-fourth argument's conditional result. A: distinguishes an excluded category from observable transmission failures and capture mechanisms. Provenance: the framework's term/aim distinction and kernel §6.21, preserving the separate types of Propagation, Gratitude, and Telos.
See also
No-Fourth Argument · Sterility · Propagation · Gratitude · Telos · Installed Compulsion · Capture of the Corrective Layer