The Open Proof-Burden
An open proof burden names what remains to be demonstrated for a stated claim. It makes further work concrete: specify the claim, its scope, the evidence or derivation needed, and what the existing account already establishes.
Working inventories and completeness
Ultimentality articulates four directional primitives, two named Forces, three Theodicytes, and five SPLCW functions. Those inventories can organize useful and accurate work. Their use does not by itself prove that no further primitive, composite, corruption, or function is possible at the same level.
Completeness is an additional claim. A proposed alternative must preserve the relevant type and level: another emotion does not automatically add a directional primitive, and another implementation does not automatically add a function. A successful completeness argument must explain why the relevant alternatives are covered or reducible; an irreducible counter-instance changes that claim.
How the burden can change
The CV mark records the current inventory as open to a better carving. Further work can justify retaining it, refine its domain, expose a missing case, or establish a stronger result under explicit premises. A burden can be discharged for a stated scope. The resulting proof remains inspectable, including through internal criticism.
Lack of a proof is not a disproof. Conversely, effective examples alone do not establish universal completeness. The distinction preserves demonstrated capacity while directing the next investigation toward the actual unresolved question.
Relation to criticism and authority
Authorized definitions establish what the inventory names. They do not make a claimed proof valid or an actual counter-instance disappear. The Falsification Standard evaluates whether a challenge reaches its target; warranted strengthening records what additional support establishes.
A historical adversarial report can supply useful candidate cases. Each case still requires examining its construction and the claim it addresses. Its reported conclusion is not a substitute for that examination.
Formal status
E: Derived, Exposition of the kernel's contestable-count discipline; particular completeness claims carry their own grounds and scope. A: distinguishes working adequacy, missing proof, counterexample, and demonstrated completeness. Provenance: kernel §§0.3–0.32 and the framework's type-sensitive evaluation of claims.
See also
Carving Tier · Directional Primitives · Force · Theodicytes · SPLCW · Strengthening Without Absolutization · Falsification Standard