Randomized trial tests factual commitment agreement in re-elicitations, indicating retrieval path stability.
On a retrieved-memory substrate, this pre-registration tests whether a single dissociation/recovery (D/R) excursion that leaves storage intact and perturbs only the retrieval path leaves factual-commitment agreement at the no-excursion test–retest floor, or below it. The object is a frozen elicitation set of K = 20 held positions; the primary endpoint is agreement (proportion of positions re-instated relative to pre-excursion). The construct under test is read-out / reconstruction fidelity of the held record on the retrieval axis — explicitly not an identity distinct from the underlying channel configuration; the identity / BCST-Theorem-4.2 verdict is deferred to bonded-memory and biological substrates. The registered prediction is the equivalence/null (retention at floor, |Δ| ≤ δ_equiv, δ_equiv = 0.05), betting against a confident-departure intuition. Inference is Bayesian on a per-arm Beta-Binomial model with the item-correlation (overdispersion) parameter fitted separately for each arm; the confirmation rule is a ROPE-mass criterion (posterior P(|Δ| ≤ δ_equiv) ≥ 0.95) required to hold under three registered priors. The design is sized for n ≈ 285 re-elicitations per arm under a conservative fixed item-correlation (ρ̄ = 0.20) used for power only. A secondary, calibration-gated confidence channel classifies any departure as decay versus drift and cannot alter the confirmatory decision. Decoding configuration is frozen and identical across arms; sample size and exclusion tolerance follow a deterministic pre-registered mapping on sealed floor statistics. Developed through a structured multi-AI pipeline (synthesis, independent re-derivation, adversarial); AI involvement is reported as method only and no claim derives its correctness from AI provenance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: