From In Intellectu to In Praesentatione: Sketches, Classifying Categories and the Ontological Argument

We reconstruct the ontological argument as a sourcehood lifting problem: an attempted passage from presentation-level content to aligned sourcehood data. Anselm's "in the understanding" should not be read as possession of an object, existent or nonexistent, but as grasp of a structured presentation whose semantics, manifestation field, candidate-alignment, and representability can be audited separately. Presentation adequacy is the first obstruction: a presentation must define a semantic moduli problem before any manifestation field, candidate-alignment, or representer can be selected. A provisional audit of perfect-being content yields a mixed verdict: the strongest reconstruction is structurally richer than parody, but its intended semantic standing, greatness order, candidate-field alignment, modal rigidity, and contrast with nearby presentations remain open costs. The framework also distinguishes failures that ordinary validity-talk compresses: inconsistency in a formal presentation is a semantic-standing failure, while modal collapse in a consistent variant is a rigidity and contrast cost. Even a classifier of representability remains meta-semantic; it is not the source it classifies.