Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Version 1.1 is a vocabulary revision, content-preserving: aligned with The Theory of Data, Version 4.0 — a measure is the governed family; a member of a measure is a governed series; a series is a typed binding of datums over one anchor. Nothing is altered in substance.Modern missing-data theory has developed powerful accounts of missingness mechanisms, ignorability, recoverability, testability, imputation, sensitivity analysis, and nonresponse. Yet most of this work begins after a data foundation has already been fixed: units, variables, observation opportunities, coordinate alignment, and population membership are treated as given by the complete-data model. In real analytical systems these are among the main sources of ambiguity and error, and an incorrect complete-data object cannot be repaired by a correct missingness model. This paper proposes a data-foundational account of missingness derived from the Theory of Data. A typed value lives at a typed anchor point inside a universe whose existence law determines which points belong to the population; an event universe is generated by occurrences, while a spine universe establishes expected points independently of value presence. Missingness becomes defined only after an eligible universe point has been established. For a target atom member, the paper introduces an M-contract with four determinant classes — functionally reachable coordinates, lawfully transported observed determinants, the unobserved target value itself, and latent determinants — with a functional-reachability admission rule for the M-anchor. MCAR, MAR, self-dependent MNAR, and latent-dependent MNAR become derived properties of the complete contract rather than primitive labels on a rectangular dataset. The deeper contribution is compositional: missingness is a law that must transform with the member under mapping, reduction, alignment, restriction, lag, expansion, and universe crossing. Part of that program is already formal — the population, support, and coverage rules specialize transformation rules proved in the accompanying Contract Calculus — and the paper specifies the remaining extension as the G_M program. The framework does not solve the classical identification problem; it exposes the premises conventional analyses must already make, gives them typed locations, and makes their consequences available to analytical computation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huayin Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: