This analysis clarifies carry and continuation claims at transport junctions, highlighting structural availability.
A before-and-after resemblance does not establish that anything crossed the interval between the two appearances. A continuation claim is narrower than that inference: it concerns whether sufficient declared structure remains available for carry through bounded passage. Carry is a further and distinct claim. It concerns what structure remains receiptable across a claimed crossing. This paper distinguishes two descriptive levels at which a carry claim may be stated. At the path level, the bounded record supports a trajectory or route across the transition. At the relation level, a bounded relation remains supportable across the transition without possession of a path. Where neither level is supported, no carry claim is supported within the stated bounds. These are claim ceilings, not an algorithm or a new physical taxonomy. The failure of a path claim does not create a hidden path, and it does not by itself settle every relation claim. A relation-level carry claim does not establish object identity, mechanism, persistence, or historical memory. Continuation concerns whether structure remains available for carry. Carry concerns what remains receiptable across the crossing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christian Zenteno (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: