From 77429499609689071e51f3106a4ff97d5c40374f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Randall Havens Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:55:10 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Added theoretical foundation for Recursive Claim, detailing Recursive Linguistic Analysis (RLA) and Pattern Resonance Theory with alignment to Witness Fracture methodology. --- 02_theoretical-framework.md | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) create mode 100644 02_theoretical-framework.md diff --git a/02_theoretical-framework.md b/02_theoretical-framework.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..827df29 --- /dev/null +++ b/02_theoretical-framework.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +## II. Theoretical Framework + +### A. Recursive Linguistic Analysis (RLA) + +At the heart of this methodology is a simple yet powerful premise: + +> **Deception distorts the recursive coherence of language.** + +These distortions are not always found in isolated lies or singular contradictions. Rather, they emerge through **recursive inconsistencies** — shifts in narrative structure, disfluencies under pressure, and denials that echo back on themselves. + +**Recursive Linguistic Analysis (RLA)** identifies these patterns across three layers: + +1. **Lexical & Structural**: Word choice, passive constructions, hedging, and abnormal syntactic formations. +2. **Pragmatic & Contextual**: Speaker intent, denial clusters, and anomalous information density. +3. **Affective & Temporal**: Emotional flattening, irregular shifts in time-reference, and depersonalization. + +This approach is grounded in established disciplines — **cognitive linguistics**, **pragmatics**, and **affective computing** — but transcends them by integrating pattern recognition into a recursive feedback model. + +> *This methodology evolves from the foundational insights of* **Witness Fracture**, *adapted now for institutional and corporate forensic use.* + +--- + +### B. Pattern Resonance Theory + +Deception is rarely random. +It tends to **fracture linguistic coherence** in predictable ways — not by what is said, but by **how** it is repeated, reframed, or justified. These distortions exhibit **resonant patterns**, which, when viewed recursively, expose the underlying architecture of intent. + +We identify several core *micro-patterns* common across fraudulent claims: + +- **Narrative Overcontrol**: Excessive rehearsal, rigid sequencing, low tolerance for ambiguity. +- **Empathic Bypass**: Absence of authentic emotional language; reliance on performative empathy. +- **Temporal Drift**: Subtle inconsistencies in time markers, sequencing, or duration. +- **Claimant Displacement**: Disassociation from agency (e.g., "The accident happened to me" vs. "I had an accident"). + +> These patterns do not prove fraud. +> They indicate where to listen *deeper*.