## 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*.