2.1 KiB
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:
- Lexical & Structural: Word choice, passive constructions, hedging, and abnormal syntactic formations.
- Pragmatic & Contextual: Speaker intent, denial clusters, and anomalous information density.
- 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.