The frozen Core Theory separates available cognitive capacity, state-dependent activation, motivational antecedents, regulatory processes, and observable epistemic behavior. Higher-level labels are applied only afterwards.
Modes are inferred from dimensional variables and observable outcomes. They are non-exhaustive, non-moral, and not assumed to remain stable across situations.
Reflective capacity appears available but is comparatively weakly mobilized for the focal problem. Poor performance alone does not identify the mode.
Active cognition remains appropriately responsive to evidence quality, priors, and source reliability; representations remain revisable when warranted.
Active cognition shows a directional protective asymmetry under motivational stakes that cannot be explained by evidence quality, priors, source reliability, or knowledge.
Performance does not identify activation by itself; activation does not identify epistemic quality or motivational direction. Antecedents are not evidence of rationalization.
Available task-relevant reasoning operations under sufficiently engaging and standardized conditions.
State-dependent mobilization of available resources; not synonymous with ability, Need for Cognition, accuracy, openness, or metacognition.
Current endorsement of a focal representation and reliance on it as a basis for judgment or action.
Anticipated subjective or practical loss conditional on substantially revising or abandoning the focal representation.
An externally specified or experimentally manipulated event capable of making revision motivationally consequential.
Momentary appraisal that the current exposure credibly threatens a valued outcome, identity, status, commitment, or practical interest.
Candidate person- or domain-level tendency for comparable exposures to produce stronger appraisal; possibly better modeled as a random slope.
Maintaining, switching between, or restructuring alternative representations when task conditions require it.
Monitoring and regulation directed at confidence, assumptions, evidential standards, and possible motivational influence.
MPP theoretically summarizes the joint protection-relevant configuration especially of MC, MRC, and TA. The constructs remain separately measured and their functional relation must be estimated.
CF and EMC are explicitly not ingredients of MPP; they are candidate regulators of how protection-relevant conditions translate into epistemic asymmetry.
Not a validated latent factor, global score, or mediator between antecedents and behavior.
A focal representation changes appropriately under informative evidence and relevant priors.
Conclusion-dependent search, weighting, standards, or interpretation preserve a representation in a motivationally contingent way.
Low correction can also reflect disengagement, uncertainty, inadequate information, or rational suspension of judgment.
Direction is neither a directly observed variable, causal mechanism, nor validated bipolar trait.
Independently validated ability measures or repeated tasks under strongly recruiting conditions.
State CA through independent process indicators and engagement manipulations, not through the primary epistemic outcome.
MC, MRC, TA, CF, and EMC as distinct constructs; self-report does not establish epistemic behavior.
Protection conditions and activation encouragement are independently randomized and validated through first stages in causal studies.
Information search, evidence weighting, standards, source evaluation, posterior beliefs, and confidence calibration.
No behavioral indicator may simultaneously operationalize CA and serve as the primary epistemic outcome in the same confirmatory analysis.
The current 94-item instrument predates the Foundation v1.1.3 reconstruction. Its items, scores, Animal State outputs, and 16 reference profiles may remain available for exploratory research and backward compatibility, but they are not validated latent constructs or normative individual classifications of the Core.
Existing tasks may inform future capacity and item models; their previous scoring does not automatically define C or CA.
Existing self-report content can support item development for MC, MRC, TA, CF, EMC, and neighboring constructs but requires new construct validation.
Legacy scenario codes may remain exploratory descriptions but cannot serve as primary evidence for mode validity.
Earlier RP/DP/RSI formulas and prototype-similarity outputs are not components of the reconstructed Core Theory v1.1.3. The next instrument must be rebuilt from the Foundation Paper's measurement architecture.