When a pattern and a statement conflict
What should memory show when an event's relational structure conflicts with an explicit statement about it? This ERM entry covers the prototype combining patterns and statements. The RGM / Relational Space H1a experiments have a separate research entry.
Retaining both kinds of evidence
Version 0.12 reports conflict when a temporary-use pattern is supported but explicitly denied within the same transfer frame. Both kinds of evidence remain visible; no source automatically outranks another. The event, participants, object, time and source context constrain evaluation. Another transfer cannot supply missing parts.
Support is reassessed when a source is withdrawn. A positive statement does not create missing relations, and a derived judgment is not stored as a new fact.
Measured scope
The 6 October validation report records preservation of 40 earlier questions and 36 pattern queries, with 25 staged judgments matching expectations across 20 new synthetic scenarios. These are version-specific reported results; tests were not rerun for this entry.
Open boundary
Relations and the meaning link are manually defined. Natural-language parsing, general meaning-equivalence learning and independent human meaning evaluation are not established. The next question is how to test the mechanism with natural inputs and independent assessments.
Source note
Sources reviewed on 14 October 2026: relational memory v0.12 README and pattern–statement validation v0.4 report (6 October). RGM retrieval experiments are not evidence of this prototype's success.
- Question ●
- Model ●
- Experiment ●
- Evaluation ○