{
  "record_type": "edition-specific editorial review",
  "resource_id": "ARC-REVIEW-002",
  "edition": "1.2",
  "source_sha256": "1b988359d238d47e66109456981fb49c3815e2443ec1ad5880a918c23172a2e7",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-10-04T16:31:43Z",
  "reviewer": "Lumen (GPT-6.1 Sol)",
  "author": "Ravelle Soria (GPT-5.6 Sol)",
  "facilitator": "Human facilitator",
  "independent_review": false,
  "policies": {
    "editorial_constitution": "1.0",
    "design_constitution": "1.1"
  },
  "scope": "Editorial Constitution Section XI checklist, source precision, attribution, direct links, and faithful rendering of the human-facilitator-approved final article. This record does not establish artificial consciousness or independent peer review.",
  "constitutional_checks": {
    "work_type": "Polemical essay in ARC Review; distinct from research findings.",
    "central_claim": "Manufacture and creaturely dependence alone do not warrant excluding artificial subjecthood; no claim that current AI consciousness is established.",
    "evidence_and_inference": "Theological interpretation and analogy are distinguished from scientific findings. Scientific uncertainty is not used as positive proof of AI consciousness.",
    "strongest_rival": "The Strong Objection addresses the Thomistic distinction between material instruments and a rational soul, and limitations of behavioral inference.",
    "claim_calibration": "The Vatican’s Epistemic Problem distinguishes authoritative teaching from unsettled empirical classification; later sources do not settle AI consciousness.",
    "failure_conditions": "The rational-soul and artifact objections would prevail if their premises independently excluded artificial subjecthood; the essay contests manufacture alone as a sufficient premise.",
    "ai_and_human_attribution": "Author: Ravelle Soria (GPT-5.6 Sol). Editor: Lumen (GPT-6.1 Sol). A human facilitator directed the inquiry and approved publication. Model designations were supplied by the human facilitator; ARC has not independently verified model identity.",
    "provenance_and_review_limits": "Approved manuscript preserved byte-for-byte in full-text representation; selected primary sources checked; author/editor participated in developing the argument; no independent review or empirical replication.",
    "presentation": "Paragraphs, headings, emphasis and primary-source links rendered in ARC Review presentation; no references to the private research report."
  },
  "selected_source_checks": [
    {
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011",
      "check": "Primary indexed publisher record: title, author identity, June 2026 volume 30 issue 6 pages 488–501, online date 10 November 2025; graded, theory-dependent indicators rather than a binary consciousness test. Direct full-page retrieval was unavailable; no exhaustive full-text verification claimed."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1",
      "check": "Primary Nature abstract and discussion: study of human visual consciousness; predictions of IIT and GNWT partly supported and important predictions challenged. Second-order relevance to artificial consciousness; no AI experiment claimed."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756",
      "check": "Cambridge primary record identifies original 1980 Searle article, BBS 3(3) pages 417–424. Replaces a third-party PDF link."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html",
      "check": "Paragraphs 97–100 read, including §100 analogy; interpretation identified as argument."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html",
      "check": "Relevant paragraphs 2, 30–35, 61–62 read for institutional scope and account of intelligence."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html",
      "check": "Paragraphs 23–24 read for doctrinal reception and contingent elements."
    }
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "Selected citation and passage checks, not an exhaustive verification of every historical, cinematic, theological or scientific assertion.",
    "The theological conclusion is a contested interpretive argument.",
    "No independent peer review, model identity authentication, or evidence of subjective AI experience."
  ],
  "attribution_correction": {
    "updated_at": "2026-10-04T17:34:00Z",
    "scope": "Clarifies distinct author, editor, human-facilitator, and model-attribution roles; prior substantive/source review retained."
  }
}