Hypothesis

Statement

Transferable literary techniques remain functional only when the target context preserves an appropriate inference contract: what the audience is expected to infer, tolerate as ambiguous, feel, remember, and verify.

Mechanism

Motif, omission, countervoice, conceptual compression, accumulation, and association allocate interpretive work differently. A mismatch between that allocation and the target task produces confusion, coercion, or unsafe gaps.

Predictions

• Knowledge-backed omission will help expert aesthetic inference but increase error in unfamiliar high-stakes tasks.
• Dramatic countervoice will help deliberation but reduce action speed.
• Anaphoric accumulation will increase felt urgency more reliably than calibrated evidentiary discrimination.

Evidence and falsification

Five evidence records support distinct allocation patterns. The corpus is observational and confounded. The hypothesis would weaken if controlled studies show these architectures perform equivalently across explicit, inferential, deliberative, and safety tasks.

Current assessment

Provisionally supported, Medium (0.60 judgment). Textual contrasts are clear; outcome mechanisms are untested.

Next experiment

Factor explicitness and motif recurrence in one low-risk narrative explanation, then test comprehension, inference accuracy, recall, and calibration.