audit/source-review-high-riskCompleted the remaining entries after the higher-risk historical and formal cases; source claims, model assumptions, and the scope of conclusions were still checked against relevant passages. This batch reviews 4 expansion-inventory entries: The Problem of Other Minds, Mad Pain and Martian Pain, The Cleverly Disguised Mule, The Stag Hunt.
source_checked): The article now presents Mill’s argument as an influential formulation rather than an origin claim; explains both the single-case objection and replies; distinguishes epistemological, conceptual, and metaphysical questions; and describes best-explanation, criteria-based, perceptual, and testimony-based alternatives without presenting them as settled. It separates uncertainty about knowledge from denial of other minds. Animal/infant applications are grounded in the SEP discussion; noncommunication and machine examples are explicitly labeled as editorial teaching extensions. Relevant passages of the SEP entry were read. Mill’s own passage was verified through the SEP’s quotation and citation, not by reading the primary text passage itself. See the item evidence record.source_checked): The revised article attributes the cases and proposal to David Lewis (Block edited the anthology), distinguishes Lewis’s simple-theory contrast from his population-relative hybrid account, and explains the Martian case as illustrating a possibility of multiple realization rather than proving it. It records Lewis’s explicit caution that he cannot prove the cases possible and his own argument that phenomenal feel is not being ignored. It also reports Peter Alward’s published objection to the account’s treatment of a mad Martian without presenting that objection as settled. The SEP entry and the relevant passages of Lewis’s complete essay and Alward’s full article were consulted; modern extensions are explicitly editorial. See the item evidence record.source_checked): The revised article specifies the inferential form of closure, presents the mule case as Dretske’s proposed counterexample rather than a proof, and makes the skeptical inference conditional on its premises. It distinguishes Dretske’s relevant-alternatives response from contextualist and Moorean-style replies, labels the brain-in-a-vat comparison as structural teaching framing, and does not claim either skeptical scenario is actual, likely, or epistemically possible. The relevant zebra passage is quoted and analyzed at pp. 1015–1016 in the consulted Stanford Encyclopedia entry; Dretske’s original JSTOR record was accessed only for metadata, not full text. The data object was inspected but not modified; the requested patch supplies the article’s new Further Reading references and remains unapplied to data/experiments.json by instruction. See the item evidence record.source_checked): The revised article distinguishes Rousseau’s qualitative hunting narrative from the later formal game and explicitly identifies the payoff table as illustrative. It explains the two equilibria and why the stag outcome is payoff-dominant while the hare outcome is risk-dominant for these particular payoffs under the equal-likelihood criterion. It clarifies the strategic difference from the Prisoner’s Dilemma, qualifies evolutionary and many-player extensions, and labels modern applications and social-contract readings as interpretations rather than implications of the matrix. The primary translated passage, relevant sections of the SEP entry, and relevant passages of Skyrms were read; a Britannica work entry was consulted for the publication date. Dataset metadata and the three revised Further Reading references were reconciled; the dataset itself was not edited. See the item evidence record.Batch status: 4 source_checked, 0 partially_source_checked, 0 needs_source_check. Across the expansion inventory, this batch brings coverage to 57 of 57, with 0 remaining. Source_checked is an editorial traceability status—not a finding that a philosophical conclusion is true, settled, exhaustive, or expert-reviewed. Auditors performed a self-check after edits; no named human subject-matter expert reviewed this batch, and no independent human post-edit review is claimed.
Access gaps and unresolved interpretations are recorded in each linked evidence ledger; the entries in this batch remain bounded by those stated access and interpretation limits.
python3 scripts/validate.py passed for all 132 entries. External URLs were checked for syntax only.python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v passed: all 18 tests.git diff --check passed with no whitespace errors.date_verified is 2026-11-01.Work remains on audit/source-review-high-risk, based at 0d26e66, unstaged, uncommitted, and unpushed. No remote branch, merge, release, or deployment was changed.