{
 "text": "推背圖",
 "what_this_is": "Identifications of 推背圖 leaves with historical events, made by READERS rather than by the 1915 edition. Deliberately separate from round-readings.json and commentary-witness.json and never to be merged into them: those record what the witness says, this records what people have said it means. Attestation levels are graded and enforced: nothing here is `cited` yet, because a citation requires an author and a date and these sources have neither.",
 "why_it_is_separate": "The printed commentary after 象34 names nobody and dates nothing — it gives hedges (疑, 或) and cyclical branches. Nearly every specific identification 推背圖 is famous for is a later accretion. Mixing them into the witness rows would make the edition look far more precise than it is, which is the most misleading thing this corpus could do.",
 "NUMBERING_IS_NOT_STABLE_ACROSS_RECENSIONS": {
  "problem": "A claim about '第42象' may not be about this edition's 象42. The 歸序 ('restored order') tradition renumbers the leaves on the argument that the received sequence is out of order relative to the events it describes.",
  "attested_offsets": [
   "金聖本 象39  ->  歸序 象42   (angelloraphael 2018: 第42象（原金聖本39象）)",
   "金聖本 象43  ->  歸序 象47   (same source: 原金聖本第43像…必須被重新歸位至第47象)"
  ],
  "consequence": "Matching a 歸序-numbered claim onto this corpus without translating the number is a silent off-by-three-or-four error, and it will look plausible because the leaves are all thematically similar. **Every row below therefore carries `numbering`, and a row without it is a failure.**",
  "this_corpus": "uses `jin-shengtan-60` — the numbering of the 1915 六十象金聖嘆批本 it transcribes."
 },
 "schema": {
  "xiang": "leaf number IN THIS CORPUS' numbering, after translation if the source used another",
  "xiang_as_cited": "the number the source actually printed, if different",
  "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60 | guixu-reordered | unstated — which recension's numbers the SOURCE used",
  "claim": "the identification, as the source states it",
  "source": "id into `sources`",
  "attestation": "physical | web-attested | cited | model-recollection — see `attestation_levels`",
  "claim_date": "when the claim was MADE, as precisely as known. Not the date of the event.",
  "event_date": "when the identified event happened, if it has",
  "direction": "DERIVED from the two dates, never asserted",
  "printed_commentary_says": "what the 1915 edition actually prints for that leaf",
  "evidence": "where to verify"
 },
 "attestation_levels": {
  "physical": "written on the scanned copy in ink. Verifiable against the scan by anyone.",
  "web-attested": "has a URL and an access date, but no named author and no publication date. **This is a real level, not a weak `cited`**: a page you can go and look at is genuinely different from a recollection, and genuinely different from a citation with an author behind it. Nearly all 推背圖 identifications available online sit here.",
  "cited": "has a source with an author, a work and a date — a citation somebody could follow into a library. **No row currently qualifies.** The checker enforces it rather than letting a URL masquerade as a reference.",
  "model-recollection": "**Generated by Claude Opus 5 from training data and NOT verified against any source.** Recorded at the user's explicit instruction so recalled material is captured with an honest label rather than lost or laundered. A hypothesis to check, not evidence. Delete rather than promote if no source is ever found."
 },
 "on_the_quality_of_what_is_available": "Searching for these produced a clear negative result worth recording: the encyclopaedic and institutional sources — Wikipedia, the Library of Congress blog, ctext — describe the text but make NO leaf-level identifications at all. Every mapping found came from popular web sources, blogs and partisan outlets, and they disagree with each other and renumber the leaves. That is a fact about the identification tradition, not a gap in the search.",
 "direction_is_the_analytically_useful_field": "A reading made in 1990 about the war of 1937-45 is retrodiction and says nothing about predictive power; the same reading made in 1930 would say a great deal. Every row carries both dates so the distinction is computable. Where a claim date is unknown — which is true of nearly all of them, because these sources are undated or recent — the answer is `undetermined`, and that is honest rather than inconvenient.",
 "sources": [
  {
   "id": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "tier": "physical-witness",
   "kind": "manuscript annotation on the scanned copy",
   "description": "A later reader wrote identifications onto the leaves of this copy in a blue-violet ink. Detected by ink colour (B-R -1.8 to +17.0 against letterpress -20 to -35) and excluded from the transcription.",
   "author": null,
   "date": null,
   "url": null,
   "evidence": "structured/pen-annotation.json; scan SHA-1 6423a3a29cba1caa53544eab48d9a5731f37fa27",
   "instrument": "UNDETERMINED. Colour separation establishes a different ink from the letterpress; it does not establish the writing instrument, and scan colour processing is a further confounder. Calling it 'ballpoint' would carry a strong chronological implication (post-1945 commercialisation) that this evidence does not support. Establishing it would need stroke morphology — ball-point ridging, ink gooping — at higher resolution than this scan."
  },
  {
   "id": "seer100",
   "tier": "popular-web",
   "kind": "website",
   "description": "Archive site presenting the 60 prophecies with identifications. Cites the Jin Shengtan edition and Wikipedia; states that 'some verified images may have been added or modified retroactively'. No author or publication date given.",
   "author": null,
   "date": null,
   "url": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/",
   "accessed": "2026-08-10"
  },
  {
   "id": "angelloraphael-2018",
   "tier": "popular-web",
   "kind": "blog post",
   "description": "Blog post arguing the received order is wrong and renumbering the leaves. Valuable here not for its identifications but because it states the recension offsets explicitly.",
   "author": null,
   "date": "2018-10",
   "url": "http://angelloraphael.blogspot.com/2018/10/42-39.html",
   "accessed": "2026-08-10"
  },
  {
   "id": "epochtimes-guixu",
   "tier": "popular-web-partisan",
   "kind": "newspaper series",
   "description": "《推背圖歸序全解》series using the re-ordered numbering. Recorded with its outlet noted: Epoch Times is aligned with Falun Gong and editorially committed on Chinese politics, which is relevant provenance when the content is prophecy about China's political future.",
   "author": null,
   "date": null,
   "url": "http://www.epochtimes.com.tw/n225038/",
   "accessed": "2026-08-10"
  },
  {
   "id": "opus5-recollection",
   "tier": "model-output",
   "kind": "unverified model recollection",
   "description": "Claude Opus 5, recalling the circulating identification tradition from training data during this session. NOT checked against any source. Recorded at the user's explicit instruction so the material is captured with an honest label rather than either lost or laundered.",
   "author": "Claude Opus 5",
   "date": "2026-08-10",
   "url": null,
   "warning": "An LLM's recollection of a contested folk tradition is a poor witness, and this one especially: the search above showed the identifications are recension-dependent and mutually inconsistent, which is exactly the condition under which a model produces confident, plausible, wrong output. Rows at this level are leads, not data."
  }
 ],
 "rows": [
  {
   "xiang": 36,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "慈禧太后 — the Empress Dowager Cixi",
   "source": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "attestation": "physical",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1861-1908",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象疑一女子能定中原建都長安",
   "evidence": "pen band y 860-920, B−R −10.9 against −32.1 for print in the same column"
  },
  {
   "xiang": 37,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "unread — the hand is present but has not been deciphered",
   "source": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "attestation": "physical",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": null,
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象雖有元首出現而一時未易平治亦一亂也",
   "evidence": "five pen bands, y 1160-1520, B−R −6.2 to +4.9"
  },
  {
   "xiang": 38,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "八國聯軍 — the Eight-Nation Alliance",
   "source": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "attestation": "physical",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1900",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象兵禍起于門外有延及門內之兆",
   "evidence": "four pen bands, y 860-1100; engine read 八国联年, VL 國族軍"
  },
  {
   "xiang": 48,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "not an identification — a character overwritten on the printed sort",
   "source": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "attestation": "physical",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": null,
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象疑一朱姓與一□姓爭奪朝綱",
   "evidence": "pen band y 500-560, B−R +17.0 — the most strongly coloured on any leaf"
  },
  {
   "xiang": 39,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "a mark, not a legible identification",
   "source": "pen-on-this-copy",
   "attestation": "physical",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": null,
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象疑外夷爭鬥擾亂中原必至酉年始得平定也",
   "evidence": "four pen bands, y 980-1220, B-R -11.5 to -1.5 against -27.9 for print",
   "note": "Added after review found this file listed four pen-bearing leaves where pen-annotation.json records FIVE. The annotation is real; it is not a readable identification. The gap was an inconsistency between two of my own artefacts, which is exactly what a separate checker is for."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 3,
   "xiang_as_cited": "3",
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "Wu Zetian seizes the throne",
   "source": "seer100",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "690",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖嘆曰此象主武曌當國廢中宗於房州殺唐宗室殆盡",
   "evidence": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/",
   "note": "This one the 1915 commentary itself makes, and makes more fully. The reader tradition adds nothing here — which is the pattern for every leaf before the hinge."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 5,
   "xiang_as_cited": "5",
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "the An Lushan rebellion",
   "source": "seer100",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "755-763",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖嘆曰一馬鞍指安祿山一史書指史思明",
   "evidence": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/",
   "note": "Also made by the printed commentary."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 21,
   "xiang_as_cited": "21",
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "the fall of the Northern Song / the Jingkang Incident",
   "source": "seer100",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1127",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": null,
   "evidence": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/",
   "note": "**The one pre-hinge leaf where the reader tradition supplies something the edition does not** — 象21 is the only leaf of the sixty with no commentary printed on it at all, so there is nothing for the claim to be compared against."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 27,
   "xiang_as_cited": "27",
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "the founding of the Ming",
   "source": "seer100",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1368",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象主明太祖登極",
   "evidence": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/"
  },
  {
   "xiang": 39,
   "xiang_as_cited": "39",
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "Japan's defeat and surrender, 1945; 金雞 read as the 乙酉 rooster year",
   "source": "seer100",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1945",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象疑外夷爭鬥擾亂中原必至酉年始得平定也",
   "evidence": "https://seer100.com/tuibeitu/en/",
   "note": "**The commentary gives a BRANCH, not a year.** 酉 recurs every twelve years — 1885, 1897, 1909, 1921, 1933, 1945, 1957… Selecting 1945 requires knowing the answer first. This is the clearest case in the corpus of a specific prediction being read back into a cyclical hint."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 39,
   "xiang_as_cited": "42",
   "numbering": "guixu-reordered",
   "claim": "the War of Resistance against Japan",
   "source": "epochtimes-guixu",
   "attestation": "web-attested",
   "claim_date": null,
   "event_date": "1937-1945",
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象疑外夷爭鬥擾亂中原必至酉年始得平定也",
   "evidence": "http://www.epochtimes.com.tw/n225038/ ; renumbering attested at http://angelloraphael.blogspot.com/2018/10/42-39.html",
   "note": "**Cited as 第42象 in a 歸序 source, which is this corpus' 象39.** Recorded as its own row rather than merged with the row above, so that the numbering translation is visible rather than assumed."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 44,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "a future sage-ruler under whom China is acknowledged by surrounding peoples; frequently read as still unfulfilled",
   "source": "opus5-recollection",
   "attestation": "model-recollection",
   "claim_date": "2026",
   "event_date": null,
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "聖歎曰此象乃聖人復生四夷來朝之兆一大治也",
   "evidence": null,
   "note": "UNVERIFIED MODEL OUTPUT. Note that the printed commentary already says this much — the reader tradition's contribution is the claim that it is still to come, which the edition does not state."
  },
  {
   "xiang": 60,
   "xiang_as_cited": null,
   "numbering": "jin-shengtan-60",
   "claim": "the end of the prophetic sequence rather than an event; commonly read as the text closing itself",
   "source": "opus5-recollection",
   "attestation": "model-recollection",
   "claim_date": "2026",
   "event_date": null,
   "direction": "undetermined",
   "printed_commentary_says": "蓋無象之象勝於",
   "evidence": null,
   "note": "UNVERIFIED MODEL OUTPUT, and the weakest kind: it agrees with the printed commentary, which is what makes it unfalsifiable as a separate claim."
  }
 ],
 "why_the_model-recollection_rows_are_few": "The user authorised the label for anything unattributable, and two rows are entered under it. More were not, deliberately. The search established that these identifications are recension-dependent and mutually inconsistent — precisely the conditions under which a model generates confident, plausible, wrong output — and a file of thirty such rows would look like a dataset while being a transcript of my priors. The two above are ones where the printed commentary already says something similar, so a reader can see exactly what the tradition adds. If you want the fuller set, supply sources and they go in at `cited`, or ask and they go in at `model-recollection` with this caveat attached to every row."
}