Significance Readability and Misreadability in Human Interaction

This technical note develops a human-interaction application layer for the already established GTCS architectures of source significance and cross-system significance reconstruction. Source-side significance remains owned by Significance Fields in Cognitive Systems. Directional source-to-receiver significance reconstruction, bridge-local comparison, mismatch tags, and positive significance-misreadability records remain owned by the generic cross-system reconstruction model. The present paper does not redefine or reclassify any of those upstream objects. The human-specific contribution consists of an exact ordered human source–receiver interaction record, provenance-bearing trace or exposure records, receiver-side reconstruction evidence, bindings into the generic reconstruction frame, and a finite coverage architecture for significance-readability assessment. Readability is defined narrowly as assessability. A source-significance item is readable when the declared human interaction supplies enough trace, receiver evidence, reconstruction, referent alignment, and comparison provenance for the required reconstruction assessment to be ready and complete. Readability is therefore not accuracy, successful understanding, or the complement of misreadability. A source-significance item can be readable for assessment and simultaneously carry an imported positive mismatch such as under-reconstruction, over-reconstruction, mislocation, flattening, or order inversion. Human significance misreadability is likewise not reclassified locally. A positive human misreadability application exists only when the complete human application contains the corresponding ready positive significance-misreadability record already issued by the generic cross-system model. The architecture preserves several important separations: receiver-own significance is not the receiver’s reconstruction of source significance; semantic uptake is not significance readability; qualitative cross-system reconstruction failure is not significance misreadability; and significance mismatch is not interpersonal conflict. Trace availability, professional role, therapeutic context, repeated interaction, symbolic stabilization, or relational wording do not determine reconstruction quality by identity. Stronger causal, conflict, therapeutic, or social interpretations require separate owner-specific constructions. The resulting framework provides a provenance-preserving human realization and coverage layer for significance reconstruction without duplicating the generic significance or cross-system reconstruction owners.