Comparing Interpretive Distinctions across Changes of Category Criteria in Generative Relational Models

A changed classification can reveal a previously unrecorded distinction, replace one distinction with another, or accompany a change in social practice. This paper develops a comparison framework for revisions of interpretive category criteria in generative relational models. Fixed-criterion quotient consistency supplies a baseline. Pullback relations place comparisons across carriers on a common pair domain; joint classifications and counterexamples distinguish refinement, translation and renaming. A sequential derivation shows how local changes cancel at an endpoint, and a weighted bound states the reference-population transport required for cumulative comparison. A finite revision procedure uses an explicit evaluation corpus, potential, feasible menu and improvement threshold. Its termination is proved, with counterexamples separating termination from global adequacy and changing-data revision from fixed-potential descent. A further factorization result characterizes when retained records contain enough information to implement a prescribed revision. A constructed institutional-response case connects these results to interpretation, criterion authority and historical consequences. The philosophical discussion preserves the difference between representational refinement, practical uptake and ontological commitment. A prospective study and revision record identify the evidence and objections required for application. The resulting position supports local, accountable criterion revision while leaving open-ended category formation and empirical validation as further obligations.