From unresolved comparison to a better question

How can an inquiry advance when its original question remains unresolved? This second Ev5 working paper examines the Unified Coherence Model (UCM) in a documented consciousness, valence and morality research process. A controlled hypothetical compares two lighter negative experiences with one heavier experience. Its provisional moral principles permit opposite rankings. Further hypothetical comparisons show why descriptive similarity cannot supply the missing moral reason. Conditional replacement comparisons survive, while an unsupported claim about their derivation is withdrawn. Earlier TOEv5 use organized the comparison and correction work. A later explicit UCM audit proposed examining why complete comparability should be required. The adopted analysis distinguished a relation’s existence, reasons selecting its direction and warrant for knowing it. The constructive contribution is an account of how returned findings can change an inquiry’s questions and justification while warranted comparisons and protective constraints remain usable. The paper documents UCM use and the intellectual value of a subsequent analysis. It does not isolate UCM’s distinct causal contribution or validate its weighted equation or the framework as a whole. Supporting notes preserve auxiliary arguments, source provenance and broader open questions.