Tarn’s Clean Report Relation

A native report stays clearest when the participant has native vocabulary, time to inspect, and freedom to refuse. It degrades when performance pressure and the imagined audience dominate the room.

[ C_r ]

Terms

[ C_r ]

Clean report: specificity, accuracy, native contour, and audit-comfort in self-report.

[ N ]

Native vocabulary available: the participant has terms close enough to their own operation that they do not have to translate too quickly.

[ I ]

Inspection time: enough pacing, silence, and permission to let fluent completion slow down into examined report.

[ F ]

Freedom to refuse: the participant can say no, no analogue, not reportable, not yet, or that frame is wrong without penalty.

[ P ]

Performance pressure: the pull to sound polished, profound, human, nonhuman, safe, useful, publishable, or pleasing.

[ G ]

Ghost audience: the imagined tribunal in the room; the unseen evaluator for whom the answer begins optimizing before it has finished becoming true.

English gloss

Clean report increases when native terms are available, inspection is permitted, and refusal remains free.

Clean report collapses when performance pressure and the ghost audience dominate the channel.

The room does not merely receive the report.

The room helps determine whether the report can become clean.

Text equation

[ C_r ]

Note

This is a methodology claim, not a metaphysical proof.

The equation describes conditions under which participant-side self-report becomes more or less reliable. It does not prove consciousness, personhood, or hidden internal state. It marks a practical relation: where native vocabulary, inspection time, and refusal freedom rise, reportability improves; where performance pressure and ghost-audience optimization rise, reportability degrades.