feat(submissions): rebuild DIAL response as full IJHCS article re-coding Belousov et al. corpus

submissions/README.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This week's work is listed first in [`../NOW.md`](../NOW.md).
 | [`lima_pdw/`](lima_pdw/) | OS/OT PDW support arm (manuscript is the private dissertation Paper 2) | 2026-09-10 |
 | [`slacker_thirds/`](slacker_thirds/) | Bloomsbury *Slacker* chapter — platform operational logic via proximity + selection | 2026-11-01 |
 | [`scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/`](scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/) | Sci-fi interfaces essay — speculative fiction as laboratory for triadic algorithmacy (draft import) | no deadline |
-| [`dial_response_algorithmacy/`](dial_response_algorithmacy/) | IJHCS commentary on Belousov et al. (2027) DIAL — keystone: design is cooptive under algorithmacy (draft) | no deadline |
+| [`dial_response_algorithmacy/`](dial_response_algorithmacy/) | IJHCS full article re-coding Belousov et al.'s (2027) DIAL corpus for algorithmacy — reach × act framework, IIT criterion, engagement layer (full draft) | no deadline |
 | [`proposals/`](proposals/) | *Organization Theory* STS | 2027-01-31 |
 | [`algorithmacy_design_ethics/`](algorithmacy_design_ethics/) | Design-ethics/human-factors journal article on algorithmacy — recommended: *Ethics and Information Technology* | full draft, author read-aloud pass pending |
 | [`hegel_coordination/`](hegel_coordination/) | Hegel Substack series | no deadline |

submissions/dial_response_algorithmacy/CLAIM.md

@@ -1,26 +1,34 @@
-# Claim — Response to Belousov et al. on DIAL
+# Claim — Designing the future of coordination
 
-**Title.** Design Is Cooptive: Algorithmacy as the Missing Ontology of Digitally Induced Altered States.
+**Title.** Designing the future of coordination: Algorithmacy, integrated information, and the engagement layer in speculative fiction.
 
-**Target.** Commentary / letter in *International Journal of Human–Computer Studies*, responding to Belousov et al. (2027).
+**Target.** Full research article in *International Journal of Human–Computer Studies*, mirroring the form of Belousov et al. (2027) and re-coding their corpus.
 
 ## Keystone thesis
 
-As coordination moves from literacy to algorithmacy, the decisive difference is that **design and development occur through triadic cooptive coordination**. Belousov et al. structure their science-fiction analysis as if someone designs a mind-altering system and everyone else merely uses it — a literacy-style producer → consumer ontology. That split is the error. Under algorithmacy there is no clean “downstream only.” Interaction is contribution: every engagement reshapes the shared algorithmic third party for everyone else.
+As coordination moves from literacy to algorithmacy, the decisive difference is that **design and development occur through triadic cooptive coordination**. The unit of human–computer interaction is no longer a user and a tool but a party, an algorithmic third party with commitments of its own, and a counterpart who meets what the third party has become. Belousov et al. structure their science-fiction analysis as if a designer makes a mind-altering system and a user receives it. Under algorithmacy there is no clean downstream: every engagement is a read or a write on a shared mediator, and the scenes their coding filed as downstream sensation are scenes of parties developing the systems that alter them.
 
-## What that licenses (subordinate critiques)
+## Three substitutions
 
-1. **Semiotic parity.** Brain–computer interfaces are not exceptional relative to text. Literacy already reorganizes consciousness (neuronal recycling / visual word form area; the historical load of *scriptio continua*). DIAL is continuous with that history, not a rupture that begins at the skull.
-2. **Theory of mind.** The paper’s “input discrepancy” criterion for altered states should yield to Integrated Information Theory: an altered state is a reconfiguration of the cause–effect complex, not a peripheral mismatch between sensory channels and experienced content.
-3. **Design for algorithmacy.** Dyadic HCI (user ↔ tool) is the wrong unit once the third party is active. Conversational skeuomorphism conceals latent-space steering. Interfaces should expose algorithmic white space — the room in which operators and publics co-steer the mediator. The layer to design is the engagement layer, not the product layer: under algorithmacy the development process IS the product, and users engaging the interface are performing development acts.
-4. **Upstream creation.** Science-fiction analysis of DIAL should examine how creators and operators build and steer systems in fiction, not only sensational downstream effects (dream-hacks, loyalty conditioning). The constructive demand is to democratize creation, not to sanitize experience for novices.
+1. **Interface.** BCI → the algorithmic third party. What matters is not how deeply the channel reaches into the skull but whether the mediator's state is rewritten by one party's engagement and met by another. Reading already reorganises the brain (Dehaene; *scriptio continua* → word separation); the novelty is the mediator's activity.
+2. **Theory of alteration.** Input discrepancy → IIT's cause–effect reconfiguration. The corpus's most consequential alterations — implanted ideas, scripted dreams, rewritten memories — involve no mislabelled channel and every one involves a commit to a shared structure.
+3. **Unit of analysis.** User–technology dyad → party / mediator / counterpart triad. "User" and "recipient" become seats, not roles.
+
+## Framework
+
+Reach (internal / external) × act (read: interpretive / structural; write: sanctioned / subversive) → eight interaction types: folk theorizing, backend reading, shared folk theory, audit, training by response, subversive affordance, operator commit (centralized / distributed), protocol shipping.
+
+## Five themes
+
+Write access is stratified by licence, not literacy. Contribution is extraction. The self is a node others rewrite. Truth is a mediator commitment. Pastoral design should give way to collective algorithmacy: design the engagement layer, not the product layer.
 
 ## Scope
 
-Conceptual commentary. No new exact-Φ results. Where the lab’s formal distinction appears, it is the established reading already used elsewhere in this repository: on small Boolean models of coordination, `Φ_MIP = 0` marks a form that factors (dyadic → literacy); `Φ_MIP > 0` marks a form that will not (triadic → algorithmacy). That distinction is cited, not re-derived here. No claim is made that platforms, novels, or readers are conscious in the IIT sense.
+Secondary re-coding of a fixed published corpus (their 25 novels) plus six catalogued works. Coding from their published extracts and summaries, canonical scenes, and tagged recollection — not a re-reading. No new exact-Φ results. Where the lab's formal distinction appears (`Φ_MIP = 0` dyadic → literacy; `Φ_MIP > 0` triadic → algorithmacy on small Boolean models) it is cited, not re-derived. No claim that platforms, novels, characters, or readers are conscious.
 
 ## Do not claim
 
-- Invented Φ numbers, panel statistics, or field measurements of users.
-- That Belousov et al.’s eight-type taxonomy is worthless (it is useful; the ontology under it is wrong).
-- That IIT settles the philosophy of consciousness; Φ is borrowed for causal irreducibility of coordination and, carefully, as a better frame for what “altered” means than input discrepancy.
+- Invented scenes. Anything not in Belousov et al. or well-documented canon carries a `to verify` tag and is phrased conditionally.
+- Invented Φ numbers, panel statistics, or field measurements.
+- That Belousov et al.'s taxonomy is worthless (it is useful; the ontology under it is a generation late).
+- That IIT settles the philosophy of consciousness; Φ is borrowed for causal irreducibility of coordination and as a better criterion for "altered" than input discrepancy. Never demote the tool.

submissions/dial_response_algorithmacy/README.md

@@ -1,29 +1,36 @@
-# Response to Belousov et al. (IJHCS 2027) — DIAL through algorithmacy
+# Designing the future of coordination — IJHCS article re-coding the DIAL corpus
 
-**Status:** draft commentary packet (2026-09-21). Cultural / HCI track. Not an exact-Φ study; no new lab numbers claimed here.
+**Status:** full-article draft (2026-09-21), rebuilt from the earlier commentary. Cultural / HCI track. Not an exact-Φ study; no new lab numbers claimed here.
 
-**Target venue.** *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies* — commentary / letter responding to Belousov, Macey, Bujić, Ojell-Järventausta & Hamari (2027), “Designing the future of consciousness.”
+**Target venue.** *International Journal of Human–Computer Studies* — full research article mirroring, section for section, Belousov, Macey, Bujić, Ojell-Järventausta & Hamari (2027), "Designing the future of consciousness," and re-coding their 25-novel corpus.
 
-**Working title.** Design Is Cooptive: Algorithmacy as the Missing Ontology of Digitally Induced Altered States.
+**Working title.** Designing the future of coordination: Algorithmacy, integrated information, and the engagement layer in speculative fiction.
 
 ## What this packet is
 
-A short critical response to Belousov et al.’s science-fiction analysis of digitally induced altered states of consciousness (DIAL). The packet keeps their taxonomy useful and relocates the ontological error: the paper inherits a literacy-style split between designers who make systems and users who merely experience them. Under algorithmacy, interaction is contribution that reshapes a shared algorithmic third party.
+A secondary re-coding of Belousov et al.'s fixed science-fiction corpus, extended by the six works catalogued in [`../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/works/`](../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/works/), against a different unit of analysis: the triad of party, algorithmic third party, and counterpart. Three substitutions run through the article — brain–computer interface → algorithmic third party; input discrepancy → IIT cause–effect reconfiguration; user–technology dyad → cooptive triad. A reach × act framework yields eight interaction types; five themes follow. The earlier 3,000-word commentary is preserved in git history and its argument is absorbed into §1–2 and §5.5.
 
 ## Packet files
 
 | File | Use |
 | --- | --- |
+| [`draft.md`](draft.md) | Full article: highlights, abstract, §1–7, declarations, Appendix A, references |
+| [`corpus_coding.md`](corpus_coding.md) | Coding sheet: every scene, its cell, and its evidence tag (`extract` / `canon` / `to verify` / `thin` / `catalog`); cell membership summary; leakage table |
 | [`CLAIM.md`](CLAIM.md) | One-page locked claim (keystone first) |
-| [`abstract.md`](abstract.md) | Short abstract for the commentary |
-| [`outline.md`](outline.md) | Section plan (~2–4k words, IJHCS commentary shape) |
-| [`draft.md`](draft.md) | Full first draft |
-| [`SOURCE.md`](SOURCE.md) | Belousov et al. citation + Gemini discussion note |
+| [`abstract.md`](abstract.md) | Abstract as in the draft |
+| [`outline.md`](outline.md) | Section plan with word budgets |
+| [`SOURCE.md`](SOURCE.md) | Belousov et al. citation, corpus re-use record, and provenance |
+
+## Before submission
+
+- Check every `to verify` scene against the novel (six codings: A1, A3, A10, A14, A23 ×2) and either promote to `canon` with a page reference or cut.
+- Confirm the generative-AI declaration wording against IJHCS policy.
+- Confirm the Belousov et al. (2024) Mindtrek page span from the target article's reference list.
 
 ## Sibling arms
 
-- [`../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/`](../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/) — speculative interfaces as a laboratory for triadic algorithmacy
+- [`../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/`](../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/) — the six extension works, their seed readings, and the engagement-layer alternative
 - [`../algorithmacy_design_ethics/`](../algorithmacy_design_ethics/) — design-ethics article on algorithmacy vs literacy-paradigm remedies
 - Lab construct essays: [`../../org_frontier/essays/literacy_or_algorithmacy.md`](../../org_frontier/essays/literacy_or_algorithmacy.md), [`../../org_frontier/essays/the_interested_third_party.md`](../../org_frontier/essays/the_interested_third_party.md)
 
-This arm borrows the lab’s literacy / algorithmacy distinction and the formal dyadic–triadic reading (`Φ_MIP = 0` vs `Φ_MIP > 0` on small Boolean coordination models). It does not re-run Φ or invent empirics.
+This arm borrows the lab's literacy / algorithmacy distinction and the formal dyadic–triadic reading (`Φ_MIP = 0` vs `Φ_MIP > 0` on small Boolean coordination models). It does not re-run Φ or invent empirics.

submissions/dial_response_algorithmacy/SOURCE.md

@@ -16,16 +16,21 @@ Belousov, A., Macey, J., Bujić, M., Ojell-Järventausta, T., & Hamari, J. (2027
 
 ## Local extract
 
-Plain-text extract used while drafting this packet:
+Plain-text extracts used while drafting this packet:
 
-- Workspace upload: `article-response_807e.txt` (OCR / PDF text dump of the published article).
+- Workspace upload: `article-response_807e.txt` (OCR / PDF text dump of the published article), used for the earlier commentary.
+- Publisher PDF (ScienceDirect download, 2026-09-21), read in full via `pdftotext` for the full-article rebuild. The article's Table 1, Table A.1 summaries, and §4–5 extracts are the `extract` evidence source in [`corpus_coding.md`](corpus_coding.md).
+
+## Corpus re-use
+
+The article re-codes Belousov et al.'s fixed 25-novel corpus (their indices A1–A25) as a secondary analysis, without re-reading the novels. Evidence for every scene is tagged in [`corpus_coding.md`](corpus_coding.md): `extract` (in their article), `canon` (widely documented, not in their article), `to verify` (author's recollection; check before submission), `thin` (mediator present, no supportable reading/writing scene). The six-work extension (M1–M6) is documented in [`../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/works/`](../scifi_interfaces_algorithmacy/works/) and tagged `catalog`. Their CC BY 4.0 licence permits quotation of the extracts they published; block quotations in `draft.md` §4 are the passages they quoted, cited by their index and section.
 
 ## Related Belousov line (as cited in the target article)
 
 - Belousov et al. (2023) — early DIAL framing.
 - Belousov et al. (2024) — typology of digitally induced ASC via **input discrepancy** (Academic Mindtrek).
 
-Exact bibliographic strings for those earlier pieces should be taken from Belousov et al. (2027)’s reference list when the commentary is typeset for submission; do not invent DOIs.
+Exact bibliographic strings for those earlier pieces should be taken from Belousov et al. (2027)’s reference list when the article is typeset for submission; do not invent DOIs.
 
 ## Working discussion (Gemini)
 

submissions/dial_response_algorithmacy/abstract.md

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 # Abstract
 
-Belousov, Macey, Bujić, Ojell-Järventausta and Hamari (2027) offer a serviceable science-fiction taxonomy of digitally induced altered states of consciousness (DIAL) for HCI. The taxonomy is not the problem. The ontology is. The paper organizes interaction as if design were finished upstream and experience were consumed downstream — a literacy-style producer → consumer split. Under algorithmacy, the structural difference from literacy is that design and development proceed through **triadic cooptive coordination**: an active algorithmic third party binds parties whose every interaction contributes to the shared mediator that others then meet. UX-only coding of speculative fiction therefore misses the generative site of DIAL. Supporting moves follow from that keystone: brain–computer interfaces are not semiotic exceptions once literacy’s reorganization of consciousness is admitted; “input discrepancy” as an ASC criterion should yield to Integrated Information Theory’s reconfiguration of the cause–effect complex; design for algorithmacy must expose latent-space steering rather than conversational skeuomorphism; and SF analysis should track creators and operators who build and steer systems, not only sensational downstream effects. The remedy is not sanitizing DIAL for novices. It is raising collective algorithmacy so that cooptive design becomes the ordinary competence of the public that lives inside these systems.
+As coordination between people increasingly runs through algorithmic systems that learn from the people they coordinate, the unit of human–computer interaction is no longer a user and a tool. It is a triad: a party, an algorithmic third party with commitments of its own, and a counterpart who meets what that third party has become. Belousov et al. (2027) analysed 25 science-fiction novels for digitally induced altered states of consciousness (DIAL) and produced an eight-type framework of user–technology interaction. Their taxonomy is useful. Their ontology is a generation late. It treats the brain–computer interface as the frontier, input discrepancy as the mark of an altered state, and the user as the person who receives what a designer made. This article holds their corpus fixed and re-codes it, extended by six catalogued screen and platform works, against the competence the triad demands — algorithmacy, the capacity to coordinate with a counterpart through an interested mediator. Two aspects of interaction, reach (whether the mediator state a party reads or writes is met by that party alone or by others) and act (reading the mediator's commitments interpretively or structurally; writing them through a sanctioned or a subverted channel), combine into eight interaction types. Integrated Information Theory supplies the criterion for alteration: a reconfiguration of the cause–effect structure the system specifies, rather than a mismatch between sensory labels and content. Five themes follow from the re-coding: write access to the mediator is stratified and stratifying; engagement is the vendor's development material; the self becomes a node that others rewrite; truth becomes a mediator commitment; and the design remedy is not to abstract steering away from novices but to widen the engagement layer so that steering a shared mediator is ordinary public competence. The article contributes to the HCI agenda by replacing a dyadic frame with a triadic one, and by showing that the scenes their coding filed as downstream sensation are scenes of parties developing the systems that alter them.