H_synth re-audit on its original textual basis

Status note (2026-05-07). This question page was written when claims#science-secrete-stiftung-chiasm was live. The claim's status changed from live to contested on 2026-05-05 (Phase 8 eighth run; user-adjudicated Option γ — the α–δ split). The painter-as-primary-witness specificity that survives γ is preserved under the successor slug claims#mp-painter-as-primary-witness-for-indirect-ontology (live, 2026-05-05). The page's body retains its original "live" framing as the historical record of the investigation; for the current operative reading consult [[../.audit/synthetic-layer-2026-05-05-eighth-run]] and claims#science-secrete-stiftung-chiasm directly.

The 2026-04 V&I-side audit had pressured H_synth (the thesis that science secrète names "the joint operation of Stiftung (diachronic) and chiasm (synchronic), with painting as exemplary enactment") in favour of an architectural-hierarchy reformulation: Stiftung-architectonic, chiasm as the synchronic structure of perception within the Stiftung-opened field. That recommendation needed to be tested against the texts that generated H_synth — Eye and Mind, The Possibility of Philosophy, Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence (in Signs), and Saint Aubert's *Être et chair II* — before the V&I-side recommendation could be accepted.

This page records the result. The headline: H_synth as currently formulated does not survive on its own source texts. Neither does the V&I-side audit's Stiftung-architectonic-with-chiasm-as-conditional reformulation in clean form. The texts converge on a third architecture (a three-tier expressive cluster + separable perceptual register) that both prior framings underdescribe.

Key Points

  • Two new PoP attestations of science secrète / "pictorial science" beyond the wiki's record. The May 1 extraction-miss audit flagged one (the V&I draft chapter §1, alternate-raw line 1959 / datalab-raw line 3917: "what is the secret science that makes all knowledge, all experience appear at its tribunal?"). This re-audit adds a second, in PoP Course 2's painter section (alternate-raw line 925 / datalab-raw line 1826): "pictorial 'science' of the visible through painting." The wiki's current "single attestation in MP's published corpus" framing on science-secrete is wrong on at least two counts.
  • The four H_synth concepts are never co-deployed in a single argumentative gesture across E&M, PoP, or Indirect Language. They appear distributed across passages, with three-element clusters at specific sites: IL raw 820–874 (coherent deformation + système d'équivalences + Stiftung); PoP §IIb raw 597–641 (coherent deformation + Stiftung + cryptic-institution material); PoP Course 2 raw 1786–1826 (système d'équivalences + chiasm-cognate + pictorial science).
  • The November 1960 V&I working note's Stiftung-as-grammatical-subject grammar (per claims#nov-1960-stiftung-grammatical-subject (supported)) is local to that note, not the architectonic of MP's published positive view. PoP V&I draft chapter §1 (raw 3917, 3935) makes Ineinander, not Stiftung, the operative architectonic ("Philosophy is, as method, knowledge of the Ineinander"). IL's three-element expressive cluster (raw 820–874) operates without chiasm at the site. PoP §IIb's painting architecture is Stiftung-of-the-painter-through-nature with coherent deformation as operative form and indirect-expression / cryptic-institution material — but also without chiasm at the site.
  • Coherent deformation is the operative form across painting AND literature in IL and PoP. It is not painterly-specific. Indirect Language explicitly applies it to novels (raw 1050) and to language (raw 1178). PoP applies it to literature (raw 2332) as well as painting (raw 597). H_synth's framing that coherent deformation is "the painterly-specific case" is not supported by the texts that defined the concept.
  • Indirect Language (1952) privileges language over painting as the more developed expressive register. Painting is the limited / mute / abortive case (IL raw 1060: "Thus painting as a whole presents itself as an abortive effort to say something which still remains to be said"; raw 1076: language "is not content to sketch out... a 'coherent deformation,' or a tacit meaning on the surface of the world"). E&M (1961) reverses this — the painter as primary witness, painting as load-bearing — which is a developmental change between 1952 and 1961, not a stable position MP held throughout.
  • Cryptic institution has stronger textual support than claims#cryptic-institution-extends-beith (candidate) currently records. PoP raw 637 (Klee: "The painter knows a great deal, but he only knows it afterwards") + raw 641 ("It reveals only by concealing [Il ne dévoile qu'en voilant]") + raw 597 ("expresses indirectly") + IL raw 866 ("his labor, which is obscure for him") supply Klee-paraphrased and MP-endorsed cryptic-institution evidence. The remaining gap is the Paper A specifying-statement (what cryptic adds beyond Faul's interactive), not a textual gap.
  • Saint Aubert 2021 does not occupy the four-concept synthesis (zero attestations of science secrète, coherent deformation, chiasm-as-named per claims#ingested-corpus-four-element-gap) and operates a third architecture: a three-term chair / monde / être dramaturgy with portance as operative concept. Saint Aubert's système d'équivalences is body-level (PhP / MSME register), not painter-canvas. Saint Aubert 2006 (Vers une ontologie indirecte), ingested 2026-05-05, likewise has 0 science secrète attestations; its contribution is the positive Blondel genealogy and archivally-thin-Heidegger-reception audit (per claims#indirect-ontology-blondel-not-heidegger supported, claims#mp-heidegger-reception-archivally-thin supported), not direct engagement with the four-element cluster.
  • The strongest reformulation the textual record supports is (δ): a three-tier expressive cluster + science secrète as orienting question + cryptic institution as the painter's non-thematic engagement (see § "Reformulation" below). This preserves painting as exemplary enactment site, the four-concept originality claim, and cryptic institution as derivative paradox, while correcting (α)'s mutual-conditioning grammar and (γ)'s under-weighting of coherent deformation.

Test Results by Text

(A) Eye and Mind (1961)

Verb-grammar at line 35: "What, then, is this secret science which he has or which he seeks?" Both verbs govern the painter as grammatical subject. Science secrète is the painter's having-or-seeking — practiced/sought, not exhibited in the work.

§4 cognates flip the grammar. Raw line 364 (Da Vinci's "pictorial science" + Rilke's "silent science"): "with oeuvres which exist in the visible just as natural things do and which nevertheless communicate through those things 'to all the generations of the universe.'" Verb governance shifts to the oeuvre and the science itself. Science secrète in E&M has bifurcated grammar: §I painter-practices, §IV work-carries-and-transmits.

Chiasm-style language at line 35's neighborhood. Lines 43–60 develop "intertwining of vision and movement," "simultaneously sees and is seen," "self through inherence of the one who sees in that which he sees." Adjacent placement, not paired in mutual-conditioning grammar. Chiasm-cognates fill the science secrète question; they do not articulate with it as coordinate registers.

Stiftung-style language. Stiftung is not named verbatim, but Stiftung-grammar appears at raw 274 ("the work itself that has opened the field"), raw 364 ("to all the generations of the universe"), and raw 420 ("the very first painting in some sense went to the farthest reach of the future"). Raw 221 plays Cartesian "instituted by nature" against painting's anti-natural Stiftung: "the language of painting is never 'instituted by nature'; it is to be made and remade over and over again."

Déformation cohérente. Zero attestations in E&M. Closest cognate: système d'équivalences at raw 213 ("a system of equivalences, a Logos of lines, of lighting, of colors, of reliefs, of masses — a conceptless presentation of universal Being").

Klee's "fundamental, indirect, or absolute painting" cluster at raw 342: "the principle of the genesis of the visible, the principle of fundamental, indirect, or — as Klee used to say — absolute painting." Methodological-principle grammar: the painter "decides to hold rigorously to" this principle. Indirect-ontology framing internal to E&M's own vocabulary.

Decisive A finding: The four H_synth concepts are present and distributed in E&M, never co-deployed in a single argumentative gesture. The closest co-deployment is at raw 364 (pictorial/silent science + Stiftung-cognate transmission + Rilke's seal-not-yet-broken) — a two-element painter cluster, without chiasm at the site, without coherent deformation.

(B) The Possibility of Philosophy (1959–1961)

Two new attestations of science secrète / "pictorial science" in MP's text that the wiki had missed:

  1. PoP Course 2 §B (Cartesian Ontology, 1960–61), painter passage (alternate-raw line 925 / datalab-raw line 1826): "But it is also a capacity for the imaginary; it is l'occhio tenebroso, pictorial 'science' of the visible through painting. Created systems of equivalence that are applied to natural forms whose 'seal has not yet been broken' (Rilke)." This passage co-deploys pictorial science (science-secrète-cognate) + système d'équivalences + Rilke's seal-not-yet-broken. Painter-side register; possessive-instrumental grammar (access to the visible through painting). This is the new contribution of this re-audit; the May 1 extraction-miss audit did not flag this attestation.

  2. PoP V&I draft chapter §1, "The Ineinander" (alternate-raw line 1959 / datalab-raw line 3917): "And what is this field, what is the secret science that makes all knowledge, all experience appear at its tribunal? This last instance, to which it submits as naive all of our propositions?" Then at raw 3935: "Philosophy is, as method, knowledge of the Ineinander." Grammar: secret science = the field = the last instance = the Ineinander. The operative subject is the field; the verb is "makes appear." Philosophical register of science secrète. Already flagged by May 1 audit as "still uncorrected" in science-secrete and the PoP extraction note.

Two registers of science secrète in MP's text:

  • Painter's discipline register (E&M raw 35, PoP Course 2 raw 1826): painter-side, practiced, having-or-seeking.
  • Philosophical-ontological field register (PoP V&I draft raw 3917): the secret science is the Ineinander-field that makes knowledge appear at its tribunal.

1960–61 painting sections. PoP §IIb Painting (raw 585–657) co-deploys:

  • raw 597: "It is a systematic error, 'coherent deformation' — thus each painting is the creation of a dimensionality — thus (1) the painting is a world for itself; (2) it expresses indirectly and not by returning to the object." (Coherent deformation + creation of dimensionality (Stiftung-side) + indirect expression.)
  • raw 629: "Stiftung of the painter through the nature that exactly fulfills the spirit of painting." (Painter is what gets instituted; nature is the agent of Stiftung.)
  • raw 637: "Thus painting is a kind of philosophy: seizing upon the genesis of philosophy in action. ('The painter knows a great deal, but he only knows it afterwards')."
  • raw 641: "It is a non-express philosophy ('without willingly expressing it'). The symbol is not even the thing... It reveals only by concealing [Il ne dévoile qu'en voilant]."

§IIb architecture: Stiftung (operative-institutional) + coherent deformation (operative-form) + indirect expression + cryptic-institution material. Chiasm is absent at the site.

PoP Course 2 painting passage (raw 1786–1826) co-deploys système d'équivalences + chiasm-grammar (raw 1818: "reflexivity of the body, reversibility of seeing-visible, without any coinciding: complementarity"; raw 1820: "padding [capitonnage] of a visible, or this outside from within, is extended from the body to all exterior things") + pictorial science (raw 1826) + Rilke's seal-not-yet-broken. Stiftung is absent at this site.

PoP exhibits two architectures across its sections: §IIb is Stiftung-architectonic (painting), V&I draft §1 is Ineinander-architectonic (philosophy). The four concepts are present but distributed across two distinct sites, never co-deployed as four coordinate registers in a single gesture.

Cryptic-institution evidence: PoP raw 637 + 641 + 597 supply textual anchors. Klee-paraphrased and MP-endorsed.

(C) Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence (1952, in Signs)

Coherent deformation is the universal operative form, not painterly-specific. Four deployments:

  • raw 820: "There is signification when we submit the data of the world to a 'coherent deformation.'... For each painter, style is the system of equivalences that he makes for himself for the work which manifests the world he sees. It is the universal index of the 'coherent deformation.'"
  • raw 1050: "The meaning of a novel too is perceptible at first only as a coherent deformation imposed on the visible. And it will never be otherwise."
  • raw 1076: "language is not content to sketch out... a 'coherent deformation,' or a tacit meaning on the surface of the world" (language exceeds coherent deformation).
  • raw 1178: "It is just this 'coherent deformation' (Malraux) of available significations which arranges them in a new sense and takes not only the hearers but the speaking subject as well through a decisive step."

Stiftung definition at raw 874 — the canonical, most-developed Stiftung statement in MP's published writings: "Husserl has used the fine word Stiftung—foundation or establishment—to designate first of all the unlimited fecundity of each present which, precisely because it is singular and passes, can never stop having been; but above all to designate that fecundity of the products of a culture which continue to have value after their appearance and which open a field of investigations in which they perpetually come to life again." Immediately follows the painter's "advancing the line of the already opened furrow" passage at raw 866 (which contains the cryptic-institution candidate "his labor, which is obscure for him, is nevertheless guided and oriented").

Three-element cluster co-deployment at IL raw 820–874: coherent deformation + système d'équivalences + Stiftung. Chiasm is absent at the site and largely absent from the IL essay generally.

Painting vs language priority — IL privileges language. Raw 1060: "the arts of language go much farther toward true creation." Painting is "an abortive effort"; language "destroys ordinary language, but by realizing it." Raw 1076: paintings are mute and tacit; language has understood-meaning (substitution + reabsorption). This is the OPPOSITE of E&M's painter-as-primary-witness reading. A developmental change between 1952 and 1961.

This bears on the Kaushik differentiation in any §II that rides on the painting-vs-language question (per claims#kaushik-stiftung-literary-frame (live)). IL itself develops the language-as-more-developed-register reading; the painter's-body register is what IL leaves under-developed and what E&M will develop. Reading IL as already privileging painting reverses MP's 1952 valuation.

(D) Saint Aubert, Être et chair II (2021)

Système d'équivalences connection: Saint Aubert deploys it at the body level (PhP 165–166, MSME 162) — "the body is système d'équivalences" — extended to the metaphor register. Does NOT connect to the painter's-canvas E&M deployment. Stays at body / perception / metaphor.

Four-concept intersection: Saint Aubert 2021 has zero attestations of science secrète, zero of coherent deformation, zero of chiasm-as-named per claims#ingested-corpus-four-element-gap. He occupies Stiftung only marginally (3 attestations). Does not occupy the H_synth synthesis.

Architecture: Third — three-term chair / monde / être dramaturgy with portance as operative concept. The cardinal architectural concepts — ultra-chose, donation en chair, prégnance bifid, figuratifs, inconscient primordial, surrection, empiètement, texture imaginaire du réel — are MP's own technical vocabulary at the body-being interface, subordinating the chiasm-Stiftung machinery rather than articulating it. Per Saint Aubert 2023's authoritative gloss: "MP NEVER uses 'ontologie de la chair'; he speaks of 'ontologie indirecte' and 'nouvelle ontologie'."

Connection to science secrète: Not made directly in Saint Aubert 2021. Saint Aubert's ontologie indirecte is from his 2006 monograph Vers une ontologie indirecte (ingested 2026-05-05; source page saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte). SA-2006 develops the indirect-ontology framework through the Blondel genealogy but has 0 science secrète attestations; the science secrète-side gap persists even after the 2006 ingest. Saint Aubert 2021 references the 2006 monograph as background.

Cross-Text Disambiguation

The decisive question H_synth needed answered: does the PoP+E&M+IL record exhibit mutual-conditioning of chiasm and Stiftung in joint-operation grammar, OR Stiftung-architectonic-with-chiasm-as-perceptual-register?

Honest answer: neither, in clean form. The texts converge on a third architecture:

Tier Concept Where it operates Co-deployments observed
Operative form Coherent deformation IL raw 820, 828, 1050, 1076, 1178; PoP raw 597, 2332. Universal across painting and literature. + système d'équivalences + Stiftung (IL raw 820–874)
Diachronic mechanism Stiftung IL raw 874 (definition); PoP raw 629, 734; E&M Stiftung-grammar at raw 274, 364, 420 (without the term). + coherent deformation + système d'équivalences (IL raw 820–874)
Synchronic structure Système d'équivalences IL raw 820 (universal index of coherent deformation); PoP raw 1786, 1822; E&M raw 213. + coherent deformation (IL raw 820); + chiasm-cognate + pictorial science (PoP raw 1786–1826)
Separable register Chiasm / intertwining / reversibility E&M §2 throughout (intertwining); PoP raw 1818–1820 (reversibility, capitonnage). Not in IL. Marginal in Saint Aubert 2021. Not co-deployed with the three-tier cluster in any single argumentative gesture in PoP / E&M / IL.

The H_synth four-element synthesis is never co-deployed in a single argumentative gesture. The closest cases are:

  • IL raw 820–874: coherent deformation + système d'équivalences + Stiftung (chiasm absent at site).
  • PoP §IIb raw 597–641: coherent deformation + Stiftung + cryptic-institution material (chiasm absent at site).
  • PoP Course 2 raw 1786–1826: système d'équivalences + chiasm-cognate + pictorial science (Stiftung absent at site).
  • PoP V&I draft raw 3917–3935: science secrète + Ineinander (Stiftung and coherent deformation absent at site).
  • E&M raw 364: pictorial/silent science + Stiftung-cognate transmission (chiasm absent at site).

The chiasm-cognate register (intertwining, reversibility, capitonnage) is coordinate-but-separable from the three-tier expressive cluster. It addresses perceptual reflexivity, conditioning the visibility within which the three-tier cluster operates but not co-equally articulating with Stiftung in joint-operation grammar.

Reformulation

(δ) Three-tier expressive cluster + science secrète as orienting question + cryptic institution as the painter's non-thematic engagement.

Architectural statement: Science secrète (E&M's painter-side question; PoP V&I draft's philosophical-ontological field) is MP's name for indirect ontology in two registers — practiced (painter) and known-as-method (philosophy). Indirect ontology has an operative form (coherent deformation, the universal index of expressive operation across painting and literature), a diachronic mechanism (Stiftung, the institutionalization of dimensions and traditions), and a synchronic structure (système d'équivalences, the painter's style as the body's expressive form). The painter's body is the enactment site of all three. Chiasm/reversibility/Ineinander is a coordinate but separable register addressing perceptual reflexivity; it conditions the visibility within which the three-tier cluster operates but does not co-equally articulate with Stiftung in joint-operation grammar.

Cryptic institution under (δ): names the painter's non-thematic engagement with the three-tier cluster. Textual support: PoP raw 637 (Klee's "the painter knows a great deal, but he only knows it afterwards") + raw 641 ("It reveals only by concealing") + raw 597 ("expresses indirectly") + IL raw 866 ("his labor, which is obscure for him"). The painter operates coherent deformation + Stiftung + système d'équivalences through living pre-reflective discipline, without thematizing them — and thereby (per the four-concept paradox) transmits them. Thematizing would destroy the operation. Cryptic institution is therefore the fourth mode of institution that Beith's tripartite (static / genetic / generative) does not engage and Faul's interactive does not specify.

Why (δ) over (α) and (γ):

  • (α) architectural-hierarchy (Stiftung architectonic, chiasm conditional). Supported by the November 1960 V&I working note's grammar (per claims#nov-1960-stiftung-grammatical-subject (supported)). Pressured by PoP V&I draft chapter §1 (raw 3917, 3935): Ineinander, not Stiftung, is the operative architectonic. Pressured by IL raw 820–874: the three-element cluster operates without chiasm at the site.
  • (β) chiasm-Ineinander synchronic + Stiftung diachronic, joined in painter's body, science secrète at body-world level. Closer to texts than (α) but under-weights coherent deformation (the universal operative form across painting and literature in IL and PoP).
  • (γ) science secrète names indirect ontology directly, with chiasm and Stiftung as registers. Supported by PoP V&I draft (raw 3917) where science secrète = field = Ineinander. Pressured by E&M raw 35 verb-grammar where science secrète is the painter's having-or-seeking. Under-weights coherent deformation.

(δ) covers all three: science secrète as orienting question-figure in two registers; coherent deformation as universal operative form; Stiftung as diachronic mechanism; chiasm as coordinate-but-separable perceptual register; cryptic institution as the painter's non-thematic engagement.

Remaining gaps in (δ):

  1. Coherent deformation is also non-painterly (literature). H_synth's claim of painting as exemplary enacted unity needs to specify what the painter does that the writer does not — beyond "operating in oils." Strongest candidate: the painter's body as carnal système d'équivalences (E&M, PoP Course 2, Saint Aubert 2021). This is more a Saint-Aubert-2021 register than an E&M register; Paper A would need to articulate this.
  2. Science secrète's philosophical register (PoP raw 3917 = Ineinander-tribunal) is not the painter's discipline. Insisting that science secrète names "indirect ontology as practiced through painting" elides the philosophical register. (δ) handles this by making science secrète a question-figure that orients indirect ontology in two registers.
  3. Saint Aubert 2006 (Vers une ontologie indirecte), ingested 2026-05-05. The ingest confirms SA-2006 has 0 science secrète attestations; it does not authorize the science secrète-under-ontologie indirecte connection this item previously gated. SA-2006's contribution is the Blondel genealogy and the archivally-thin-Heidegger-reception audit, not direct engagement with the four-element cluster.

What This Implies for the Claim Layer

  1. Correct science-secrete to record at least three attestations (E&M raw 35, PoP Course 2 raw 1826, PoP V&I draft raw 3917). Drop the "single attestation in MP's published corpus" framing. Add IL's painting-vs-language finding (raw 1060, 1076) as the 1952 ground against which E&M's 1961 reversal becomes legible.
  2. Update claims#science-secrete-stiftung-chiasm (live, medium) Counterpressure with the (δ) reformulation pressure. The mutual-conditioning grammar in the Claim is textually under-supported on E&M, PoP, and IL. Status may need to drop from live to candidate pending the reformulation work.
  3. claims#cryptic-institution-extends-beith (candidate) has stronger textual anchors than the claim's Evidence currently records: PoP raw 637, 641, 597 + IL raw 866. The remaining gap is the Paper A specifying-statement (what cryptic adds beyond Faul's interactive), not a textual gap.
  4. Open a new claim entry on coherent-deformation-as-universal-operative-form-across-painting-and-literature. IL raw 820, 1050, 1076, 1178 + PoP raw 597, 2332 supply the evidence. This contradicts the painterly-specific framing of coherent deformation on coherent-deformation.
  5. Re-flag the Saint Aubert 2006 absence as load-bearing — resolved: SA-2006 ingested 2026-05-05. The ingest does not adjudicate (α) vs (δ) directly (0 science secrète attestations); the Blondel genealogy it supplies is orthogonal to the four-element architecture question.

What Is Preserved of H_synth

The core insight survives with refinement: the four-element cluster (science secrète + coherent deformation + chiasm + Stiftung) really is the right cluster to read MP's late ontology by, and the wiki's negative-evidence claim (claims#ingested-corpus-four-element-gap live) holds — no ingested secondary source occupies the synthesis. That makes the wiki's reading genuinely original interpretive work.

What H_synth got wrong is the mutual-conditioning grammar. The texts do not co-deploy the four concepts as four coordinate registers in joint-operation grammar. They deploy a three-tier expressive cluster with chiasm/Ineinander as a coordinate-but-separable perceptual register. Science secrète is the orienting question-figure that holds the architecture together as indirect ontology — in two registers, painter-side and philosopher-side, both attested in MP's text.

Connections

Open Questions

  • Does Saint Aubert 2006 (Vers une ontologie indirecte) authorize (δ) or a different architecture? SA-2006 was ingested 2026-05-05. The ingest shows 0 science secrète attestations and does not directly authorize (δ); its contribution is the Blondel genealogy and the archival Heidegger-reception audit, which are orthogonal to the four-element architecture question. The rate-limiting question for (δ) has shifted from the SA-2006 raw absence to the absence of any secondary source that explicitly treats the four-element cluster.
  • Was the developmental change between IL (1952) painting-as-limited-mute-abortive and E&M (1961) painter-as-primary-witness mediated by Prose of the World (1950–52, abandoned), the 1953 Sensible World and the World of Expression course, and/or The Possibility of Philosophy 1959–61? The Kee 2025 reading (per claims#pbp-as-pivot-from-language-monograph-to-late-ontology (live)) places the pivot at PbP (1953–54). The H_synth re-audit's finding suggests the painter-side reversal happens after PbP, between 1959 and 1961, in PoP §IIb and E&M.
  • Is the Course 2 attestation at PoP raw 1826 ("pictorial 'science' of the visible through painting") a third register of science secrète, or a variant of the painter-side register at E&M raw 35? The verb-grammar differs (PoP is possessive-instrumental "of the visible through painting"; E&M is "which he has or which he seeks"). The variant matters for whether science secrète has two registers (painter / philosopher) or three.
  • Are there further science secrète attestations in Nature (1956–60), the V&I working notes proper, or Husserl at the Limits? The May 1 audit flagged Nature attestations with polarity-reversal usage (MP rejecting "super-science, secret science"). A targeted re-read of these is warranted before any further claim-layer work on science secrète.

Sources

  • merleau-ponty-1961-eye-and-mind — close reading of raw lines 35, 213, 221, 274, 342, 364, 420 + extraction note Silent Keys §1–3.
  • merleau-ponty-2022-possibility-of-philosophy — close reading of datalab raw lines 597, 629, 637, 641, 1786, 1818, 1820, 1822, 1826, 2332, 3917, 3935 (corresponding to alternate-raw lines including 925 and 1959). The Course 2 attestation at raw 1826 ("pictorial 'science' of the visible through painting") and the V&I draft chapter attestation at raw 3917 ("the secret science that makes all knowledge, all experience appear at its tribunal") together establish that science secrète operates in PoP in two registers — painter-side and philosophical — both of which the wiki's science-secrete page and the PoP extraction note had missed.
  • merleau-ponty-1964-signs — close reading of Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence (Chapter IV.1, raw lines 670–1300). Key findings at raw 820 (definition: style = system of equivalences = universal index of coherent deformation), raw 866 (advancing the line of the already opened furrow + cryptic-institution candidate), raw 874 (Stiftung definition), raw 1050 (coherent deformation in literature), raw 1060 (painting as abortive effort), raw 1076 (language exceeds coherent deformation), raw 1178 (coherent deformation in language).
  • saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii — extraction-note review confirming the four-concept absence and the third-architecture (flesh-monde-être with portance) reading. Saint Aubert 2006 Vers une ontologie indirecte ingested 2026-05-05; its 0 science secrète attestations mean the science secrète-side gap persists even post-ingest.