Experienced access

Current approved assessment

Evidence position

METHOD / BOUNDARY

Review depth

BASELINE SURVEY

Evidence movement

Initial observation — no prior comparable baseline linked

Dated pilot entry retained unchanged. Scope qualifiers are transcribed from its assessment; no new evidential evaluation.

Why it sits here

Conscious state, content, access and reporting are related but different targets. Report tasks may include prerequisites or consequences of experience; no-report designs require other indicators. These differences make target selection central. The survey does not prove an irreducible explanatory gap or that empirical consciousness research is untestable.

Principal uncertainty

Which target, rival explanation and independently interpretable indicator distinguish experience-related effects from access, report and task demands?

What would change the view?

Level 2 should define one bounded state/content/access contrast and its measurement assumptions before causal support is assessed. Scope clarification is needed; no split is enacted. Level 3 is reserved for later consequential mechanism endorsement or significant external evidence use. Experience remains within the main narrative arc and parallel in research.

Launch-v1 depth

Baseline-only public wrapper. No deeper evidence artefacts are fabricated.

Approved history