Skip to content

Conceptual Model Of An “Emotional” Domain

We are only concerned with textual data stored electronically. A source is thus our generic unit of representation throughout the problem domain.

The evidence is the exhaustive collection of all the docs we need to consider, organized hierarchically as individual sources.


Ultimately, it all comes down to working with text fragments, or claims, with their various interconnected and even overlapping properties and attributes.

We formalize these and define:

Sourcedigitized content stored in a filetype (e.g. pdf, jpg, email, text)
Evidencea hierarchy of considered Sourcesroot (directory)
Docpaginated, flat textual Evidencename (date), genre, author, title, pages
Genrethe “official-ness” of a Docname
Placea specific location in a Docdoc, page, para(graph)
Claima Placed relevant text fragmenttext, place, credibility


The author of a doc of implicitly related set of claims can be a party, a lawyer or a judge, for example.

Accordingly, we define:

Authoran author of Docs of Claimsname, title
Agenta to be believed professionalkind (of profession)
Authoritya trusted Agent of an official agencyagency (institution or ‘sworn self’)


A claim can be grouped into topics and attached to narratives. Such groupings and assignments are done based on the semantic meaning of the claim, as well as of the context the claim belongs to.

Topica relevant/dominant subject matter of Claimsname
Narrativea thematically focused “slice” through Claimsname, topic

More importantly, claims are further categorized as follows.


The objective is to either compute a generalizing credibility for the claim or to derive other reproducible conjectures, regarding the related claims.

Nodea generic grouping of Claim(s) along thematic dimensionstopic, narrative
Proofa readily verifiable, undisputed Claim from an Authorityclaim, authority
Conjecturea logical inference from Proofs guided by thematic Claimsproofs, claims
Realitya broad-based, reinforcing Conjecturecoherence
Dissenta narrow, fragmenting and thus weakening Conjecturefragmentation

While a broad reality is “simple”, as in hard to characterize any further, a narrow dissent is much richer in “character”.


We break down dissents into self-explanatory types, with increasing factors of their fragmenting effects. These are:

Misreadingseemingly unintentionally misinterpreted relevant claims
Fairnessneglected or refused to consider both claim and counterclaim
Negligencereported relevant and damaging information in a careless manner
Proportionalityneglected or refused to report in balanced/proportional manner
Contradictionneglected or refused to state apparent inconsistency or conflict
Isolationneglected or refused to consider relevant and essential context
Omissionneglected or refused to report disclosed relevant information
Distortionreported relevant information in a suggestive and biased manner

A special type of claim is a conflict.


Its purpose is to directly contradict a reality and thus to manipulate a subsequent judgment. As the most important objects in modeling a lawsuit, conflicts are at the center of our attention.

The ultimate goal of our modeling efforts is to arrive at a mechanism to extract a semantic “conflict graph” in a reproducible fashion.

Conflicta Claim intended to fabricate/escalate bases for Judgmentsclaim, reality
Suborna false Claim caused by Agent as intentional perjury(agent’s) agency
Repeatvariant of a conflict aimed at reinforcing intended effectclaim, conflict
Judgmenta thematic conjecture by Authority over inflated Conflictsconflicts, authority
Activisma thematic pattern of conjectures by Authorityjudgments, authority

Once again, revealing, and even actively fabricating, conflicts is the objective of lawsuits.

We categorize conflicts along their increasing fragmenting effect on realities:

Inherentemphasized inherent contradictions to confuse judgment
Concealintentionally concealed relevant truths to affect judgment
Deceiveintentionally emphasized relevant half-truths to affect judgment
Fraudstated intentionally falsified relevant and crucial information
Extortstated relevant and threatening claims to force money or “fees”


The judgments of lawsuits represent the net effect of all claimed conflicts.

If a judgment relies predominantly on perhaps fabricated conflicts, or is simply prejudiced by them, while actively overruling realities, it causes turmoil.

The types of judgments we consider in increasing turmoil effect is as follows:

Validationselection and judgment of conflicts refuting an inflated Conflict
Confusionselection and judgment of conflicts leading to clear contradiction
Biasselection and judgment of conflicts satisfying a prior narrative
Disregardavoidance of relevant conflicts while protecting a prior narrative
Fabricationinjection of disputable conjecture to reinforce a prior narrative

When considering multiple judgment claims, a pattern, or a trend, can possibly be established.


During processing, when our calculations support such “judicial” patterns, activisms emerge.

We define the following activism categories in increasing effect of their turmoil factor:

Excludea pattern of excluding undesired realities
Insinuatea pattern of insinuating desired “realities”
Polarizea pattern of deepening fabricated conflicts
Recasta pattern of re-interpreting realities
Elevatea pattern of elevating desired “realities”
Victimizea pattern of repeatedly causing suffering
Exploita pattern of repeatedly preying on the defenseless
Perpetuatea pattern of reinforcing the repetition of unfairness

This blog introduced the most essential “framing” concepts of our model. A subsequent blog will define the precise analytical, or quantitatively measurable, properties of these elements.