The Matrix Stated Twice
The source states its lens-by-pattern matrix twice. One section works through the eighteen patterns, giving each a single primary loading and a list of strong ones. The other works through the twenty-seven lenses, listing under each the patterns it loads. Two statements of one matrix can be checked against each other, and they do not agree. The by-lens section labels its entries primary loadings and they total 71. A matrix of eighteen patterns has exactly 18 primary positions, because each pattern has one. 71 primary loadings cannot exist in 18 slots; this is arithmetic rather than a difference of judgement. 20 of the 20 lenses that claim any loading claim more primaries than the detailed section gives them. One mislabel explains almost all of it. The by-lens section is counting every loading and calling the total primary, and read that way its figures are close to right. The damage is done downstream, where the summary reads those totals as primaries and concludes that three lenses — ethical, cybernetic-systems, discourse-analytic — form the load-bearing triad of the whole form-of-life. Against the detailed section the ethical lens is primary on 4 of eighteen patterns, cybernetic-systems on 1, and discourse-analytic on 2. The ethical reading survives the correction; it is still the most-loaded lens. The triad does not. Three cells are not explained by the mislabel and are separated here because they are a different kind of error. 1 loading is asserted by the index and appears nowhere in the detailed section — a claim the document does not corroborate against itself, and it is not used. Two more appear in the detail and are missing from the index, which is an omission rather than a contradiction. Two smaller slips corroborate the pattern. A sentence naming the lenses that operate across the whole rather than on particular patterns says six and then enumerates seven — and seven is right, since the detailed section independently declares 7 such lenses and each of them carries zero loadings. And the same summary offers ninety-six as the number of possible primary-loading positions; eighteen patterns have eighteen, and the full grid of eighteen patterns against twenty-seven lenses is 486 cells, of which 72 are filled. What holds is worth stating too, because a document that were merely careless would not hold anywhere. Every one of the eighteen patterns has exactly one primary loading. Twenty of the twenty-seven lenses carry loadings and the remaining seven are exactly those the chapter declares cross-cutting — no lens is both, and none is unaccounted for. The detailed section is internally consistent. It is the summary of it that is wrong, which is the more interesting failure: the error enters when the document stops reading its own evidence and starts reading its own index.