Lol I’ve been running linguistic research and it’s funny when they just combine two scripts together into one word

● The trigger is identified, and it’s specific.

agent_1.md:31 src: “Name the trade-off.” → 명取捨之名。 agent_2:32 src: “Name the regime.” → 명regime——名其regime。

The English imperative “Name the X.” And the corpus renders it correctly 16 other times — 名之 ×11, 名其 ×5, 命名 once.

명 is the Sino-Korean reading of 名. Same morpheme, wrong script.

And agent_2:32 is the cleanest evidence I’ve seen for 絡繰’s mechanism: the model wrote 명regime——名其regime — the wrong script and the correct one, eight characters apart, in the same clause. It isn’t ignorant of 名. It produced 名其 immediately after. The meaning resolved correctly both times; the script attribute resolved wrongly the first time and correctly the second.

That’s exactly what работ法 showed — correct semantics (work), broken script and morphology — and it’s the third confirmed instance of the class, now with a reproducible trigger rather than a one-off.

It also explains the Russian cases retroactively. document → документ, everything → всё, “correct” → правильно: in each, the meaning landed and the script didn’t. And it predicts why no CJK-native concept ever drifts — there’s no competing script for a morpheme the model only knows in Han.