> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.museumofone.art/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Phenomenological Indices Analysis v.1 - URL: https://www.museumofone.art/phenomenological-indices-analysis/ - Published: 2026-02-06T23:12:01.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-21T09:55:01.000Z - Description: Five proposed PIC indices for examining presupposition, phase, residue, agency and movement in critical writing, with methodological context and limits. - Author: Dorian Vale - Tags: #DiagnosticTool ## Experiment with this research tool Individuals and institutions interested in experimenting with this tool are welcome to [contact Museum of One](mailto:research@museumofone.art?subject=Museum%20of%20One%20research%20tool%20access). On request, I can send the GitHub repository or a copy of the tool itself. Please name the tool and describe your intended research use. [← Research Tools and Experiments](https://www.museumofone.art/analytical-diagnostic-tools/) · [Research Programmes ↗](https://www.museumofone.art/research-programmes/) **Research tool record.** This page documents the tool and its method. The interactive application is not embedded, and this page does not accept material for analysis. [Summary ↓](#record-at-a-glance) · [Procedure ↓](#procedure-at-a-glance) · [Worked example ↓](#worked-example) · [Citation ↓](#citation-and-revision) ## Record at a glance - **Purpose:** Inspect the relation between description, presupposition, agency, and revision in critical writing. - **Responsibility:** Dorian Vale; maintained by Museum of One. - **Tool version:** v.1, as named in the published title. - **Method reference:** Canonical Rule Set v2.0, as identified in this record. The tool title and rule-set version refer to different things. - **Research status:** Experimental instrument; proposed phenomenological indices. - **Documentation revised:** 17 October 2026\. This dates the record, not a new tool release. **Evidence status:** This record describes a design, not a validation study. Coding agreement and the interpretation of thresholds require separate evidence. Phenomenological Indices Analysis is a Museum of One research instrument for examining how a critical text approaches an artwork. Its object is the conduct of the account: what the critic describes, what the critic assumes, and how the writing responds to the work. It is not a test of artistic quality or a measurement of aesthetic experience itself. ## What it does The documented design uses the Canonical Rule Set v2.0 to organize a reading around five proposed indices. Each draws attention to a particular relation within the text: - **Epoché Fidelity (EFI):** examines the balance between descriptive statements and presuppositional assumptions. The question is whether a claim remains close to what can be encountered or depends on an unexamined premise. - **Phase Alignment (PPAS):** examines the distribution and sequence of attention across phenomenological phases. It asks when a text moves from encounter into explanation and whether that movement is supported. - **Residue Engagement (RERR):** examines how the account handles what remains unsettled. A mention of uncertainty is not, by itself, evidence that the text has resisted closure. - **Agency Recognition (QSARI):** examines whether the work is described only as an object acted upon or also as a presence that affects and redirects the encounter. - **Dialectical Circulation (DCI):** examines movement and return within the account, including whether an initial claim is reconsidered rather than simply repeated. ## How the method works The original tool design combines assisted text analysis with rule-based calculations. These are different operations. Identifying or coding a passage can involve judgment; a fixed calculation can be repeatable without making the coding infallible. A responsible reading must therefore keep the text, coding decisions, exclusions, and calculation rules available for examination. ## Procedure at a glance 1. 01 / PROCEDURESelect a passage 2. 02 / PROCEDUREIdentify claims and assumptions 3. 03 / PROCEDURERecord a provisional profile 4. 04 / REVIEWReview against the source Procedure outline, not a report of an executed analysis. Schematic illustrations explain the documented steps; they are not application screenshots, measured profiles or research findings. ## Worked example **Illustration only.** This constructed example is not a software run, validation result, or report of participant findings. *A dark square occupies the upper edge. It is a memorial to collective grief. I return to the uneven boundary, which does not settle that reading.* - **Observation:** The first sentence identifies a position and a visible feature. It supplies a descriptive starting point, not a complete account of the work. - **Presupposition:** The memorial claim requires evidence beyond the visible square. Without a source or qualification, it is an unsupported meaning-assignment. - **Return and residue:** The final sentence revisits a feature and leaves the memorial claim unsettled. Whether this counts under a particular index depends on the coding unit and the published rule. **What this establishes:** The audit locates a shift from description to meaning-assignment and a later return. It does not justify a score from three sentences, certify phenomenological fidelity, or establish what an actual artwork means. ## Why it belongs to Post-Interpretive Criticism PIC asks what critical language does to the relation between work, critic, and viewer. This instrument brings that question into the detail of a text. It looks for the point at which description becomes an assertion of authority, or an encounter becomes a settled account that leaves no room for resistance. The purpose is to make those decisions discussable, not to issue a certificate of ethical criticism. ## Scope and limits The indices are research proposals. Their thresholds, coding reliability, and sensitivity to genre require scrutiny. A numerical profile cannot establish fidelity to an artwork, diagnose a viewer, or replace close reading. Computational consistency is not the same as phenomenological validity. ## Methodological context [Extending Post-Interpretive Criticism](https://www.museumofone.art/extending-post-interpretive-criticism-additional-diagnostic-indices-for-enhanced-phenomenological-fidelity-in-art-criticism/) develops the additional indices. [Diagnostics Without Possession](https://www.museumofone.art/diagnostics-without-possession-an-operational-manual-for-post-interpretive-criticism-operational-reference-for-inter-rater-reliability/) provides the operational reference for coding and reliability work. ## Citation and revision Suggested citation. Select and copy the following text: Vale, Dorian. Phenomenological Indices Analysis v.1\. Museum of One, 2026\. Research tool record; documentation revised 17 October 2026\. https://www.museumofone.art/phenomenological-indices-analysis/ **Methodological reference:** [Diagnostics Without Possession](https://www.museumofone.art/diagnostics-without-possession-an-operational-manual-for-post-interpretive-criticism-operational-reference-for-inter-rater-reliability/). Coding rules and reliability procedures are not themselves a completed validation study. **Revision note · 17 October 2026\.** Added the record summary, procedure diagram, constructed example, evidence-status distinction, and suggested citation. This is a documentation revision. No new software release, participant findings, or validation result is announced. [← Back to Research Tools and Experiments](https://www.museumofone.art/analytical-diagnostic-tools/) · [Phenomenological Methods and Diagnostic Reading ↗](https://www.museumofone.art/research-methods/)