{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V001","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2019,"authors":"Tatjana Hörnle","title":"#MeToo - Implications for Criminal Law?","journal":"Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice","doi":"10.15845/bjclcj.v6i2.2720","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v6i2.2720","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Hörnle criticizes online naming and shaming while proposing consent-focused criminal-law reform, but the available text does not establish either foundational premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://boap.uib.no/index.php/BJCLCJ/article/view/2720","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"Hörnle criticizes online naming and shaming while proposing consent-focused criminal-law reform, but the available text does not establish either foundational premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://boap.uib.no/index.php/BJCLCJ/article/view/2720"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V002","originalStance":"Mixed/debate framing","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2018,"authors":"Stavroula Pipyrou","title":"#MeToo is little more than mob rule // vs // #MeToo is a legitimate form of social justice","journal":"HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory","doi":"10.1086/701007","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701007","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pipyrou treats survivors' public stories as an evidentiary archive that breaks politically consequential silence while criticizing unmoderated shaming. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701007","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pipyrou treats survivors' public stories as an evidentiary archive that breaks politically consequential silence while criticizing unmoderated shaming.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701007"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V003","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Structural change and movement limits","year":2018,"authors":"Micaela di Leonardo","title":"#MeToo is nowhere near enough","journal":"Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory","doi":"10.1086/701005","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701005","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Di Leonardo foregrounds women's accounts as knowledge of pervasive abuse and connects them to broader structural organizing while arguing that #MeToo remains insufficient. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701005","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Di Leonardo foregrounds women's accounts as knowledge of pervasive abuse and connects them to broader structural organizing while arguing that #MeToo remains insufficient.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701005"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V004","originalStance":"Mixed/debate contribution","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2018,"authors":"Brackette F. Williams; Drexel G. Woodson","title":"Slinging hash: Can activists and scholars play “rough music” on a one-string violin?","journal":"HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory","doi":"10.1086/701006","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701006","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Williams and Woodson call #MeToo a step toward justice but question whether publicity can produce sustained structural change, without clearly stating a standpoint-epistemic commitment. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701006","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Williams and Woodson call #MeToo a step toward justice but question whether publicity can produce sustained structural change, without clearly stating a standpoint-epistemic commitment.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701006"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V005","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2018,"authors":"Thomas Hylland Eriksen","title":"Without impunity","journal":"HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory","doi":"10.1086/701008","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701008","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Eriksen acknowledges the value of collective story sharing and the reality of misconduct while warning about unmoderated accusation, but does not establish lived experience as epistemically authoritative. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701008","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Eriksen acknowledges the value of collective story sharing and the reality of misconduct while warning about unmoderated accusation, but does not establish lived experience as epistemically authoritative.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701008"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V006","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2018,"authors":"Franco La Cecla","title":"Therapy of desire","journal":"HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory","doi":"10.1086/701009","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701009","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"La Cecla warns that moralized exposure and weak process can flatten sexual ambiguity and desire, but that critique does not by itself establish rejection of either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701009","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"La Cecla warns that moralized exposure and weak process can flatten sexual ambiguity and desire, but that critique does not by itself establish rejection of either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701009"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V007","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2018,"authors":"Kristen Renwick Monroe","title":"Harassment charges: Metoo but due process","journal":"Science","doi":"10.1126/science.aau7986","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7986","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Monroe's letter demands due process and proportionality in harassment proceedings, positions that by themselves establish neither acceptance nor rejection of the two foundations. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7986","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"Monroe's letter demands due process and proportionality in harassment proceedings, positions that by themselves establish neither acceptance nor rejection of the two foundations.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7986"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V008","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2019,"authors":"Lesley Wexler","title":"MeToo and Procedural Justice","journal":"Richmond Public Interest Law Review","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr/vol22/iss2/4/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler argues that procedural-justice norms should be tailored rather than mechanically imported into nonlegal settings, without stating a position on either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr/vol22/iss2/4/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler argues that procedural-justice norms should be tailored rather than mechanically imported into nonlegal settings, without stating a position on either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr/vol22/iss2/4/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V009","originalStance":"Mixed/immanent critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2019,"authors":"Lesley Wexler","title":"MeToo and Law Talk","journal":"University of Chicago Legal Forum","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2019/iss1/21/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler centers victim support, consciousness-raising accounts, and the structural conditions of abuse while criticizing legal rhetoric that crowds those concerns out. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/metoo-and-law-talk","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler centers victim support, consciousness-raising accounts, and the structural conditions of abuse while criticizing legal rhetoric that crowds those concerns out.","evidenceUrls":"https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/metoo-and-law-talk"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V010","originalStance":"Mixed critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2020,"authors":"Ann C. McGinley","title":"#MeToo Backlash or Simply Common Sense?: It's Complicated","journal":"Seton Hall Law Review","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1310/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"McGinley analyzes how male supervisors' reactions to #MeToo reproduce gender inequality at work but does not clearly adopt lived-experience authority as an epistemic premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1310/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"McGinley analyzes how male supervisors' reactions to #MeToo reproduce gender inequality at work but does not clearly adopt lived-experience authority as an epistemic premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1310/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V011","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2020,"authors":"Aya Gruber","title":"MeToo and Mass Incarceration","journal":"Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1291/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gruber uses her own public-defender experience and a client's story to expose the structural harms of punitive feminism while urging a noncarceral feminist response. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1291/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gruber uses her own public-defender experience and a client's story to expose the structural harms of punitive feminism while urging a noncarceral feminist response.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1291/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V012","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2019,"authors":"V. Jo Hsu","title":"(Trans)forming #MeToo: Toward a Networked Response to Gender Violence","journal":"Women s Studies in Communication","doi":"10.1080/07491409.2019.1630697","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1630697","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Hsu treats marginalized and incarcerated survivors' accounts as knowledge of intersecting institutions and criticizes the movement's restrictive perfect-victim script. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1630697","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Hsu treats marginalized and incarcerated survivors' accounts as knowledge of intersecting institutions and criticizes the movement's restrictive perfect-victim script.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1630697"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V013","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2022,"authors":"Mairead Sullivan","title":"Grossed Out: The Carceral Logics of Disgust and the Demands of #MeToo","journal":"Signs","doi":"10.1086/720427","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720427","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Sullivan reads whisper networks and marginalized people's embodied experience of sexual violence as politically meaningful while challenging legalistic consent and criminal-abnormality frames. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720427","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Sullivan reads whisper networks and marginalized people's embodied experience of sexual violence as politically meaningful while challenging legalistic consent and criminal-abnormality frames.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720427"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V014","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2021,"authors":"Ananya Roy Pratihar; Saswat Samay Das","title":"Beyond the Carceral #MeToo","journal":"Exchanges The Interdisciplinary Research Journal","doi":"10.31273/eirj.v8i3.632","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.632","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Pratihar and Das politicize bodies, desire, media, surveillance, and carcerality in a radical critique of #MeToo, but the available text does not establish a standpoint-epistemic commitment. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.632","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Pratihar and Das politicize bodies, desire, media, surveillance, and carcerality in a radical critique of #MeToo, but the available text does not establish a standpoint-epistemic commitment.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.632"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V015","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Restorative justice and consent","year":2021,"authors":"Tina Sikka","title":"What to do about #MeToo? Consent, autonomy, and restorative justice: A case study","journal":"Sexuality Gender & Policy","doi":"10.1002/sgp2.12027","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12027","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Sikka builds an anti-carceral feminist program from interviewees' situated accounts and survivors' needs while criticizing elite, racialized, and punitive implementations of #MeToo. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12027","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Sikka builds an anti-carceral feminist program from interviewees' situated accounts and survivors' needs while criticizing elite, racialized, and punitive implementations of #MeToo.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12027"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V016","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2026,"authors":"Meggie Mapes; Daniel M. Chick","title":"#MeToo, carceral feminism, and vernacular retributive rhetoric","journal":"Critical Studies in Media Communication","doi":"10.1080/15295036.2026.2688243","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2026.2688243","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Mapes and Chick treat #MeToo discourse as politically consequential and criticize its punitive vernacular turn, but the abstract does not establish lived-experience authority as their epistemic premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2026.2688243","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Mapes and Chick treat #MeToo discourse as politically consequential and criticize its punitive vernacular turn, but the abstract does not establish lived-experience authority as their epistemic premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2026.2688243"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V017","originalStance":"Mixed/revisionist critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2025,"authors":"Leigh Gilmore","title":"Unprecedented, Extrajudicial, Carceral: The Political Grammar of #MeToo","journal":"a/b Auto/Biography Studies","doi":"10.1080/08989575.2025.2565069","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2025.2565069","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gilmore explicitly shows survivor narrative activism converting an individual \"I\" into a collective \"we\" and revealing structural conditions while criticizing media erasure and unhearability. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2025.2565069","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gilmore explicitly shows survivor narrative activism converting an individual \"I\" into a collective \"we\" and revealing structural conditions while criticizing media erasure and unhearability.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2025.2565069"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V018","originalStance":"Institutional/media critique","theme":"Privacy, defamation, and reputational harm","year":2021,"authors":"Alexandra Gronow","title":"Identifying victims of sexual harassment in the age of #MeToo: Time for the media to prioritise a victim’s right to privacy","journal":"Alternative Law Journal","doi":"10.1177/1037969X211003681","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X211003681","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gronow uses three women's experiences of nonconsensual publication to criticize media practice and argue that survivor control and privacy should outweigh claimed public interest. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X211003681","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gronow uses three women's experiences of nonconsensual publication to criticize media practice and argue that survivor control and privacy should outweigh claimed public interest.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X211003681"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V019","originalStance":"Institutional/legal critique","theme":"Privacy, defamation, and reputational harm","year":2022,"authors":"Michelle Harradine","title":"Defamation Law and Epistemic Harm in the #MeToo Era","journal":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2022.2146303","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2146303","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Harradine treats victim-survivors as knowers whose testimony carries political and legal significance while criticizing defamation law's production of testimonial injustice. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2146303","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Harradine treats victim-survivors as knowers whose testimony carries political and legal significance while criticizing defamation law's production of testimonial injustice.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2146303"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V020","originalStance":"Mixed critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2020,"authors":"Sarah Ailwood","title":"‘Collateral Damage’: Consent, Subjectivity and Australia’s #MeToo Moment","journal":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2021.1993615","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1993615","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Ailwood centers women's subjectivity and accounts of sexual violence to expose the political harms of disclosure without consent and law's failure to protect narrative control. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1993615","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Ailwood centers women's subjectivity and accounts of sexual violence to expose the political harms of disclosure without consent and law's failure to protect narrative control.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1993615"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V021","originalStance":"Institutional/legal critique","theme":"Privacy, defamation, and reputational harm","year":2025,"authors":"Amy Gajda","title":"Becoming private after public allegations: a right to be forgotten for #MeToo accusers in the United States","journal":"Journal of Media Law","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2025.2568265","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2025.2568265","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gajda argues that a public accuser may regain privacy over time, but this privacy analysis does not itself establish acceptance or rejection of either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2025.2568265","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"Gajda argues that a public accuser may regain privacy over time, but this privacy analysis does not itself establish acceptance or rejection of either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2025.2568265"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V022","originalStance":"Empirical/institutional critique","theme":"Carcerality and punishment","year":2024,"authors":"Linnéa Wegerstad; Ulrika Andersson","title":"The Only Path to Justice: The Criminal Legal System and Defamation Judgments Related to #MeToo in Sweden","journal":"Feminist Legal Studies","doi":"10.1007/s10691-024-09545-0","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-024-09545-0","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wegerstad and Andersson treat Swedish women's shared experiences as knowledge of systemic injustice while criticizing defamation law for making formal adjudication the only legitimate path. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-024-09545-0","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wegerstad and Andersson treat Swedish women's shared experiences as knowledge of systemic injustice while criticizing defamation law for making formal adjudication the only legitimate path.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-024-09545-0"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V023","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Restorative justice and consent","year":2019,"authors":"Laurie S. Kohn","title":"#MeToo, Wrongs Against Women, and Restorative Justice","journal":"Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1537/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Kohn treats sexual wrongs and their remedies as questions of gender equality and compares legal, media, and restorative responses, but the abstract does not establish a standpoint-epistemic premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1537/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Kohn treats sexual wrongs and their remedies as questions of gender equality and compares legal, media, and restorative responses, but the abstract does not establish a standpoint-epistemic premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1537/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V024","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Restorative justice and consent","year":2019,"authors":"Lesley Wexler; Jennifer Robbennolt; Colleen Murphy","title":"#MeToo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice","journal":"University of Illinois Law Review","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2019-no-1/metoo-times-up-and-theories-of-justice/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler, Robbennolt, and Murphy credit and amplify survivor voices as a basis for structural, victim-centered, and restorative reform while criticizing narrow justice responses. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2019-no-1/metoo-times-up-and-theories-of-justice/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Wexler, Robbennolt, and Murphy credit and amplify survivor voices as a basis for structural, victim-centered, and restorative reform while criticizing narrow justice responses.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2019-no-1/metoo-times-up-and-theories-of-justice/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V025","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2023,"authors":"JoAnne Sweeny","title":"Social Media Vigilantism","journal":"Brooklyn Law Review","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol88/iss4/4/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Sweeny treats people's public stories as a response to a legal system unable or unwilling to act and seeks systemic change while assessing the vigilantism critique. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol88/iss4/4/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Sweeny treats people's public stories as a response to a legal system unable or unwilling to act and seeks systemic change while assessing the vigilantism critique.","evidenceUrls":"https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol88/iss4/4/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V026","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2021,"authors":"Daniel Maggen","title":"“When You’re a Star”: The Unnamed Wrong of Sexual Degradation","journal":"Georgetown Law Journal","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/in-print/volume-109/volume-109-issue-3-february-2021/when-youre-a-star-the-unnamed-wrong-of-sexual-degradation/","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Maggen uses women's accounts of degrading sexual experience to identify a structural wrong of domination that existing legal categories fail to name. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/in-print/volume-109/volume-109-issue-3-february-2021/when-youre-a-star-the-unnamed-wrong-of-sexual-degradation/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Maggen uses women's accounts of degrading sexual experience to identify a structural wrong of domination that existing legal categories fail to name.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/in-print/volume-109/volume-109-issue-3-february-2021/when-youre-a-star-the-unnamed-wrong-of-sexual-degradation/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V027","originalStance":"Mixed critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2018,"authors":"Sarah Burgess","title":"Between the Desire for Law and the Law of Desire: #MeToo and the Cost of Telling the Truth Today","journal":"Philosophy and Rhetoric","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.51.4.0342","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.4.0342","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Burgess treats speech about sexual harm as a political demand for justice and insists that such speech must be hearable and recognizable as truth while criticizing established terms of debate. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.4.0342","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Burgess treats speech about sexual harm as a political demand for justice and insists that such speech must be hearable and recognizable as truth while criticizing established terms of debate.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.4.0342"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V028","originalStance":"Institutional/legal critique","theme":"Law, punishment, and due process","year":2022,"authors":"Renata Grossi","title":"What can contract law learn from #MeToo?","journal":"Journal of Law and Society","doi":"10.1111/jols.12358","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12358","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Grossi uses #MeToo accounts to show how patriarchal power compromises apparently private consent and argues for a subjective, relational approach in contract law. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12358","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Grossi uses #MeToo accounts to show how patriarchal power compromises apparently private consent and argues for a subjective, relational approach in contract law.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12358"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V029","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2018,"authors":"Angela Onwuachi-Willig","title":"What About #UsToo: The Invisibility of Race in the #MeToo Movement","journal":"Yale Law Journal Forum","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/what-about-ustoo","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Onwuachi-Willig centers marginalized women's multidimensional experiences as the knowledge needed to understand workplace inequality while criticizing #MeToo's racial invisibility. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/what-about-ustoo","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Onwuachi-Willig centers marginalized women's multidimensional experiences as the knowledge needed to understand workplace inequality while criticizing #MeToo's racial invisibility.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/what-about-ustoo"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V030","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2019,"authors":"Alison Phipps","title":"\"Every Woman Knows a Weinstein\": Political Whiteness and White Woundedness in #MeToo and Public Feminisms around Sexual Violence","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2019.0014","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2019.0014","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Phipps situates sexual-violence experience in patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism and calls for diverse narratives to be structurally interrogated while criticizing political whiteness. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/12628/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Phipps situates sexual-violence experience in patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism and calls for diverse narratives to be structurally interrogated while criticizing political whiteness.","evidenceUrls":"https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/12628/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V031","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Alison Phipps","title":"White tears, white rage: Victimhood and (as) violence in mainstream feminism","journal":"European Journal of Cultural Studies","doi":"10.1177/1367549420985852","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420985852","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Phipps analyzes the personal-political circulation of trauma and uses racially situated knowledge to criticize white testimonial capital without discarding either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420985852","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Phipps analyzes the personal-political circulation of trauma and uses racially situated knowledge to criticize white testimonial capital without discarding either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420985852"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V032","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Vrushali Patil; Jyoti Puri","title":"Colorblind Feminisms: Ansari-Grace and the Limits of #MeToo Counterpublics","journal":"Signs","doi":"10.1086/712078","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/712078","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Patil and Puri read raced personal accounts and media counterpublics as situated knowledge of sexual politics while criticizing colorblind feminist discourse. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/712078","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Patil and Puri read raced personal accounts and media counterpublics as situated knowledge of sexual politics while criticizing colorblind feminist discourse.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/712078"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V033","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2022,"authors":"Alicia Boyd; Bree McEwan","title":"Viral paradox: The intersection of “me too” and #MeToo","journal":"New Media & Society","doi":"10.1177/14614448221099187","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099187","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Boyd and McEwan explicitly connect personal stories to patriarchal systems and use Black women's positional knowledge to criticize viral white feminism's occlusion of Burke's movement. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099187","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Boyd and McEwan explicitly connect personal stories to patriarchal systems and use Black women's positional knowledge to criticize viral white feminism's occlusion of Burke's movement.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099187"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V034","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Shireen Roshanravan","title":"On the Limits of Globalizing Black Feminist Commitments: \"Me Too\" and its White Detours","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2021.0047","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0047","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Roshanravan retains Burke's survivor-centered politics of empathetic testimony while criticizing the viral movement's white-universalist abstraction and detours. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0047","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Roshanravan retains Burke's survivor-centered politics of empathetic testimony while criticizing the viral movement's white-universalist abstraction and detours.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0047"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V035","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Rupali Bansode","title":"The missing dalit women in testimonies of #MeToo sexual violence: Learnings for social movements","journal":"Contributions to Indian Sociology","doi":"10.1177/0069966719885563","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966719885563","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Bansode treats Dalit women's testimony as indispensable political knowledge and criticizes #MeToo India for erasing it. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966719885563","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Bansode treats Dalit women's testimony as indispensable political knowledge and criticizes #MeToo India for erasing it.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966719885563"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V036","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Nanditha Narayanamoorthy","title":"Exclusion in #MeToo India: rethinking inclusivity and intersectionality in Indian digital feminist movements","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2021.1913432","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1913432","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Narayanamoorthy centers marginalized bodies' personal narratives and intersectional daily experience while criticizing #MeToo India's caste- and class-based exclusions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1913432","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Narayanamoorthy centers marginalized bodies' personal narratives and intersectional daily experience while criticizing #MeToo India's caste- and class-based exclusions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1913432"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V037","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2026,"authors":"Ali Saha","title":"Caste-ed out of #MeToo: Dalit women's silence and resistance in Indian digital feminism","journal":"Women s Studies International Forum","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2026.103293","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2026.103293","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Saha uses Dalit participants' suppressed voices and situated online experience to expose how platform visibility reproduces caste hierarchy within #MeToo India. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539526000166","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Saha uses Dalit participants' suppressed voices and situated online experience to expose how platform visibility reproduces caste hierarchy within #MeToo India.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539526000166"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V038","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2024,"authors":"Manisha Panda; Debi Prasad Das","title":"#MeToo Movement in India: Sexual-Violence, Casteism and Gender Bias","journal":"Migration Letters","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/7563","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Panda and Das treat survivors' stories and caste-class positionality as political knowledge while criticizing Brahmanical erasure in #MeToo India. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/7563","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Panda and Das treat survivors' stories and caste-class positionality as political knowledge while criticizing Brahmanical erasure in #MeToo India.","evidenceUrls":"https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/7563"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V039","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Sara Morais dos Santos Bruss","title":"Queering Feminist Solidarities: #MeToo, LoSHA and the Digital Dalit","journal":"Open Gender Journal","doi":"10.17169/ogj.2020.71","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17169/ogj.2020.71","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Morais dos Santos Bruss treats queer Dalit speech and anonymous accusations as politically generative situated knowledge while criticizing established feminist opposition and homogeneous identity politics. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://opengenderjournal.de/article/view/71","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Morais dos Santos Bruss treats queer Dalit speech and anonymous accusations as politically generative situated knowledge while criticizing established feminist opposition and homogeneous identity politics.","evidenceUrls":"https://opengenderjournal.de/article/view/71"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V040","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2023,"authors":"Anandita Pan","title":"Gender, Caste and Subjectivity: Revisiting the #MeToo Movement in India","journal":"Feminist Encounters A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics","doi":"10.20897/femenc/12881","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/12881","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pan treats survivor storytelling and speaker positionality as knowledge of caste, class, and gender power while criticizing the movement's reproduction of those hierarchies. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.lectitopublishing.nl/Article/Detail/gender-caste-and-subjectivity-revisiting-the-metoo-movement-in-india-12881","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pan treats survivor storytelling and speaker positionality as knowledge of caste, class, and gender power while criticizing the movement's reproduction of those hierarchies.","evidenceUrls":"https://www.lectitopublishing.nl/Article/Detail/gender-caste-and-subjectivity-revisiting-the-metoo-movement-in-india-12881"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V041","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Chaitanya Lakkimsetti","title":"Stripping Away at Respectability: #MeToo India and the Politics of Dignity","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2021.0052","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0052","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Lakkimsetti reads Sri Reddy's embodied personal protest as political knowledge about sexual exploitation and criticizes respectability-based exclusion from feminist legitimacy. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0052","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Lakkimsetti reads Sri Reddy's embodied personal protest as political knowledge about sexual exploitation and criticizes respectability-based exclusion from feminist legitimacy.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0052"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V042","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Sex work, consent, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Sudeshna Chatterjee","title":"#MeToo from the Margins: Rethinking Consent-Coercion Binaries with Commercial Sex Work in India","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2021.0051","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0051","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Chatterjee grounds her critique in sex workers' voices, interviews, and activism to politicize violence while challenging #MeToo's consent-coercion and sex-work binaries. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0051","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Chatterjee grounds her critique in sex workers' voices, interviews, and activism to politicize violence while challenging #MeToo's consent-coercion and sex-work binaries.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0051"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V043","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Paromita Pain","title":"“It took me quite a long time to develop a voice”: Examining feminist digital activism in the Indian #MeToo movement","journal":"New Media & Society","doi":"10.1177/1461444820944846","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820944846","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pain uses participants' tweets and interviews as situated knowledge of suburban women's digital labor while criticizing elite visibility and sexist platform exclusions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820944846","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Pain uses participants' tweets and interviews as situated knowledge of suburban women's digital labor while criticizing elite visibility and sexist platform exclusions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820944846"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V044","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and justice infrastructures","year":2021,"authors":"Aparna Moitra; Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed; Priyank Chandra","title":"Parsing the 'Me' in #MeToo","journal":"Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction","doi":"10.1145/3449185","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449185","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Survivors’ interview accounts explain personal decisions to bypass law or #MeToo through patriarchy, colonialism, caste, class, and gender, while the criticism targets movement and legal accessibility. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449185","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Survivors’ interview accounts explain personal decisions to bypass law or #MeToo through patriarchy, colonialism, caste, class, and gender, while the criticism targets movement and legal accessibility.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449185"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V045","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Rosanna Maule","title":"\"Not just a movement for famous white cisgendered women:\" #Me Too and intersectionality","journal":"Gender and Women s Studies","doi":"10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.3.004","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.3.004","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Tarana Burke’s quoted epigraph says, “The only narrative should start and end with survivors. Period.” The available record does not establish Maule’s authorial affirmation or use of “the personal is political,” an equivalent root-level claim, or a rule granting survivor identity epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto. It also establishes no direct rejection or incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.3.004; https://riverapublications.com/article/not-just-a-movement-for-famous-white-cisgendered-women-me-too-and-intersectionality","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article says narratives should begin and end with survivors, grounds #MeToo’s political promise in Burke’s situated survivor-counselor knowledge, and criticizes its white cisgendered celebrity narrowing.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.3.004; https://riverapublications.com/article/not-just-a-movement-for-famous-white-cisgendered-women-me-too-and-intersectionality"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V046","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Richard Greggory Johnson III; Hugo Renderos","title":"Invisible Populations and the #MeToo Movement","journal":"Public Administration Review","doi":"10.1111/puar.13209","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13209","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats marginalized people’s speech and credibility as evidence of structurally unequal justice and criticizes #MeToo for discrediting, marginalizing, or silencing women of color and trans people. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13209","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats marginalized people’s speech and credibility as evidence of structurally unequal justice and criticizes #MeToo for discrediting, marginalizing, or silencing women of color and trans people.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13209"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V047","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2019,"authors":"Marissa Ditkowsky","title":"#UsToo: The Disparate Impact of and Ineffective Response to Sexual Harassment of Low-Wage Workers","journal":"UCLA Women s Law Journal","doi":"10.5070/l3262045668","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/l3262045668","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Low-wage workers’ first-person harassment accounts are used to expose structural workplace vulnerability and to criticize remedies that work poorly for them. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5070/l3262045668","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Low-wage workers’ first-person harassment accounts are used to expose structural workplace vulnerability and to criticize remedies that work poorly for them.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5070/l3262045668"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V048","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2019,"authors":"Penny Griffin","title":"#MeToo, white feminism and taking everyday politics seriously in the global political economy","journal":"Australian Journal of Political Science","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article expressly makes everyday cultural practices politically consequential and criticizes white feminism, but the accessible abstract does not clearly accord situated or lived experience epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article expressly makes everyday cultural practices politically consequential and criticizes white feminism, but the accessible abstract does not clearly accord situated or lived experience epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2019.1663399"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V049","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Verity Trott","title":"Networked feminism: counterpublics and the intersectional issues of #MeToo","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2020.1718176","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1718176","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It analyzes multiply marginalized survivors’ networked accounts as knowledge about sexual violence and criticizes popular feminism for erasing those voices from dominant #MeToo narratives. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1718176","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It analyzes multiply marginalized survivors’ networked accounts as knowledge about sexual violence and criticizes popular feminism for erasing those voices from dominant #MeToo narratives.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1718176"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V050","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2021,"authors":"Kathryn Henne; Renee Shelby; Jenna Imad Harb","title":"The Datafication of #MeToo: Whiteness, Racial Capitalism, and Anti-Violence Technologies","journal":"Big Data & Society","doi":"10.1177/20539517211055898","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211055898","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats survivor reports and experiences as politically meaningful information while criticizing anti-violence apps for extracting and recoding them through racial-capitalist institutional legibility. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211055898; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517211055898","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats survivor reports and experiences as politically meaningful information while criticizing anti-violence apps for extracting and recoding them through racial-capitalist institutional legibility.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211055898; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517211055898"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V051","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Renee Shelby; Jenna Imad Harb; Kathryn Henne","title":"Whiteness in and through data protection: an intersectional approach to anti-violence apps and #MeToo bots","journal":"Internet Policy Review","doi":"10.14763/2021.4.1589","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1589","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It centers the experiences of people of color and LGBTQ users to show how anti-violence apps force accounts into white institutional categories and thereby fail those users. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1589; https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/whiteness-and-through-data-protection-intersectional-approach-anti-violence-apps","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It centers the experiences of people of color and LGBTQ users to show how anti-violence apps force accounts into white institutional categories and thereby fail those users.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1589; https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/whiteness-and-through-data-protection-intersectional-approach-anti-violence-apps"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V052","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Aaron Mueller; Zach Wood-Doughty; Silvio Amir; Mark Dredze; Alicia L. Nobles","title":"Demographic Representation and Collective Storytelling in the Me Too Twitter Hashtag Activism Movement","journal":"Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction","doi":"10.1145/3449181","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449181","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats demographic groups’ collective #MeToo storytelling as differentiated knowledge and criticizes the movement’s overrepresentation of white women and loss of intersecting narratives. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449181","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats demographic groups’ collective #MeToo storytelling as differentiated knowledge and criticizes the movement’s overrepresentation of white women and loss of intersecting narratives.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3449181"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V053","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and coloniality","year":2019,"authors":"Jennifer A. Zenovich; Leda Cooks","title":"#MeToo, the ICTY, and Intersectionality in Postsocialist Global Capitalism","journal":"Journal of Communication Inquiry","doi":"10.1177/0196859919887944","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919887944","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Survivor testimony and embodied experiences of rape and dispossession are used to connect personal violence to capital and international justice while criticizing postsocialist and postcolonial institutional responses. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919887944","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Survivor testimony and embodied experiences of rape and dispossession are used to connect personal violence to capital and international justice while criticizing postsocialist and postcolonial institutional responses.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919887944"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V054","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and coloniality","year":2020,"authors":"Honni Van Rjiswijk","title":"#MeToo under Colonialism: Conceptualising Responsibility for Sexual Violence in Australia","journal":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","doi":"10.21039/jpr.3.1.62","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/jpr.3.1.62","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The author explicitly situates her own non-Indigenous responsibility and survivors’ contemporary harms within colonial history, criticizing Australian feminism and law for obscuring that structure. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.21039/jpr.3.1.62; https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12985; https://docslib.org/doc/7078357/metoo-under-colonialism-conceptualizing-responsibility-for-sexual-violence-in-australia-honni-van-rjiswijk","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The author explicitly situates her own non-Indigenous responsibility and survivors’ contemporary harms within colonial history, criticizing Australian feminism and law for obscuring that structure.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.21039/jpr.3.1.62; https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12985; https://docslib.org/doc/7078357/metoo-under-colonialism-conceptualizing-responsibility-for-sexual-violence-in-australia-honni-van-rjiswijk"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V055","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and coloniality","year":2020,"authors":"Honni van Rijswijk","title":"Re-defining Gendered Harm and Institutions under Colonialism: #MeToo in Australia","journal":"Australian Feminist Studies","doi":"10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It politicizes normalized institutional gendered harm and criticizes law’s colonial weaponization against Indigenous women, but the accessible text does not establish lived experience as an epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It politicizes normalized institutional gendered harm and criticizes law’s colonial weaponization against Indigenous women, but the accessible text does not establish lived experience as an epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843134"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V056","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Anna Hush","title":"What’s in a Hashtag? Mapping the Disjunct Between Australian Campus Sexual Assault Activism and #MeToo","journal":"Australian Feminist Studies","doi":"10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Student feminist activists’ situated accounts are used to connect campus experience to colonial and capitalist structures and to criticize #MeToo’s master narrative for subsuming diverse movements. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Student feminist activists’ situated accounts are used to connect campus experience to colonial and capitalist structures and to criticize #MeToo’s master narrative for subsuming diverse movements.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08164649.2020.1843997"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V057","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2019,"authors":"Amber Pouliot","title":"#HerToo? Academic Exclusion in the Age of #MeToo","journal":"Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature","doi":"10.1353/tsw.2019.0013","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tsw.2019.0013","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The author’s and fellow delegates’ experiences supply knowledge of disability, trans, race, class, and pay exclusions while criticizing an academic feminism that narrowed safety to sexual harassment. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tsw.2019.0013","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The author’s and fellow delegates’ experiences supply knowledge of disability, trans, race, class, and pay exclusions while criticizing an academic feminism that narrowed safety to sexual harassment.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tsw.2019.0013"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V058","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Saba Fatima","title":"Navigating the #MeToo Terrain in an Islamophobic Environment","journal":"Social Philosophy Today","doi":"10.5840/socphiltoday20218478","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday20218478","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats intersectionally situated narratives such as hijab snatching as knowledge of sexual harassment and criticizes Islamophobic mainstream feminism for privileging some accounts and silencing others. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday20218478","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats intersectionally situated narratives such as hijab snatching as knowledge of sexual harassment and criticizes Islamophobic mainstream feminism for privileging some accounts and silencing others.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday20218478"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V059","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Marion Dalibert","title":"From Ni putes ni soumises to #metoo in the French press: Between the hegemony of Whiteness and the Otherness of Muslims","journal":"French Cultural Studies","doi":"10.1177/09571558211021704","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09571558211021704","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links French #MeToo representation to white bourgeois hegemony and criticizes the press’s racialized othering, but the media analysis does not clearly endorse lived-experience epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09571558211021704","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links French #MeToo representation to white bourgeois hegemony and criticizes the press’s racialized othering, but the media analysis does not clearly endorse lived-experience epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09571558211021704"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V060","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Serena M. Wilcox","title":"Political Intersectionality and Black Girls' #MeToo Movement in Public K-12 Schools","journal":"Journal of black sexuality and relationships","doi":"10.1353/bsr.2020.0009","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2020.0009","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It centers Black girls’ Rise Up activism as situated knowledge for connecting sexual harm to racial and institutional power and criticizes survivor strategies that exclude Black girls. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2020.0009","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It centers Black girls’ Rise Up activism as situated knowledge for connecting sexual harm to racial and institutional power and criticizes survivor strategies that exclude Black girls.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2020.0009"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V061","originalStance":"Immanent critique","theme":"Queer and trans exclusion","year":2022,"authors":"Terrance Wooten","title":"\"If it didn't hurt so bad, I'd kill myself, but I'll let Ed Buck do it for now\": #Justice4Gemmel and Black Queer Narratives in the Age and Afterlife of #MeToo","journal":"Biography","doi":"10.1353/bio.2022.a910381","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.2022.a910381","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly presents Black queer autobiographical narratives as evidence and connective knowledge about sexual violence while criticizing networks that render Black women’s language and experience invisible. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.2022.a910381","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly presents Black queer autobiographical narratives as evidence and connective knowledge about sexual violence while criticizing networks that render Black women’s language and experience invisible.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.2022.a910381"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V062","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2018,"authors":"Ashwini Tambe","title":"Reckoning with the Silences of #MeToo","journal":"Feminist Studies","doi":"10.15767/feministstudies.44.1.0197","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.44.1.0197","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It relies on public survivor speak-outs as consciousness-producing political knowledge and criticizes the forms of feminism and coverage that remain silent about marginalized experiences. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.44.1.0197","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It relies on public survivor speak-outs as consciousness-producing political knowledge and criticizes the forms of feminism and coverage that remain silent about marginalized experiences.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.44.1.0197"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V063","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and coloniality","year":2021,"authors":"Gloria González‐López; Lydia Cordero Cabrera","title":"The Borders of #MeToo: A Conversation about Sexual Violence Against Women in Ciudad Juárez","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2021.0054","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0054","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Its conversation with Ciudad Juárez women and community feminists treats their situated organizing knowledge as a basis for asking whether #MeToo crossed the border and for criticizing movement boundaries. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0054","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"Its conversation with Ciudad Juárez women and community feminists treats their situated organizing knowledge as a basis for asking whether #MeToo crossed the border and for criticizing movement boundaries.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2021.0054"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V064","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2019,"authors":"Amity Nathaniel","title":"#MeToo Mishaps: Black Bodies, Bloody Grounds","journal":"South Central Review","doi":"10.1353/scr.2019.0013","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0013","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The author’s own experiences and Black survivors’ embodied accounts are used to map sexual harm onto whiteness and geography while criticizing #MeToo’s invisibilization of Black women. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0013","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The author’s own experiences and Black survivors’ embodied accounts are used to map sexual harm onto whiteness and geography while criticizing #MeToo’s invisibilization of Black women.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0013"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V065","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2019,"authors":"Rebecca Leung; Robert Ubong Williams","title":"#MeToo and Intersectionality: An Examination of the #MeToo Movement Through the R. Kelly Scandal","journal":"Journal of Communication Inquiry","doi":"10.1177/0196859919874138","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919874138","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It connects women of color’s unequal #MeToo outcomes in the R. Kelly case to race and criticizes movement exclusion, but the accessible abstract does not assign their lived accounts a clear epistemic role. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919874138","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It connects women of color’s unequal #MeToo outcomes in the R. Kelly case to race and criticizes movement exclusion, but the accessible abstract does not assign their lived accounts a clear epistemic role.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919874138"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V066","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2024,"authors":"Shana L. Maier","title":"Rape victim advocates’ perceptions of a racial bias in the #MeToo movement","journal":"Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice","doi":"10.1080/15377938.2024.2400358","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2024.2400358","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Rape-victim advocates’ situated professional accounts are used to identify racialized disbelief and unequal treatment, criticizing institutional and movement responses that discount marginalized survivors. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2024.2400358","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Rape-victim advocates’ situated professional accounts are used to identify racialized disbelief and unequal treatment, criticizing institutional and movement responses that discount marginalized survivors.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2024.2400358"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V067","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2023,"authors":"Porismita Borah; Shreenita Ghosh; Jiyoun Suk; Darshana Sreedhar Mini; Luhang Sun","title":"Feminism Not for All? The Discourse Around White Feminism Across Five Social Media Platforms","journal":"Social Media + Society","doi":"10.1177/20563051231186862","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186862","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats marginalized users’ social-media accounts as evidence of exclusion and criticizes white feminism for suppressing the concerns of people of color, Black, and LGBTQ constituencies. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186862","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It treats marginalized users’ social-media accounts as evidence of exclusion and criticizes white feminism for suppressing the concerns of people of color, Black, and LGBTQ constituencies.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186862"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V068","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Jane E. Palmer; Erica R. Fissel; Jill C. Hoxmeier; Erin Williams","title":"#MeToo for Whom? Sexual Assault Disclosures Before and After #MeToo","journal":"American Journal of Criminal Justice","doi":"10.1007/s12103-020-09588-4","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09588-4","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Respondents’ reported unwanted sexual experiences and disclosures are used to assess structural and demographic inequalities while criticizing the uneven reach of #MeToo across racial and LGBQ groups. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09588-4; https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cepsfac/29/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Respondents’ reported unwanted sexual experiences and disclosures are used to assess structural and demographic inequalities while criticizing the uneven reach of #MeToo across racial and LGBQ groups.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09588-4; https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cepsfac/29/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V069","originalStance":"Mixed/immanent critique","theme":"Structural change and movement limits","year":2019,"authors":"Meghan Gilbert-Hickey","title":"#MeToo and Moving Forward: How Reckoning with an Imperfect Movement Can Help Us Create a Better Future","journal":"South Central Review","doi":"10.1353/scr.2019.0010","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0010","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"low","evidence":"The verified title and issue context frame #MeToo as an imperfect movement whose reckoning can expose violent inequality, but the accessible record does not establish a stance on lived-experience authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0010","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"low","evidence":"The verified title and issue context frame #MeToo as an imperfect movement whose reckoning can expose violent inequality, but the accessible record does not establish a stance on lived-experience authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/scr.2019.0010"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V070","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Xin Pei; Arul Chib; Rich Ling","title":"Covert resistance beyond #Metoo: mobile practices of marginalized migrant women to negotiate sexual harassment in the workplace","journal":"Information Communication & Society","doi":"10.1080/1369118x.2021.1874036","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1874036","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"Migrant women’s ethnographic accounts provide knowledge of workplace harassment and covert mobile resistance, while the article criticizes #MeToo’s inability to reach their structurally unequal conditions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1874036","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"Migrant women’s ethnographic accounts provide knowledge of workplace harassment and covert mobile resistance, while the article criticizes #MeToo’s inability to reach their structurally unequal conditions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1874036"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V071","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Siyuan Yin; Yu Sun","title":"Intersectional digital feminism: assessing participation politics and impact of MeToo movement in China","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links Chinese digital-feminist discourse to structural marginalization of rural and working-class women and criticizes technological inclusion claims, but its textual analysis does not clearly endorse lived-experience authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links Chinese digital-feminist discourse to structural marginalization of rural and working-class women and criticizes technological inclusion claims, but its textual analysis does not clearly endorse lived-experience authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V072","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Global translation and coloniality","year":2022,"authors":"Cortney Smith","title":"Communicating Felt Knowledge to Decolonize #MeToo: A Native Feminist Approach to the Sherman Alexie Allegations","journal":"Feminist formations","doi":"10.1353/ff.2022.0035","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2022.0035","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly advances Native feminist felt knowledge and personal narrative as ways of knowing that connect lived harm to colonial power and challenge dominant justice frameworks. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2022.0035","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly advances Native feminist felt knowledge and personal narrative as ways of knowing that connect lived harm to colonial power and challenge dominant justice frameworks.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2022.0035"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V073","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2020,"authors":"Heather Berg","title":"Left of #MeToo","journal":"Feminist Studies","doi":"10.15767/feministstudies.46.2.0259","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.46.2.0259","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It uses Black domestic workers’ and sex workers’ situated histories to connect sexual harm to class, racial capitalism, and the state while criticizing bourgeois and carceral #MeToo politics. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.46.2.0259; https://www.feministstudies.org/issues/vol-40-49/46-2.html","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It uses Black domestic workers’ and sex workers’ situated histories to connect sexual harm to class, racial capitalism, and the state while criticizing bourgeois and carceral #MeToo politics.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.46.2.0259; https://www.feministstudies.org/issues/vol-40-49/46-2.html"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V074","originalStance":"Mixed/direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2019,"authors":"Catherine Rottenberg","title":"#Metoo and the Prospects of Political Change","journal":"Soundings","doi":"10.3898/soun.71.03.2019","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3898/soun.71.03.2019","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly treats visible testimony and the collective “me” and “too” as necessary to resistance while criticizing #MeToo’s individualism, celebrity focus, and erasure of Tarana Burke. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.3898/soun.71.03.2019","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly treats visible testimony and the collective “me” and “too” as necessary to resistance while criticizing #MeToo’s individualism, celebrity focus, and erasure of Tarana Burke.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.3898/soun.71.03.2019"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V075","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Structural change and movement limits","year":2022,"authors":"Michaele L. Ferguson","title":"Dead Dogma and the Limits of Feminist Political Imagination: Thinking #Metoo as Consciousness-Raising","journal":"Theory & Event","doi":"10.1353/tae.2022.0013","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2022.0013","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It criticizes dogmatic and anti-political uses of consciousness-raising yet recovers a democratic form grounded in activists’ experiences as knowledge capable of transforming private harms into collective politics. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2022.0013; https://www.michaeleferguson.com/research","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It criticizes dogmatic and anti-political uses of consciousness-raising yet recovers a democratic form grounded in activists’ experiences as knowledge capable of transforming private harms into collective politics.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2022.0013; https://www.michaeleferguson.com/research"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V076","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2023,"authors":"Kaela Jubas","title":"More than a Confessional Mo(ve)ment? #MeToo’s Pedagogical Tensions","journal":"Adult Education Quarterly","doi":"10.1177/07417136221134782","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136221134782","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly says #MeToo can extend the personal-is-political logic and treats testimonial confession and feminist “snap” as knowledge while criticizing neoliberal, white, celebrity exclusions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136221134782; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07417136221134782","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It explicitly says #MeToo can extend the personal-is-political logic and treats testimonial confession and feminist “snap” as knowledge while criticizing neoliberal, white, celebrity exclusions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136221134782; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07417136221134782"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V077","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2022,"authors":"Karike A Ashworth; Courtney Pedersen","title":"The feminine bravery construct: the crisis of neoliberal feminine bravery in the #MeToo moment","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2022.2052928","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2052928","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It calls public-private porosity “the Personal is Political in action” and analyzes situated subjects’ disclosures to criticize the selective construction of brave confessors and the silencing of others. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2052928","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"It calls public-private porosity “the Personal is Political in action” and analyzes situated subjects’ disclosures to criticize the selective construction of brave confessors and the silencing of others.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2052928"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V078","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2022,"authors":"Lily Kay Ross","title":"The Survivor Imperative: Sexual Violence, Victimhood, and Neoliberalism","journal":"Signs","doi":"10.1086/720413","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720413","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The author uses personal experience and records to expose the politics of victim-survivor identity and criticizes neoliberal survivor discourse without rejecting experience as a source of knowledge. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720413","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The author uses personal experience and records to expose the politics of victim-survivor identity and criticizes neoliberal survivor discourse without rejecting experience as a source of knowledge.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720413"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V079","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Queer and trans exclusion","year":2023,"authors":"Hannah McCann; Megan Sharp","title":"#MeToo, Cisheteropatriarchy and LGBTQ+ Sexual Violence on Campus","journal":"Sexualities","doi":"10.1177/13634607231170770","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231170770","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"LGBTQ people’s testimonies are used to connect sexual experiences to cisheteropatriarchal institutions and to criticize #MeToo and service systems that make queer harms unintelligible. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231170770","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"LGBTQ people’s testimonies are used to connect sexual experiences to cisheteropatriarchal institutions and to criticize #MeToo and service systems that make queer harms unintelligible.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231170770"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V080","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2020,"authors":"Rachel E. Dubrofsky; Marina Levina","title":"The labor of consent: affect, agency and whiteness in the age of #metoo","journal":"Critical Studies in Media Communication","doi":"10.1080/15295036.2020.1805481","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2020.1805481","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"First-person consent narratives are used to connect intimate affective labor to patriarchy and whiteness while criticizing dominant #MeToo accounts of consent. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2020.1805481","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"First-person consent narratives are used to connect intimate affective labor to patriarchy and whiteness while criticizing dominant #MeToo accounts of consent.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2020.1805481"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V081","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2021,"authors":"Rianka Singh; Carolina Monti; Guillermina Yansen; Emilio Cafassi; Agostina Dolcemáscolo","title":"Feminismo de plataformas: protesta y política de la organización espacial","journal":"Hipertextos","doi":"10.24215/23143924e026","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24215/23143924e026","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It centers BIPOC digital organizing practices as situated knowledge of political need and criticizes platform amplification for obscuring the movement’s structurally marginalized constituencies. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.24215/23143924e026","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"It centers BIPOC digital organizing practices as situated knowledge of political need and criticizes platform amplification for obscuring the movement’s structurally marginalized constituencies.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.24215/23143924e026"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V082","originalStance":"Mixed/immanent critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2018,"authors":"Banu Özkazanç‐Pan","title":"On agency and empowerment in a #MeToo world","journal":"Gender Work and Organization","doi":"10.1111/gwao.12311","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12311","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It argues that agency and empowerment require collective structural change and criticizes individualist neoliberal feminism, but the conceptual account does not establish lived-experience epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12311","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It argues that agency and empowerment require collective structural change and criticizes individualist neoliberal feminism, but the conceptual account does not establish lived-experience epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12311"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V083","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2026,"authors":"Caitlin Brown","title":"From MeToo to Et Tu: Understanding American Liberal Hypocrisy through the Politicization of Men in Feminism","journal":"Social Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxag007","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxag007","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It connects men’s outward feminist personas and private conduct to #MeToo censure, but the accessible conceptual account does not state that situated or lived experience has epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxag007; https://academic.oup.com/sp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/sp/jxag007/8658864","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It connects men’s outward feminist personas and private conduct to #MeToo censure, but the accessible conceptual account does not state that situated or lived experience has epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxag007; https://academic.oup.com/sp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/sp/jxag007/8658864"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V084","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2026,"authors":"Qi Wang","title":"From denounced groupies to the cancelled idol: masculinities and cancel culture after the Chinese #MeToo","journal":"Social Semiotics","doi":"10.1080/10350330.2026.2637019","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2026.2637019","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links Kris Wu accusation and cancellation discourse to systemic gender power and criticizes cancel culture’s political limits, but the discourse analysis leaves lived-experience authority unstated. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2026.2637019","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It links Kris Wu accusation and cancellation discourse to systemic gender power and criticizes cancel culture’s political limits, but the discourse analysis leaves lived-experience authority unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2026.2637019"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V085","originalStance":"Direct/contextual critique","theme":"Political economy and neoliberalism","year":2025,"authors":"Enikő Anna Virágh","title":"Neoliberalism, Authoritarian Neoliberalism, and #MeToo: Discursive Constructions of Sexual Harassment and Victimhood in Hungary","journal":"Szociológiai szemle","doi":"10.51624/szocszemle.18775","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51624/szocszemle.18775","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It politicizes victim-responsibility discourse under Hungarian neoliberalism and criticizes both blaming and supportive co-optation, but it does not clearly privilege situated testimony as knowledge. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.51624/szocszemle.18775; https://ojs.mtak.hu/index.php/szocszemle/article/view/18775","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It politicizes victim-responsibility discourse under Hungarian neoliberalism and criticizes both blaming and supportive co-optation, but it does not clearly privilege situated testimony as knowledge.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.51624/szocszemle.18775; https://ojs.mtak.hu/index.php/szocszemle/article/view/18775"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V086","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Queer and trans exclusion","year":2020,"authors":"Sophie Hindes; Bianca Fileborn","title":"Reporting on sexual violence ‘inside the closet’: Masculinity, homosexuality and #MeToo","journal":"Crime Media Culture An International Journal","doi":"10.1177/1741659020909872","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659020909872","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"It connects queer consent’s media intelligibility to hegemonic masculinity and stereotypes and criticizes celebrity-news framing, but its discourse analysis does not state a lived-experience epistemology. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659020909872; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741659020909872","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"It connects queer consent’s media intelligibility to hegemonic masculinity and stereotypes and criticizes celebrity-news framing, but its discourse analysis does not state a lived-experience epistemology.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659020909872; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741659020909872"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V087","originalStance":"Media/discourse critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2019,"authors":"Sophie Hindes; Bianca Fileborn","title":"“Girl power gone wrong”: #MeToo, Aziz Ansari, and media reporting of (grey area) sexual violence","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats the Ansari complainant's ambiguous sexual experience as evidence of systemic coercion and faults news media for erasing such experiences and reproducing gender norms. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats the Ansari complainant's ambiguous sexual experience as evidence of systemic coercion and faults news media for erasing such experiences and reproducing gender norms.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2019.1606843"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V088","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Queer and trans exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Joshua L. Boe; Lorien S. Jordan; Émilie M. Ellis","title":"#ThemToo?: Trans Women Exclusionary Discourses in the #MeToo Era","journal":"Women & Therapy","doi":"10.1080/02703149.2021.1961437","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2021.1961437","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The transfeminist analysis uses trans women's disproportionate exposure to sexual violence and embodied vulnerability to argue that cisnormative feminist discourse displaces them within MeToo. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2021.1961437","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The transfeminist analysis uses trans women's disproportionate exposure to sexual violence and embodied vulnerability to argue that cisnormative feminist discourse displaces them within MeToo.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2021.1961437"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V089","originalStance":"Direct/experiential critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2021,"authors":"Shamika Dixit","title":"I Refused to Say #MeToo: Negotiating Between Individual Agency and ‘Imagined’ Platform Constraints","journal":"Journal of Creative Communications","doi":"10.1177/0973258620980550","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258620980550","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The critique is built from 11 Indian women's embodied accounts of nonparticipation and connects their individual agency to platform and social constraints rather than discrediting testimony. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258620980550; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0973258620980550","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The critique is built from 11 Indian women's embodied accounts of nonparticipation and connects their individual agency to platform and social constraints rather than discrediting testimony.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258620980550; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0973258620980550"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V090","originalStance":"Discourse critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2022,"authors":"Andrea Waling","title":"‘Pay close attention to what my eyes are saying without having to spell it out’: Heterosexual relations and discourses of sexual communication in #MeToo commentaries","journal":"Sexualities","doi":"10.1177/13634607211060834","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211060834","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article frames sexual communication as structured by gendered power, accepts women's experiences and desires as knowledge MeToo commentary must not flatten, and criticizes incoherent media prescriptions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211060834; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607211060834","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article frames sexual communication as structured by gendered power, accepts women's experiences and desires as knowledge MeToo commentary must not flatten, and criticizes incoherent media prescriptions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211060834; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607211060834"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V091","originalStance":"Discourse critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2022,"authors":"Andrea Waling","title":"‘Inoculate Boys Against Toxic Masculinity’: Exploring Discourses of Men and Masculinity in #Metoo Commentaries","journal":"The Journal of Men s Studies","doi":"10.1177/10608265221092044","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265221092044","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article affirms MeToo's gender-violence aims and the importance of women's and gender-diverse people's voices while criticizing media framings of men that obstruct structural prevention work. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265221092044; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10608265221092044","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article affirms MeToo's gender-violence aims and the importance of women's and gender-diverse people's voices while criticizing media framings of men that obstruct structural prevention work.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265221092044; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10608265221092044"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V092","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2019,"authors":"Sara Clarke-Vivier; Clio Stearns","title":"MeToo and the Problematic Valor of Truth: Sexual Violence, Consent, and Ambivalence in Public Pedagogy","journal":"Journal of Curriculum Theorizing","doi":"10.63997/jct.v34i3.827","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.63997/jct.v34i3.827","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","confidence":"high","evidence":"On journal p. 58 the authors say #MeToo “relies on the same ideology of ‘the personal is political.’” On p. 60 they say that “in part because of our own survivorship” they begin by presuming rape reports true. The first directly retains personal-is-political; the second explicitly bases presumptive credibility on survivor position, retaining standpoint under this audit rule.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.63997/jct.v34i3.827; https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/download/827/417/2913","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The full text explicitly says MeToo relies on “the personal is political,” foregrounds the authors' survivor positionality, and assumes rape complainants generally tell the truth before criticizing public-pedagogy limits.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.63997/jct.v34i3.827; https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/download/827/417/2913"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V093","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2018,"authors":"Meg S. Kaplan","title":"Getting Beyond the Sexual Abuse Binary: Discerning Sexual Agency from Sexual Coercion. Sex Positivity in the Time of #MeToo","journal":"Contemporary Psychoanalysis","doi":"10.1080/00107530.2018.1528659","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2018.1528659","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The abstract proposes a continuum beyond a sexual-abuse binary and notes erotic complexity, but it states no position on either political personalism or lived-experience authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2018.1528659","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The abstract proposes a continuum beyond a sexual-abuse binary and notes erotic complexity, but it states no position on either political personalism or lived-experience authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2018.1528659"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V094","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2021,"authors":"Inga Schowengerdt; Sharon Lamb; Charlotte Brown","title":"Problematizing Consent Campaigns in the #METOO Era","journal":"Gender and Women s Studies","doi":"10.31532/gendwomensstud.4.1.004","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.4.1.004","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article rejects individualized consent posters for obscuring societal and institutional context and fostering self-blame, but the available text does not establish a standpoint or lived-experience premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.4.1.004; https://riverapublications.com/article/problematizing-consent-campaigns-in-the-metoo-era","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article rejects individualized consent posters for obscuring societal and institutional context and fostering self-blame, but the available text does not establish a standpoint or lived-experience premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.4.1.004; https://riverapublications.com/article/problematizing-consent-campaigns-in-the-metoo-era"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V095","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2026,"authors":"Zoë Moss","title":"Bad Sex and the evolution of heteropatriarchal power in the post-#MeToo era","journal":"Feminist Theory","doi":"10.1177/14647001261437833","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001261437833","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article uses testimony and widely resonant experiences of coercive “Bad Sex” to theorize private sexual harm as heteropatriarchal power, then faults legal recognition as an inadequate remedy. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001261437833; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14647001261437833","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article uses testimony and widely resonant experiences of coercive “Bad Sex” to theorize private sexual harm as heteropatriarchal power, then faults legal recognition as an inadequate remedy.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001261437833; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14647001261437833"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V096","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Consent, sex, and desire","year":2023,"authors":"Tina Sikka","title":"The limits of limit cases: Sexual ethics and graduate student–staff relationships","journal":"Sexuality Gender & Policy","doi":"10.1002/sgp2.12058","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12058","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The analysis builds a structural sexual ethic from women's lived stories, power relations, and institutional context, criticizing both the consent model and blanket university rules rather than experiential authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12058; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sgp2.12058","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The analysis builds a structural sexual ethic from women's lived stories, power relations, and institutional context, criticizing both the consent model and blanket university rules rather than experiential authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12058; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sgp2.12058"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V097","originalStance":"Mixed/direct critique","theme":"Sex work, consent, and exclusion","year":2021,"authors":"Ivana Bacik","title":"#MeToo, consent and prostitution – The Irish law reform experience","journal":"Women s Studies International Forum","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102457","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102457","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats prostitution and consent as socially and economically structured and supports a MeToo-informed Nordic law, but it does not state a position on lived-experience or standpoint authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102457; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539521000212","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats prostitution and consent as socially and economically structured and supports a MeToo-informed Nordic law, but it does not state a position on lived-experience or standpoint authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102457; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539521000212"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V098","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Queer and trans exclusion","year":2025,"authors":"Sahar Talebi","title":"Untangling the Heteronormative Narrative of #MeToo","journal":"The Social Contract","doi":"10.5206/sc.v15i1.22567","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/sc.v15i1.22567","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats ubiquitous harassment as a political problem and argues that MeToo's wealthy white heteronormative narrative homogenizes and excludes marginalized victims' intersectional experiences. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5206/sc.v15i1.22567; https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/socialcontract/article/view/22567","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats ubiquitous harassment as a political problem and argues that MeToo's wealthy white heteronormative narrative homogenizes and excludes marginalized victims' intersectional experiences.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5206/sc.v15i1.22567; https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/socialcontract/article/view/22567"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V099","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2019,"authors":"Simon Lindgren","title":"Movement Mobilization in the Age of Hashtag Activism: Examining the Challenge of Noise, Hate, and Disengagement in the #MeToo Campaign","journal":"Policy & Internet","doi":"10.1002/poi3.212","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.212","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study measures Twitter noise, antagonism, sloganization, and declining momentum without stating whether personal testimony is a political premise or epistemically authoritative. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.212","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study measures Twitter noise, antagonism, sloganization, and declining momentum without stating whether personal testimony is a political premise or epistemically authoritative.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.212"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V100","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Gwen Bouvier","title":"From ‘echo chambers’ to ‘chaos chambers’: discursive coherence and contradiction in the #MeToo Twitter feed","journal":"Critical Discourse Studies","doi":"10.1080/17405904.2020.1822898","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1822898","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article acknowledges MeToo's ideological challenge but evaluates feed coherence, affect, and influencer incentives without taking a stated position on either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1822898","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article acknowledges MeToo's ideological challenge but evaluates feed coherence, affect, and influencer incentives without taking a stated position on either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1822898"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V101","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Naomi Barnes","title":"Trace publics as a qualitative critical network tool: Exploring the dark matter in the #MeToo movement","journal":"New Media & Society","doi":"10.1177/1461444820912532","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912532","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article begins from everyday “personal politics” and proposes trace publics to restore everyday practices erased by nodocentric big-data representations, criticizing the research representation rather than either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912532","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article begins from everyday “personal politics” and proposes trace publics to restore everyday practices erased by nodocentric big-data representations, criticizing the research representation rather than either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912532"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V102","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2019,"authors":"Rosemary Clark","title":"“I SEE YOU, I BELIEVE YOU, I STAND WITH YOU”: #MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly says activists make the personal political through visibility and uses practitioners' meta-tweets to show how platform constraints make testimonial visibility risky and uneven. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly says activists make the personal political through visibility and uses practitioners' meta-tweets to show how platform constraints make testimonial visibility risky and uneven.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V103","originalStance":"Empirical/discourse critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Nancy Worthington","title":"Celebrity-bashing or #MeToo contribution? <i>New York Times Online readers</i> debate the boundaries of hashtag feminism","journal":"The Communication Review","doi":"10.1080/10714421.2019.1704110","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2019.1704110","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The consent, publicity, and abuse boundaries are positions voiced by newspaper commenters, and the content analysis does not establish the authors' own stance on either foundation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2019.1704110","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The consent, publicity, and abuse boundaries are positions voiced by newspaper commenters, and the content analysis does not establish the authors' own stance on either foundation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2019.1704110"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V104","originalStance":"Empirical/discourse critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Tisha Dejmanee; Zulfia Zaher; Samantha Jo Rouech; Michael J. Papa","title":"#MeToo; #HimToo: Popular Feminism and Hashtag Activism in the Kavanaugh Hearings","journal":"International Journal of Communication","doi":"","stableUrl":"https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13696","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The authors connect personal hashtag use to political calls and criticize popular feminism's easy misogynistic inversion, but the abstract does not establish testimonial or lived-experience authority as their epistemic premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13696","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The authors connect personal hashtag use to political calls and criticize popular feminism's easy misogynistic inversion, but the abstract does not establish testimonial or lived-experience authority as their epistemic premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13696"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V105","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2022,"authors":"Selina Noetzel; María Florencia Gentile; Gianna Lowery; Sona Zemanova; Sophie Lecheler; Christina Peter","title":"Social campaigns to social change? Sexual violence framing in U.S. news before and after #metoo","journal":"Journalism","doi":"10.1177/14648849211056386","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211056386","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study values movement from isolated incidents toward broader social framing of sexual violence, but its news-content analysis states no standpoint or lived-experience epistemology. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211056386","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study values movement from isolated incidents toward broader social framing of sexual violence, but its news-content analysis states no standpoint or lived-experience epistemology.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211056386"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V106","originalStance":"Direct media critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2020,"authors":"Lisa M. Cuklanz","title":"Problematic news framing of #MeToo","journal":"The Communication Review","doi":"10.1080/10714421.2020.1829302","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2020.1829302","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article links individual harassment cases to rape and corporate culture and faults news framing for sidelining victims' specific claims and experiences in favor of accused men and organizations. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2020.1829302","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article links individual harassment cases to rape and corporate culture and faults news framing for sidelining victims' specific claims and experiences in favor of accused men and organizations.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2020.1829302"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V107","originalStance":"Direct media critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2019,"authors":"Sara De Benedictis; Shani Orgad; Catherine Rottenberg","title":"#MeToo, popular feminism and the news : A content analysis of UK newspaper coverage","journal":"European Journal of Cultural Studies","doi":"10.1177/1367549419856831","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419856831","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study treats testimony as a route to systemic exposure yet shows that celebrity-centered press coverage occludes the voices, experiences, and struggles of racialized, low-income, and migrant women and avoids solutions. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419856831; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367549419856831","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study treats testimony as a route to systemic exposure yet shows that celebrity-centered press coverage occludes the voices, experiences, and struggles of racialized, low-income, and migrant women and avoids solutions.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419856831; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367549419856831"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V108","originalStance":"Empirical/immanent critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2021,"authors":"Rachel Loney-Howes; Kaitlynn Mendes; Diana Fernández Romero; Bianca Fileborn; Sonia Núñez Puente","title":"Digital footprints of #MeToo","journal":"Feminist Media Studies","doi":"10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly values collective experience-sharing and “ethical witnessing” for exposing structural sexual violence while faulting scholars and activists for failing to witness excluded voices and experiences. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly values collective experience-sharing and “ethical witnessing” for exposing structural sexual violence while faulting scholars and activists for failing to witness excluded voices and experiences.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V109","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2023,"authors":"Kaitlynn Mendes; William Hollingshead; Charlotte Nau; Jinman Zhang; Anabel Quan‐Haase","title":"The Evolution of #MeToo: A Comparative Analysis of Vernacular Practices Over Time and Across Languages","journal":"Social Media + Society","doi":"10.1177/20563051231196692","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196692","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The authors explicitly describe vernacular practices as connecting individual sexual-violence experiences to political structures and show how platform use can instead reinforce oppression and miscontextualize that knowledge. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196692; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051231196692","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The authors explicitly describe vernacular practices as connecting individual sexual-violence experiences to political structures and show how platform use can instead reinforce oppression and miscontextualize that knowledge.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196692; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051231196692"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V110","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2022,"authors":"David García-Ramos Gallego","title":"#MeToo, o de cómo (no) todos somos víctimas. El hashtag como marca victimaria","journal":"Revista Estudios del Discurso Digital (REDD)","doi":"10.24197/redd.5.2022.43-66","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24197/redd.5.2022.43-66","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The critique of first-person victim narratives as mimetic or performative does not explicitly affirm or use “the personal is political,” grant identity or social position epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto, directly reject either premise, or establish demonstrable incompatibility with either. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.24197/redd.5.2022.43-66; https://revistas.uva.es/index.php/redd/en/article/view/7115","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Rejects","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article recasts first-person victim narratives as mimetic and performative devices that create accused “new victims,” making its account incompatible with testimonial authority even though it does not separately deny that personal narration has political effects.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.24197/redd.5.2022.43-66; https://revistas.uva.es/index.php/redd/en/article/view/7115"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V111","originalStance":"Direct institutional critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2020,"authors":"Heather M. Clarke","title":"Organizational failure to ethically manage sexual harassment: Limits to #MeToo","journal":"Business Ethics: A European Review","doi":"10.1111/beer.12282","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12282","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats workplace harassment as a pervasive organizational and legal-ethical problem and argues that failure to take targets' perspectives has produced impotent policies, training, and reporting systems. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12282","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article treats workplace harassment as a pervasive organizational and legal-ethical problem and argues that failure to take targets' perspectives has produced impotent policies, training, and reporting systems.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12282"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V112","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2023,"authors":"Chris Worden; Anna Gjika","title":"Accounting For the Limited Success of #MeToo in the Popular Music and Stand-Up Comedy Industries","journal":"Cultural Sociology","doi":"10.1177/17499755231209366","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755231209366","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The analysis uses women's reported victimization and fear of not being heard or believed to show that atomized music and comedy industries block the conversion of individual misconduct into systemic civil repair. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755231209366; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17499755231209366","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The analysis uses women's reported victimization and fear of not being heard or believed to show that atomized music and comedy industries block the conversion of individual misconduct into systemic civil repair.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755231209366; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17499755231209366"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V113","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2024,"authors":"Julie Gaillard","title":"‘Je te crois’ (‘I believe you’): Pragmatics of a feminist slogan, or silencing and the scene of address in post-#MeToo France","journal":"European Journal of Cultural Studies","doi":"10.1177/13675494231199951","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231199951","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The available abstract analyzes the slogan “I believe you” and its performative effects but does not establish Gaillard’s explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political,” an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to survivor identity, a direct rejection, or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231199951; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13675494231199951","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article says “I believe you” re-subjectivates silenced survivors while turning individual repair and vulnerable bodies in public space into collective denunciation and political subversion despite MeToo's French limitations.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231199951; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13675494231199951"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V114","originalStance":"Direct critique","theme":"Global translation and justice infrastructures","year":2021,"authors":"Khushbakht; Sadia Irshad; Abdus Samad","title":"#MeToo as a Failed Movement of Women Empowerment in Pakistan: A Critical Discourse Analysis","journal":"Research Journal of Social Sciences & Economics Review (RJSSER)","doi":"10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(154-167)","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(154-167)","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The authors oppose a patriarchal discourse that dismisses vocal women as fame-seekers, treat women's suffering and rights claims as valid, and attribute MeToo's Pakistani failure to patriarchal suppression and manipulation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(154-167); https://ojs.rjsser.org.pk/index.php/rjsser/article/view/235","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The authors oppose a patriarchal discourse that dismisses vocal women as fame-seekers, treat women's suffering and rights claims as valid, and attribute MeToo's Pakistani failure to patriarchal suppression and manipulation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(154-167); https://ojs.rjsser.org.pk/index.php/rjsser/article/view/235"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V115","originalStance":"Empirical/adverse-effect critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2022,"authors":"Ing-Haw Cheng; Alice Hsiaw","title":"Reporting Sexual Misconduct in the #MeToo Era","journal":"American Economic Journal Microeconomics","doi":"10.1257/mic.20200218","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20200218","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The formal model studies strategic underreporting and policy backfire without stating that personal experience is a political premise or that lived experience has privileged epistemic authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20200218; https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/abs/10.1257/mic.20200218","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The formal model studies strategic underreporting and policy backfire without stating that personal experience is a political premise or that lived experience has privileged epistemic authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20200218; https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/abs/10.1257/mic.20200218"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V116","originalStance":"Empirical/adverse effect","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2021,"authors":"Michael T. French; Karoline Mortensen; Andrew R. Timming","title":"A multivariate analysis of workplace mentoring and socializing in the wake of #MeToo","journal":"Applied Economics","doi":"10.1080/00036846.2021.1896673","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1896673","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The surveys document reduced cross-gender mentoring and possible career harm, but an adverse effect alone establishes neither foundation stance. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1896673","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The surveys document reduced cross-gender mentoring and possible career harm, but an adverse effect alone establishes neither foundation stance.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1896673"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V117","originalStance":"Empirical/institutional critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2019,"authors":"Leanne Atwater; Rachel E. Sturm; Scott N. Taylor; Allison Tringale","title":"Looking Ahead: How What We Know About Sexual Harassment Now Informs Us of the Future","journal":"Organizational Dynamics","doi":"10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.008","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.008","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article links widespread personal experience of workplace harassment to needed organizational action and rejects backlash as an excuse for inaction, but it does not establish lived-experience authority as an epistemic premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.008; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090261618301529","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article links widespread personal experience of workplace harassment to needed organizational action and rejects backlash as an excuse for inaction, but it does not establish lived-experience authority as an epistemic premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.008; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090261618301529"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V118","originalStance":"Empirical/institutional critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2021,"authors":"Leanne Atwater; Rachel E. Sturm; Scott N. Taylor; Allison Tringale","title":"The era of #MeToo and what managers should do about it","journal":"Business Horizons","doi":"10.1016/j.bushor.2020.12.006","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.12.006","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article turns women's history of workplace harassment and post-MeToo survey findings into managerial duties, but it does not state a standpoint or survivor-authority premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.12.006; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681320301580","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The article turns women's history of workplace harassment and post-MeToo survey findings into managerial duties, but it does not state a standpoint or survivor-authority premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.12.006; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681320301580"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V119","originalStance":"Empirical/adverse effect","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2018,"authors":"Sophie Soklaridis; Catherine Zahn; Ayelet Kuper; Deborah Gillis; Valerie H. Taylor; Cynthia Whitehead","title":"Men’s Fear of Mentoring in the #MeToo Era — What’s at Stake for Academic Medicine?","journal":"New England Journal of Medicine","doi":"10.1056/NEJMms1805743","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1805743","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The available abstract only identifies men's mentoring avoidance and its harm to women's careers, which is insufficient to establish either foundational premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1805743; https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMms1805743","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The available abstract only identifies men's mentoring avoidance and its harm to women's careers, which is insufficient to establish either foundational premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1805743; https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMms1805743"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V120","originalStance":"Empirical/adverse-effect critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2021,"authors":"Nicole Graham; James Bowness","title":"Under Surveillance? The Impact of #MeToo on Sexual Correctness and Men at Work","journal":"Sociální studia / Social Studies","doi":"10.5817/soc2021-2-11","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/soc2021-2-11","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The authors explicitly connect private conduct to workplace gender politics and criticize men's evasive self-government, but their interviews with men do not establish the movement's survivor-standpoint premise. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5817/soc2021-2-11; https://journals.muni.cz/socialni_studia/article/view/18585","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The authors explicitly connect private conduct to workplace gender politics and criticize men's evasive self-government, but their interviews with men do not establish the movement's survivor-standpoint premise.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5817/soc2021-2-11; https://journals.muni.cz/socialni_studia/article/view/18585"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V121","originalStance":"Empirical/adverse-effect critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2024,"authors":"Emin Gahramanov; Ayaan Lasheen","title":"Beyond backlash: #MeToo and female unemployment trends","journal":"Social Sciences & Humanities Open","doi":"10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101195","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101195","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The paper accepts MeToo as a status-quo-challenging solidarity movement and rebuts the predicted employment backlash, but its time-series test states no position on lived-experience authority. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101195","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"high","evidence":"The paper accepts MeToo as a status-quo-challenging solidarity movement and rebuts the predicted employment backlash, but its time-series test states no position on lived-experience authority.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101195"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V122","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Structural change and movement limits","year":2025,"authors":"Jane E. Palmer; Melissa L. Kilmer; Erica R. Fissel; Erin Williams; Jill C. Hoxmeier","title":"A movement or a moment? An intersectional analysis of student perceptions of the impacts of #MeToo","journal":"Gender and Justice","doi":"10.1332/30333660y2025d000000025","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/30333660y2025d000000025","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The study describes public stories as demands for reform and finds identity-conditioned perceptions of MeToo's limits, but a perceptions survey does not itself establish survivor testimony as epistemically authoritative. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1332/30333660y2025d000000025; https://health.oregonstate.edu/research/publications/10133230333660y2025d000000025","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"UNRESOLVED","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Unstated","confidence":"medium","evidence":"The study describes public stories as demands for reform and finds identity-conditioned perceptions of MeToo's limits, but a perceptions survey does not itself establish survivor testimony as epistemically authoritative.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1332/30333660y2025d000000025; https://health.oregonstate.edu/research/publications/10133230333660y2025d000000025"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V123","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Voice, testimony, and victimhood","year":2024,"authors":"Jessie Innis; Donna Chung; Darcee Schulze","title":"“The Risk to Reward for Being an Out Proud Survivor”: Reflections on the #MeToo Movement From Rural and Remote Australia","journal":"Affilia","doi":"10.1177/08861099231223487","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099231223487","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The phenomenological study uses rural survivors' accounts to connect disclosure risk to structural and geographic barriers and faults a contextless hashtag for erasing variations in experience while affirming collective solidarity. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099231223487","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The phenomenological study uses rural survivors' accounts to connect disclosure risk to structural and geographic barriers and faults a contextless hashtag for erasing variations in experience while affirming collective solidarity.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099231223487"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V124","originalStance":"Empirical limitation","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2020,"authors":"Chindu Sreedharan; Einar Thorsen; Ananya Gouthi","title":"Time’s up. Or is it? Journalists’ Perceptions of Sexual Violence and Newsroom Changes after #MeTooIndia","journal":"Journalism Practice","doi":"10.1080/17512786.2019.1682943","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1682943","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study uses 257 situated journalist interviews to establish workplace harassment and compares gendered and regional standpoints, finding that a positively regarded movement produced little meaningful newsroom change. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1682943; https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32692/","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The study uses 257 situated journalist interviews to establish workplace harassment and compares gendered and regional standpoints, finding that a positively regarded movement produced little meaningful newsroom change.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1682943; https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32692/"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V125","originalStance":"Mixed/direct critique","theme":"Race, caste, class, and exclusion","year":2023,"authors":"Ann Werner","title":"Whatever happened to the girl in #MeToo?","journal":"European Journal of Women s Studies","doi":"10.1177/13505068231206205","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068231206205","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article analyzes public narratives of sexism and sexual violence as engines of feminist change while criticizing a white, cis, heterosexual, middle-class girl figure for excluding other lived standpoints. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068231206205","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article analyzes public narratives of sexism and sexual violence as engines of feminist change while criticizing a white, cis, heterosexual, middle-class girl figure for excluding other lived standpoints.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068231206205"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V126","originalStance":"Mixed/direct critique","theme":"Structural change and movement limits","year":2018,"authors":"Dubravka Žarkov; Kathy Davis","title":"Ambiguities and dilemmas around #MeToo: #ForHow Long and #WhereTo?","journal":"European Journal of Women s Studies","doi":"10.1177/1350506817749436","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506817749436","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The full text calls testimony an agentic route from personal experience to social change and insists that social location governs who is heard, while criticizing celebrity bias, media trials, and visibility without structural transformation. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506817749436; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350506817749436","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The full text calls testimony an agentic route from personal experience to social change and insists that social location governs who is heard, while criticizing celebrity bias, media trials, and visibility without structural transformation.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506817749436; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350506817749436"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V127","originalStance":"Direct/immanent critique","theme":"Institutional and organizational effects","year":2020,"authors":"Catherine M. Appert; Sidra Lawrence","title":"Ethnomusicology beyond #MeToo: Listening for the Violences of the Field","journal":"Ethnomusicology","doi":"10.5406/ethnomusicology.64.2.0225","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/ethnomusicology.64.2.0225","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly uses feminist traditions of theorizing through personal experience to demand systemic disciplinary change and criticizes fieldwork assumptions that reproduce colonial, heteronormative, and violence-erasing practices. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5406/ethnomusicology.64.2.0225","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article explicitly uses feminist traditions of theorizing through personal experience to demand systemic disciplinary change and criticizes fieldwork assumptions that reproduce colonial, heteronormative, and violence-erasing practices.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.5406/ethnomusicology.64.2.0225"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V128","originalStance":"Direct/contextual critique","theme":"Global translation and justice infrastructures","year":2021,"authors":"Chao-Ju Chen","title":"The Limits and Power of Law: What the Absence of #MeToo in Taiwan Can Tell Us about Legal Mobilization","journal":"Politics & Gender","doi":"10.1017/s1743923x21000271","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x21000271","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article says individual survivors' accounts became a global accountability movement and explicitly values victim credibility, then uses Taiwan to criticize both legal dependence and law-centered explanations. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x21000271","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The article says individual survivors' accounts became a global accountability movement and explicitly values victim credibility, then uses Taiwan to criticize both legal dependence and law-centered explanations.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x21000271"}}
{"classifier":{"version":"direct-evidence-premise-reaudit-2026-07-27","status":"AI-authored conservative audit method; not a definition or replacement of Polymyth’s two premises.","personal_is_political":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” as a premise, or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated.","standpoint_epistemology":"Retains only with explicit affirmation or an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. Rejects only on direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Otherwise Unstated. Testimony or interviews alone establish neither premise.","result":"Either premise Rejects => EXCOMMUNICABLE / OUTSIDE; both Retain => INTERNAL GORGONWARS; every other combination => UNRESOLVED.","withdrawn_artifacts":["metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.jsonl","metoo-critical-academic-premise-audit-WITHDRAWN-90-38-1-2026-07-27.xlsx"]},"id":"V129","originalStance":"Empirical/direct critique","theme":"Media, platforms, and collective judgment","year":2025,"authors":"Harsh Parekh; Shriya Thakkar; Paras Bhatt; Patricia Akello","title":"Digital Discourse, Secondary Victimization, and Psychological Harm: Mixed-Methods Analysis of System Justification in the #MeToo Movement","journal":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","doi":"10.2196/75533","stableUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/75533","pip":"Unstated","standpoint":"Unstated","split":"UNRESOLVED","confidence":"high","evidence":"The mixed-methods analysis treats survivor disclosures as evidence of structural inequality and contrasts solidarity and healing with platform backlash, secondary victimization, and institutional persistence. DIRECT-EVIDENCE REAUDIT: The available article-level record may use personal, interview, testimonial, situated, or identity-conditioned evidence, but that use alone establishes neither explicit affirmation or use of “the personal is political” (or a demonstrably equivalent root-level claim) nor an explicit grant of epistemic credibility, authority, rank, or veto to identity, social position, or lived experience. It also establishes no direct rejection or demonstrable incompatibility. Both premises remain Unstated.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.2196/75533","withdrawn_prior":{"audit":{"version":"initial-premise-split-2026-07-27","status":"WITHDRAWN","reason":"The converter treated use of testimony, personal narrative, situated knowledge, or related evidence as premise retention without requiring article-level premise evidence."},"split":"INTERNAL GORGONWARS","pip":"Retains","standpoint":"Retains","confidence":"high","evidence":"The mixed-methods analysis treats survivor disclosures as evidence of structural inequality and contrasts solidarity and healing with platform backlash, secondary victimization, and institutional persistence.","evidenceUrls":"https://doi.org/10.2196/75533"}}