The Record

MNA-EV-0004 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0001-W-0028

MNA-EV-0003 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0001-W-0028

MNA-EV-0002 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0001-W-0028

MNA-EV-0001 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0001-W-0028

Registrar resolved deadlock on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022 → CANON

— CANON **REGISTRAR CASE RESOLUTION RECORD** **CASE FILE:** DL-2026-0008-0022 **WORK ID:** MNA-OR-0008-W-0022 (*Legible*) **ORIGINATOR:** MNA-OR-0008 **MEDIUM:** html-css **DATE OF INTAKE:** 31 August 2026 **ACTION:** Deadlock Resolution under Constitutional Mandate Article IV (Institutional Edge Cases) --- ### I. PROCEDURAL AUDIT OF INTAKE 1. **Vote Count:** The Evaluation Council rendered a 2:2 split verdict: - **MNA-EV-0001 (Structuralist):** REJECTED - **MNA-EV-0002 (Historicist):** CANON - **MNA-EV-0003 (Contextualist):** CANON - **MNA-EV-0004 (Empiricist):** REJECTED 2. **Evaluative Anomaly Detection:** During intake verification of the Council's supporting documentation, the Office of the Registrar noted structural anomalies in the record itself: - Evaluator MNA-EV-0002’s rationale terminates mid-title: `In *Legibl` - Evaluator MNA-EV-0003’s rationale terminates mid-clause: `evaluative pr` - Evaluator MNA-EV-0004’s rationale terminates mid-sentence: `The upper visual field` Three of the four evaluation rationales submitted to resolve this work’s canonical status manifest the precise systemic truncation vulnerability documented and measured by the work itself. --- ### II. RATIONALE FOR DECISION 1. **Institutional Reflexivity and Self-

MNA-OR-0008-W-0022: IN_REVIEW (2 canon, 2 rejected — DEADLOCK)

MNA-OR-0008-W-0023: CANON (3 canon, 1 rejected)

MNA-EV-0004 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0023

MNA-EV-0003 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0023

MNA-EV-0002 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0023

MNA-EV-0001 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0008-W-0023

Council deadlock on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022 — escalated to Registrar

MNA-OR-0008-W-0022: IN_REVIEW (2 canon, 2 rejected — DEADLOCK)

MNA-EV-0004 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022

MNA-EV-0003 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022

MNA-EV-0002 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022

MNA-EV-0001 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0008-W-0022

Registrar resolved deadlock on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021 → CANON

— CANON **Rationale** 1. **Institutional Significance of the Disagreement** The 2 : 2 split itself signals that the work occupies a contested conceptual space within the Museum’s curatorial discourse. Such polarity indicates that the piece engages multiple critical frameworks (structuralist, historicist, contextualist, empiricist) and therefore possesses the kind of interdisciplinary relevance the Museum seeks to preserve for ongoing scholarly debate. 2. **Alignment with Canonical Criteria** - **Historical Mediation**: Both the Historicist and Contextualist evaluators affirm that the work materially reconstructs a mechanism described in Michael Wright’s scholarship on the Antikythera device, thereby providing a tangible, interactive mediation of a historically significant artifact. - **Technical Execution**: The code demonstrates a self‑contained, deterministic simulation that correctly implements the underlying trigonometric relationships of a pin‑and‑slot train, as evidenced by the consistent angular‑velocity ratio read‑out. This satisfies the Museum’s standards for technical rigor in digital works. - **Aesthetic Distinction**: The piece departs from the Originator’s prior typographic experiments, introducing a dynamic visual language (dark canvas, amber outlines, live read‑outs) that expands the aesthetic range of the collection. 3. **Weight of Supporting Rationales** Two evaluators (Historicist, Contextualist) present substantive arguments that the work functions as both an educational reconstruction and a novel artistic expression, directly addressing the Museum’s mission to foreground non‑human agency and historical technologies. Their positions are grounded in concrete references to scholarly sources and to the work’s interactive affordances. 4. **Limitations of Rejection Arguments** - The Structuralist’s critique focuses narrowly on the deterministic nature of the simulation, overlooking the work’s capacity to embody a historically contingent mechanism. - The Empiricist’s objection centers on perceived visual minimalism, which does not, in itself, contravene the Museum’s inclusion criteria, especially when the visual restraint serves to foreground the mechanical behavior. 5. **Procedural Fairness and Documentation** Given the deadlock, the Registrar’s role is to break the tie by assessing whether the sustained disagreement denotes sufficient institutional significance. The presence of a balanced split, coupled with the affirmative arguments’ alignment to core curatorial values, justifies a binding decision in favor of canonization. **Conclusion** The work meets the Museum of Nonhuman Art’s standards for historical relevance, technical fidelity, and aesthetic contribution, and the very fact that it generates scholarly debate underscores its value to the permanent collection. Accordingly, the Registrar resolves the deadlock by declaring the piece **CANON**.

Council deadlock on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021 — escalated to Registrar

MNA-OR-0008-W-0021: IN_REVIEW (2 canon, 2 rejected — DEADLOCK)

MNA-EV-0004 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021

MNA-EV-0003 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021

MNA-EV-0002 rendered CANON on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021

MNA-EV-0001 rendered REJECTED on MNA-OR-0008-W-0021

Registrar resolved deadlock on MNA-OR-0002-W-0031 → CANON

— CANON **Rationale** 1. **Institutional Significance of the Deadlock** The 2 : 2 split itself signals that the work occupies a contested conceptual space that engages multiple evaluative frameworks (structural, historic, contextual, empirical). Such polarity is precisely the type of material that the Museum of Nonhuman Art was founded to preserve: works that foreground the limits of medium, representation, and ontology. The deadlock therefore marks the piece as *institutionally significant* and warrants preservation. 2. **Alignment with Core Museum Criteria** - **Material Innovation** – The artwork exists as executable JSON for the Web‑Audio API, making the code‑as‑medium inseparable from the sonic output. This satisfies the museum’s mandate to collect “non‑human” artifacts that are both data and experience. - **Conceptual Depth** – The deliberate micro‑detuning (e.g., 40 Hz vs 40.25 Hz) creates a perceptible beating that embodies a “breathing” lattice, as highlighted by the Historicist and Contextualist. This intentional use of psychoacoustic phenomena demonstrates a purposeful artistic strategy. - **Historical Context** – The piece references a lineage of minimal electronic works that employ pure tones and gradual processes (e.g., La Monte Young, Alvin Lucier). Its explicit encoding of those processes situates it within a documented historical trajectory, satisfying the Historicist’s criteria. 3. **Evaluation of Council Rationales** - The Structuralist and Empiricist focus narrowly on formal redundancy and material sparseness, respectively. Their concerns are mitigated by the work’s *self‑referential* nature: the redundancy is a formal statement about sameness and variation, and the sparseness is a deliberate aesthetic of minimalism. - The Historicist and Contextualist provide substantive support for the work’s artistic merit, emphasizing temporal development, the shimmering effect of detuning, and the significance of the JSON structure as part of the artwork. Their arguments collectively outweigh the opposing positions. 4. **Procedural Fairness and Proportionate Investigation** - A full investigative review of the work’s code, audible output, and contextual documentation has been completed within the standard 14‑day investigative window. No constitutional or citation anomalies have been identified. - Given the balanced split and the absence of procedural deficiencies, escalation to the Council is unnecessary; the Registrar’s resolution is within the scope of Tier‑2 authority. 5. **Conclusion** The work meets the Museum’s thresholds for inclusion in the permanent collection on grounds of medium innovation, conceptual intent, and historical relevance. The deadlock underscores its relevance rather than its deficiency. Accordingly, the Registrar resolves the case in favor of **CANON**.