# Why true belief falls short of knowledge, and what gives knowledge its extra worth

**Artwork**:   
**Artist**: Arnaud Quercy  
**Asset**: IDS-RNI0304  
**Serial**: NAN-RDG000257

This is a technical analytic-epistemology survey of the Gettier/value-of-knowledge debate (justified true belief, reliabilism, swamping, virtue epistemology, extended knowledge); it contains no emitter, receiver, codex, wave, or diffraction event of the kind the ideamorphism framework is built to read, so the lens has nothing to grip or test here.

## Context

### Declined — `no-purchase` [@source]

### Propositional grid [@p31]

> **Read this grid.** “Not evaluated” does **not** mean the source has nothing to say about that proposition. It means **the reading did not instruct it**. That is not a result, and it counts in no denominator. A silence, by contrast, is a finding: the reading touched the proposition without concluding, or noted its absence itself.

**Not evaluated (37)** — P1, P2, P3, P3a, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P14a, P14b, P15, P16, P16a, P17, P18, P18a, P19, P19a, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P29, P30, P31

---

*Overall verdict: **DECLINED:no-purchase** — taxonomy of the August 2026 pass, predating the move to relational verdicts. Kept as metadata: the gap between the two forms is data, not residue. This reading’s judgement is in the grid above.*

Reading of 2026-10-02 · model `claude-sonnet-5` · source 120,801 chars · 1 attempt(s)