Proof — Verse 1.23

नित्याः शब्दार्थसंबन्धास्तत्रान्नाता महर्षिभिः ।
सूत्राणां सानुतन्त्राणां भाष्याणां च प्रणेतृभिः ॥ २३ ॥

There the relations between word and meaning are handed down as eternal by the great seers — by the authors of the sutras with their ancillary treatises, and of the commentaries.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "nityah", "of": "sambandha"}“That the sabda-artha-sambandha is eternal”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "transmitted", "of": "sambandha"}“The nityatva thesis, stated as inherited rather than argued”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "parampara_siddhah", "of": "nityatva"}“The nityatva thesis, stated as inherited rather than argued”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "bhavya", "from": "nityatva", "to": "apaurusheya"}“An eternal relation secures an authorless Veda”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "samaya_bhavya_krita", "from": "samaya", "to": "apaurusheya"}“a conventional relation has an author and a beginning, and a Veda whose words mean by convention is a Veda someone composed”

Denials

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "samaya", "of": "sambandha"}“hold against the Naiyayikas, for whom the relation is samaya”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "krita", "of": "sambandha"}“the bond between a word and what it means is not made”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “The relation between words and their meanings is established by convention or agreement.” — Directly asserts sambandha is samaya, which the commentary explicitly identifies as the Naiyayika position. This contradicts both the verse's claim of nityatva and Bhartrhari's position. Conventional relations have authors and beginnings, undermining Vedic authorilessness.
• “The word-meaning relations were established by the great seers as an authoritative innovation.” — Claims sambandha is krita (made/authored), which the commentary explicitly denies: 'the bond between a word and what it means is not made.' This contradicts the core doctrine that the relations are eternal and uncreated.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.23 — generated from data/contracts/1.23.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_23

open VakyaVallari

def sambandha : Entity := ⟨"śabdārthasaṃbandha", Sorta.power⟩
def sabda : Entity := ⟨"śabda", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def artha : Entity := ⟨"artha", Sorta.power⟩
def nityatva : Entity := ⟨"nityatva", Sorta.property⟩
def samaya : Entity := ⟨"samaya", Sorta.power⟩
def veda : Entity := ⟨"veda", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def apaurusheya : Entity := ⟨"apauruṣheya", Sorta.property⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.predication "nityah" sambandha
    , Claim.predication "transmitted" sambandha
    , Claim.predication "parampara_siddhah" nityatva
    , Claim.relation "bhavya" (Node.ent nityatva) (Node.ent apaurusheya)
    , Claim.relation "samaya_bhavya_krita" (Node.ent samaya) (Node.ent apaurusheya) ]
  , denials := [ Claim.predication "samaya" sambandha
    , Claim.predication "krita" sambandha ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "nityah" sambandha
    , Claim.predication "transmitted" sambandha ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'The relation between words and their meanings is established by convention or agreement.'
   Why rejected: Directly asserts sambandha is samaya, which the commentary explicitly identifies as the Naiyayika position. This contradicts both the verse's claim of nityatva and Bhartrhari's position. Conventional relations have authors and beginnings, undermining Vedic authorilessness. -/
def conventional_relation : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "samaya" sambandha ] }
theorem conventional_relation_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate conventional_relation := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts conventional_relation = true

/- 'The word-meaning relations were established by the great seers as an authoritative innovation.'
   Why rejected: Claims sambandha is krita (made/authored), which the commentary explicitly denies: 'the bond between a word and what it means is not made.' This contradicts the core doctrine that the relations are eternal and uncreated. -/
def authored_relations : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "krita" sambandha ] }
theorem authored_relations_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate authored_relations := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts authored_relations = true

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_23