Proof — Verse 1.88

र्ध्न्यंअप्रत्येकं व्यञ्जका भिन्ना वर्णवाक्यपदेषु ये ।
तेषामत्यन्तभेदे'पि सङ्कीर्णा इव शक्तयः ॥ ८८ ॥

The manifestors, distinct for each among phoneme, word and sentence — even though these differ absolutely, their powers appear as though commingled.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "atyantabhinna", "of": "varna_sphota"}“the manifested items are atyanta-bhinna, absolutely distinct”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "atyantabhinna", "of": "pada_sphota"}“the manifested items are atyanta-bhinna, absolutely distinct”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "atyantabhinna", "of": "vakya_sphota"}“the manifested items are atyanta-bhinna, absolutely distinct”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "vyanjaka", "from": "varna_sphota", "to": "vyanjaka"}“each has its own vyanjakas, its own manifesting sounds”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "vyanjaka", "from": "pada_sphota", "to": "vyanjaka"}“each has its own vyanjakas, its own manifesting sounds”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "vyanjaka", "from": "vakya_sphota", "to": "vyanjaka"}“each has its own vyanjakas, its own manifesting sounds”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "samkirana", "of": "sakti"}“in the single stream of speech these manifesting powers appear sankirna iva, as if commingled”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "paraspara_bhinna", "of": "varna_sphota"}“they are distinct manifestables sharing manifestors”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "paraspara_bhinna", "of": "pada_sphota"}“they are distinct manifestables sharing manifestors”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "paraspara_bhinna", "of": "vakya_sphota"}“they are distinct manifestables sharing manifestors”

Denials

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "samghata", "from": "varna_sphota", "to": "pada_sphota"}“the sentence-sphota is not a sum of word-sphotas any more than the word was a sum of phonemes”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "samghata", "from": "pada_sphota", "to": "vakya_sphota"}“the sentence-sphota is not a sum of word-sphotas any more than the word was a sum of phonemes”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “The word-sphota is composed of constituent phoneme-sphotas arranged in sequence.” — Treats the hierarchy among sphotas as mereological composition, which the commentary explicitly denies: hierarchy among sphotas is a hierarchy of alternative unities, not of containment. This contradicts the denial that the word is a sum of phonemes.
• “One can mark off distinct temporal segments of the speech stream as manifesting phonemes, others as manifesting words, and still others as manifesting the sentence.” — Asserts that portions of the acoustic stream can be definitively assigned to distinct manifestational levels. The commentary explicitly denies this: the hearer cannot assign portions of the acoustic flow to levels. The iva signals that apparent commingling blocks any such partition.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.88 — generated from data/contracts/1.88.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_88

open VakyaVallari

def varna_sphota : Entity := ⟨"varṇa-sphota", Sorta.absolute⟩
def pada_sphota : Entity := ⟨"pada-sphota", Sorta.absolute⟩
def vakya_sphota : Entity := ⟨"vākya-sphota", Sorta.absolute⟩
def vyanjaka : Entity := ⟨"vyañjaka", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def sakti : Entity := ⟨"śakti", Sorta.power⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" varna_sphota
    , Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" pada_sphota
    , Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" vakya_sphota
    , Claim.relation "vyanjaka" (Node.ent varna_sphota) (Node.ent vyanjaka)
    , Claim.relation "vyanjaka" (Node.ent pada_sphota) (Node.ent vyanjaka)
    , Claim.relation "vyanjaka" (Node.ent vakya_sphota) (Node.ent vyanjaka)
    , Claim.predication "samkirana" sakti
    , Claim.predication "paraspara_bhinna" varna_sphota
    , Claim.predication "paraspara_bhinna" pada_sphota
    , Claim.predication "paraspara_bhinna" vakya_sphota ]
  , denials := [ Claim.relation "samghata" (Node.ent varna_sphota) (Node.ent pada_sphota)
    , Claim.relation "samghata" (Node.ent pada_sphota) (Node.ent vakya_sphota) ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" varna_sphota
    , Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" pada_sphota
    , Claim.predication "atyantabhinna" vakya_sphota
    , Claim.predication "samkirana" sakti ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'The word-sphota is composed of constituent phoneme-sphotas arranged in sequence.'
   Why rejected: Treats the hierarchy among sphotas as mereological composition, which the commentary explicitly denies: hierarchy among sphotas is a hierarchy of alternative unities, not of containment. This contradicts the denial that the word is a sum of phonemes. -/
def compositional_hierarchy : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "samghata" (Node.ent varna_sphota) (Node.ent pada_sphota) ] }
theorem compositional_hierarchy_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate compositional_hierarchy := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts compositional_hierarchy = true

/- 'One can mark off distinct temporal segments of the speech stream as manifesting phonemes, others as manifesting words, and still others as manifesting the sentence.'
   Why rejected: Asserts that portions of the acoustic stream can be definitively assigned to distinct manifestational levels. The commentary explicitly denies this: the hearer cannot assign portions of the acoustic flow to levels. The iva signals that apparent commingling blocks any such partition. -/
def acoustic_stream_partitioned : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "sakshi" (Node.ent vyanjaka) (Node.ent varna_sphota) ] }
theorem acoustic_stream_partitioned_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate acoustic_stream_partitioned := by decide
#guard contract.licenses acoustic_stream_partitioned = false

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_88