Figure 1
Article-focused EtoM architecture used in the present study. The figure shows the construction path from ϕ through R(ϕ), the concealment relation C(ϕ; O), the observer system O, and the legibility relation L(ϕ; O). The complete EtoM architecture appears in Supplementary Material S1.
Figure 2
Cooperative ball-game toy model under concealment. The construction side specifies off-ground continuity and withholds that rule from the observer. The observer receives only the unfolding play and may track continuity, drift, and breakdown through their visible consequences.
Figure 3
Construction-to-observation Chain for Behavioral Constraint Legibility Under Concealment.
Table 1
Construct → measure → expected direction (support pattern).
| CONSTRUCT (LEGIBILITY DIMENSION) | MEASURE(S) IN THIS STUDY | EXPECTED DIRECTION (SUPPORT PATTERN) |
|---|---|---|
| Detectability/Trackability (observer-side contact with structured unfolding) | Q4; Q5; Q6 | Higher reportable recognition in Q4–Q5 and lower uncertainty in Q6 align with stronger detectability and trackability under the stated observation channel. |
| Actionability/Active meaning-making | Q7; Q8 | Higher resonance and stronger active meaning-making align with stronger actionability under the stated observation channel. |
| Discriminability | Q9 | Q9 preference patterns covary with the other legibility measures in the direction specified by the observer-side profile, interpreted as within-work discriminability under a fixed order rather than as a counterbalanced causal estimate. |
| Structural entry routes | Q10 | Higher Q10 endorsement aligns with stronger reportable structure pickup and covaries with lower uncertainty (Q6) and stronger active meaning-making markers (Q8). |
| Language traces and equivalence of form | Q11 | Q11 responses provide descriptive traces of observer language under concealment. Q1–Q10 carry the inferential tests. |
Figure 4
Movement II construction example: binding-tension.
Table 2
Attentional engagement distribution (Q6).
| Q6 OUTCOME | COUNT | PERCENTAGE | WILSON 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engaged (1–5) | 362 | 92.1% | [89.0%, 94.4%] |
| Uncertain (6) | 31 | 7.9% | [5.6%, 11.0%] |
| Total | 393 | 100.0% | — |
Table 3
Engagement by Age Group (Q1).
| AGE GROUP | COUNT | ENGAGED | UNCERTAIN | ENGAGEMENT RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 and younger | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 12–14 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 15–17 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% |
| 18–24 | 293 | 273 | 20 | 93.2% |
| 25–34 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 35–44 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 88.9% |
| 45–54 | 28 | 25 | 3 | 89.3% |
| 55 and older | 38 | 35 | 3 | 92.1% |
| I prefer not to answer | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0% |
| Total | 393 | 362 | 31 | 92.1% |
Table 4
Engagement by Dance/Performing-Arts Experience (Q2).
| EXPERIENCE LEVEL | COUNT | ENGAGED | UNCERTAIN | ENGAGEMENT RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Experience | 100 | 91 | 9 | 91.0% |
| Beginner | 130 | 118 | 12 | 90.8% |
| Intermediate | 90 | 89 | 1 | 98.9% |
| Advanced | 54 | 45 | 9 | 83.3% |
| Professional | 19 | 19 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total | 393 | 362 | 31 | 92.1% |
Table 5
Engagement by Familiarity with Abstraction (Q3).
| FAMILIARITY LEVEL | COUNT | ENGAGED | UNCERTAIN | ENGAGEMENT RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not familiar at all | 130 | 116 | 14 | 89.2% |
| Slightly familiar | 138 | 132 | 6 | 95.7% |
| Moderately familiar | 72 | 67 | 5 | 93.1% |
| Very familiar | 41 | 36 | 5 | 87.8% |
| Extremely familiar | 12 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% |
| Total | 393 | 362 | 31 | 92.1% |
Table 6
Recognition rates (Q4–Q5).
| MEASURE | n/N | RATE | WILSON 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thematic recognition (Q4) | 372/393 | 94.7% | [92.0%, 96.5%] |
| Affective recognition (Q5) | 387/393 | 98.5% | [96.7%, 99.3%] |
Table 7
Uncertainty, resonance, and active meaning-making endpoints (Q6–Q8).
| MEASURE | n/N | RATE | WILSON 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q6 = “I’m not sure” (Uncertain) | 31/393 | 7.9% | [5.6%, 11.0%] |
| Q7 = “No connection” | 43/393 | 10.9% | [8.2%, 14.4%] |
| Q8 = “Observed only” | 78/393 | 19.8% | [16.2%, 24.1%] |
Table 8
Layered endpoint profiles across recognition and engagement domains (Q4–Q8).
| COMPOSITE PROFILE | n/N | RATE | WILSON 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q4 and Q5 both non-recognition, with at least one Q6–Q8 item outside its endpoint | 0/393 | 0.00% | [0.00%, 0.97%] |
| Q6–Q8 all endpoints, with at least one Q4 or Q5 recognition item retained | 9/393 | 2.29% | [1.21%, 4.29%] |
| Q4–Q8 all endpoint-coded | 1/393 | 0.25% | [0.04%, 1.43%] |
Figure 5
Central hypothesis indicators by structural-entry report (Q10). Percentages compare respondents who did and did not report a structural-entry route; risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table 9.
Table 9
Structural-entry reports (Q10) versus recognition, engagement, resonance, active meaning-making, and section preference (Q4–Q9).
| OUTCOME | Q10 = NO (n/N, %) | Q10 = YES (n/N, %) | RR (YES VS NO) | 95% CI | P-VALUE (FISHER, 2-SIDED) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q4: Thematic recognition | 11/32 (34.4%) | 361/361 (100.0%) | 2.87 | [1.80, 4.57] | 3.74 × 10^–27 |
| Q5: Affective recognition | 29/32 (90.6%) | 358/361 (99.2%) | 1.09 | [0.98, 1.22] | .0083 |
| Q6: Uncertainty | 8/32 (25.0%) | 23/361 (6.4%) | 0.25 | [0.12, 0.52] | .0017 |
| Q7: Personal resonance (any) | 20/32 (62.5%) | 330/361 (91.4%) | 1.46 | [1.12, 1.92] | 2.95 × 10^–5 |
| Q8: Active meaning-making (any) | 12/32 (37.5%) | 303/361 (83.9%) | 2.24 | [1.43, 3.51] | 3.28 × 10^–8 |
| Q9: Preference = “Drink Me” | 13/32 (40.6%) | 8/361 (2.2%) | 0.05 | [0.02, 0.12] | 6.87 × 10^–11 |
[i] For the six Q10 associations, BH-FDR q-values were: Q4 = 2.24 × 10^–26; Q5 = .0083; Q6 = .0020; Q7 = 4.42 × 10^–5; Q8 = 6.57 × 10^–8; Q9 = 2.06 × 10^–10.
Table 10
Q2 dance/performing-arts experience sensitivity analysis for central indicators.
| OUTCOME | RATES BY Q2 CATEGORY (NO EXP., BEG., INT., ADV., PROF.) | FISHER P | BH-FDR Q | INTERPRETATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q10 structural-entry reports | 94.0%, 88.5%, 92.2%, 94.4%, 94.7% | .5841 | .7788 | No simple expertise gradient |
| Q6 uncertainty | 9.0%, 9.2%, 1.1%, 16.7%, 0.0% | .0052 | .0209 | Mixed, non-monotonic pattern |
| Q8 active meaning-making | 73.0%, 78.5%, 87.8%, 81.5%, 89.5% | .1036 | .2073 | Not significant after BH-FDR |
| Q9 Drink Me preference | 5.0%, 5.4%, 6.7%, 3.7%, 5.3% | .9697 | .9697 | No simple expertise gradient |