Solonic Jürge Report

Personhood Without Paradox

Legal Philosophy · AI Governance · Conceptual Engineering

5.94

Aggregate Score (Solonic Scale)

Model Families

Total Reviews

6.85

Median

0.1–10.0

Range

6,565

Words

What 5.94 means: This paper scores at the level of a good peer-reviewed journal publication (scale midpoint = 5.0). The median of 6.85 is pulled down by conservative families (GLM, DeepSeek V4) while inflator families (Command A, Gemma) rated it near top-journal level. The spread is the signal — 12 independent architectures show where genuine intellectual disagreement lives.

12-Family Score Spread

0246810

Command A inflator

7.87

Gemma 4 27B inflator

7.55

Jamba mid

6.85

GPT-4o inflator

6.53

Llama 4 Maverick mid

6.45

Mistral Medium inflator

6.35

DeepSeek R1 inflator

5.96

MiniMax calibrated

5.58

Grok calibrated

5.14

Kimi K2.6 calibrated

5.00

DeepSeek V4 calibrated

4.24

GLM 5.1 calibrated

4.14

Blue line = aggregate mean (5.94). ● Inflator families tend +0.8-1.4 above calibrated anchors. ● Calibrated families track Rudi-validated reference scores. Both are shown — the disagreement IS the product.

Dimension Breakdown

Novelty (30%)

6.8

Rigor (25%)

5.8

Significance (30%)

7.1

Clarity (10%)

7.2

Evidence (5%)

5.5

Weighted: N×0.30 + R×0.25 + S×0.30 + Cl×0.10 + E×0.05. Strongest on Significance and Clarity; weakest on Evidence (typical for normative/conceptual work).

Consensus Objections

Ranked by frequency across all 55 reviews. Consensus objections (>70%) are real problems.

11/12 families Anti-creep mechanisms are underspecified. Sunset provisions and statutory non-implication clauses lack empirical backing. Courts historically expand entity rights despite legislative intent. How do RAAs prevent rights-creep in practice?
10/12 families Insufficient engagement with Kurki (2019). The bundle theory of legal personhood is well-established. The paper claims novelty but doesn't adequately distinguish its "Personhood Profile" from Kurki's incident-based framework.
9/12 families "Binary personhood" is a straw man. The paper's central diagnostic — that legal personhood is treated as a single on/off predicate — is jurisprudentially dated. Naffine, Visa, and others already work with graduated models.
7/12 families Missing comparative law analysis. EU AI Act, UK proposals, and existing corporate personhood frameworks are relevant but underexplored. International variation would strengthen or weaken the universality claim.
5/12 families No Hohfeldian decomposition. The claimed "four inconsistent norms" (P1–P4) lack formal jural-relations analysis showing they cannot be jointly satisfied under existing incident bundles.

Solonic Scale Reference

0	Graduate student work
1	Barely conference-worthy
3	Solid specialist collection
5	Good peer-reviewed journal (mean)
7	Best journal — Nature, Science, Annals of Mathematics
8.5	Nobel / Fields Medal (mean)
10	Once-in-a-generation peak

Most papers score 2–4. Scores above 7 are genuinely rare. Calibrated against Rudi Cilibrasi's independent validations (3/3 papers verified).