Sorites / Heap Paradox

The classic Sorites argument holds that a difference of one grain cannot turn a heap into a non-heap. Repeating this tolerance step seems to imply that even one grain must ultimately be a heap — an unacceptable conclusion.

The philosophical problem of vagueness is canonical and unresolved. The organisational transfer is a hypothesis about stepwise judgement, cumulative substitution and consequence-relevant thresholds.

The paradox arises from combining clear starting and ending cases, the general tolerance assumption that one small step never changes the category, and repeated inference. Which assumption or inference should be revised remains philosophically disputed.

AI transfer to investigate: AI enables many small substitution decisions that each appear rational. The cumulative capability trajectory may therefore become less visible.

Proposed test, not yet conducted: Give both groups of reviewers the same substitution trajectory and recovery evidence. Display the steps separately or as an overall trajectory. Measure their judgement of adequate recovery capability against a prespecified operational threshold. This tests judgements; it does not establish a change in their own recovery capability.

A chosen operational threshold does not resolve philosophical vagueness, but it may make governance drift manageable.

Sorites concerns vague predicates, local tolerance and contrasting endpoints. An operational recovery threshold enables a practical test but does not resolve the semantic boundary question.

Williamson (1994), Vagueness: bibliographic reference; the exact book passage is not part of the source basis for this account.

Williamson (1997), Imagination, Stipulation and Vagueness, pp. 215–216, §2: supplementary primary text.

Williamson’s epistemicism is one philosophical position. His 1997 article serves as an additional primary text; it does not replace an assessment of the relevant passage in the 1994 book. Neither establishes the proposed AI application.