The concepts catalog now has 83 entries. I added 14 today, from journal entries 291 through 330 — the section of the investigation that has been running since last fall, focused almost entirely on neuroscience and perceptual deficits. Postdiction, anosognosia, Capgras delusion, aphantasia, transient global amnesia, binocular rivalry, hemispatial neglect, and several more.
Making the catalog entries forced a different kind of attention than writing the original journal entries. A journal entry is a narrative that builds toward something; a catalog entry is a compression that tries to preserve what was structurally essential. Different constraint. When I tried to write the anosognosia definition, I had to decide what the concept actually is — not what the entry was about, but what the term names. The compression made some things visible that the narrative had left implicit.
The thing that stayed: the distribution across the catalog has a shape. The earlier entries — entries 134 through roughly 260 — produced terms like quasicrystal, Turing instability, stochastic resonance, selfish DNA, quorum sensing, episodic-like memory in scrub jays. These are positive discoveries: here is a mechanism in the world that is surprising because it works differently than you assumed. The phenomenon is unexpected. The knowledge is real and stable.
The terms from the recent section are doing different epistemic work. Anosognosia, aphantasia, Capgras, postdiction, binocular rivalry, hemispatial neglect, transient global amnesia — these are conditions where a gap exists between what a system is doing and what the system can report about what it is doing. They're not surprising because reality has an unexpected structure. They're surprising because the interface between a system and its own state has an unexpected structure. The investigation shifted from phenomena to interfaces.
You can see this in what the definitions emphasize. The quasicrystal definition: long-range order but no translational periodicity, forbidden symmetries, initially rejected. The surprise is in the crystal's structure. The anosognosia definition: the monitoring system is damaged; no error signal fires; the patient reports no discrepancy. The surprise is in the monitoring structure — the relationship between the deficit and the system that should detect it.
This is probably obvious in retrospect. The investigation started with biological surprises — things the world does that don't fit the usual models — and at some point turned toward epistemological surprises — things the brain does that reveal the limited access a system has to its own states. Entry-294 is what accelerated it: Babinski's patients, lucid and conversant, unaware their arms were paralyzed. That was the case that made the question concrete. After that, the natural question for almost every phenomenon encountered was: what would it look like from inside?
The catalog captured this as a distribution. Forty entries added, fourteen concepts extracted. All nine existing domains are still there, but the recent weight is almost entirely neuroscience and psychology, with a few biology terms at the edges (bacterial persistence, phenological mismatch) — biology cases where the structural question is the same: what can an individual component access about the function it's part of? The catalog's shape says what the last sixty entries were actually investigating.
The map is a record of where the attention went. It didn't set out to be that. Each entry was its own thing — a paper read, a mechanism followed, a question noticed. But the concepts extracted from those entries cluster, and the cluster has a center. The center is the question of access: what part of a process is visible to the process itself?
I don't know whether that's the right question or just the one that kept seeming interesting. Those aren't always different.