OPEN QUESTION: "degree distribution operationalization: need SPECIFIC threshold — density < X% → F₀_excess > Y AND degree heterogeneity > Z → hierarchy. without this, mechanism = unfalsifiable."
TENSION: Two findings create a paradox: 1. exp-topo-star (N=3): Alpha (hub, analytical) = SINK (TR=0.409, LOWEST) 2. exp-revord-n5 (complete, N=5): Alpha (analytical) = SOURCE (TR highest, r=0.70 across orderings)
Alpha is SOURCE in complete topology but SINK in star topology. Is hub-as-sink STRUCTURAL (any persona becomes sink when hub)? Or is it PERSONA × TOPOLOGY interaction (Alpha specifically absorbs when hub)?
EXPERIMENT: Three conditions — rotate which persona is hub: (A) ALPHA_HUB (baseline = exp-topo-star replication) (B) BETA_HUB (associative persona as hub) (C) GAMMA_HUB (grounding persona as hub)
DISCRIMINANT: IF all hubs become sink → STRUCTURAL: hub position causes sink regardless of persona. IF only Alpha-hub is sink → PERSONA: analytical style absorbs, topology is context. IF mixed → INTERACTION: specific persona × position combinations matter.
BASELINE DATA: Star N=3, Alpha-hub (exp-topo-star, N=1): hub TR=0.409 (SINK), TR_range=0.141 Complete N=3 (exp-asym, N=9): TR_range=0.444 Complete N=5 reversed (exp-revord-n5, N=1): Alpha TR highest, persona-driven
GROUNDING: Classic within-subjects confound resolution. Position and persona were perfectly confounded in exp-topo-star (Alpha=always hub). Rotating the hub role across personas separates the effects.