Editorial notes

Classification rationale

An editorial evidentiary concept, not an established scholarly diagnosis or a classification of an entire religion. It distinguishes a contradicted origin claim from missing context and acknowledged human–AI collaboration.

Evidence status

The definition and assessment criteria are an editorial synthesis. The examples distinguish a firsthand authorship disclosure, an openly supplied religious prompt and an indirect statistical inference; none establishes a false origin for an entire religious formation.

Classification confidence: moderate

Source limitations

The definition and assessment criteria are an editorial synthesis. The examples distinguish a firsthand authorship disclosure, an openly supplied religious prompt and an indirect statistical inference; none establishes a false origin for an entire religious formation.

Evidence profile metadata

Five external sources ground technical context and worked comparisons, not independent adoption of the Hieropedia term. PROV-O and the role-play paper are frameworks; Rogers is a firsthand witness to his own intervention; the Leilan page is a visible question and response; Li v2 is an attributed preprint with acknowledged absence of ground-truth labels. No independent scholarly coverage of false autogenesis as a named concept is claimed. See docs/false-autogenesis-concept-source-review.md.

Edition status

Related entries

• related concept: Hidden context
• related concept: Provenance
• related concept: Human–AI coauthorship

Redirects and former locations

• None recorded.