Abstract
Paper 1000 counted, in the scope notes of 901 to 999, the sentences that cite the scope note of an earlier paper, and showed that all 80 sentences with a naming word contained the word “scope note” and that 79 of the 80 candidate sentences dealt with what the earlier paper had set aside. This paper counts the same things in the 99 papers that followed (1001 to 1099). It claims no new theorem and no new law.
First, and this is the core of the paper: a rewrite that changed no word count had broken the counting method of Paper 1000. On 30 September 2026 the double dashes (two full-width dashes in a row) of the unpublished papers were replaced by full stops and other marks. Among 901 to 999, 85 papers were rewritten, and the counts of naming words, paper numbers, “scope note” and “earlier occupant” did not change at all. Yet counting by sentences cut at full stops, only 12 of the 79 sentences with a seat word kept the paper number in the same sentence; 67 became sentences without a number. Applying the same count to today’s text, sentences with “scope note” and no naming word rise from 0 to 78, and the convention seems to have collapsed (Section 2).
Second, counting in “blocks” returns the earlier table unchanged. A block is a sentence citing an earlier paper, followed by the next sentence without a number, sentences with “earlier occupant”, and sentences saying that another paper took a seat. From the copy of 17 September all 80 keys of the earlier table come back exactly, and from today’s text 79 keys come back. The remaining one is the key of 915, to which the earlier occupant 787 was added after the previous census (Section 2).
Third, the convention of Paper 900 was kept. Of the 540 blocks in the scope notes of 1001 to 1099 that cite an earlier paper, all 46 with a naming word contain “scope note”. Reading all 52 candidates, 39 ($\mathbf{0.750000}$) dealt with what the earlier paper had set aside and 13 did not; none of the 5 that place themselves beside did (Section 3).
Fourth, seat sentences disappeared from the scope notes. Papers with a block that took a seat were 33 of 70 in 1001 to 1070 ($\mathbf{0.471429}$), 6 of 12 in 1071 to 1082, and 0 of the 17 in 1083 to 1099 (53 of 56 in 944 to 999). Of 1083 to 1097, 14 papers have no block citing an earlier scope note in either the scope note or the body. Papers 1098 and 1099 wrote their naming in the body instead of the scope note (Section 3).
Fifth, the seats taken grew distant again, and the chain reached 5 steps. For the 39 blocks that took a seat, the median distance in paper number to the paper that left the seat is 139.0, and 16 ($\mathbf{0.410256}$) lie within 100 (in 944 to 999: median 31.0, within 100 0.900000). Five of the 6 in 1071 to 1099 took seats in the scope notes of 289 to 663. The deepest chain runs from 1059 and 1061 through 1057, 1056, 1055, 915 to 404, 5 steps, beyond the deepest 4 steps up to the earlier table (Section 4).
Sixth, “no earlier occupant” did not miss, but the search has a blind spot. Of the 39 blocks that took a seat, 33 ($\mathbf{0.846154}$) wrote “no earlier occupant” or its kin. Neither the four judgement tables nor the 12 places in earlier papers with the number of the seat-leaving paper and “scope note” in the same block showed a paper that took the same content first. But 100, which 1050 named as the earlier occupant, cites 86 only by a bare number in a table, so this search cannot find it (Section 5).
Seventh, the separator is whether a rewrite keeps the counts of words or keeps the words in the same sentence. The rewrite of 30 September was checked for the former and passed, while the census counted the latter. Convention from now on: a census counts in a unit that returns the keys of the earlier table unchanged from the copy of the earlier census. When text is rewritten in bulk, check, in addition to the word counts, that the keys taken out in the unit of the census do not change (Section 6).
Keywords: census, scope note, rewriting, counting unit, earlier occupant, convention, corpus metrics.
Scope (what is not claimed)
No new theorem or law is claimed. What is counted is the corpus’s own writing; nothing is claimed about the outside world. The English versions are not counted. Only the Japanese .tex files were read. The time is fixed. The scope notes of 901 to 1099 and the bodies of 1001 to 1099 were copied on 30 October 2026 and the copy was counted. The copy of 17 September was also read as it was. The counting unit is changed. Instead of sentences cut at full stops, the blocks of Section 1 were counted. Before counting, it was checked that the keys of the earlier table come back unchanged from the copy of 17 September. The judgement is not left to a machine. All 52 candidates were read and sorted into the same four classes as the previous three censuses. The judgement was made by reading the blocks of the scope notes; the full body of each paper was not read. A block that places itself beside was judged “not a setting-aside statement” only when it cites what was set as known, as in the earlier table, and “did not take the seat” otherwise. The limit of the search for earlier occupants is stated. Earlier occupants were searched in the four judgement tables and in sentences of earlier papers that write the number of the seat-leaving paper after the word for “Paper” and have “scope note” in the same block. An earlier occupant that cites only by a bare number or a title cannot be found. The rewrite is not judged. The double dashes were replaced for readability; this paper does not propose restoring them. Published papers are not revised. No reason is asserted. That seat sentences disappeared from the scope notes from 1083 on was counted, but why was not measured. Listing words is kept apart from naming. When this paper writes “sit”, “place beside”, “seat” or “no earlier occupant”, it lists the words being counted; it does not name the scope note of an earlier paper. There is only one naming, the next. Relation to earlier papers: The scope note of Paper 1000 fixed the time and wrote that the counts move if papers are added or rewritten. This paper takes that seat and counts how the counts moved under a rewrite (no earlier occupant). Paper 900 set a convention limiting the sentences that use naming words, and Paper 800 fixed in one word how to cite the scope note of an earlier paper. Here it is counted whether the two conventions were kept in 1001 to 1099. Paper 600 counted that the meaning of a verdict word thinned, and Paper 700 that one separator in five does not work. Here a type is counted in which not one word changes while only the counting unit shifts. What is added: the same count applied to copies before and after the rewrite and compared, a counting unit that returns the keys of the earlier table unchanged, all 52 candidates read and sorted, naming in the body counted apart from the scope notes, earlier occupants searched both in the four tables and in an index of numbers, with one blind spot shown, and one convention for the future.
1. Notation and question
Setting: The Japanese scope notes of 1001 to 1099 (the part of the body’s quote environment written “scope of this paper”) are copied and read. The scope notes are taken as in the previous three censuses.
Sentences and blocks: A sentence is a piece of a scope note cut at full stops, not cutting at full stops inside round brackets or Japanese quotation brackets. A block starts at a sentence with an earlier paper number and continues with the following three kinds. First, the next sentence without a number. Second, sentences with “earlier occupant” and no number. Third, sentences not starting with the word for “Paper” and a number that contain a number and one of “seat”, “sit”, “earlier occupant” or “place beside” (sentences saying that this paper takes a seat, or that another paper took one). A sentence starting with “Paper” and a number, apart from a lead of up to 24 characters (such as “Relation to earlier papers:”), always starts a new block. In the body, section headings are turned into full stops before cutting. A block citing an earlier paper is a candidate when it has a naming word (“seat”, “sit”, “place beside” and the like) or the word “scope note”.
| naming type | form in the block |
|---|---|
| sit | “sit in that seat”, “also sit in that seat”, “in that seat this paper sits” |
| beside | “place beside it”, “also place beside” |
| none | none of the above |
The judgements are the same four as in the previous three censuses.
| judgement | meaning |
|---|---|
| took the seat | the later paper dealt with what the earlier scope note set aside |
| did not take it | it cited what was set aside but did not deal with it |
| not a setting-aside statement | it cited the scope note, but the content was “set as known”, “standard” and the like |
| not touched | it did not touch the earlier scope note and cites only a result |
Distance, chain and earlier occupant: The difference between the number of a block that took a seat and the number of the paper that left the seat is the distance (with two or more seat-leaving papers, the larger number). When the seat-leaving paper itself took a seat in one of the four judgement tables, the number of steps that the seats can be followed back is the depth of the chain. A paper with a smaller number that took the same content of the same earlier scope note is an earlier occupant.
Question: How did the sentences citing scope notes change in the 99 papers after the previous census? Before that: does the counting method of the previous census still return the same counts on today’s text?
2. The counting method had been broken by a rewrite
Calculation 2.1: On 30 September 2026 the double dashes (two full-width dashes in a row) of the unpublished papers were replaced: by a full stop at the end of a sentence, by a comma before a condition, and by a colon after a heading. They looked unnatural to readers. The check at that time was, paper by paper, that the sequence of numbers, the paper numbers and the counts of naming words did not change. Among 901 to 999, the scope notes of 86 papers changed: 85 (914 and 916 to 999) lost their dashes, and 915 had the earlier occupant 787 added after the previous census. The 13 papers 901 to 913, already published, keep their dashes.
| scope notes of the 85 rewritten papers | 17 September | 30 October |
|---|---|---|
| double dashes | 557 | 0 |
| “sit in the seat”, “also sit in the seat” | 81 | 81 |
| “place beside”, “also place beside” | 0 | 0 |
| “scope note” | 173 | 173 |
| paper numbers | 270 | 270 |
| “earlier occupant” | 70 | 70 |
Observation 2.2 The rewrite did not change a single counted word. The double dashes in all scope notes of 901 to 999 went from 684 to 127.
Calculation 2.3: The counting method of the previous census (sentences cut at full stops) was applied to the copy of 17 September and to that of 30 October.
| 901 to 999 counted by sentences | 17 September | 30 October |
|---|---|---|
| sentences citing an earlier paper | 320 | 331 |
| candidate sentences | 80 | 91 |
| sentences with a naming word | 80 | 13 |
| sentences of the sit type | 79 | 12 |
| sentences with “scope note” and no naming word | 0 | 78 |
Observation 2.4 Seat sentences were cut off from their numbers. Of the 79 sentences of the sit type, 12 kept the number in the same sentence and 67 became sentences without a number (12 and 67 make 79). The dash after “wrote that ...” became a full stop, and “this paper sits in that seat” moved to the next sentence. Applying the same count to today’s text, the sentences with a naming word fall from 80 to 13, and those with “scope note” and no naming word rise to 78. The convention seems to have collapsed and the seat sentences seem to have vanished, but neither happened.
Calculation 2.5: Counting in blocks, the 80 keys of the earlier table (the number of the later paper with the cited numbers) come back exactly from the copy of 17 September. From the copy of 30 October 79 keys come back; the remaining one is the key 915:404 that became 915:404,787. The sit type numbers 79 on today’s text as well (self-check).
Observation 2.6 The same rewrite moved two other counts. The form in which a heading ending in “not” is followed by a double dash went from 290 to 52, and the form in which “showed ...” in a result-citing sentence is followed by a double dash and “here” went from 143 to 32. Counting the latter also with a full stop between, the blocks give 144. The one added is 905: even in the sentence count of 17 September, its “here” sat in the next sentence without a number and was not caught.
Observation 2.7 The past counts did not move; only the next count was about to. At the rewrite, it was noticed that the counts of the checks of Papers 800 and 900 would move, and those two were fixed to read the copy from before the rewrite. The check of Paper 1000 had read the copy of 17 September from the start, so its counts did not move, and the cutting off of the seat sentences in 901 to 999 did not show. The counts of the three censuses are unchanged today; what would have moved is the next census counting today’s text in the same way.
Calculation 2.8: In 1001 to 1099 as well, counting by sentences, 7 blocks that took a seat do not have the seat word and the number of the seat-leaving paper in the same sentence. In 1067 the number is in the previous sentence; 1075, 1077, 1078, 1079 and 1082, written with full stops from the start, have the form “... wrote so. This paper sits in the seat of that scope note.”; and 1072 has the form “in that seat this paper sits”, which the earlier type does not match. Counting by sentences, none of the 6 blocks of 1071 to 1099 that took a seat is caught.
3. Convention and judgement
Calculation 3.1: All 99 papers of 1001 to 1099 have a scope note. The blocks in the scope notes citing an earlier paper number 540, of which 52 are candidates (48 papers).
| 1001 to 1099 | with “scope note” | without “scope note” |
|---|---|---|
| with a naming word | 46 | 0 |
| without a naming word | 6 | 488 |
Observation 3.2 The convention of Paper 900 was kept. Every block with a naming word has “scope note”. The naming types are sit 39, beside 5 and none 8. The 6 with “scope note” and no naming word (1028; 1032; 1055 citing 306; 1061 citing 1050; 1062; 1091) wrote that they stand on the same side, keep the same limit, give no answer there, or count the reverse of what was only named. The last, 1091, could have said that it places itself beside.
Calculation 3.3: All 52 candidates were read and sorted into four. The tables of the previous three censuses were read from the actual checks.
| range | candidates | took | did not take | not setting aside | not touched |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 213 to 799 (Paper 800) | 156 | 82 | 17 | 2 | 55 |
| 801 to 899 (Paper 900) | 114 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 79 |
| 901 to 999 (Paper 1000) | 80 | 79 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1001 to 1099 (this paper) | 52 | 39 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
Observation 3.4 Three candidates in four took a seat. The fraction of candidates that took a seat is 0.525641 in 213 to 799, 0.087719 in 801 to 899, 0.987500 in 901 to 999 and $\mathbf{0.750000}$ in 1001 to 1099. The 13 that did not are the 5 placed beside (1003, 1011, 1012, 1015, 1081), the 6 without a naming word, 1046 writing that 1006 is in the seat of the scope note of 485 and not entering, and 1069 citing the scope note of 1006 and writing that the seat it takes is that of 1046. The 5 placed beside were judged as not taking the seat, as in the earlier table (there, the 17 keys with “place beside” and “scope note” are 13 did not take and 4 not setting aside, and 0 took). All 39 of the sit type took the seat, and every block that took a seat has the sit type.
Calculation 3.5: Papers with a block that took a seat were counted by bands of numbers. The bands break at 1083 and 1096 because the last paper to take a seat in its scope note is 1082 and the scope notes become short from 1096.
| range | papers | papers that took a seat | mean characters of scope note | with “relation to earlier papers” |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1001 to 1070 | 70 | 33 (0.471429) | 975.9 | 70 |
| 1071 to 1082 | 12 | 6 (0.500000) | 1026.1 | 12 |
| 1083 to 1095 | 13 | 0 | 1104.6 | 13 |
| 1096 to 1099 | 4 | 0 | 323.2 | 0 |
Observation 3.6 Seat sentences disappeared from the scope notes. In 944 to 999, 53 of 56 papers (0.946429) had a sentence that took a seat. In 1001 to 1070 it was about half, and after 1082 there is none. 1083 to 1095 kept the length of the scope note (mean 1104.6 characters) and its item “relation to earlier papers”, and stopped citing earlier scope notes except for the one in 1091. The scope notes of 1096 to 1099 average 323.2 characters and have no item “relation to earlier papers”.
Calculation 3.7: In the body after the scope note, the blocks citing an earlier paper number 668, and the candidates 30 (24 papers). Of these, 28 (22 papers) cite the same numbers as the candidates of the scope note and repeat its naming in the closing or in a section “relation to earlier papers”. Only two cite a number absent from the scope note: 1098 placing itself beside 230, and 1099 taking the seat of 1076.
Observation 3.8 Naming came back in two papers that moved it to the body. Of 1083 to 1097, 14 papers have no candidate in either the scope note or the body (only 1091 has one in the scope note). 1098 named in the section “dividing into three” and 1099 in the section “question”.
Observation 3.9 The set phrase for citing results survived the change of punctuation. Among blocks citing an earlier paper without “scope note”, 98 of 346 (0.283237) in 1001 to 1070, which keep the dashes, continue “showed ...” with a double dash and “here”, and 48 of 142 (0.338028) in 1071 to 1099, written with full stops from the start, continue “showed ... . Here”.
4. The seats taken grew distant, and the chain reached 5 steps
Calculation 4.1: The blocks that took a seat were arranged by the distance in paper number to the paper that left the seat. The rows of the previous three tables were recounted from those tables.
| range | took | median distance | min | max | within 100 | seat-leaving paper also took one |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 213 to 799 | 82 | 212.0 | 1 | 566 | 24 (0.292683) | 4 (0.048780) |
| 801 to 899 | 10 | 466.5 | 167 | 527 | 0 (0.000000) | 1 (0.100000) |
| 901 to 943 | 19 | 98.0 | 40 | 597 | 10 (0.526316) | 0 (0.000000) |
| 944 to 999 | 60 | 31.0 | 2 | 591 | 54 (0.900000) | 39 (0.650000) |
| 1001 to 1070 | 33 | 123.0 | 1 | 964 | 15 (0.454545) | 10 (0.303030) |
| 1071 to 1099 | 6 | 739.5 | 70 | 790 | 1 (0.166667) | 2 (0.333333) |
Observation 4.2 The seats taken grew distant again. For the 39 blocks of 1001 to 1099 that took a seat, the median distance is 139.0, 16 ($\mathbf{0.410256}$) lie within 100, and in 12 (0.307692) the seat-leaving paper also took a seat; from the median 31.0 of 944 to 999 it went back. Near seats remain. Ten lie within distance 10, and 4 of them (1004 and 1003, 1056 and 1055, 1057 and 1056, 1067 and 1066) are at distance 1. Twelve exceed 500; the farthest is 964, where 1050 took a seat in the scope note of 86. Five of the 6 in 1071 to 1099 (1075, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1082) took seats in the scope notes of 289 to 663.
Calculation 4.3: The chain depths of the blocks of 1001 to 1099 that took a seat are 1 step 27, 2 steps 8, 3 steps 1, 4 steps 1 and 5 steps 2. The two chains of 5 steps are 1059←1057←1056←1055←915←404 and 1061←1057←1056←1055←915←404; within the range of the previous three tables the deepest chain is 4 steps.
Observation 4.4 The deepest chain went from one scope note to the next at nearly adjacent numbers. 915 took the oblateness seat of 404; 1055 took the seat of the definition of the metre in 915; 1056 the seat of the fine-structure constant in 1055; 1057 the seat of the renormalization group in 1056; and 1059 and 1061 took two separate seats of 1057. The one miss of “no earlier occupant” that the previous census found was this 915.
5. “No earlier occupant” and earlier occupants
Calculation 5.1: In 1001 to 1099, 35 earlier papers had a seat taken, and 6 of them had seats taken twice or more on the four tables; 351 and 505 also had seats taken before 1001. The content of each seat was decided by reading the scope notes of the earlier and the later paper.
| earlier paper | papers that took a seat (content) |
|---|---|
| 351 | 584 (damping), 1077 (theory of the stability regions, the tongues) |
| 505 | 784 (Roche limit), 1010 (radius where the Moon’s path loses convexity) |
| 907 | 1001 (cosmological constant), 1039 (geometry of spatial curvature) |
| 915 | 1038 (gravity), 1055 (definition of the metre) |
| 1002 | 1009 (condition for the equilateral triangle to keep its shape), 1072 (regularizing collisions and motion after them) |
| 1057 | 1059 (hadrons and bound states), 1061 (why 137) |
Observation 5.2 No pair took the same content twice. In all 6, the later paper dealt with a different content of the same scope note.
Calculation 5.3: Of the 39 blocks that took a seat, 33 ($\mathbf{0.846154}$) wrote “no earlier occupant” or its kin (no earlier occupant, there is no earlier occupant, no earlier occupant is seen). Of the 6 that did not, 3 (1010, 1050, 1077) named the paper that took a seat first, and 3 (1049, 1078, 1079) wrote nothing about earlier occupants. On the four tables, the blocks that wrote “no earlier occupant” while a paper had taken the same content first number 0.
Calculation 5.4: Following the convention set by the previous census, earlier occupants were searched by number and the word “scope note”. From the Japanese scope notes and bodies of 1 to 1099, the 432 blocks with an earlier number and “scope note” together were collected; those before the block that took a seat and with the number of the seat-leaving paper are 12, arising for 8 blocks that took a seat. Read, 9 are blocks of papers that took a different content first, 1 is a block of a paper that placed itself beside, and 2 only hit a sentence writing a range of numbers; blocks of papers that took the same content first are 0.
Observation 5.5 “No earlier occupant” did not miss, but only half named the occupant of a different content. Four blocks (1039, 1055, 1061, 1072) wrote “no earlier occupant” while a paper had taken a different content of the same scope note first; 1039 and 1055 named that paper, 1061 and 1072 did not. On the four tables there are 6 pairs with a paper that took a seat first, and 4 of them (0.666667) were named within the block.
Observation 5.6 The search by number has a blind spot. 1050 named 100 as the earlier occupant of the seat of the scope note of 86. 100 cites 86 only by a bare number in a table and does not hold it as a number following the word for “Paper”, so this search cannot find it (self-check). How many other earlier occupants cite only by a bare number or a title was not measured.
Observation 5.7 The seat of this paper has no earlier occupant either. In the scope notes and bodies of 1001 to 1099 only 1035 cites Paper 1000, and that sentence cites the result about the chain of citations and has no “scope note” (self-check).
6. Separator and the convention from now on
Observation 6.1 The separator is whether a rewrite keeps the counts of words or keeps the words in the same sentence. The rewrite of 30 September passed after checking, paper by paper, that the sequence of numbers, the paper numbers and the counts of naming words did not change. What the census counted was that a number and a naming word stand in the same sentence. The former was kept; the latter broke in 67 of the 79.
Observation 6.2 The convention from now on. A census counts in a unit that returns the keys of the earlier table unchanged from the copy of the earlier census, and makes that return a self-check. When text is rewritten in bulk, check, in addition to the word counts, that the keys taken out in the unit of the census do not change. Published papers are not revised. This is a convention for how to count and rewrite from now on.
Observation 6.3 What is not said. The English versions were not counted. The judgement was made by reading the blocks of the scope notes; the full body of each paper was not read. Why seat sentences disappeared from the scope notes from 1083 on was not measured. The definition of a block was checked only by the return of the earlier keys from the copy of 17 September and by reading the candidates of 1001 to 1099; it cannot be said to fit sentences written in other ways. The hole by which sentences in the body joined across a section heading was found in the second run of the check and closed.
7. Roll call and closing
- In the 85 rewritten papers not one counted word changed (Calculation 2.1): naming words 81, “scope note” 173, paper numbers 270, “earlier occupant” 70.
- Of the 79 seat sentences, 12 keep the number in the same sentence (Observation 2.4): the core of this paper.
- In blocks, the 80 keys of the earlier table come back (Calculation 2.5): 79 on today’s text, plus the addition to 915.
- All 46 with a naming word have “scope note” (Observation 3.2): the convention was kept.
- 39 of the 52 candidates took a seat ($\mathbf{0.750000}$) (Calculation 3.3): none of the 5 placed beside did.
- 0 papers took a seat in the scope notes of 1083 to 1099 (Observation 3.6): 1098 and 1099 named in the body.
- Median distance 139.0, 16 within 100 ($\mathbf{0.410256}$) (Observation 4.2): 31.0 in 944 to 999.
- Chain of 5 steps (Calculation 4.3): 4 steps within the previous three tables.
- “No earlier occupant” 33, misses 0 (Calculations 5.3 and 5.4): the blind spot of the search by number is 100.
- The counts of words, or the words in the same sentence (Observation 6.1): separator; Papers 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000.
Closing
Closing: a rewrite that changed no word count moved seat sentences away from their paper numbers. In the 85 papers whose double dashes were replaced on 30 September 2026, the counts of naming words, paper numbers, “scope note” and “earlier occupant” did not change at all, and counting by sentences cut at full stops, only 12 of the 79 seat sentences kept the number in the same sentence. Counted again in blocks, the 80 keys of the earlier table came back exactly from the copy of 17 September. In 1001 to 1099, every block with a naming word had “scope note”, and 39 of the 52 candidates took a seat. The last paper to take a seat in its scope note is 1082, and 1098 and 1099 named in the body. The seats taken grew distant again (median distance 139.0), and the chain reached 5 steps. “No earlier occupant” did not miss, but the search by number does not find an occupant that cites only by a bare number. The separator is whether a rewrite keeps the counts of words or keeps the words in the same sentence. Convention from now on: a census counts in a unit that returns the keys of the earlier table unchanged, and a bulk rewrite also checks that the keys taken out in the unit of the census do not change. Published papers are not revised. Position among earlier papers: Paper 600 counted that the meaning of a verdict word thinned, Paper 700 that a device does not work, Paper 800 that the name of a practice vanished, Paper 900 that a name once set spread beyond its convention, and Paper 1000 the miss after the name settled inside the convention. Here it was counted that, with neither the names nor the conventions changing, only the counting unit shifted. To be honest: the definition of a block was set by this paper and checked against its own tables, so there is no guarantee that the counting of this paper is free of the change in writing measured here.
References
- Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Six Hundredth Census: The Warning of the Three Hundredth Came True, but Not in the Form It Feared [Paper 600]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/600; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22805283
- Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Seven Hundredth Census: The Device Repeated Most Often Fails to Work in One Paper of Five [Paper 700]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/700; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22805350
- Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Eight Hundredth Census: Whether a Seat Citation Took the Seat Is Known Unread Only When It Says So [Paper 800]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/800; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22805383
- Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Nine Hundredth Census: What Told Whether There Was a Seat Was Not “Placed Beside” but the Word “Scope Note” [Paper 900]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/900; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22805412
- Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Thousandth Census: Seats Came Closer, and the One Missed Occupant Had Sat Before Seats Were Named [Paper 1000]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/1000; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22813757
Reference
Yamagishi, Y. (2026). The Eleven Hundredth Census: A Rewrite That Changed No Word Count Moved Seat Sentences Away from Their Paper Numbers [Paper 1100]. YOI: https://www.yamagishiyuuki.com/yoi/1100
ORCID: 0009-0006-8587-3450
PDF (English) · PDF (Japanese) · Date proof of the English PDF (OpenTimestamps .ots) · SHA256SUMS
The record page for this paper (in Japanese, with the PDFs in each language and the date proof): YOI 1100. This paper is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed.