Thesis Readiness Report — generated by ASN-621 density meter

Generated: 2026-04-26T02:02:12.386Z

Scoring (0–10):

• L1 = embedding density (passages above similarity threshold × source diversity × mean similarity)
• L2 = L1 × (1 + 0.5 × anchor coverage). Higher = corpus has more canonical works on this topic.
• L3 = L2 × (0.5 + 0.5 × balance entropy). Lower than L2 means perspectives are lopsided.

Thesis	L1	L2	L3	Bar	Anchors	Perspectives
CK.3 East/West historical divergence in shame	3.09	3.95	3.48	███·······	56% (-18 missing)	5/6 bal 0.76 · polemic-risk
CK.4 Purity-style formation → sexual inhibition	2.11	2.70	2.37	██········	56% (-18 missing)	5/6 bal 0.76 · polemic-risk
TG.5 Category-specificity of arousal in text	2.85	3.29	2.06	██········	31% (-21 missing)	1/5 bal 0.25 · gap
CK.2 Doctrine vs institution vs pedagogy	0.87	1.11	0.98	█·········	56% (-18 missing)	5/6 bal 0.76 · polemic-risk
RQ1 Distinguish desire from preference	1.00	1.06	0.81	█·········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
CK.5 Affirming theology reduces shame longitudinally	0.61	0.78	0.69	█·········	56% (-18 missing)	5/6 bal 0.76 · polemic-risk
RQ2 Compositional features predict desire	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ3 Within- and across-session desire dynamics	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ4 Individual differences in desire profile	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ5 Adaptive sequences vs editorial	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ6 Exploration–exploitation balance	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ7 Cross-domain compositional transfer	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ8 Desire patterns track art history	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ9 Aperture reveal vs sequential presentation	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ10 Boundary flagging structure of discomfort	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ11 Decomposition metadata changes seeing	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
RQ12 AI annotation reliability vs experts	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
VK.5 Reincarnation comparison falsifiable claims	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	12% (-35 missing)	2/5 bal 0.54 · gap
CK.1 Operationalize historical theologies as schemas	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	56% (-18 missing)	5/6 bal 0.76 · polemic-risk
TG.1 Curvature preference text analogue	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	31% (-21 missing)	1/5 bal 0.25 · gap
TG.2 DMN activation during moving reading	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	31% (-21 missing)	1/5 bal 0.25 · gap
TG.3 Aesthetic aha in metaphor resolution	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	31% (-21 missing)	1/5 bal 0.25 · gap
TG.4 Fluency vs foregrounding cross-modal test	0.00	0.00	0.00	··········	31% (-21 missing)	1/5 bal 0.25 · gap

Worst-prepared theses (lowest L3)

• TG.4 Fluency vs foregrounding cross-modal test → L3=0.00 · 0 passages, 0 sources · gap
• TG.3 Aesthetic aha in metaphor resolution → L3=0.00 · 0 passages, 0 sources · gap
• TG.2 DMN activation during moving reading → L3=0.00 · 0 passages, 0 sources · gap
• TG.1 Curvature preference text analogue → L3=0.00 · 0 passages, 0 sources · gap
• CK.1 Operationalize historical theologies as schemas → L3=0.00 · 0 passages, 0 sources · polemic-risk

Best-prepared theses (highest L3)

• CK.3 East/West historical divergence in shame → L3=3.48 · 36 passages, 5 sources
• CK.4 Purity-style formation → sexual inhibition → L3=2.37 · 11 passages, 6 sources
• TG.5 Category-specificity of arousal in text → L3=2.06 · 27 passages, 12 sources
• CK.2 Doctrine vs institution vs pedagogy → L3=0.98 · 3 passages, 3 sources
• RQ1 Distinguish desire from preference → L3=0.81 · 12 passages, 1 sources