#anti-overclaim-discipline (1 article)

That Small, Mountainous, Possibly Scarred Homeland: Taiwan as a Democratic-Frontline Stress Test Case for the Public Realm Floor (civic-proof Series, Article 24)

The twenty-fourth article in the civic-proof series. Building on the Public Realm Floor (PRF) normative floor ⟨plurality, validity, contestation, agonism⟩ established in Article 19 (A2), this article takes Taiwan as the principal axis of case-tracing analysis. Working thesis: Taiwan is not a statistically typical case of PRF; rather, it constitutes a 'conditional-typical + existence-pressure case' of PRF under democratic-frontline conditions. The four concurrently present conditions — strong civil society, high-frequency elections, earthquake/submarine-cable physical infrastructure scenarios, and cross-strait cognitive warfare and grey-zone incursion — provide an existence proof for the four PRF components near the boundary of the most demanding conditions, without claiming that the conclusions carry extrapolative force to other individual democratic polities. The article comprises eight chapters: §1–§2 introduction and formal skeleton (re-statement of the PRF conjunctive floor in the Taiwan context, applicable limits of T_PRF1–T_PRF5, analytic threshold identity of LegitimacyDegrade, five limitations of the present article); §3 institutional history (democratic transition 1991–1996 / first party rotation 2000 / eID recall 2018–2021 / establishment of moda 2022 / TW DIW trust list on public blockchain 2024–2026); §4 TW DIW × LLM-agent interface (mapping to EUDI ARF 2025-12 + W3C VCDM v2.0, F1 delegation_chain, F2 fourteen field-groups issuer correspondence, F3 Traditional Chinese selective disclosure UX, likelihood-by-mechanism for five mechanisms); §5 civilian backup vs government single stack (mapping of four design intuitions in the 'Yǒu Bèi Ér Lái' civilian advocacy document to PRF, the principle of separating design intuition from normative claims, honest treatment of the internal contradiction between two-component bearing and A2 §3.2 non-reducibility); §6 three-pressure case-tracing (α cognitive warfare / β submarine cable interruption / γ grey-zone incursion × PRF four-component likelihood assessment table); §7 six counter-argument stress tests (sui generis / component coupling / ordinal overclaim / litepaper citation level / romantic exceptionalism / constitutional status) + anti-mythologization clause; §8 revision directions for nine articles in the series (A1/A2/A14/A15/F1/F2/F3/E1/E3) + universal-conditional distinction of three universal claims; §9 conclusion and three future work items. The present article strictly observes the following discipline: the 'Yǒu Bèi Ér Lái' litepaper is a speculative civilian implementation document (cited as 'civilian advocacy document', not in academic citation format); it is not advanced as a policy recommendation or as grounds for normative claims; LegitimacyDegrade employs directional + likelihood-by-mechanism four-level language (low / medium / medium-high / high), without specific decimal probabilities; jurisdictional scope adopts the functional demos operational definition to avoid questions of sovereign recognition. Honestly noted: the present article is an illustrative anchor, not a universal generalization; it does not replace the PRF normative argument of A2.