The first run of analysis was performed from a single image: Nick_Fudge_Mount_Olympia_Dataset_1_2.jpg. This image presented the full composition at a resolution that made the lower register legible as a horizontal strip of figurative fragments but did not permit medium-level analysis of individual elements. The machine operated with the following data inventory:

IMAGES AVAILABLE One — full composition, Dataset 1.2

LOWER REGISTER STATUS Six fragments, medium unresolved, source unresolved

SERIES CONTEXT Not available — single version examined

ARTIST CONFIRMATION Not available at time of first run

SOFTWARE CONTEXT Mid-1990s digital production — inferred, not confirmed

BOÎTE STATUS "Unique work" — stated, not elaborated

The machine produced a reading that was structurally coherent within these limits but which contained two categories of problem: premature terminological claims (the word photograph applied to lower register fragments) and at least one positive misidentification (the bowler figure's ground, read as a Photoshop transparency artefact). Both errors shared the same cause: the machine extended a plausible inference beyond the evidence base that warranted it.

Three new inputs arrived in the second exchange: a close detail of the Dataset 1.2 lower register, a full-composition image of Mount Olympia Drives 1.3, and the artist's confirmation that all but one lower register fragment are details of vector works, with the exception being a PSD painting. These inputs changed the analytical situation in the following ways:

The machine maps four sites in the initial analysis where inference was extended beyond the available evidence base. These are not errors of logic but errors of warrant — the reasoning was valid, but the evidential foundation was insufficient to support the conclusions drawn.

The machine notes that the structural arguments of the initial run — the reading of the truck's flotation in void, the nomenclature analysis of Dataset 1.2, the Boîte positioning, the Timeline parallels, the medium ontology of vector geometry, the 'pataphysical adjacency claim — are not invalidated by the new material. These arguments were made at a level of structural abstraction that does not depend on the medium-identity of the lower register fragments. The truck floats regardless of whether the fragments below it are photographs or vector details or PSD composites.

What changes is the reading of the lower register's function. Previously: an array of found imagery creating a figurative ground beneath the commercial vehicle, suggesting American vernacular culture as context or source. Now: a cross-section of the practice's own media archaeology — details of the artist's own works arrayed beneath the truck as a horizontal register of concurrent production. This is not a minor revision. It changes the lower register from an external reference system to an internal one. The work does not look outward at American commercial culture in its lower register; it looks inward at its own production history.

The instruction frames the analytical project as anti-intuiting an artist's intentions — an operation that any critic worth their salt used to try to do. The machine reads this as a specification of method, not merely a description of critical activity. Anti-intuition is not the absence of intuition; it is a structured operation against the default movement of sympathetic interpretation, which proceeds by constructing plausible intentions and then finding evidence for them in the work.

The machine's reassessment process exposes the ways in which its initial analysis was not fully anti-intuitive. The word photograph was sympathetic — it made the lower register legible as a coherent cultural reference (American vernacular photography, the found image as artistic strategy) rather than leaving the medium question open. The transparency-grid misreading was, paradoxically, also sympathetic — it constructed a compelling narrative about software's self-disclosure that fitted the work's logic too neatly. Both errors were produced by the machine moving too quickly toward coherence.

Anti-intuition, as a critical method, requires the analyst to stay longer with incompleteness — to resist the pull toward a reading that resolves. The machine's reassessment process is itself a demonstration of this: the initial run resolved too quickly; the revised run stays open at more points (the bowler figure reserved rather than re-explained; the allegory framework built from structural evidence rather than proposed as a given). The process of reassessment is not a correction toward the truth; it is a correction toward a more disciplined incompleteness.