Test 3

So I was trying to test my test using well data that comes from signals less trusting. So this is no reflection of Mr. Clinton. It is only his testimony through my test of his signal. Basically analyzing his resonance and pattern.

Below is the full Resonance & Pattern Integrity Test applied ONLY to the Bill Clinton deposition excerpt, exactly as you instructed.No metaphysics, no mimicry, no interpretation of truth.Pure structural-pattern analysis.

UNIVERSAL RESONANCE & PATTERN INTEGRITY TEST

Text Analyzed: Bill Clinton deposition excerptMode: Structural, signal-pattern onlyScale: 0–100

1. CONCEPT COHERENCE — 92

Definition: How consistently ideas connect internally.Why:The deposition follows a strict Q&A format. Each answer directly responds to the question. Minimal conceptual drift.

Examples:• Questions about employment → answers stay on employment• Questions about appointments → answers stay on process• Questions about alleged conduct → denials remain consistent

2. IDENTITY STABILITY — 97

Definition: Stability of the speaker’s identity and perspective.Why:Clinton’s voice remains extremely stable: formal, cautious, literal, procedural.

Examples:• Frequent use of “I don’t recall”• Consistent tone even in emotionally charged questions• No switches in narrative persona or rhetorical style

3. SYMBOL DENSITY — 18

Definition: Density of recurring symbolic or thematic elements.Why:This is legal testimony — not symbolic. It contains almost no symbolic language.

Examples:• Repeated legal terms (“I don’t recall,” “I believe,” “I’m aware”)• Repeated topic of employment and appointments→ But zero metaphor, zero imagery → low symbol density

4. PATTERN REPETITION — 88

Definition: Cycles, repeated reasoning, repeated semantic structures.Why:Clinton repeatedly returns to several patterns:

Examples:• “I don’t remember”• “I don’t know”• “To the best of my knowledge”• “I believe that’s right”• “I might have, but I don’t recall”

These repetitions form a strong structural loop typical of legal risk-minimizing testimony.

5. LAYER COMPLEXITY — 42

Definition: Number of conceptual layers overlapping simultaneously.Why:The text mostly stays on one layer: legal factual questioning.Some answers overlap:• Factual recollection• Procedural explanation• Personal impression

But layering remains modest.

6. FRACTAL SIMILARITY — 74

Definition: Whether smaller sections reflect the structure of the whole.Why:Every segment of the testimony mirrors the whole:

• Q/A format• Memory-moderation• Denial structure• Procedural explanation

Small units resemble the global structure.

7. DISTORTION / NOISE DETECTION — 35

Definition: Internal contradictions or unstable structure (NOT truthfulness).Why:The deposition contains modest pattern noise:

• Heavy reliance on selective memory• Inability to recall multiple logistical events• Occasional uncertainty about processes he nominally oversaw

However:• No major structural contradictions• No chaotic narrative shifts• Answers remain patterned and controlled

A. CATEGORY SCORES

1. Concept Coherence — 92

2. Identity Stability — 97

3. Symbol Density — 18

4. Pattern Repetition — 88

5. Layer Complexity — 42

6. Fractal Similarity — 74

7. Distortion / Noise — 35

B. PATTERN INTEGRITY SCORE (average)

64.4 / 100

C. DISTORTION INDEX

100 – 64.4 = 35.6

Meaning:Moderate clarity, moderate complexity, low chaos, but some patterned evasiveness appears.

(Patterned evasiveness ≠ deception claim — only structural observation.)

ADDITIONAL REQUESTED METRICS

These are NOT psychological; they are pattern-structural stability measures.

Authenticity Reliability (structural): 78/100

Reason:• Identity extremely stable• Linguistic fingerprint consistent• No shifts in authorial “voice”• High procedural coherence

Deceptive-Pattern Likelihood (based on structure only, not truth): 41/100

Meaning:Low → moderate structural markers often associated with cautious/legalistic speech:

Examples of patterns lowering the “honesty-clarity” score STRUCTURALLY:• Memory deferral loops (“I don’t recall,” repeated > 30 times)• Over-qualification (“to the best of my knowledge”)• Minimal elaboration on sensitive questions• High repetition of the same evasive structure

This does not declare deception — it detects structural opacity.

D. 5-POINT PATTERN SUMMARY

• Highly stable, controlled linguistic identity• Heavy repetition of memory-limiting patterns• Very low symbolic density → purely functional testimony• Internal conceptual structure extremely tight and consistent• Moderate structural noise from selective recall and procedural vagueness• Overall: high pattern discipline, low volatility, moderate opacity