reliability-gap-epistemically-complete-yet-irresolvable

Antecedents (all must be IN):

• IN pragmatism-origin-of-permanent-reliability-gap — The permanent reliability gap originates in ML's irreducible pragmatism paradox — pragmatism enabled the discovery of mathematical necessities that validate capable ML as genuine science while simultaneously creating the crisis conditions that make reliability permanently inaccessible, meaning the very process that proved ML works is the same process that ensured it can never work safely.
• IN reliability-gap-empirically-confirmed-from-two-directions — The permanent reliability gap between achievable and accessible ML is not merely theoretically established but empirically confirmed from two independent observational directions — the persistence of manual feature engineering signals from below that automation is incomplete, while the architecture taxonomy's alignment with manifold theory signals from above that the crisis is structural, jointly confirming the gap as an observable stable feature of the ML landscape rather than a transient condition.
• IN permanent-gap-escalates-with-capability-scaling — The permanent reliability gap has escalating real-world consequences — as ML capabilities scale, both the potential for harm from unreliable systems and the structural impossibility of accountability increase without bound, while the reliability gap itself remains fixed and unbridgeable, creating a widening chasm between the impact of ML systems and any possibility of ensuring their safety.