Corpus boundary — Pascal v1

Proof work

Pensées — the fragments Pascal left at his death (1662), the notes for an
unfinished Apologie de la religion chrétienne. The text is large (~900+
fragments) and fragmentary, so v1 does not ingest all of it. We bound the
corpus to the major thematic groups that form the anthropological core of the
Apologie and stop before the exegetical apparatus (typology, prophecies,
miracles), which serves a different, scripture-internal argument.

Numbering

Brunschvicg numbering (the classical arrangement used by the Trotter
translation). Every unit id is pensees.<N> where <N> is the Brunschvicg
fragment number. Sections cited by Roman numeral follow Trotter/Brunschvicg.

Included thematic groups (ingested)

• Section I — Mind and Style (frr. 1–59): only fragments touching the
  esprit de finesse / method that recur in the anthropology (82, 83).
• Section II — The Misery of Man Without God (frr. 60–183): the core.
  Wretchedness and greatness, the two infinities and disproportion (72),
  the thinking reed (347, 348), diversion/divertissement (131, 139, 142,
  143, 164, 168, 171), self-love and the hatred of truth (100), custom as
  nature (89), man neither angel nor beast (358), the eternal silence (205,
  206).
• Section III — Of the Necessity of the Wager (frr. 184–241): the Wager
  (233), the hidden God (242), man capable of / unworthy of God (438, 556),
  order of the discourse (246).
• Section IV — Of the Means of Belief (frr. 242–290): the heart's reasons
  (277, 278, 282), custom bends the automaton (252).
• Section V — Justice and the Reason of Effects (frr. 291–338): custom and
  authority (325), the Ego / what we love (323).
• Section VI — The Philosophers (frr. 339–424): the three orders (792),
  dignity of thought (347–348), the sceptics vs dogmatists knot (434).
• Section VII — Morality and Doctrine (frr. 425–555): God felt by the
  heart within faith (434 continued), the two truths — God and wretchedness —
  and the God of Abraham vs the philosophers' God (555).

Included separately, marked

• Trotter's Introduction by T. S. Eliot and the section titles: navigation
  only, never evidence. Not quoted as Pascal.
• Latin tags inside fragments (Vere tu es Deus absconditus, Noli me tangere) are Pascal's own citations of Scripture — quotable as part of the
  fragment, attributed to the fragment, not to Pascal as original.

Excluded from v1

• Sections VIII–XIV (Perpetuity, Typology, Prophecies, Proofs of Jesus
  Christ, Miracles, Polemical Fragments): the scriptural-proof machinery of the
  Apologie. Coherent but a separate argument; out of the anthropology/faith
  core that this KB stages for debate. Reachable in a later pass.
• The Provincial Letters (a different genre — polemic against the Jesuits).
• De l'esprit géométrique, the scientific works, the correspondence.
• Modern critical translations (Krailsheimer, Ariew) — not PD; not used.
• Lafuma-only fragments with no Brunschvicg equivalent (the Wager and the core
  anthropology are all in Brunschvicg, so this does not bite v1).

Language layers

• EN — evidence layer. W. F. Trotter translation (Project Gutenberg
  #18269, PD). Used 1:1 as the verbatim evidence substrate: every blockquote in
  concepts/, principles/, chains/ is a literal substring of its cited
  pensees.<N> unit in Trotter.
• FR — arbiter layer. The French original (Brunschvicg) is the authority
  for the famous formulas («Le cœur a ses raisons…», «Le silence éternel de ces
  espaces infinis m'effraie», «L'homme n'est qu'un roseau… pensant», the pari).
  French is quoted only for those lines, verbatim, alongside the English.
• RU — translation layer. No single clean PD Russian Pensées is used as a
  source; where a Russian rendering is given it is «перевод наш» — a careful
  academic translation from the French, cross-checked against Trotter, marked at
  every use site. See QUOTE_AUTHENTICITY.md.

Reason

The Pensées are notes, not a finished book; their order is editorial. Bounding
to the anthropological/apologetic core (misery-greatness → hidden God → Wager →
heart) gives a self-contained argument to stage against Ignatius (submission of
the will) and Tolstoy (reason against dogma), without importing the
scripture-internal proof sections that presuppose the reader already inside.