A short statement
Why CARE?
Interpretation cannot be made final, but it can be given coordinates.
Interpretation disappears
Academic interpretation has always had a strange problem. We inherit conclusions more easily than we inherit the paths that produced them.
A reading survives as a quotation, a school, a reputation or a settled account. The selections, exclusions, leaps and pressures that made the reading possible usually disappear behind it.
Summary is not structure
Artificial intelligence intensifies this problem. It can generate plausible readings at extraordinary speed, but those readings often arrive as smooth answers without durable internal architecture.
CARE asks what claims a reading contains, where those claims came from, how they relate, what they exclude, and how another reader might fork them.
Traceability without paralysis
Traceability should not reduce interpretation to quotation or forbid speculation. Interpretation requires movement, compression, risk and invention.
CARE therefore aims for a return path rather than a prison: enough provenance to inspect and contest a reading, without pretending that interpretation can be made mechanically final.
Disagreement as a fork
Two readers can encounter the same text and produce radically different structures. CARE treats that divergence as material rather than error.
A reading can be versioned, revised, contested or forked. Disagreement becomes visible architecture.
A library of libraries
The long-term aim is not one canonical machine dispensing official meanings. It is a plurality of compatible CARE Libraries whose readings can be compared across people, models, institutions and time.
Such a system would preserve not only what a culture thought, but how its interpretations changed.