# Saturation Typology -- Conceptual Framing for the Yield Gate

**Scope:** Framing of WHICH saturation model the Governor instantiates and WHY. Yield math lives in `probabilistic_recall_miss.md`; scope in `charter_lock_protocol.md`; contradictions in `contradiction_partial_reset.md`; anti-patterns in `anti_patterns_volume_floor.md`.

## 1. Load-bearing citation

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H. & Jinks, C. (2018). "Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization." *Quality & Quantity* 52:1893-1907.

Saunders et al. identify four distinct saturation models in the literature. The Governor adopts ONE and rejects the other three for architectural reasons.

## 2. The four models

1. **Theoretical saturation** (grounded theory) -- no new theoretical properties emerge in constant comparison against a core category. Requires theory-building from primary fieldwork.
2. **Inductive thematic saturation** -- no new codes or themes emerge from successive data units. Operates on emergence of analytic categories, not theory-building.
3. **A priori thematic saturation** -- all categories in a pre-existing coding frame are instantiated. Requires fixed coding scheme declared in advance.
4. **Data saturation** -- additional data units redundantly restate existing data content. Operates on data-level redundancy.

## 3. Why inductive thematic saturation is operative

The Governor operates on CLAIMS -- not sources, not theoretical categories. A novel claim is the emergence of a new analytic proposition in the inquiry's claim-space, analogous to a new code in qualitative coding. This maps cleanly:

- **Primitive unit:** CLAIM (not source, not search, not theoretical category).
- **Saturation signal:** no new CLAIMS emerge over successive search batches.
- **Measurement:** per-claim yield curve, formalized statistically via Callaghan-Muller-Hansen.

The others do not fit:

- **Theoretical** requires theory-building from fieldwork; RAM synthesizes existing evidence.
- **A priori** requires a fixed coding scheme; RAM's claim-set evolves as Claim-Typing decomposes stacked intent.
- **Data** operates on content redundancy; RAM operates one analytic level above.

## 4. Why Saunders is absorbed, not uncritically adopted

Saunders et al. explicitly warn that saturation is "essentially a statement about the unobserved based on the observed" -- an uncertain predictive claim. This is why the Governor never emits STOP on a deterministic "no new claims for K batches" rule as primary. The deterministic form is gameable; the probabilistic recall-miss bound at declared alpha is the defensible version.

## 5. Relation to the contradiction source

O'Reilly & Parker 2013 extend Saunders by arguing saturation as generically applied is methodologically dubious. The Governor absorbs this by: framing its yield gate as a probabilistic bound at declared alpha (weaker than a binary "saturation reached" claim); running scope-drift in parallel (preventing creep-as-saturation); partial-resetting on contradiction.

## 6. What this reference is NOT

- NOT the math (see `probabilistic_recall_miss.md`).
- NOT the envelope definition (see `charter_lock_protocol.md`).
- NOT contradiction handling (see `contradiction_partial_reset.md`).
- The conceptual frame only: WHY the Governor's yield object is CLAIM-emergence.
