Whether prior method-specific training produces directional residue that persists...

The Grain of Capacity was substantially revised under pressure from Translation Strain. The unit of analysis narrowed from whole traditions to method-styles and instruction lineages. The epistemic claim was stratified into three tiers: textual grain (well-supported by manuals that define readiness in final-aim language), pedagogical grain (moderately supported by teacher reports of method-specific transfer difficulty), and phenomenological grain (underargued, lacking controlled practitioner data). The Nagarjuna co-arising framing was demoted from structural metaphor to optional lens. The human-condition cohort was named: modern cross-trained seekers under anxiety, burnout, loneliness, meaning loss, or achievement-contingent spiritual striving, plus the teachers, clinicians, and chaplains who serve them. Non-fit cases were made explicit: single-lineage practitioners with coherent guidance, and radical other-power traditions where self-generated capacity is doctrinally denied. Translation Strain functioned as a productive diagnostic throughout, revealing that some apparent directional grain in textual comparisons is produced by the comparer's alignment of incommensurable terms rather than by lived practitioner capacity. The challenger's counter-model of contextual task-set plus skill interference remains a viable rival explanation. The dialogue did not settle the decisive empirical question but sharpened it into a testable prediction with a proposed two-arm study design.