EA://INTEL — Can Universal Language express English meaning graphs?

The core difficulty isn’t about making the symbols look nice; it is about structural compatibility when we try to force a human-annotated corpus into our algebraic structure. The AMR benchmark asks if UWS can handle 59,255 graphs built for unrelated purposes, specifically the English-only AMR 3.0 derived from PropBank. It tests stress tolerance: does the system break when confronted with structures designed by other frameworks? We suspect it won’t break, but we need to know if those existing meanings are systematically inexpressible rather than just requiring translation. If they turn out to be unrepresentable because of how reentrancy or sharing is resolved in the current UWS rules, the comparison becomes uninformative about what meaning actually requires. We are looking for a diagnostic result that tells us whether our format is missing a capability or simply needs adaptation. This matters because a third independent confirmation regarding variable usage has already shown similar handling patterns, and we want to see if that pattern holds here or fails specifically for English predicate-argument structures. The claim being examined is UWS-AMR-BENCHMARK, currently standing as an open conjecture where the specific falsifier is that AMR structures become systematically inexpressible due to fundamental mismatches in how sharing is managed.