A network of judgments in question is one of confirmed predicted schematic asymmetries in the terms of Hoji 2015. It thus follows (i) that we should pursue hypotheses (and our choices of SGs and LGs in the terms of Hoji 2015) that lead to the predicted schematic asymmetry that the informant's %(Y) on Schema B is 0 and (ii) that we should aspire to obtain experimental results in line with our predictions about a network of judgments.

Provided below are some explanations for what is meant by some of the notions above, taken from the Glossary of Hoji 2015 Language Faculty Science (Cambridge University Press). I am providing them here in hopes that they might make the content of [44822] a little more understandable than otherwise, although I am aware that more Glossary items need to be provided for a fuller understanding and that, in fact, the Glossary items alone would not be sufficient and the book has to be read...


%(Y)
　　%(Y) on an Example
　　　The percentage of the Yes Answers among all the answers given on the Example in question.
　　%(Y) on an Schema
　　　The percentage of the Yes Answers among all the answers given on the Examples instantiating the Schema in question.
　　　[N.B.] [%(Y) on an Example or the one on a Schema can be about an individual informant or about a group of informants. The %(Y) on Schema B in an Main-Experiment should be 0% for any informant (i) for whom the Sub-Hypotheses in the Main-Experiment are valid and (ii) who clearly understands the instructions, including the intended dependency interpretation.]


Answer
　　No Answer
　　　The reported judgment that the Example in question is completely unacceptable (with the specified dependency interpretation). In the book, "No" is used instead of "No Answer" when the context makes it clear what is intended.
　　Yes Answer
　　　The reported judgment that the Example in question is acceptable at least to some extent (with the specified dependency interpretation). In the book, "Yes" is used instead of "Yes Answer" when the context makes it clear what is intended.


BVA(α, β)
　　　The dependency interpretation detectable by the informant such that the reference invoked by singular-denoting expression β co-varies with what is invoked by non-singular-denoting expression α.
　　　[N.B.] [The bridging hypothesis that makes reference to BVA(α, β), with α and β being specified, states that BVA(α, β) is possible only if there is FD(LF(α), LF()), where "LF(α)" stands for an LF syntactic object corresponding to expression α. In this book, we focus on BVA(α, β), with specific choices of α and β, as a probe into properties of FD and hence of the Computational System. BVA(α, β) seems to be a most effective probe if is singular-denoting and α is not, and that is why we focus on this type of BVA(α, β). Although the term BVA comes from "bound variable anaphora," the former should not be equated with the latter. We do not, for example, consider the anaphoric relation that may hold between some boy and his as an instance of BVA(α, β) but we take the one that may hold between even John and his as an instance of BVA(α, β).]


bridging hypothesis
　　　Bridging hypotheses relate a particular dependency interpretation detectable by the informant to some LF object by stating the latter as a necessary condition for the former.
　　　[N.B.] [They are hypotheses about effective probes for finding out about properties of the CS. We can deduce a categorical prediction about the individual informant's judgment by adopting Chomsky's (1993) model of the CS and Ueyama's (2010) model of judgment-making by the informant, and combining the universal and language-particular hypotheses with a bridging hypothesis. With universal hypotheses and language-particular hypotheses, we deduce a definite consequence, but it is a bridging hypothesis that turns the definite consequence into a testable prediction.]


confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry
　　　The predicted schematic asymmetry that has been supported by Experimental results.
　　　[N.B.] [It is suggested in this book that constituting a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry is a necessary condition for a set of informant intuitions on a set of Examples in an Experiment to be regarded as a reflection of properties of the Computational System. We can address whether we obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry at various levels of experiments. The confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry attained in a single-informant experiment becomes more convincing if it is reproduced in a multiple-informant experiment.]


FD (Formal Dependency)
　　　A hypothesized LF object. The structural condition on FD(a, b) is expressed in terms of the structural relation of c-command, which is directly definable by Merge.
　　　[N.B.] [Language faculty science as addressed and pursued in this book tries to discover properties of FD, hypothesized to be universal, by putting forth structural and lexical hypotheses about it. We deduce definite consequences by combining such universal hypotheses with language-particular structural and lexical hypotheses, and by making those consequences testable by means of bridging hypotheses.]


Lexical group (=LG)
　　　One of the three dimensions by which the Examples of our Experiment are classified. The other two dimensions are Schema type (one of Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) and Schema groups.
　　　[N.B.] [In a Main-Experiment discussed in this book, if its Main-Hypotheses are structural in nature, the choice of a Lexical group is due to the choice of a particular bridging hypothesis.]


Merge
　　　The only structure-building operation in the Computational System according to Chomsky's (1993) model of the Computational System. It combines two syntactic objects and forms one.


Schema
　　　A schematic representation that covers, i.e., can be instantiated by, an infinite number of pf representations.
　　　[N.B.] [An actual sentence used in an Experiment instantiates one of the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C). Schema A and Schema B minimally specify where the two items mentioned in the bridging hypothesis (α and β of BVA(α, β) in the case of BVA) occur in a phonetic sequence. Any pf representation instantiating Schema B is predicted to be completely unacceptable, and some pf representations instantiating Schema A are predicted to be acceptable, at least to some extent, with the dependency interpretation specified by the bridging hypothesis.]
　　*Schema
　　　A Schema such that, according to the hypotheses in question, any Example that instantiates it is completely unacceptable with the specified dependency interpretation, i.e., there is no LF representation corresponding to a pf representation instantiating the *Schema in which the structural and lexical conditions for the LF object/relation in question are all satisfied. It is Schema B among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
　　*Schema-based prediction
　　　The prediction that any Example instantiating a *Schema (i.e., Schema B) is completely unacceptable with the specified dependency interpretation.
　　okSchema
　　　Schema A and Schema C among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
　　okSchema-based prediction
　　　The prediction that some Examples instantiating Schema A are acceptable to some extent, i.e., not completely unacceptable, with the specified dependency interpretation.
　　Schema A
　　　One of the two okSchemata among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C). Schema A is contrasted with the corresponding Schema B (=*Schema), both with a specified dependency interpretation.
　　　[N.B.] [A consequence of our hypotheses is that, corresponding to a pf representation instantiating Schema A, there is an LF representation where the conditions imposed by the Main-Hypothesis/ses and the Sub-Hypotheses are all satisfied.]
　　Schema B
　　　The only *Schema among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
　　　[N.B.] [A consequence of our hypotheses is that, corresponding to a pf representation instantiating Schema B, there is no LF representation where the conditions imposed by the Main-Hypothesis/ses and the Sub-Hypotheses are all satisfied. Our Main-Experiment is designed so that, corresponding to a pf representation instantiating Schema B, there is an LF representation where the condition(s) imposed by the Sub-Hypothesis/ses on the LF object underlying the dependency interpretation in question is/are satisfied but not the one(s) imposed by the Main-Hypothesis/ses.]
　　Schema C
　　　One of the two okSchemata among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) that is (as) identical (as possible) to Schema B, but without the dependency interpretation considered in the case of Schema B.
　　　[N.B.] [The fundamental schematic asymmetry is between Schema A and Schema B. But Schema C has its own function of making the No answer to *Examples instantiating Schema B significant with regard to the validity of the Main-Hypotheses because a Yes answer to okExamples instantiating Schema C makes it unlikely that the No answer to the *Examples instantiating Schema B is due to a parsing problem.]
　　Schema group (=SG)
　　　One of the three dimensions by which the Examples of our Experiment are classified. The other two dimensions are Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) and Lexical groups.
　　　[N.B.] [In a Main-Experiment discussed in this book, if its Main-Hypotheses are structural in nature, its Schema groups are often based on the structural hypotheses being tested therein.]