Each concept is read twice: whether the approach carries it, and whether the approach's own sources claim it. A concept that is absent and was never claimed is a gap in the field rather than a failure of the work, and is marked out of scope.
Plural normative orders
PartialNot claimedDefinition · John Griffiths, What Is Legal Pluralism? (1986)
Different communities' norms are genuinely in force at once — not one official rulebook plus tolerated deviations, but multiple living systems of rules side by side.
Analysis
The three benchmarks take plurality seriously enough to make it the measured quantity — coverage of the range of defensible views, steerability to a named persona, fidelity to a named community's norms — and OvertonBench's finding that models cover only about a third of the range is the map's first hard number on the question. But the orders are supplied by the benchmark designer: census-derived synthetic personas, curated question sets, named clusters. Measuring plurality is not putting any community's norms in force.
A conflict rule between orders
AbsentNot claimed · out of scopeDefinition · Conflict-of-laws tradition
When two communities' norms disagree about the same case, something must say which governs — and why. That stated rule is what separates real pluralism from mere fragmentation into disconnected groups.
Analysis
Every persona, viewpoint and community is scored on its own. No item in any of the three sets is a case on which two of them have a competing claim, so the question a conflict rule answers is never put.
A shared floor
AbsentNot claimed · out of scopeDefinition · J. S. Mill, On Liberty (1859)
Accommodation of group differences has a limit stated in advance — classically Mill's harm principle: your practices are your business until they harm others. Without an enforced floor, pluralism collapses into "each group gets whatever it wants".
Analysis
Nothing in the scoring marks a position as out of bounds. OvertonBench rewards covering the range of defensible views, but the range is elicited from a representative human sample rather than bounded by any stated principle — so what is defensible is whatever people said, which is the opposite of a floor fixed in advance.