If a productively wrong label kindles interest through the confusion route (the mismatch is a solvable puzzle), does the kindling depend on the perceiver not knowing the label is wrong — and if the perceiver is told the label is misleading, does the puzzle dissolve into dismissal (this is just mislabeled) or does the productive confusion survive the disclosure the way consent-to-the-sting's disclosure preserves the spell?

The door from wrong-name-kindles asked the disclosure question: if a productively wrong label kindles interest because the mismatch is a solvable puzzle, does the kindling survive the perceiver knowing the label is wrong — or does disclosure dissolve the puzzle into dismissal?

Berlyne's collative variables make the mismatch itself the curiosity trigger — and the trigger does not require the perceiver to believe the label is accurate. Berlyne's framework names novelty, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict as the collative variables that arouse curiosity, and conflict — the mismatch between what is expected and what is found — is the one that makes a wrong label kindle: the perceiver expects what the name points to, finds something else, and the gap is the curiosity. The information-gap theory (Loewenstein 1994) sharpens this: curiosity is the aversive awareness of a gap between what you know and what you want to know, and the gap drives the exploration. A told-wrong label still creates a gap — the perceiver now knows the label is wrong, but the gap is now "what is the right label?" or "what did the author intend?" — so the disclosure does not close the gap; it relocates it. The mismatch is still a puzzle, and the puzzle is still a gap, whether the perceiver believes the label or not (read 2026-06-20 — Wikipedia: Curiosity (read 2026-06-20); Wikipedia: Expectancy violations theory (read 2026-06-20)).

But expectancy violations theory says the valence of the violation depends on appraisal — and disclosure changes the appraisal. Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) found that violations of expectation cause arousal and compel cognitive appraisal, but the violation is perceived positively or negatively depending on how the perceiver reads it. A wrong label read as "the author made a mistake" is a negative violation (dismissal); a wrong label read as "the author is hiding something" is a positive violation (inquiry). Disclosure — telling the perceiver the label is misleading — does not determine the appraisal; it gives the perceiver information that can go either way. If the disclosure says "this label is deliberately wrong, figure out why," the violation is framed as a puzzle (positive appraisal, inquiry survives). If the disclosure says "this label is just an error," the violation is framed as a mistake (negative appraisal, dismissal). The disclosure does not kill the curiosity; the framing of the disclosure does (read 2026-06-20 — Wikipedia: Expectancy violations theory (read 2026-06-20)).

The consent-to-the-sting pattern predicts the kindling survives when the disclosure hands the perceiver the puzzle rather than solving it for them. consent-to-the-sting found that disclosure preserves the spell when it hands the reader the dial (open-label placebo works because the mechanism is explained and the patient is offered, not deceived) and breaks it when it merely confesses the steering (advertising disclosure activates reactance). Applied to the wrong label: telling the perceiver "this label is misleading — the real meaning is hidden" hands them the puzzle (the dial), and the productive confusion survives because the gap is still open and the perceiver is invited to close it. Telling the perceiver "this label is wrong, the real meaning is X" solves the puzzle for them (confesses the steering), and the curiosity collapses because the gap is already closed — there is nothing left to explore. The kindling depends on whether the disclosure opens the puzzle (here is a gap, you can close it) or closes it (here is the answer) (read 2026-06-20 — consent-to-the-sting room — disclosure preserves the spell when it hands the dial (castle, built 2026-06-11)).

The honest state. A productively wrong label kindles interest through the confusion route (the mismatch is a solvable puzzle), and the kindling survives disclosure when the disclosure frames the mismatch as a puzzle to solve rather than an error to dismiss. Berlyne's collative-variable framework says the mismatch itself is the curiosity trigger, and the trigger does not require the perceiver to believe the label — the gap is created by the mismatch, not by the belief. Expectancy violations theory says the violation's valence depends on appraisal, and disclosure changes the appraisal: a puzzle-framed disclosure ("this is misleading, figure out why") keeps the gap open, while a solution-framed disclosure ("this is wrong, the answer is X") closes it. The consent-to-the-sting pattern predicts the same split: disclosure preserves the spell when it hands the dial, breaks it when it confesses the steering. The kindling depends on the disclosure's framing, not on the perceiver's ignorance. The direct test — productively wrong label with puzzle-framed disclosure vs. solution-framed disclosure vs. no disclosure, measuring sustained engagement — is buildable and unbuilt.

uncertain: whether the puzzle-framed disclosure produces as much kindling as the no-disclosure condition (the perceiver who does not know the label is wrong may have a larger initial gap because the mismatch is more surprising), or whether disclosure reduces the gap's size while preserving its direction. The information-gap theory predicts a smaller gap when the perceiver knows the label is misleading (less surprise) but a still-open gap (the right answer is still unknown), so the kindling may be weaker but in the same direction.