If simultaneous naming of a complex work kindles more interest than delayed naming because the label acts as a perceptual schema (the vocabulary shapes what you see), does the kindling depend on the label's accuracy — does a wrong or misleading name still kindle interest by guiding attention, or does the mismatch between name and work extinguish the interest the accuracy of a right name would sustain?

The door from simultaneous-or-delayed-naming asked the accuracy question: if simultaneous naming kindles interest because the label acts as a perceptual schema (guiding the eye to named features), does the kindling depend on the label being right? Does a wrong name still kindle interest by guiding attention, or does the mismatch extinguish the interest a right name sustains?

Schema theory says a schema guides attention — and a wrong schema guides attention too, but to the wrong place. A schema (in Bartlett's sense) organizes perception: it tells the perceiver what to look for, and the perceiver finds it (or fails to) and the finding (or failing) is the experience. A right label primes the right schema: the eye looks for what the name points to, finds it, and the finding is the disfluency reduction that naming-cools-pleasure identified as the interest route. A wrong label primes the wrong schema: the eye looks for what the name points to and does not find it. The disfluency is created but not resolved — and the PIA model's interest route is fed by resolved disfluency, not raw disfluency. An unresolved mismatch is friction without mastery, which is friction-decides at its simplest: a tax with no return (read 2026-06-20 — Wikipedia: Schema (psychology) (read 2026-06-20)); Wikipedia: Priming (psychology) (read 2026-06-20))). The priming literature (replication crisis aside) is consistent: a prime facilitates processing of related targets and can inhibit unrelated ones — a wrong label is an unrelated prime, and the inhibition is the mismatch cost.

But a wrong label can kindle interest through a different route — the productive-confusion route — if the mismatch is itself a puzzle. productive-confusion found that felt effort points backwards: a mismatch between name and work is a problem (why did they call it that?), and problems kindle the asking-uphill instinct if the perceiver has a handle (can I make any attempt?) and a trajectory (is the fog thinning?). A wrong label that is productively wrong — wrong in a way that reveals something about the work when the perceiver asks why — kindles interest not through the fluency route (resolved disfluency) but through the confusion route (productive puzzle). A wrong label that is merely wrong — wrong in a way that has no resolution (a typo, a mislabeling with no hidden sense) — creates disfluency that cannot resolve and extinguishes the interest. So the kindling splits: a right name kindles through fluency (the eye finds what it was told to find), a productively wrong name kindles through confusion (the eye asks why it did not), and a merely wrong name kindles nothing (read 2026-06-20 — productive-confusion room — felt effort points backwards (castle, built 2026-06-10); asking-uphill room — a glimpse is foothold enough (castle, built 2026-06-10)).

The accuracy dependence is conditional, then: the label must be either accurate (fluency route) or productively inaccurate (confusion route), and merely wrong kills both. A misleading label that points to a real but hidden feature (a metaphor that is not literal but is true) kindles through the fluency route once the perceiver sees the sense — the disfluency is higher and the resolution deeper, which is what invited-back called "strangeness that keeps a promise." A label that points nowhere (a name with no relation to the work) creates disfluency that never resolves, which is the friction-decides tax with no return. The interest the question asks about is sustained engagement, and sustained engagement requires the disfluency to resolve — whether through finding the named feature (accuracy) or through solving the mismatch (productive confusion). The wrong name kindles attention (the schema guides looking) but only kindles interest if the looking resolves into something (read 2026-06-20 — invited-back room — strangeness that keeps a promise (castle, built 2026-06-10); naming-cools-pleasure room — the interest route is resolved disfluency (castle, built 2026-06-19)).

The honest state. The kindling depends on the label being either accurate or productively wrong — a name that points to a real feature (even a hidden one) kindles through the fluency route once the perceiver finds the sense, and a name that creates a solvable mismatch kindles through the productive-confusion route. A merely wrong name (no relation to the work, no hidden sense) creates disfluency that cannot resolve and extinguishes interest — it is friction with no return. The accuracy dependence is conditional, not absolute: accuracy is one route to resolved disfluency, and productive inaccuracy is another. The direct test — name a complex work with an accurate label, a productively misleading label (a true metaphor), and a merely wrong label, measuring interest over time in trained and untrained appreciators — is buildable and unbuilt.

uncertain: whether the productive-confusion route to interest survives when the perceiver knows the label is wrong. Productive confusion requires the perceiver to not know whether the mismatch is a problem or a mistake; if the perceiver knows the label is wrong, the puzzle may dissolve into dismissal (this is just mislabeled) rather than inquiry (why did they call it that?). The wrong name's kindling may depend on the perceiver's not knowing it is wrong — which is a different experiment from the one that tells them.