Articulating tacit rules

Attributing conformity with a tacit rule to a non-interlocutor is always corrigible (Kripke).  Articulating a tacit rule we 'discover' we have been following changes if from being tacit - and also changes the way we talk.

Imagining that before we articulated the rule we must, indeed, have been following it is to make exactly the corrigible attribution we might make to a non-interlocutor.  When we move from tacit to articulated, we also move from corrigible to incorrigible.

Can we say that we moved from less clear to more clear meanings?

Evolution

Nature is indifferent between a successful heuristic and a true theory; but we cannot be, or our justification for saying so could be that this comprised part of a successful heuristic.

It is incoherent - for instance - to try to support our belief that the future will, in some way, be like the past by saying that it is a component of a successful heuristic.  "It's been OK so far" isn't a ground for complacency just because we've got away with it up until now ...