Arguments without different anticipations are disputes about labels
The tree-in-the-forest puzzle: one person says a falling tree makes a sound (it creates vibrations in air), another says no (no auditory processing). They argue. But walk into the forest afterward and both expect to see the same fallen tree. Play back a recorder left at the scene: both expect to hear the same thing. Hook an EEG to any brain: same expected trace.
They think they hold different models. They don't. Their models agree on every observable prediction. The disagreement is about which label to use for a shared concept, not about anything that happens.
The diagnostic test: find the anticipated experience that differs between the two positions. If you can't find one, you're watching a dispute about word usage — not a factual disagreement.
Test: after every possible observation, would person A and person B have seen or expected different things? If not, they don't actually disagree about the world.
Source claim: When two positions lead to identical expectations about every observable event, the dispute is about labels, not about the world.