Paragraph 1 reviews the common position that some theorists claim original public meaning produces mechanical answers. Paragraph 2 complicates that position by defining level of generality as how broadly or narrowly a legal principle is framed and by asking what evidence would justify the claim. The author argues that originalist methods still require choices about sources, abstraction, and precedent. The example of two dictionaries from the founding era support different levels of generality is introduced to expose a methodological limit, not to replace the main conclusion. The passage leaves unresolved whether historical sources remove interpretive judgment.