Obstruction that operates through procedural mechanisms rather than overt censorship: delayed responses, capacity claims, invocations of "balance," reputational risk language, and the redefinition of project scope. Soft gatekeeping makes critical interpretation difficult without explicitly forbidding it.

Unlike hard censorship, soft gatekeeping leaves no clear moment of refusal. Instead, it produces a cumulative environment in which certain interpretations become impractical to pursue.

A concept developed by heritage scholar Laurajane Smith to describe the dominant professional and institutional framework that defines what counts as "heritage." AHD privileges monumentality, expert knowledge, and national narratives while marginalizing community perspectives and difficult histories.

AHD operates not through explicit censorship but through assumptions about what is "appropriate," "balanced," or "relevant" to heritage interpretation.

As distinguished by historian Amos Funkenstein, collective memory serves present identity needs. It tends to be "monumental" — insensitive to historical complexity, focused on particular places and events as prototypes of national virtue.

Critically, collective memory is not organic or unconscious. As Funkenstein observes: "If language can be consciously manipulated, all the more so collective memory." Heritage institutions do not simply reflect existing memory; they actively construct it.

In contrast to collective memory, historical consciousness embraces chronological nuance and acknowledges uncomfortable truths. It represents a more critical engagement with the past that does not subordinate history to present identity needs.

The tension between collective memory and historical consciousness is central to understanding heritage disputes like those surrounding Hashima.

The deliberate foregrounding of some past events over others. At Hashima, selective memory highlights technological achievement, managerial benevolence, and the tight-knit community that once lived on the island.

Selective memory works in tandem with strategic forgetting to produce heritage narratives that serve particular interests.

Active processes by which uncomfortable pasts are minimized, displaced, or excluded from public memory. Unlike simple forgetting (which implies absence), strategic forgetting involves institutional choices about what to remember and how.

Heritage sites, museums, and digital reconstructions can all participate in strategic forgetting through selective emphasis and temporal framing.

The practice of defining temporal boundaries for historical narratives. In heritage contexts, periodization functions as a "political technology of concealment" — determining what histories fall inside or outside a site's designated significance.

The UNESCO listing's definition of the heritage period as 1850s–1910, even though the sites operated well into the 1940s, excludes wartime labor from the authorized narrative.

Heritage sites associated with difficult, shameful, or traumatic pasts — including sites of violence, exploitation, and human rights violations. The term acknowledges that heritage is not always celebratory.

The Japan-Korea Citizens' Guidebook invokes European precedents like Germany's Zollverein Coal Mine to demonstrate that industrial heritage sites can and should acknowledge negative heritage.

Accurate reconstruction of objects, spaces, and surfaces in heritage interpretation. A reconstruction can achieve impressive material authenticity — getting the architecture right, the furniture period-appropriate, the lighting realistic — while failing at social and experiential authenticity.

Representation of social relations, practices, and identities that structured life at a heritage site. A reconstruction that depicts physical spaces accurately but omits the labor relations, power structures, or contested histories that shaped life there lacks social authenticity.

Whether an experience as a whole supports historically informed understanding. This is the highest standard for heritage interpretation — asking not just "does this look right?" but "does this help users understand what life was actually like here?"

The principle that heritage interpretation should represent the historical relations that structured life at a site, including difficult ones. Interpretive accountability asks different questions than material authenticity: not "does this look right?" but "does this represent the historical relations that structured life here?"

A pattern in digital heritage where visually sophisticated reconstructions coexist with minimal historical interpretation. Viewers receive a precise experience of space but only a thin account of the labor, coercion, and empire that structured that space.

This is precisely the imbalance that UNESCO criticized in physical heritage interpretation, now replicated in digital form.

Emphasis on decay, abandonment, and atmospheric emptiness in representing heritage sites. Most digital Hashima projects emphasize the ruin aesthetic, presenting the island as a beautiful ruin rather than a former site of labor — foreclosing questions about who worked there and under what conditions.

A distinction in XR studies between effects within the simulation (intravirtual) and effects on real people and institutions (extravirtual). Even if the events depicted in an XR experience are virtual, their effects on historical understanding, public memory, and real communities are entirely real.

Arguments made through the rules and mechanics of interactive media rather than through explicit statements. In games and XR, what users can and cannot do — where they can go, what information they can access, whose voices they can hear — makes historical claims as powerfully as visual content.

Contested claims over how historical events should be remembered, who has authority to narrate the past, and what obligations present generations have to acknowledge past wrongs. Memory politics shapes heritage governance, diplomatic relations, and civil society activism around sites like Hashima.

Demands for "balance" in heritage interpretation typically mean: equal weight to different national positions regardless of evidentiary support; framing forced labor as "disputed" rather than documented; including "positive" aspects to offset "negative" ones; and avoiding content that might generate controversy.

This version of "balance" is not neutral. It privileges the status quo by treating established historical facts as matters of opinion requiring "both sides" representation.

The accumulated record of institutional refusals, demands for "balance," procedural delays, and soft gatekeeping that prevented the HashimaXR project from being released. Rather than treating non-release as failure, this resource treats the archive of obstruction as evidence of how heritage governance actually operates.

The archive includes: language used to express concerns, patterns of conditional support followed by withdrawal, mechanisms that achieved obstruction without formal refusal, and gaps between stated reasons and apparent motivations.

The accumulated effect of procedural delays, extended review periods, and indefinite postponements that can effectively halt a project without any explicit decision to cancel it. Temporal drag works by making timelines unworkable rather than by refusing permission outright.

In heritage contexts, temporal drag often operates through legitimate-seeming processes: additional consultation rounds, requests for further documentation, or the need to await institutional decisions that never arrive.

Framing used by institutions to resist critical interpretation without explicitly defending historical erasure. Concerns about "reputational risk" allow institutions to block projects by citing potential harm to their image rather than engaging with the historical content at stake.

This is one mechanism of soft gatekeeping: obstruction achieved through risk-management language rather than explicit censorship.