Clausal complements and information structure

Now that I fixed a few broken ICON appends, I have the following regression for clausal complements (open in new tab to make it bigger):

(1) Do I think that the cats chase the dogs?

Look at the very last line, there is new ICONS on the current result.

Does it make any sense? I don’t think so, seeing as it is an underspecified information structure relation? So, probably need to get rid of it? (Not sure how yet.)

(Edited the original post a bit to not have unnecessary information.)

This happens because of the following in matrix.tdl:

; Sandy believes that Kim sleeps.
; Sandy ga Kim ga neru to shinjita.
; Sandy croit que Kim dors.

; ERB 2007-01-22 Inserting qeqs now that we no longer have messages
; intervening.

; changing: added cat-sat (PASSES all reg tests)

clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item := basic-two-arg & one-icons-lex-item &
   [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL [ CAT cat-sat,
                        CONT.HOOK [ INDEX ref-ind & #ind,
                                    ICONS-KEY.IARG1 #clause ] ] ],
              [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ LTOP #larg,
                                  INDEX #target ] ] >,
     SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT [ HOOK.CLAUSE-KEY #clause,
                           HCONS.LIST < qeq & [ HARG #harg,
                                            LARG #larg ] >,
                           ICONS.LIST < [ IARG1 #clause, IARG2 #target ] > ],
              LKEYS.KEYREL [ ARG1 #ind,
                             ARG2 #harg ] ] ].

See particularly the ICONS.LIST.

Does that seem wrong, then? I didn’t put it there so I am not sure…

…Furthermore, the gold MRS used to have such ICONS for sentences without auxiliaries (where append was not broken). So, should normalize to either one or the other. I think by default, I will normalize to what it was before ( < e2 info-str e25 > ), for all sentences. Unless I hear that it should in fact be the opposite.