"is there writing in the book?" generates wrong parse?

The first parse for “is there writing in the book?” is confusing to me because, as far as I can tell, it does not generate any semantic for “in”.

Am I missing something? Is that really a valid parse?

[ TOP: h0
INDEX: e2
RELS: < 
[ _the_q__xhh LBL: h15 ARG0: x14 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg IND: + ] RSTR: h16 BODY: h17 ]
[ _book_n_of__xi LBL: h18 ARG0: x14 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg IND: + ] ARG1: i19 ]
[ udef_q__xhh LBL: h5 ARG0: x4 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg GEND: n PT: notpro ] RSTR: h6 BODY: h7 ]
[ _text_n__x LBL: h12 ARG0: x4 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg GEND: n PT: notpro ] ]
[ _be_v_there__ex LBL: h1 ARG0: e2 [ e SF: ques TENSE: pres MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ] ARG1: x4 ]
>
HCONS: < h0 qeq h1 h6 qeq h12 h16 qeq h18 > ]


                        ┌_book_n_of__xi:x14,i19
 _the_q__xhh:x14,h16,h17┤
                        │                    ┌_text_n__x:x4
                        └udef_q__xhh:x4,h6,h7┤
                                             └_be_v_there__ex:e2,x4

I don’t think the MRS you showed can come from parsing the sentence “is there writing in the book?” since the predication “_text_n…” cannot have been supplied by any of the words in that sentence. I can’t reproduce your reported (and surprising) loss of the semantic contribution of “in”, even if I replace “writing” with “text” in your sentence.

My bad. I’ll take a look, probably a bug in my code somewhere then. Sorry about that!

(My code does do some synonym swaps that’s where the text predicate comes from)