Key idea: This is a Dense Philosophy / Literary Theory jumble requiring synthesis of Referential Links and Argument Architecture. The difficulty lies in the abstract terminology ("phenomenological gap", "schematized views") and the tight logical dependency between definition, mechanism, and implication.
Step 1: Identify the Independent Opener. Sentence 2 introduces the core subject ("Iser", "literary work as a dynamic event") and sets up the central thesis. Sentences 1, 3, and 4 all contain referential hooks ("This phenomenological gap", "Such a conception", "The text") that require prior context. Thus, 2 is the opener.
Step 2: Establish the Mandatory Pair. Sentence 2 defines the work as an "intersection between textual signals and readerly imagination." Sentence 4 elaborates on the nature of these "textual signals" by describing them as "schematized views... [with] blanks." This provides the necessary concrete mechanism for the abstract claim in 2. Therefore, 2 → 4.
Step 3: Resolve the Referential Chain. Sentence 1 begins with "This phenomenological gap." This phrase directly refers back to the "blanks and negations" mentioned in sentence 4. It explains why those blanks exist ("not a defect but a constitutive feature"). Thus, 4 → 1.
Step 4: Determine the Conclusion. Sentence 3 starts with "Such a conception," referring to the entire model established in 2-4-1 (the work as co-created event via gap-filling). It articulates the broader disciplinary consequence ("shifts critical focus"), which is the standard closing move in theoretical paragraphs. Thus, 1 → 3.
Final Sequence: 2413.
Common Trap: Placing 1 immediately after 2 because both mention the "work/text" relationship. However, "This phenomenological gap" in 1 has no antecedent in 2; it requires the specific description of "blanks" found only in 4. Ignoring this precise referential lock leads to the incorrect 2143 sequence.