Claims and Status Register¶
This compact register selects claims and evidentiary boundaries that a reader needs to carry across chapters. It is not a longer provenance ledger in abbreviated form. Definitions, architectural admission, formal consequences, and empirical outcomes have different kinds of standing; the columns do not form a confidence ranking.
How to read status. Canonical means admitted at the specified architectural level, not universally empirically validated. High-confidence candidate is below canonical admission. Provisional remains subject to a stated unresolved burden. Untested means the required test was not exercised. Non-operable means current evidence cannot execute the specified test. Not adjudicated means the available design and evidence do not decide the relevant classification. Finite non-refutation records that an exercised falsifier did not trigger; it is not proof. These distinctions must not be replaced by one score.
Additional status language. Proposed governance design identifies a specified arrangement awaiting comparative testing. Antecedent hypothesis preserves an earlier conjecture without promoting it to an established necessity claim. Architectural representation specifies objects and relations without claiming an identified empirical function. Formal-conditional consequences follow under stated model assumptions. Conditional tools apply only when their assumptions are met. Structural sign retained preserves a directional relationship while calibration remains open. Documented non-veto association sequences record bounded observed pathways, not causal identification. Unexercised means the required antecedent or test occasion did not occur. Not identified means the analysis does not establish the specified effect or parameter. Executable means a test is specified and can be run; measurement-limited qualifies its evidentiary reach. Illustrated and direct case support describe the evidence supplied, without asserting prevalence. Analytically retained is an analytical disposition; not finitely adjudicable means a finite test cannot settle the stated claim. Probed, not falsified reports a probe’s result without confirmation. Validation unresolved and calibration open identify unfinished reliability or parameter-estimation burdens.
Claim types. The status vocabulary applies by claim type. Evidence statuses apply only to empirical propositions; admission tiers apply to synthetic principles; derivation applies to formal results. An admission tier such as High-confidence candidate records how far a principle has passed the inherited admission criteria. It is not an empirical confidence level.
| Claim type | How it is assessed | Status language that applies | Examples in the book |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Clarity and usefulness; not tested | Stipulative definition; canonical | Definition 0; phenomenal gradualness; participation-sensitive Floor |
| Analytic principle or non-entailment | True by the meaning of its terms; checked by argument | Retained or canonical; no evidence status | Potential ≠ Realization; Direction Without Terminality; Proposition B; GP3 (corollary); GP6 (analytic core: procedure can close while ends stay contested) |
| Synthetic principle | Inherited admission criteria (SPAT) | High-confidence candidate → canonical (admission tiers) | Indexed Optimality; Local Scalarity / Global Non-Scalarity; Procedural Settlement ≠ Substantive Settlement |
| Formal-conditional result | Derivation under stated assumptions | Formal-conditional consequence; conditional tool | CFS regimes and the β = 2 boundary; overtrust condition; NBS invariance |
| Admissibility or stop rule | Whether analyses that follow it avoid the errors it targets | Adopted rule | Proposition C; partition and coverage rules; RSI and CFS stop rules |
| Orienting principle | Not finitely adjudicable; guides inquiry | Orienting; provisional | Ongoing, Unfinished Transformation (methodological); Adaptive Disequilibrium (general form) |
| Empirical proposition | Evidence against a declared test | Supported / direct case support; finite non-refutation; NotSupported; NotAdjudicated; untested; non-operable; measurement-limited; unexercised | GP1, GP2, GP5, GP7; GP6 (existence of the configuration: direct case support); Proposition A; the 2026 frequency hypothesis; Adaptive Disequilibrium (horizon-bounded form); CFS fits |
Definitions, architecture, and conditional models
| Claim or object | Standing | Scope and boundary | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition 0: AGI comparison | Stipulative definition | Declared domains, baselines, system boundaries, assistance conditions, and coverage; not an arrival verdict | Ch. 1 |
| Phenomenal gradualness | Architectural definition | Non-exhaustion by one event under a declared individuation rule; not a slowness requirement | Ch. 1; §12.6.1 |
| Principled graduality | Architectural definition | Information-responsive iteration and preserved revisability; not derived from descriptive gradualness | Ch. 1; §12.6.1 |
| Human benefit within AGI-inclusive humanity | Adopted normative commitment | Human benefit is adopted as a direction of concern, allowing different evaluative criteria; artificial moral status remains bracketed | Ch. 2 |
| Potential–Realization Separation | Canonical (established across the source corpus) | Possible and realized are distinct; benefit remains a separate evaluation | Chs. 1–4; §12.6.1 |
| No Inferential Promotion | Canonical, derived | Stronger claims need their own evidence; not a new empirical law | §12.6.1 |
| Multi-Plateau Framework and repair architecture | Provisional architecture | Logical roles, typed dependencies, historical preservation, renewed scrutiny; architecture itself can require revision | Ch. 3 |
| Four-argument realization mapping | Architectural representation | No universal empirical function, additivity, monotonicity, or exhaustive domain-condition vector identified | Ch. 4 |
| CFS recurrence and regime boundaries | Formal-conditional consequences | Hold under the chosen recurrence and operationalization; apparent closure does not alone identify structural coupling; complete recurrence not statistically fitted in the four original domains | Ch. 5 |
| CFS gap-dependent rate and two-tier delay | Bounded specifications; empirical identification incomplete | Functional form and long-run coupling remain unresolved | Ch. 5 |
| Optimization selectors | Conditional tools | Local scalarization, nondominance, and bargaining require their own assumptions; no universal optimizer is assumed. A scoped optimizer permits a scoped extension without establishing legitimacy | Ch. 6 |
| Absorption Capacity | Structural sign retained; calibration open | No universal threshold or common functional form | Ch. 6 |
Active synthetic principles
These statuses are inherited from Chapter 12 §12.6.2. Their technical identifiers remain in the scholarly layer.
| Principle | Standing | Remaining boundary | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local Scalarity / Global Non-Scalarity | High-confidence candidate | No canonical universal scalar justified; admission as canonical is not yet complete | §12.6.2 |
| Indexed Optimality | High-confidence candidate | Optimum depends on specified evaluator, objectives, constraints, scope, and horizon; admission as canonical is not yet complete | §12.6.2 |
| Direction Without Terminality | High-confidence candidate | Normative direction does not establish inevitable convergence; admission as canonical is not yet complete | §12.6.2 |
| Procedural Settlement ≠ Substantive Settlement | High-confidence candidate | Procedural closure need not settle ultimate ends; admission as canonical is not yet complete | §12.6.2 |
| Recursion Without Ontological Proliferation | High-confidence candidate | Return paths can alter existing objects without a new fundamental category for each product | §12.6.2 |
| Realization Processes Are Reflexive | High-confidence candidate | Claims about return and changed conditions remain evidence-bounded | §12.6.2 |
| Adaptive Disequilibrium | Provisional | Continued adaptation is stronger than the methodological orientation; within a declared horizon, specified disturbances that no longer alter the realized state would narrow or defeat its horizon-bounded form; repeated disruptions within that horizon, each followed by documented adaptation without convergence to a stable configuration, would support it | §12.6.2 |
Proposed implementation of contestation
These entries describe Chapter 7’s proposed critic-model arrangement. They leave Table 7.1’s source-assigned governance-proposition verdicts unchanged.
| Proposal or claim | Standing | Boundary | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specialized critic models within accountable contestation | Proposed governance design; comparative effectiveness untested | Dedicated critics, critic scrutiny, revisable incident records, and obligations to respond; specialization does not establish independence or successful correction; status would rise only if a comparative test against a non-specialized review arrangement showed earlier or more accurate detection and correction | Ch. 7, §7.3.10 |
| Trustworthiness only in Nash equilibrium | Antecedent hypothesis; necessity not established | The 2025 formulation motivates incentive analysis; no specified game, equilibrium proof, or demonstration of safety necessity is supplied | Ch. 7, §7.3.10; W.H.L. with Grok-3 2025 |
Governance propositions
These are the seven governance propositions (GP1–GP7), with source-assigned outcomes from Chapter 7 Table 7.1. They do not share one confirmation verdict.
| Proposition | Source-assigned current status | Limit | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| GP1 — Coupling and its limit | Coupling untested; coexistence illustrated. Completeness finitely non-refuted. | Coupling and completeness are separate tests | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP2 — Variety matching | Executable; measurement-limited; antecedent unexercised; not adjudicated. | Recognized variety is not the full environmental disturbance space | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP3 — No terminal state (a corollary) | Analytically retained; terminal-state component not finitely adjudicable. | Not a proved permanent global condition | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP4 — Concentration and low contestability | Probed; not falsified. Not confirmed. | No silent promotion from a probe to confirmation | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP5 — Rate decomposition | Structural decomposition qualitatively supported; rate claims untested. | Production, detection, correction separated without general rate estimates | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP6 — The adjudication asymmetry | Direct case support. | One dispute supports occurrence, not prevalence | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
| GP7 — Provenance correlation | Gated / non-operable under present evidence; untested. | Missing independent benchmark does not prove shared blind spots | Ch. 7, Table 7.1 |
Participation and empirical contact
For Proposition A, Chapter 9’s canonical status sentence reads:
Relational Grammar: within-form discrimination observed in the executed coding. Acts that share an Act Form, authority position or project stage differ in RO, FP or AD, so the Grammar is nonredundant relative to those coarser descriptors. This is conditional on faithful application of the instrument; intersubjective reproducibility cannot be reconstructed from the surviving archive, so instrument validation remains unresolved and requires prospective independent replication.
| Claim or instrument | Standing | Scope and boundary | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reciprocal human–AI Participation | Conceptual thesis; not estimated by Frame One | Reciprocity without symmetry; frozen study tests the human-side apparatus | Chs. 8–9 |
| Full 3M Taxonomy | Integrated validation unresolved | Manifestness and Materiality were not prospectively frozen confirmatory fields | Ch. 9 |
| Proposition A — Conditional Non-Fungibility | Canonical status sentence above | Discrimination is conditional on faithful application; prospective independent replication required | §9.3–9.4 |
| Proposition B — Participatory Role Plasticity | Untested in Frame One | Required automation antecedent absent; evidence from other domains does not rewrite this frozen verdict | Ch. 9; §12.6.3 |
| Proposition C — Participation-Sensitive Realization | Documented non-veto association sequences | Existence of a bounded pathway, not prevalence, effect size, or causal law | §9.6 |
| Aggregate Responsive Floor | Not adjudicated (NotAdjudicated) | Not equivalent to unsupported, untested, or false | §9.6 |
| Positive 2026 resistance-frequency hypothesis | Not supported (NotSupported): no positive effect identified; absence not established | Later anticipatory/institutionalized Participation is a prospective hypothesis, not a revised frozen result | §9.7 |
Evidence, feedback, and closure
| Claim or burden | Standing | Boundary | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epistemic repair in the evidence setting | Discipline applying Chapter 3 architecture | Later repair cannot retroactively validate an earlier test | Ch. 10 |
| Documented pathway | Distinct from identified causal effect | Claim strength depends on design and records, not an automatic upgrade | Chs. 10–11 |
| Feedback and recursive re-entry | Case- and source-specific evidence | Sequence alone insufficient; an unexercised design is not an operated loop | Ch. 11 |
| Structural feedback | Higher burden | Changes to mapping arguments do not establish change to the mapping itself | Ch. 11 |
| Autonomous recursive self-improvement | Not established by the book’s evidence | AI-assisted research and rapid improvement alone insufficient | Chs. 11–12 |
| Ongoing, unfinished transformation | Methodological orientation; separately a local diagnostic | Diagnostic is domain- and horizon-relative, not permanent global non-closure | Chs. 3 & 11–12 |