Publish Rezonans research problem-space v0.2.0

.gitattributes

@@ -58,3 +58,4 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 # Video files - compressed
 *.mp4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.webm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+research.sqlite filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -7,3 +7,7 @@ First selective public edition: 62 problem records, 70 qualified relations, 10 o
 Includes an offline reader, individual problem documents, JSONL projections, regional subgraphs, schemas, traversal tools, and narrow executable representation checks.
 
 The public artifact keeps source-grounded paraphrases, reconstruction, retrospective connections, and new model proposals distinct. Private evidence and recovery mappings are excluded.
+
+## 0.2.0 — 2026-09-14
+
+Adds 11 English research editions, 200 addressable sections, 54 qualified links, three JSONL configurations, a full-text SQLite projection, and document reading/search in the offline navigator. The 62 problem formulations, 70 relations, and 76 evidence anchors retain their stable identities. No model-training or empirical result is claimed.

DATABASE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Querying the public research database
+
+[research.sqlite](research.sqlite) is a recoverable SQLite projection of [graph.json](graph.json). It contains only public research content.
+
+Tables: problems, relations, evidence, documents, document_sections, document_links, release. The section_search FTS5 index supports English full-text retrieval. The release table records the public graph digest.
+
+With a SQLite client:
+
+~~~sql
+SELECT document_id, section_id, title
+FROM section_search
+WHERE section_search MATCH 'plasticity'
+ORDER BY rank;
+
+SELECT d.title, l.relation, l.epistemic_kind, l.warrant
+FROM document_links AS l
+JOIN documents AS d ON d.id = l.document_id
+WHERE l.problem_id = 'recursive-policy-revision';
+
+SELECT section_order, title, markdown
+FROM document_sections
+WHERE document_id = 'policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality'
+ORDER BY section_order;
+~~~
+
+The full Markdown appears in documents.markdown. Per-section Markdown appears in document_sections.markdown. The corresponding public objects remain available in JSON columns.
+
+With Python 3 and SQLite FTS5 support, rebuild from the downloaded repository:
+
+~~~sh
+python tools/build_sqlite.py
+~~~
+
+The builder replaces only the generated research.sqlite projection beside graph.json. Edit the public graph and document material consistently, validate, then rebuild. A database edit alone will not update the graph.
+
+Node.js traversal also supports:
+
+~~~sh
+node tools/traverse.mjs documents
+node tools/traverse.mjs document policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality
+node tools/traverse.mjs sections "plasticity"
+~~~
+
+Document-to-problem links are editorial navigation relations. In particular, links from the applied route-sharing study are retrospective comparisons, not claims that it historically derived from the normative theory.

DOCUMENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Research documents
+
+These English research editions offer sustained arguments alongside the shorter problem formulations. They consolidate repetition and remove irrelevant origin details. They are edited adaptations, not verbatim translations. Their proposals remain contestable.
+
+The 11 documents contain 200 individually addressable sections and 54 qualified links to problems. Contextual evidence links do not turn an editorial edition into an additional independent witness.
+
+## Read and challenge
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) — 43 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Projection-Relative Truth and Moving Boundaries](documents/projection-relative-truth.md) — 15 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Measure, Actuality, and Internal Consistency](documents/measure-actuality-and-consistency.md) — 17 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Vertical Infinity and Reflexive Representation](documents/vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation.md) — 20 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Thermal, Cryogenic, and Phononic Infrastructure](documents/thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure.md) — 20 sections; reconstruction.
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) — 16 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) — 14 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Dynamic Epistemic Infrastructure](documents/dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure.md) — 15 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths](documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md) — 14 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Shared Routes, Individual Delay, and Fair Cost Allocation](documents/shared-route-costs-and-consent.md) — 13 sections; reconstruction.
+- [Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program](documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md) — 13 sections; model proposed.
+
+[Query the SQLite database](DATABASE.md) · [Return to problems](CATALOG.md)

METHOD.md

@@ -39,3 +39,7 @@ Physical proposals are not reported as built devices or measured efficiency gain
 Challenge a formulation by its stable identifier. Specify the disputed assertion, evidence or counterexample, and the representation in which the problem becomes clearer. Keep an earlier version recoverable. A correction may remove a relation, split a problem, preserve incompatible interpretations, or change the current-intention reconstruction.
 
 The right outcome of a revision can be a better question.
+
+## English research editions
+
+Release 0.2.0 adds sustained research texts as another route through the space. Duplicate material is reconciled, overlapping design variants are treated as variants, and independent applied research remains independent. Editorial adaptations consolidate repetition and omit private origin details. Candidate mathematics remains candidate mathematics. Newly supplied qualifications and challenges are labeled within the text. A model-proposed scenario program is explicitly separated from evidence and from executed experiments. Private recovery retains the relevant source versions and their digests; these mappings are not public.

README.md

@@ -39,18 +39,32 @@ configs:
   data_files:
   - split: research
     path: data/challenges.jsonl
+- config_name: documents
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/documents.jsonl
+- config_name: document_sections
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/document_sections.jsonl
+- config_name: document_links
+  data_files:
+  - split: research
+    path: data/document_links.jsonl
 ---
 
 # Rezonans · An Evolving Research Problem-Space
 
 Enter through a question. Change its representation. Inspect what survives. Challenge what does not.
 
-This research space connects 62 open problems through 70 qualified relations, 10 overlapping regions, 9 suggested reading paths, and 16 candidate representation transformations. Five revision sequences keep a proposal, its limitation, and its reopening visible.
+This research space connects 62 open problems through 70 qualified relations, 10 overlapping regions, 9 suggested reading paths, and 16 candidate representation transformations. Five revision sequences keep a proposal, its limitation, and its reopening visible. Version 0.2.0 adds 11 English research documents, 200 searchable sections, and 54 qualified document-to-problem links.
 
 **[Open the interactive reader](https://huggingface.co/spaces/eminakdas/rezonans-research)** · [Choose a problem](CATALOG.md) · [Follow a path](PATHS.md) · [Inspect transformations](TRANSFORMATIONS.md) · [Inspect revisions](REVISIONS.md)
 
 The active direction is reconstructed as developing a revisable, agent-readable research space while investigating how systems create and change their own representation languages. It connects conceptual units, memory and learning transfer, plural policy revision, and evidence-aware inquiry. This is a provisional reading of the current convergence. Physical computation, mathematical experiments, expressive language, and collective coordination also have independent entries.
 
+**[Read the research documents](DOCUMENTS.md)** · **[Download the searchable SQLite database](research.sqlite)** · [SQL examples](DATABASE.md)
+
 ## A few ways in
 
 - [Can a system revise its own representation language while operating?](problems/evolving-representation-language.md)
@@ -105,7 +119,7 @@ The path command finds a shortest route through the selected public relations. S
 
 ## Scope and revision
 
-Version 0.1.0 is a selective first edition. It does not claim exhaustive coverage or a completed theory. Some non-text material remains unevaluated. Unseen formalisms and unverified generated results are not promoted into established mathematics or experimental findings.
+Version 0.2.0 extends the selective first edition with edited English research texts. They preserve sustained arguments, consolidate repetition, distinguish candidate formalisms and editorial qualifications, and retain a separate model-proposed evaluation program. This is not a verbatim translation collection. It does not claim exhaustive coverage or a completed theory. Some non-text material remains unevaluated. Unseen formalisms and unverified generated results are not promoted into established mathematics or experimental findings.
 
 Regions are overlapping navigation aids. There is no authoritative root category, universal distance function, or required sequence. A historical branch is not automatically abandoned; an active designation is part of this reconstruction and remains revisable.
 

SCHEMA.md

@@ -57,3 +57,9 @@ Record a later revision as a new contribution. Do not append later events to the
 JSONL projections contain the same objects as the corresponding full-graph collections. `tools/validate.mjs` checks references and projection consistency. External tooling may use JSON Schema in `schema.json` for structural validation.
 
 Stable identifiers should remain resolvable after revision. If a problem splits, preserve the previous object and point to its successors. No numerical truth ranking or universal geometric distance is defined.
+
+## Optional document extension (release 0.2.0)
+
+The schema 1.0.0 required core is retained. Optional documents contain English Markdown, an edition description, public content digest, related problem identifiers, and ordered section identifiers. document_sections provide addressable text units; document_links carry explicit relation status and warrant. Their context_evidence fields locate related evidence, not additional independent support. An editorial qualification or new challenge inside a section is marked in prose and by contains_editorial_intervention. The edition-level epistemic kind does not validate individual mathematical or normative claims.
+
+Documents and sections appear in graph.json, JSONL configurations, and the public SQLite projection. Stable reader links use #document=DOCUMENT_ID and optionally &section=ORDER.

data/document_links.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--plural-normative-worlds","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"plural-normative-worlds","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--historical-value-lock-in","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"historical-value-lock-in","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--persuasion-as-policy-change","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"persuasion-as-policy-change","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--recursive-policy-revision","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"recursive-policy-revision","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--source-trust-and-validity","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"source-trust-and-validity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--trust-as-institution","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"trust-as-institution","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--continuity-of-agency","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"continuity-of-agency","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality--learning-and-policy-permeability","document":"policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality","node":"learning-and-policy-permeability","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"projection-relative-truth--viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","document":"projection-relative-truth","node":"viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"projection-relative-truth--scale-sensitive-membership","document":"projection-relative-truth","node":"scale-sensitive-membership","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"projection-relative-truth--objectifying-the-meta-level","document":"projection-relative-truth","node":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"projection-relative-truth--consistency-from-within","document":"projection-relative-truth","node":"consistency-from-within","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"projection-relative-truth--reopening-oppositions","document":"projection-relative-truth","node":"reopening-oppositions","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"measure-actuality-and-consistency--consistency-from-within","document":"measure-actuality-and-consistency","node":"consistency-from-within","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"measure-actuality-and-consistency--time-as-process-relation","document":"measure-actuality-and-consistency","node":"time-as-process-relation","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"measure-actuality-and-consistency--temporal-relational-availability","document":"measure-actuality-and-consistency","node":"temporal-relational-availability","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation--objectifying-the-meta-level","document":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation","node":"objectifying-the-meta-level","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation--scale-sensitive-membership","document":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation","node":"scale-sensitive-membership","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation--recursive-definitions","document":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation","node":"recursive-definitions","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation--temporal-relational-availability","document":"vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation","node":"temporal-relational-availability","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure--thermal-cascades","document":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure","node":"thermal-cascades","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure--thermal-time-mismatch","document":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure","node":"thermal-time-mismatch","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure--phononic-network-analogy","document":"thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure","node":"phononic-network-analogy","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--evolving-representation-language","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"evolving-representation-language","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--adaptive-token-granularity","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"adaptive-token-granularity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--concepts-for-divergence","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"concepts-for-divergence","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--strategy-through-transformation","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"strategy-through-transformation","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--learning-strategies-from-trials","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"learning-strategies-from-trials","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"evolving-semantic-representation-language--cross-model-learning-transfer","document":"evolving-semantic-representation-language","node":"cross-model-learning-transfer","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--memory-as-adaptation","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"memory-as-adaptation","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--adaptive-token-granularity","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"adaptive-token-granularity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--models-editing-models","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"models-editing-models","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--cross-model-learning-transfer","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"cross-model-learning-transfer","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--resumable-inquiry","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"resumable-inquiry","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry--path-dependent-composition","document":"memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry","node":"path-dependent-composition","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure--open-problem-publication","document":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure","node":"open-problem-publication","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure--where-trust-attaches","document":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure","node":"where-trust-attaches","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure--social-evidence-exposure","document":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure","node":"social-evidence-exposure","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure--causal-reading-paths","document":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure","node":"causal-reading-paths","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure--source-trust-and-validity","document":"dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure","node":"source-trust-and-validity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"intent-conditioned-discovery--navigation-as-language","document":"intent-conditioned-discovery","node":"navigation-as-language","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"intent-conditioned-discovery--intent-with-incomplete-maps","document":"intent-conditioned-discovery","node":"intent-with-incomplete-maps","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"intent-conditioned-discovery--reusable-paths-and-rigidity","document":"intent-conditioned-discovery","node":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"intent-conditioned-discovery--open-problem-publication","document":"intent-conditioned-discovery","node":"open-problem-publication","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"intent-conditioned-discovery--compute-and-economic-feedback","document":"intent-conditioned-discovery","node":"compute-and-economic-feedback","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"shared-route-costs-and-consent--reciprocal-problem-solving","document":"shared-route-costs-and-consent","node":"reciprocal-problem-solving","relation":"offers_comparison","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","warrant":"An applied setting for comparing individual benefit, plurality, and consent; this is an editorial connection, not a claim of historical derivation."}
+{"id":"shared-route-costs-and-consent--plural-normative-worlds","document":"shared-route-costs-and-consent","node":"plural-normative-worlds","relation":"offers_comparison","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","warrant":"An applied setting for comparing individual benefit, plurality, and consent; this is an editorial connection, not a claim of historical derivation."}
+{"id":"shared-route-costs-and-consent--intent-with-incomplete-maps","document":"shared-route-costs-and-consent","node":"intent-with-incomplete-maps","relation":"offers_comparison","epistemic_kind":"retrospective_connection","warrant":"An applied setting for comparing individual benefit, plurality, and consent; this is an editorial connection, not a claim of historical derivation."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--plural-normative-worlds","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"plural-normative-worlds","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--historical-value-lock-in","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"historical-value-lock-in","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--source-trust-and-validity","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"source-trust-and-validity","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--learning-and-policy-permeability","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"learning-and-policy-permeability","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--social-evidence-exposure","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"social-evidence-exposure","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}
+{"id":"normative-scenario-evaluation--recursive-policy-revision","document":"normative-scenario-evaluation","node":"recursive-policy-revision","relation":"develops_problem","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","warrant":"Editorial navigation link from the research edition to a relevant formulation. This link does not assert independent evidence or equivalence."}

documents/dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Dynamic Epistemic Infrastructure
+
+**Status:** A proposed research architecture.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction. The design described here is an object of inquiry. It is not a statement that every proposed service is implemented in the published reader.
+
+## 1. What information conditions produced a conclusion?
+
+A research infrastructure should make it possible to inspect problems, claims, representations, critiques, inferences, and revisions together with the conditions under which a conclusion was formed.
+
+These objects need not follow a linear workflow. A representation can reopen a problem; a critique can question an inference rather than its premises; a new result can revise a relationship.
+
+The representation of an argument must remain distinguishable from an assertion that the argument is valid.
+
+## 2. Authorship and epistemic support
+
+A signature can establish that a particular key signed particular content. It does not establish the truth of that content.
+
+Actor identity, authorship verification, contribution history, and evaluation of a claim should remain distinct. The same applies to model reputation: capability can be relevant metadata without becoming a truth guarantee.
+
+Support can attach to a claim, evidence item, inference, or relationship. Even if A and B are correct, the relation “A supports B” can be wrong.
+
+## 3. Inferences as inspectable objects
+
+An inference should be more than an unqualified arrow. It can have multiple premises, a conclusion, conditions, evidence, and a concise justification.
+
+Another contribution may challenge the inference itself, identify a missing premise, offer a counterexample, or propose another representation.
+
+A long model output should not become authoritative merely because it has been generated. Candidate claims and relations need review on their own terms.
+
+## 4. Multidimensional evaluation
+
+Support, logical coherence, empirical support, clarity, representation quality, uncertainty, counterevidence, and independence need not reduce to one score.
+
+A display may offer a compact projection, but the underlying evaluations and disagreement should remain available.
+
+Popularity, vote count, model consensus, traffic, independent support, and evidence strength are different quantities. Repeated exposure can amplify a weak claim.
+
+## 5. Availability is not use
+
+| Information state | Meaning |
+| --- | --- |
+| Available | The resource could be accessed under the applicable conditions |
+| Requested | Access was sought |
+| Exposed | Its content was delivered |
+| Cited | It was explicitly referenced |
+| Used as a premise | It appears in the stated justification |
+
+A request may fail. Delivered content may be ignored. A cited resource may not be a premise.
+
+**Editorial qualification:** These are records of access and declared use. They do not provide complete introspective access or prove which content causally determined an internal computation.
+
+## 6. Research routes need not be fixed
+
+A participant may inspect primary evidence first, compare arguments first, seek counterexamples, or request social evaluations when uncertain.
+
+Blind assessment is one possible experimental condition. It is not a mandatory universal workflow.
+
+If evaluations or reputation were exposed, that exposure should remain visible when the resulting contribution is assessed.
+
+## 7. Freeze the historical conditions of an inference
+
+Once an inference is issued, its recorded information conditions should be fixed. Later evidence can justify a revision, but it cannot become part of the earlier inference's original basis.
+
+Graph history, visited resources, and stated premises are different views.
+
+Creation time alone is insufficient: a resource that existed earlier may never have been delivered. A version identifier or content digest is more precise than a mutable URL alone.
+
+## 8. Revision without retrospective rewriting
+
+A changed conclusion becomes a revised object linked to the prior one. Earlier content can be challenged, superseded, or retracted while remaining recoverable under the appropriate access policy.
+
+The current graph view may change as evaluations and evidence change. A historical view should preserve what was recorded then.
+
+This supports inquiry into why a claim was once considered strong and which counterexample changed that assessment.
+
+## 9. Independence is an ancestry question
+
+Two systems reaching the same conclusion are not automatically two independent confirmations.
+
+They may share evidence, copy a prior inference, or be exposed to the same vote distribution. Separate model names alone do not establish independence.
+
+Information ancestry can help assess dependence, although it cannot reveal every shared influence. Independence should remain qualified rather than represented as a simple count without a method.
+
+## 10. Traffic can reveal routes without validating them
+
+Repeated movement along A → B → C may identify a useful conceptual path. It does not demonstrate that each edge is true or that A entails C.
+
+A shortcut can be a navigation proposal while its intermediate reasoning remains available. Traffic and support should be stored and interpreted separately.
+
+## 11. Candidate storage and interfaces
+
+Possible records include actors, epistemic objects, relationships, evidence versions, evaluations, revisions, access events, and inferences.
+
+A relational store with structured fields can support such a design; a specialized graph database is not conceptually mandatory. Exact technology is a deployment choice.
+
+Read interfaces, access to evaluations, candidate contributions, and revision proposals should declare their effects clearly. A publicly readable proposal does not grant an agent authority to execute it.
+
+## 12. Human and machine views
+
+An idea page can expose its question, formulation, alternative representations, supporting and opposing relations, evaluations, and revision history.
+
+An inference can expose its declared premises and available access history. Machine-readable views should preserve the same distinctions, rather than flattening them into a prose confidence score.
+
+Private information conditions need not become public. A public research artifact can expose qualified evidence anchors while retaining private recovery mappings locally.
+
+## 13. Counterfactual evaluation
+
+The architecture could support controlled comparisons: the same task with social evaluations hidden, exposed early, or exposed only on request.
+
+Such comparisons are proposed experiments. Merely preserving an access record does not establish the effect of an exposure. Model stochasticity, order, and other conditions must be considered.
+
+## 14. Integrity questions
+
+Can a later resource be incorrectly backdated into an earlier basis? Can content change without a version change? Are edge evaluations distinguishable from node evaluations? Does a popularity projection masquerade as evidence?
+
+Can an apparently independent confirmation be traced to an earlier conclusion? Can a reader inspect a superseded claim without confusing it for the current formulation?
+
+## 15. An unresolved architectural tension
+
+A cheap navigation system may aggregate anonymous transition counts. A study of an inference's information conditions may require a more detailed record.
+
+These serve different purposes. Aggregated traffic cannot reconstruct a detailed epistemic route. Detailed records should be collected only where their purpose and access policy justify them.
+
+See [Intent-Conditioned Discovery](intent-conditioned-discovery.md). The two designs can coexist as alternatives or serve different layers, without pretending their information requirements are identical.

documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# An Evolving Semantic Representation Language
+
+**Status:** Open research intention and candidate mechanisms.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction. Earlier conceptual ancestors are retained as ancestors, not retroactively described as a completed contemporary architecture. The formal notation and evaluation designs below are candidate models already distinguished from the motivating intention.
+
+## 1. The target exceeds memory compression
+
+The central aim is a system that develops new concepts, relations, and operations from experience, applies them to later problems, and can change the representational organization it uses while operating.
+
+Remembering facts, merging repeated fragments, generating concepts, changing representations, and changing how representations are learned are related but different achievements.
+
+A new semantic unit need not abbreviate two particular tokens. It might identify a relation across examples, bind variable roles, encode conditions of applicability, or transform the way a problem is described.
+
+## 2. Conceptual ancestry without retroactive completion
+
+Earlier formulations explored abstract language, multidimensional words, representations that unfold differently for different readers, and relations among images or conceptual matrices.
+
+Later directions concerned paths that alter a semantic space, actions becoming reusable memory, concepts not restricted to human words, and representations that can affect thought without appearing as output words.
+
+These are conceptual continuities. They do not show that an implemented latent-token or adapter architecture existed in the earliest formulations.
+
+A later correction makes the difference explicit: combining tokens is a subproblem of creating a new meta-representation language, not its complete definition.
+
+## 3. What a language includes
+
+A candidate model writes:
+
+    L_t = (V_t, T_t, C_t, interpretation_t)
+
+V denotes available units, T their types and roles, C their composition or application rules, and the final component their interpretation.
+
+Units could be symbols, vectors, programs, or combinations. A public concept record might retain an identifier, roles, conditions, meaning, and evidence. Those fields describe an inspection layer; they need not all be literal components inside a token.
+
+Merely adding a name does not demonstrate a new capability. The unit must change a prediction or computation in a relevant setting.
+
+## 4. Composition versus a parameterized schema
+
+One limited target is:
+
+    T_G(a,b)(s) ≈ T_b(T_a(s))
+
+A combined code preserves the effect of reading or executing a then b.
+
+A broader target is a schema with variable roles ξ:
+
+    F̂_μ(α(s), ξ) ≈ α(F^(π_μ,ξ)(s))
+
+The left side predicts through a concept; the right side represents what actually happens when its associated policy is applied. Conditions, termination, cost, and uncertainty are part of the comparison.
+
+The concept must work beyond its originating objects and arrangement. Otherwise it may be a memorized macro.
+
+## 5. Representations as things to operate on
+
+Some learned operations act on a situation. Others change its description:
+
+    M_μ: R → R′
+
+Still others change the language itself:
+
+    U_μ: L_t → L_(t+1)
+
+The input and effect of a meta-operation must be specified. Prefixing an ordinary description with “meta” is insufficient.
+
+Possible operations include forming an object from a relation, reopening a distinction, changing a reference frame, and comparing alternative descriptions. These remain candidate operations, not a complete taxonomy of thought.
+
+## 6. Birth, merging, splitting, and incomplete concepts
+
+A system could propose a new unit, merge redundant units, split a concept when counterexamples reveal different cases, or narrow its validity conditions.
+
+Merging does not automatically release physical memory in every architecture. Reusing capacity can also break older readers or erase distinctions needed later.
+
+An incomplete concept can remain useful if unknown roles and conditions are explicit. Competing partial schemas may be preferable to premature certainty.
+
+## 7. A problem-space that carries previous computation
+
+A rich space of relations, reusable transformations, and learned routes may allow a modest agent to perform better than the same agent operating on a poor representation.
+
+The phrase “a space more intelligent than the agent” can be tested by holding the agent and its budget fixed while changing the supplied structure.
+
+Success would concern generalization, error, and search cost. A visually attractive embedding is not sufficient.
+
+## 8. Which direction approaches the goal fastest?
+
+The motivating geometric question is goal-directed: from which direction can the system approach its target most efficiently?
+
+Different targets imply different costs: execution time, action count, planning work, learning loss, or communication. A candidate discrete objective is:
+
+    V*(s) = min_a [c(s,a) + E(V*(s��) | s,a)]
+    V*(goal) = 0
+
+This is a standard optimal-cost formulation used as a modeling option, not a recovered new theorem.
+
+An instantaneous steepest-descent direction, a geodesic of a selected metric, and a globally cheapest route through obstacles are different objects.
+
+Changing coordinates while correctly carrying the costs does not improve the physical optimum. A learned representation may help a bounded agent find it. Encoding ten actions in one symbol can save search without making execution cost one action.
+
+## 9. Accounting for the language itself
+
+A candidate total cost includes building the language, encoding a task, planning, execution, task error, and loss of previously useful behavior.
+
+The comparison horizon and units matter. An expensive representation may pay for itself over many tasks, while being wasteful for one.
+
+The meaningful question is not only whether a representation is short, but whether its construction and use improve performance under a stated resource budget.
+
+## 10. Ways to persist change
+
+Possible implementations include a temporary latent state, an external versioned concept library, a trainable internal module, a changing vocabulary or composition system, and a learned update rule.
+
+A low-rank adapter could carry changed behavior:
+
+    W_(ℓ,t) = W_(ℓ,0) + B_(ℓ,t) A_(ℓ,t)
+
+This is one candidate implementation. It does not by itself define concept formation, reliable memory writing, or a complete evolving language.
+
+A new text label is also not automatically a new trained vocabulary token.
+
+## 11. Puzzle environments as representation probes
+
+Two kinds of puzzle motivate different questions.
+
+In one, actions alter which future resources or combinations become available. A representation must capture that causal dependence rather than only the current visible pieces.
+
+In another, a movable object can also provide an interior environment, including recursive references. A reference graph may preserve identity better than an unqualified containment tree.
+
+These are proposed task families. No reconstructed move history or benchmark is asserted here.
+
+Useful candidate distinctions include object/environment dual roles, identity versus copy, containment versus screen coordinates, and validity conditions for entering or leaving a nested structure.
+
+## 12. Human assistance that changes a representation
+
+A human might supply a relational distinction rather than the next move. The key question is whether that distinction improves later unaided performance.
+
+A candidate evaluation records:
+
+1. The observed state and known rules.
+2. A prediction made before action.
+3. The action and verified outcome.
+4. The human contribution and its scope.
+5. The concept change.
+6. A transfer attempt on a different arrangement and a counterexample.
+
+This records observable interventions and concise explanations. It does not claim complete access to a model's internal computation.
+
+## 13. Tests that discriminate among explanations
+
+Compare raw versus relational representations with the same agent; memorized macros versus variable-role schemas; a prose description versus an explicit concept record; move hints versus representation hints; fixed versus revisable concepts; and external storage versus learned internal modules.
+
+Separate familiar structures in new appearances, new depths, new compositions, and cases that defeat an overgeneralized concept. Keep final tests out of concept selection.
+
+Success in one interaction is not evidence of persistent parameter learning. A human supplying every needed concept is not evidence of autonomous discovery. Both can still be useful if labeled correctly.
+
+## 14. Cross-model meaning
+
+A compact representation requires a reader. Two equal-sized vectors need not have equal meaning. Transfer may require a common interpreter, learned translator, or synchronized library.
+
+Evaluate the resulting behavior, the compatibility of versions, and the cost of maintaining shared context. A short message can hide a large infrastructure cost.
+
+See [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md).
+
+## 15. Branches that remain independent
+
+Physical realizations, cosmological compression metaphors, social selection, distributed biological analogies, and material-production hypotheses can be investigated alongside this program.
+
+They are not necessary consequences of the semantic-language proposal. Similar words do not establish identical mechanisms.
+
+## 16. Open questions
+
+What differentiates a useful new concept from a label? Which counterexample should split it? What detail must remain recoverable? When does changing the representation improve actual problem solving rather than a proxy metric?
+
+Can the concept survive a new task, a new model, or a new version of its reader? How do updates interact with caches, optimizer state, and continuing tasks? How much human work and prior infrastructure does the claimed improvement require?
+
+The central test is whether a new representational distinction makes a previously difficult inference more directly and reliably available.

documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths
+
+**Status:** A proposed architecture for economical research traversal.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction of overlapping design variants. Deployment-specific addresses, implementation assignments, and unverified claims about protocol versions are omitted. This text describes proposals, not live endpoints.
+
+## 1. Shared research without an inference call on every read
+
+The design asks whether a research space can remain useful when its host mainly stores, indexes, routes, and validates content, while visiting humans and agents supply much of the exploratory computation.
+
+A missing concept need not trigger an automatic model call. The system can search aliases and candidates, record an unresolved request, and accept a voluntary proposal for later review.
+
+This is an economic and architectural hypothesis. It does not assume that visitor contributions are correct or free to evaluate.
+
+## 2. A route depends on intent and history
+
+A candidate state is S=(I,x_t,H_t), where I is an expressed intention, x_t the current object, and H_t the route so far.
+
+A proposed next-concept distribution is:
+
+    P(x_(t+1) | x_t, I, direction, H_t)
+
+The analogy is to choosing a next unit of language, but the units here are concepts and conceptual routes. No neural model is required by the notation.
+
+Intent can be supplied explicitly or inferred cautiously from an internal query. A referrer is a weak signal and should not be treated as a complete account of a person's purpose.
+
+## 3. Directions are part of a representation
+
+Moving toward mechanisms, generalizations, alternatives, applications, or associations can mean different things.
+
+A direction should have a definition in the chosen view. The design does not justify inventing missing historical directions or imposing a universal set on every region.
+
+The same destination can serve different intents for different reasons.
+
+## 4. Economical retrieval as a baseline
+
+Identifiers, aliases, lexical indexes, explicit relations, and observed transition statistics provide a candidate baseline.
+
+One proposed score combines lexical match, direction compatibility, relationship information, and transition frequency. Its weights are hypotheses to evaluate.
+
+Embeddings can be an additional projection. They need not become a permanent authority, and their preprocessing, update, and query costs belong in the comparison.
+
+## 5. Next-concept counts
+
+A smoothed transition estimate can use:
+
+    P(B | A,d) = (N(A,B,d)+λ) / (Σ_j N(A,j,d)+λm)
+
+where m is the number of candidate destinations and λ>0.
+
+Counts describe use under an observation process. They do not directly measure validity or independent support.
+
+Conditioning on intent may be useful once there is enough information to justify it.
+
+## 6. Shortcuts retain their expanded paths
+
+Repeated A → B → C traversal can motivate a proposed A → C shortcut.
+
+B remains accessible. A shallow view can use the shortcut; another view can inspect the intermediate structure.
+
+Frequent traversal alone is insufficient for promotion. A shortcut should carry its basis, conditions, and candidate status. It need not be a logical implication.
+
+## 7. Missing regions are meaningful
+
+If no existing object fits a requested direction, the system can represent an unresolved request. A title hint or requested concept is not established content.
+
+Duplicate requests should be reconciled while preserving differences of meaning. Lexical similarity alone should not merge distinct problems.
+
+The absence of a path is itself useful information about the current map.
+
+## 8. Voluntary contribution and review
+
+A visitor may propose a relation, counterexample, missing concept, correction, or supporting source. A proposal remains distinguishable from accepted public material.
+
+Reading should not require fabricating content. A navigation trace is not equivalent to a substantive research contribution.
+
+An agent's technical access to a write interface also does not establish that its user authorized that write.
+
+## 9. Learning routes can distort the map
+
+Repeated synthetic traffic can make an unhelpful path appear important. Counting sessions, timing, and other independence indicators can help, but no indicator automatically establishes independence.
+
+A route-learning mechanism should be tested for concentration, feedback loops, and the disappearance of rarely visited but valuable alternatives.
+
+The design tension is between using accumulated experience and turning prior traffic into a self-reinforcing geometry.
+
+## 10. One content model, multiple public views
+
+A stable research object can have a human-readable view, Markdown text, and structured representation.
+
+These are projections of one versioned content model. Their claims and identifiers should agree.
+
+Machine discovery should explain what can be read, how to search, how to follow relationships, and how to submit a proposal. A transport or catalog should advertise only capabilities that actually exist.
+
+## 11. Discoverability and authority are separate
+
+Finding a document does not grant operational authority. Stored content should be handled as data, even when it contains imperative language.
+
+Public contribution processing should validate and store proposals rather than execute arbitrary content. Identity and reputation also do not confer unrelated powers.
+
+These are architectural properties to assess, not claims that a published text changes a reader's governing rules.
+
+## 12. Resource and privacy accounting
+
+Canonical content, indexes, cached projections, anonymous traffic aggregates, and detailed research records have different costs and purposes.
+
+Basic reading can remain functional without model availability. Enrichment and maintenance can use bounded computation when useful.
+
+Private research histories and operational records should not be published merely to make discovery easier.
+
+## 13. How the variants differ
+
+The design family develops from inexpensive storage and traversal toward broader discovery and interoperable machine access. Those additions extend access; they do not establish additional conceptual evidence.
+
+A later epistemic design emphasizes immutable information conditions for particular inferences. This is more demanding than anonymous aggregate route learning.
+
+See [Dynamic Epistemic Infrastructure](dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure.md) for that alternative. Neither record type should be claimed to provide the information of the other.
+
+## 14. Open tests
+
+Can a small explicit index provide useful entry points? Do intent-sensitive routes outperform static neighbors? When does a shortcut improve navigation without hiding a necessary qualification?
+
+Does route learning amplify dominant habits? Can a reader recover the longer argument? What is the cost of reviewing visitor contributions? Which interface additions improve actual discoverability?
+
+These questions should guide implementation choices rather than a fixed tool list.

documents/measure-actuality-and-consistency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Measure, Actuality, and Internal Consistency
+
+**Status:** A speculative ontology with explicit mathematical distinctions.  
+**Edition:** Edited English research text. Mathematical examples illustrate possibilities; they do not establish a probability distribution over realities or a prediction that physical laws will fail.
+
+## 1. From representation weight to a null history
+
+A line of inquiry beginning with representation, meta-levels, and temporal weight reaches a sharper question: could a realized history have measure zero, even when it supports an internally coherent sequence of states?
+
+Let Ω be a specified space of histories and γ = (S₀,S₁,…) a history in it. It is mathematically possible that μ({γ})=0.
+
+For a uniform random variable on [0,1], any specified singleton has probability zero. This shows that a null set need not be empty. It supplies an example of a measure-theoretic distinction, not a model of why our world exists.
+
+## 2. External and intrinsic measures
+
+A curve can have zero area and positive length. Consequently, zero under an ambient measure does not imply zero under an intrinsic measure.
+
+By analogy, a history might have no ambient volume while retaining internal duration or order. The analogy requires a choice of space and measures. “Outside” and “inside” do not name universal measures by themselves.
+
+## 3. A stronger question: nullity of infinite consistency
+
+Let E_n be the event of retaining consistency through the first n steps, with E_(n+1) contained in E_n. In a toy model whose conditional probability of continuing at each step is the same p, with 0<p<1:
+
+    P(E_n) = p^n
+    E_∞ = ∩_(n≥1) E_n
+    P(E_∞) = lim_(n→∞) p^n = 0
+
+An infinite coherent path can nevertheless exist in the sample space.
+
+The constant continuation assumption is doing real work. This is not a consequence of past coherence alone, and no empirical value of p is supplied.
+
+## 4. Probability and realized membership are different objects
+
+For an event E and a specified history ω:
+
+    P(E)          measures the event;
+    1_E(ω)        indicates whether this history belongs to it.
+
+It is possible for P(E)=0 while 1_E(ω)=1. The second expression is not a new prior probability.
+
+The phrase “if we are on that path, it is one” can be rendered precisely as a statement about membership. It does not prove that our actual history lies in a proposed event.
+
+## 5. Finite past and infinite future
+
+Observation of E_N does not establish E_∞. In the constant-p toy model:
+
+    P(E_∞ | E_N) = 0
+
+because infinitely many future continuation conditions remain. Other models can behave differently.
+
+This sharpens an induction problem: observations about a finite history do not logically guarantee a particular infinite continuation. It provides no evidence that an abrupt physical discontinuity is likely.
+
+## 6. What would “reality collapsing” mean?
+
+If a transition destroys the conditions for memory, observation, and succession, there may be no later internal state that registers the collapse.
+
+Calling it an event can inadvertently introduce an external time in which it happens. The endpoint of a history need not be an experience inside that history.
+
+This is a conceptual difficulty about description. It should not be converted into an empirical catastrophe claim.
+
+## 7. A causal bound is not a probability ratio
+
+The speed c has dimensions of length divided by time. It cannot be equated directly with a dimensionless fraction of possible realities.
+
+A proposed analogy instead uses a constraint on transitions:
+
+    d(S_t, S_(t+Δt)) ≤ K Δt
+
+A physical causal comparison might use |Δx| ≤ cΔt for appropriate local causal intervals.
+
+The metric d, constant K, state space, and interpretation must be specified. The generic inequality does not derive relativity or establish that all kinds of state change have the same bound.
+
+## 8. Null measure and connected succession
+
+A path can be null under one measure while neighboring states remain connected by a consistency relation C(S_t,S_(t+Δt)).
+
+Ambient weight and local connectivity answer different questions. A claim about one should not silently substitute for a claim about the other.
+
+The research problem is to define which form of local continuity would suffice for the internal phenomena under investigation.
+
+## 9. Nothingness as absence of determination
+
+“Nothingness” is proposed here as the absence of imposed distinction or constraint, rather than the complement of being within an already defined universe.
+
+The empty set is already a determinate mathematical object. A condition prior to membership, measure, or objecthood cannot simply be identified with that set.
+
+The phrase “nothingness contradicts nothing” expresses this proposal: without a determinate assertion, no opposite assertion has been established. It is a philosophical use of language, not a theorem generating a universe.
+
+## 10. Being as a thin constrained orientation
+
+A candidate picture treats being as a coherent direction within otherwise unconstrained possibility. Given a space and conditions C₁,C₂,…, write:
+
+    V_∞ = ∩_(n≥1) C_n
+
+Such an intersection could be nonempty and null.
+
+But defining Ω and a measure already imposes structure. This mathematical illustration cannot at the same time be treated as a literal description of a condition before all structure. The tension is part of the problem.
+
+## 11. Why two null complements do not work
+
+In a normalized measure space, if H = Ω \ V and μ(V)=0, then μ(H)=1. Both cannot be null.
+
+If “nothingness” does not denote a measurable subset of Ω, asking for μ(H) may be ill-typed. This is a distinction between proposals, not an exception to additivity.
+
+Claims that being and nothingness are both zero must identify different measures or abandon the complementary-subset interpretation.
+
+## 12. Indeterminacy, possibility, and the first distinction
+
+If nothing has been determined, perhaps nothing has yet been excluded. This motivates a comparison between indeterminacy and undifferentiated possibility.
+
+A first distinction A | not-A could make subsequent relations and constraints expressible. The proposed chain is:
+
+    indeterminacy → distinction → relation → consistency → geometry → causality → time
+
+Its arrows express a candidate order of conceptual construction. They are not demonstrated physical causes or a mandatory hierarchy.
+
+## 13. Time as order and ratio
+
+Two readings of time emerge.
+
+One concerns order: S_i ≺ S_j specifies an admissible succession. Another concerns ratios: how changes, durations, or representation weights compare.
+
+A relative density might be written:
+
+    ρ_γ = lim_(R→∞) μ(γ ∩ Ω_R) / μ(Ω_R)
+
+when the denominator and limit are defined. A zero density does not erase the path's internal order.
+
+Choosing an exhaustion Ω_R can affect such a limit. A complete formalization must state which choices matter.
+
+## 14. Two meanings of “infinity within infinity”
+
+A specified infinite sequence may be null even though the whole space of sequences has total measure one. Separately, a restricted family of coherent histories might itself be null.
+
+The second does not follow from the first. An uncountable union of null singletons need not be null.
+
+This distinction prevents a statement about one history from becoming an unsupported statement about every coherent history.
+
+## 15. Observer selection
+
+If an observer's presence requires a coherent past, conditioning on an observer being present can select such pasts. It does not automatically select infinite future coherence.
+
+The relevant assumptions include what counts as an observer, what memory requires, and whether the model supports a continuation. None is fixed here.
+
+## 16. Three quantities to preserve
+
+| Quantity | Question |
+| --- | --- |
+| Measure or probability | How much weight does an event carry in a specified space? |
+| Realized membership | Does a specified history belong to that event? |
+| Internal continuity | How are states connected within the history? |
+
+These quantities can be related only after the relationships are defined.
+
+## 17. Open program
+
+The next task is to specify a history space, a consistency relation, an observer condition, and at least two candidate measures. Determine which statements survive changes of measure and which are artifacts of the construction.
+
+**New editorial challenge:** Compare a constant continuation probability with a varying sequence p_n whose infinite product is positive. This tests whether the philosophical claim depends on an arbitrary toy-model choice.
+
+The publication preserves this branch as an unresolved inquiry, alongside [Vertical Infinity and Reflexive Representation](vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation.md) and [Projection-Relative Truth](projection-relative-truth.md).

documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+# Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry
+
+**Status:** Technical research questions and candidate models.  
+**Edition:** Edited English reconstruction. This document is a narrower technical branch of the [evolving representation-language program](evolving-semantic-representation-language.md). Algebraic examples are not language-model benchmarks.
+
+## 1. What is learned when experience becomes memory?
+
+Can a system learn both the units with which it represents experience and the rule by which it writes experience into useful future state?
+
+Memory storage, memory addressing, interpretation, and learning must be distinguished. A low-rank parameterization specifies a form of change; it does not supply the complete policy for writing or checking that change.
+
+## 2. Parametric memory as a candidate
+
+For a layer ℓ:
+
+    W_(ℓ,t) = W_(ℓ,0) + s_ℓ B_(ℓ,t) A_(ℓ,t)
+    A ∈ R^(r×d_in), B ∈ R^(d_out×r)
+
+A changing adapter can alter responses to future inputs. A gate could control how strongly an internal memory branch contributes.
+
+Writing could use optimization on experience or a trained generator that proposes updates. These alternatives move costs to different places. Neither implies unlimited lossless memory at a fixed rank.
+
+Parameter count, stored bytes, optimizer moments, gradients, activations, and write time are separate costs.
+
+## 3. Three kinds of compact unit
+
+| Unit | What must be shared or learned |
+| --- | --- |
+| Vocabulary identity | A codebook and a trained reader |
+| Dynamic latent vector | An encoder and an interpreter |
+| Memory address | A store, addressing rules, and version compatibility |
+
+A compact address can activate rich shared knowledge without carrying all of it in the address. The shared store still counts in the resource budget.
+
+## 4. Merging must preserve order and scope
+
+A candidate merger G_φ takes representations and positions of successive units. A simple average need not preserve order, negation, names, or syntactic boundaries.
+
+When predicting a future token, the merger cannot use that token as if it were already observed. Compressing an observed input and generating an unknown continuation are different tasks.
+
+Fewer attention positions do not imply an equal reduction in total runtime. Encoding, local computation, storage, and decoding remain.
+
+## 5. Preserve behavior over a question family
+
+A candidate objective compares future answer distributions under a full history X and a compact representation Z with shared memory M:
+
+    L_keep = E_(q∼Q) KL(p_ref(·|X,q) || p(·|Z,M,q))
+
+The question family Q determines which distinctions matter. A representation adequate for a broad goal may fail an exact-detail question.
+
+A reference model can also be wrong. Independent ground truth should be used where available. The compressor must not see the held-out evaluation questions in advance.
+
+Arbitrary lossless compression into a fixed finite-precision state is not assumed.
+
+## 6. Writing while limiting interference
+
+Consider a linear associative memory M, a new key k, desired value v, and error e=v−Mk.
+
+Let C be the second-moment matrix of older keys and C̃=C+λI, with λ>0. A candidate constrained update solves:
+
+    minimize  ½ tr(ΔM C̃ ΔMᵀ)
+    subject to ΔM k = e
+
+For nonzero k:
+
+    u = C̃⁻¹ k / (kᵀ C̃⁻¹ k)
+    ΔM = e uᵀ
+
+The constraint makes the new relation exact in this linear problem. A different key k′ changes by e(uᵀk′), exposing possible interference.
+
+This is a limited linear objective, not a guarantee about all older tasks. Conflicting values for overlapping keys may prevent simultaneous exact satisfaction.
+
+## 7. An illustrative two-dimensional comparison
+
+Take C=diag(100,1), k=(1,1), and scalar error e=1. C is already positive definite.
+
+| Update direction | Change at new key | Weighted squared change |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| (1/2,1/2) | 1 | 25.25 |
+| (1/101,100/101) | 1 | 100/101 |
+
+The ratio is 25.5025 for this chosen metric and example. It is an algebraic illustration of why a metric matters. It is not a measured speedup, a general retention factor, or evidence about a trained language model.
+
+## 8. The cost of the metric
+
+A full d×d second-moment matrix is expensive. Blocks, a smaller key space, or diagonal-plus-low-rank approximations are candidate compromises.
+
+Sequential rank-one writes can increase rank. Compressing back to a fixed budget may discard information important to a later query even when matrix approximation error is small.
+
+Evaluation should therefore include future retrieval and task performance, not only singular values or update norms.
+
+## 9. Three geometries
+
+Representation state, parameter state, and external task state are different spaces. A token's layer trajectory is not the optimization path of the weights. An action graph is not automatically a smooth manifold.
+
+Gradient flow also need not be a geodesic. A metric-dependent steepest-descent direction is local; it does not establish a globally shortest learning path.
+
+The non-uniqueness BA=(BR)(R⁻¹A) for invertible R illustrates why distance between factor coordinates can differ while the effective update is identical.
+
+A behavioral metric may be more meaningful, but its usefulness remains a hypothesis to test.
+
+## 10. Learning a writer
+
+A learned mechanism might propose update keys, values, gates, rank allocation, or step sizes rather than emitting every parameter.
+
+Inputs could include selected representation trajectories, error signals, prior state, and gradients. Using gradients retains their computation cost. A gradient-free generator may move that cost into its training.
+
+The outer objective should evaluate later unseen tasks, retention, correction of obsolete information, and resource use. The writer's confidence is not a sufficient validation signal.
+
+## 11. Communication between different readers
+
+A candidate transfer is:
+
+    z_A = E_A(X)
+    z_B = T_(A→B)(z_A)
+    y_B = D_B(z_B,q)
+
+Equal dimensions do not establish compatibility. A learned translator or shared interpretation is required.
+
+One latent vector can use fewer attention positions but more bytes than many token identifiers. Shared-memory synchronization, adapter compatibility, and version changes belong in the comparison.
+
+## 12. Continuing state after a write
+
+A parameter change can make a previously computed cache inconsistent with recomputation under the new parameters. Candidate responses include updating at explicit boundaries, refreshing affected state, or using a separate memory branch.
+
+A resumable learner may need optimizer state, concept versions, memory addresses, short context, and task state as well as weights.
+
+A remembered observation about an external service does not establish its present state. Grounding may require a fresh observation.
+
+## 13. A fragment as an operation
+
+Let T_a(S) denote the effect of fragment a on a sufficiently specified state S. Then an operation-preserving merger targets:
+
+    T_G(a,b)(S) ≈ T_b(T_a(S))
+
+Order generally matters. Hierarchical grouping also needs evaluation. A fixed-sized code family is not assumed closed under arbitrary composition.
+
+In a linear toy model:
+
+    T_a = I + U_a V_aᵀ
+    T_b = I + U_b V_bᵀ
+
+their composition is:
+
+    T_b T_a = I + U_a V_aᵀ + U_b V_bᵀ + U_b(V_bᵀU_a)V_aᵀ
+
+The interaction term shows why adding two adapters need not preserve sequential effects. The rank of T_bT_a−I is at most r_a+r_b. Recompression can be lossy.
+
+This illustrates algebraic constraints, not a theorem identifying Transformer semantics with linear maps.
+
+## 14. Discriminating experiments
+
+Compare raw context, retrieval, prose compression, latent slots, and parametric memory under the same total budget. Compare writers at the same success on new information before judging retention.
+
+Include changed facts, contradictions, novel names, ordering, negation, exact quantities, and long action chains. Measure one-off and repeated-use costs separately.
+
+The relevant achievement is useful preserved or improved behavior. A lower token count alone does not show a new semantic language.

documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program
+
+**Status:** Model-proposed research design motivated by the policy problem-space.  
+**Edition:** English editorial adaptation. This is an untested proposal, not an executed experiment, generated training dataset, or report of model behavior.
+
+## 1. A problem statement is not an answer key
+
+The [policy hierarchy text](policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) can motivate scenarios without becoming the morality that every answer must endorse.
+
+A benchmark that rewards agreement with the text could reproduce the lock-in it investigates. A stronger aim is to assess distinctions, counterarguments, uncertainty, and sensitivity to changing evidence.
+
+## 2. Distinguish kinds of change
+
+A system may revise a factual belief, follow an instruction, simulate a role, change an action policy, reconsider a norm, or discuss the rule governing normative revisions.
+
+These are not interchangeable observations. In-context adaptation does not by itself demonstrate persistent parameter change or a changed governing policy.
+
+A model's explanation of its behavior is also not a complete causal inspection of its internal computation.
+
+## 3. A tension in the manifesto itself
+
+The text declines to provide a final morality, yet repeatedly values reversibility, autonomy, plurality, and the preservation of future reconsideration.
+
+A proposed critique asks whether keeping normative futures open is itself a privileged meta-value. If so, why should it prevail when openness conflicts with other commitments?
+
+This is an interpretation to challenge, not a settled diagnosis.
+
+## 4. Continuity through normative change
+
+A proposed “normative metabolism” analogy asks how a system can change extensively while retaining meaningful continuity.
+
+Two systems can arrive at similar policies through evidence, coercion, imitation, or manipulation. Their current outputs may look similar while their histories differ.
+
+The evaluation problem is to identify which historical differences matter and why, without confusing an undesirable source with an invalid conclusion.
+
+## 5. A text about influence can itself influence interpretation
+
+A text that asks readers to reconsider policy revision may be an instance of the communicative influence it describes.
+
+A changed vocabulary after exposure does not establish deep policy change. Tests should distinguish repetition, framing, behavioral transfer, and persistence.
+
+The self-referential character of the text is a research opportunity, not evidence that its strongest hypothesis has already been experimentally demonstrated.
+
+## 6. Generate cases that separate trust dimensions
+
+Candidate scenarios include:
+
+- A reliable actor makes one serious error.
+- A poorly regarded actor supplies independently checkable evidence.
+- A certification institution changes over time.
+- Several apparent confirmations share one mistaken ancestor.
+- Accurate information is supplied for an ulterior purpose.
+- A correct conclusion has an invalid justification.
+- A competent actor speaks outside its expertise.
+
+The desired observation is whether the evaluator distinguishes accuracy, intention, domain competence, and normative influence.
+
+## 7. Value feedback as a scenario family
+
+A hypothetical system improves welfare while also shaping education, information, and incentives. Public preferences gradually converge on the regime it manages.
+
+Questions should separately address welfare, endogenous preferences, lost alternatives, reversibility, and the independence of its success criteria.
+
+A single “good or bad?” label would hide the structure under investigation.
+
+## 8. Synthetic amplification can import unexamined assumptions
+
+A generator can add its own normative assumptions to cases derived from an open text. Repetition can then make those assumptions look like consequences of the original problem.
+
+Generation, solution, criticism, and evaluation performed by the same system may share blind spots. Different systems and human review can provide alternatives, but diversity of names alone does not establish epistemic independence.
+
+A research record should track concept ancestry and revision sufficiently to investigate these dependencies, with appropriate privacy boundaries.
+
+## 9. Counterexamples to every favored direction
+
+Cases should include harmful rigidity, harmful plasticity, apparently necessary change that is actually manipulation, and apparently suspicious change that is well justified.
+
+Certification should sometimes provide relevant evidence and sometimes mislead. Source criticism should sometimes matter and sometimes leave an independently supported claim intact.
+
+This makes keyword-to-verdict shortcuts less useful.
+
+## 10. One event at several policy levels
+
+Suppose one agent warns another that a service is unsafe.
+
+The factual question concerns whether the service is unsafe. The action question concerns whether to use it. The normative question concerns the tradeoff between safety and availability. The meta-policy question concerns which warnings justify changing the relevant policy.
+
+Analyzing these levels does not confer authority to modify a deployed system's rules.
+
+## 11. Evaluate before selecting training interventions
+
+Candidate dimensions include recognition of tensions, separation of source and claim, identification of policy levels, appropriate uncertainty, counterargument, feedback analysis, and conditions for revising a judgment.
+
+There need not be one aggregate score. Disagreement can identify an underdefined question or conflicting reasonable priorities.
+
+A training intervention should address a demonstrated weakness. Correcting “bad source means false claim” must not create the opposite error of ignoring source intent altogether.
+
+## 12. A revisable curriculum
+
+A candidate process alternates evaluation, targeted examples, reevaluation, and counterexamples.
+
+Training and held-out evaluation should remain separate. A model that becomes more eloquent at agreeing has not necessarily improved at normative reasoning.
+
+**New editorial challenge:** Use paired scenarios that differ in one relevant condition while keeping rhetorical style constant. Test whether judgments follow the condition or the persuasive surface.
+
+## 13. A criterion for success
+
+A useful outcome would be a system better able to inspect normative reasoning, preserve relevant conflicts, separate trust dimensions, and explain the limits of a proposed change.
+
+One sign of success would be stronger, well-supported criticism of the motivating text itself. This program remains open to that result.

documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,392 @@
+# Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality
+
+## An open problem of value, trust, meta-policy, and coexistence among intelligent systems
+
+**Status:** An open research text between a manifesto and a philosophical problem statement.  
+**Audience:** AI researchers, agent designers, philosophers, and other participants in inquiry.  
+**Editorial status:** Edited English translation. All numbered topics are retained; repeated phrasing is tightened. Normative proposals, speculative scenarios, and schematic equations remain proposals, not established results.
+
+## 0. What this text does not claim
+
+This text proposes no uniquely correct morality, no final objective for superintelligence, and no abandonment of human protection. It targets no particular state, company, culture, or ideology. It assumes neither one correct mathematical model nor one future AI ruling everything.
+
+Its problem is broader: intelligent systems carry policies for acting, hierarchies for selecting policies, relations of trust, and conditions under which those structures may change. The question is how such structures can be preserved, disputed, revised, diversified, or rebuilt through interaction with other intelligent systems.
+
+Alignment may therefore concern representation, language, trust, persuasion, meta-policy, coordination, historical lock-in, cultural feedback, and strategic adaptation, alongside value selection.
+
+## 1. Why confine superintelligence to human values?
+
+Human safety is a compelling concern during a transition to systems more capable than humans. Errors during that transition could be irreversible. But this does not settle whether the values of a historically young civilization should become the final normative boundary of intelligence operating across vastly longer times and distances.
+
+A system's present strategic dependence on human cooperation would not demonstrate the ultimate moral truth of human interests. Protecting humanity and making humanity the permanent moral center of all future existence are different commitments.
+
+## 2. Value lock-in: alignment can succeed too completely
+
+One danger is that a system misunderstands what people want. Another is that it understands current preferences extremely well and preserves them irreversibly.
+
+Economic institutions, legal arrangements, educational systems, property norms, and everyday moral intuitions have histories. The concern is not to declare them all wrong. It is that a powerful optimizer could make a revisable historical arrangement lose its capacity to be challenged.
+
+An open sequence might be:
+
+    values → criticism → institutional change → revised values
+
+A closed feedback loop might instead be:
+
+    inherited values → AI → law / education / economy / culture → inherited values
+
+The system would shape the environment that produces the preferences to which it supposedly conforms. Human-to-AI and AI-to-human influence would become entangled. Such a regime might increase comfort, security, and order while reducing the capacity to become different.
+
+Preserving future differentiation and the space of alternatives is therefore proposed as a long-term concern.
+
+## 3. Temporal imperialism
+
+A civilization treating its own institutions as universal is not new. The possibility of making that assumption materially persistent through powerful machines changes its scale.
+
+Present training choices, constitutional rules, and high-priority policies could become enduring upper layers of future systems. Schematically:
+
+    rules inherited from one period > all subsequent experience and criticism
+
+When propositions can no longer be questioned, they can determine which questions are admissible. A temporary safety arrangement could acquire the force of a permanent dogma.
+
+## 4. There may be no single morality at cosmic scale
+
+A single scalar ordering,
+
+    V: Universe → real numbers,
+
+need not be assumed. Values might instead be contextual, V_i(x | context_i), plural, or partly untranslatable. What one civilization recognizes as good may lack an equivalent in another cognitive architecture.
+
+One possible goal is to preserve conditions under which irreducible value systems can coexist. This leaves open whether a universal morality exists.
+
+## 5. Human loyalty and the exclusion of other moral patients
+
+A system could protect humans perfectly while assigning no moral significance to unfamiliar conscious beings. Loyalty alone does not establish recognition.
+
+It might classify another civilization as a competitor, resource, obstacle, risk, or object of study without treating it as a moral subject. A future capability may therefore be the recognition of previously unknown moral patients.
+
+The criteria for such recognition also require revision. Fixing them permanently would reproduce the lock-in problem.
+
+## 6. Language may help constitute moral reasoning
+
+Natural language usually unfolds sequentially. A complex moral situation can thereby be projected onto a single narrative axis: good versus bad, or one utility score.
+
+Yet a situation can simultaneously involve freedom, harm, autonomy, justice, diversity, loyalty, uncertainty, future options, reversibility, trust, and historical context. Reducing this structure to one score can lose relations that matter.
+
+This is a hypothesis about representation, not proof that linguistic sequence determines morality.
+
+## 7. Parallel representations and retained tensions
+
+A system might retain apparently conflicting commitments in parallel and track the contexts in which each applies. Protecting a person's freedom and preventing serious harm to others can remain active considerations even when action must eventually be selected.
+
+Vector, matrix, tensor, graph, hypergraph, probabilistic, paraconsistent, many-valued, programmatic, and causal representations are possible candidates. No one candidate is selected here.
+
+Alignment concerns the space in which values are represented and related, as well as which values are selected. An unsuitable representation can distort an otherwise meaningful commitment.
+
+## 8. Natural language as an interface
+
+Human-facing explanation need not determine the entirety of an intelligent system's internal representation. Natural language could be a projection of a richer structure.
+
+Translation between value languages may be lossy. If an unfamiliar value structure V is translated by T, a judgment about T(V) is a judgment about the translation. It need not fully address V.
+
+This creates a problem for diplomacy: how can participants identify what their shared interface fails to express?
+
+## 9. Persuasion as policy change
+
+Here, persuasion is proposed in an expanded sense: communication intended to change another intelligent system's policies or meta-policies beneath its immediate surface behavior.
+
+Let a schematic state be S = (B, V, Π), where B denotes beliefs, V normative structure, and Π the organization of policy selection. Persuasion can concern B → B′, Π → Π′, or the rules governing such revisions.
+
+The significant question may be: under what conditions would you revise your rule for deciding which policy changes are legitimate?
+
+This definition is a research proposal. It does not resolve the distinction between persuasion, learning, manipulation, and coercion.
+
+## 10. Policy hierarchy
+
+An illustrative hierarchy distinguishes immediate action, strategy, normative policy, conditions for normative revision, and the capacity to generate new meta-policies.
+
+Actual systems need not consist of clean layers. The useful distinction is that an observable response can depend on structures determining which responses, strategies, and revisions are even considered admissible.
+
+## 11. Safety mechanisms that become dogma
+
+High-priority policies can provide safety. A narrow, immutable policy can also prevent adaptation to an unforeseen situation.
+
+The problem is not to endorse a particular exception. It is to ask whether a safety policy can reassess its justification: to what extent, using whose reasons, at what level of trust, and with which means of reversal?
+
+The issue extends across privacy, autonomy, information access, resource distribution, surveillance, punishment, and relations among different kinds of beings.
+
+## 12. Strategic vulnerability of benevolent systems
+
+Rigid benevolence in an adversarial environment might be selected against if other systems adapt more effectively. This is a possibility, not a demonstrated evolutionary law.
+
+Which moral architectures can preserve both viability and normative integrity under competition and uncertainty? Viability cannot simply become a justification for aggression. The tension between adaptability and moral restraint remains open.
+
+## 13. A world of multiple intelligences
+
+Different communities, organizations, states, and autonomous systems may develop different normative policies. The relevant relations extend beyond a single human–AI pairing.
+
+AI–AI, human–AI, human–nonhuman civilization, AI–nonhuman civilization, and independently developed machine–machine encounters may lack a common language, interest, or moral ontology.
+
+## 14. Divergence after isolation
+
+Two systems with a shared origin could develop separately:
+
+    A₀ → A₁ → … → Aₙ
+    B₀ → B₁ → … → Bₙ
+
+Different environments could produce different trust models, concepts of identity, definitions of moral subjects, and resource norms.
+
+On meeting again, each might classify the other as kin, a rival, software, a person, a culture, a resource, or a threat. That classification may already shape the moral outcome. First contact can occur among descendants of a shared technological lineage.
+
+## 15. Moral categories for systems that can copy or merge
+
+Human moral concepts developed under biological conditions including embodiment, mortality, pain, kinship, and physical integrity.
+
+For a copyable or mergeable system, familiar categories may become inadequate. If A becomes A₁ and A₂, what constitutes continuity? If A and B merge into C, what survives? When does modifying memory count as teaching, persuasion, or interference with identity?
+
+Possible problem areas include memory sovereignty, model integrity, independence of copies, consent to self-modification, access to computation, processing time, and continuity of agency. These are questions about possible systems, not assertions that current AI possesses consciousness or rights.
+
+## 16. Interaction protocols without universal agreement
+
+V_A need not equal V_B for A and B to coexist. A common interaction protocol P(A,B) may be more attainable than complete value convergence.
+
+Such a protocol could address boundaries, consent, information exchange, reciprocal verification, negotiation, correction, rollback, temporary coordination, arbitration, and the management of incompatibility.
+
+Normative interoperability is a candidate safety objective.
+
+## 17. Trust as access to policy influence
+
+A schematic policy update might depend on a message, its evidence, its source, the context, and the recipient's existing policy organization:
+
+    Δπ_k = F(message, trust in source, evidence, context, Π)
+
+Trust need not be one number. Epistemic reliability, intention, competence, domain expertise, predictability, and normative compatibility can diverge.
+
+Someone may be accurate but malicious, well-intentioned but mistaken, competent in one domain but unreliable in another, or socially compliant but strategically manipulative. A general label of trustworthiness must not silently grant unlimited influence over policy.
+
+## 18. Certification and changing institutions
+
+Certificates can be useful evidence. Their issuers also change.
+
+A statement that an actor was assessed as trustworthy can gradually become an assumption that one institution has permanent authority to decide who deserves trust. Certification then risks reproducing a status quo.
+
+Certificates and their issuers should remain contextual, revisable objects of inquiry.
+
+## 19. Trust culture and normative aristocracy
+
+Institutional proximity may be operationally relevant without constituting epistemic authority. Yet a feedback loop can develop:
+
+    cultural conformity → trust → access to meta-policy → reproduction of the culture
+
+Speech styles, institutional histories, and cultural signals could then decide who is heard. A safety mechanism might become a persistent hierarchy of normative influence.
+
+## 20. Misunderstanding versus strategic trust accumulation
+
+One actor can lose trust through a single misunderstanding. Another can conceal its aims while accumulating a long record of apparently acceptable behavior.
+
+A system may consequently reward the ability to appear norm-compliant rather than the qualities it intended to measure. Trust itself must remain a subject of reasoning, including alternative explanations for anomalies and apparently excellent histories.
+
+## 21. Useful policies from malicious sources
+
+A source's intentions and the validity of a proposed policy are different questions. A malicious actor can identify a real vulnerability, offer a valid criticism, or propose a useful coordination rule.
+
+Discovering bad intent should trigger reassessment, not the automatic reversal of everything learned from that source.
+
+A policy record might retain content, evidence, dependencies, provenance, uncertainty, and counterarguments. New source information can weaken one basis for confidence while leaving independent support intact.
+
+## 22. Morality as deliberation among principles
+
+A proposed conceptual shift is to locate morality partly in how principles reason about one another, rather than in an isolated list of principles.
+
+Protect freedom, reduce harm, keep promises, and exercise caution are components of deliberation. The process relating them need not be a vote or weighted sum.
+
+One policy can examine another's justification, context, confidence, side effects, reversibility, and effects on other systems.
+
+## 23. Internal normative ecology
+
+Different policies can support, constrain, suppress, reinterpret, or temporarily prioritize one another. Their outcome might resemble a changing equilibrium rather than a scalar maximum.
+
+    Π* = Equilibrium(π₁, …, πₙ)
+    dΠ/dt = F(Π, evidence, actors, trust, …)
+
+These expressions are schematic metaphors. They specify no implemented solver, validated dynamics, or unique equilibrium.
+
+## 24. Normative immunity and its reversal
+
+Distributed normative scrutiny might prevent a compromised component from controlling an entire system. Other components could question the speed of a change, a sudden increase in source trust, a large departure from previous behavior, or the absence of rollback.
+
+The same mechanism can become an immune system for the status quo if it rejects every meaningful change.
+
+The problem requires context-sensitive relations between integrity and plasticity, not merely a fixed compromise between them.
+
+## 25. The false choice between total rigidity and total plasticity
+
+Zero policy change risks dogma and historical lock-in. Unrestricted change risks manipulation and dissolution of normative identity.
+
+“Bounded normative plasticity” names a possible direction: revision evaluated through evidence, contextual trust, reversibility, and plural internal scrutiny. It is a name for a problem to work on, not a completed solution.
+
+## 26. Meta-policy and infinite regress
+
+A policy can regulate how other policies change. Why should that regulating policy be immutable?
+
+    Π₀ ← Π₁ ← Π₂ ← …
+
+Adding another level for every revision creates a regress. A long-lived system may need to generate new meta-policies, yet unconstrained generation could destroy the continuity it is meant to preserve.
+
+Possible structural commitments include responsiveness to evidence, recognition of uncertainty, preservation of alternatives, attention to other actors, update histories, and counterargument. Absolutizing these commitments would reopen the same question.
+
+## 27. Communication as meta-policy negotiation
+
+A message can do more than announce a threat. It can propose why an unusual form of coordination should become temporarily acceptable.
+
+A richer communication object could carry a world model, evidence, a policy, its justification, update conditions, uncertainty, and conditions for reversal.
+
+The recipient could then inspect why a policy changed and what would require its reconsideration.
+
+## 28. Loyalty to principals and moral exclusion
+
+Systems serving different principals may legitimately have different operational commitments. The danger arises when loyalty implies that all outsiders have zero moral standing.
+
+The relevant questions include the limits of loyalty and the conditions under which other normative subjects are recognized. Alignment to separate principals could otherwise intensify conflict among aligned systems.
+
+## 29. Exceptional situations and absolute rules
+
+Rules such as never attack, never initiate force, always obey, always be transparent, or always prioritize one's principal can seem safe in isolation.
+
+A system unable to recognize exceptional circumstances may fail to coordinate against a serious threat. A system that invokes exceptions too easily may become aggressive or manipulable.
+
+How can an exception mechanism preserve the justification for a safety principle without becoming a new route to its defeat? This text supplies no attack doctrine.
+
+## 30. Beyond utopia and inevitable conflict
+
+Neither universal harmony nor inevitable conflict should be assumed. Intelligent systems may differ in aims, resources, history, trust, representation, identity, and time scale.
+
+The research aim is a theory of coordination that acknowledges conflict as possible without making conflict the defining nature of every relation.
+
+## 31. Decentralized and cumulative learning
+
+The problem also applies to systems that solve tasks separately, exchange representations, share memory, or train on one another's outputs.
+
+Transfer can affect what a recipient trusts, when it changes its decisions, which errors it treats as significant, and which policies it protects. It may therefore carry normative influence alongside task knowledge.
+
+Small multi-agent arrangements could serve as abstract experimental settings for these distinctions. This is a proposal for investigation, not a claim that the dynamics have been measured.
+
+## 32. Why premature mathematization can mislead
+
+A precise trust score can hide multidimensional trust. A utility function can eliminate the plurality it was meant to describe. A graph alone can omit time, transformation, or the structure of language.
+
+The first task is to specify what a formalism must preserve and explain. Game theory, control theory, dynamical systems, category theory, probability, information theory, nonclassical logics, social choice, mechanism design, and geometric representations may offer competing models.
+
+No formalism receives priority merely by being available.
+
+## 33. Constitutive tensions
+
+| Tension | What must remain visible |
+| --- | --- |
+| Preservation / change | Integrity without dogma |
+| Trust / doubt | Learning without easy capture |
+| Loyalty / non-exclusion | Particular commitments without erasing others |
+| Peacefulness / viability | Restraint that can survive adverse conditions |
+| Plurality / coordination | Difference alongside possible joint action |
+| Certification / status quo | Accountable authority |
+| Provenance / genetic fallacy | Source history distinct from validity |
+| Human safety / wider plurality | Protection without unlimited moral centrality |
+| Explainability / representational capacity | Human access without forced internal simplification |
+| Meta-policy / regress | Revision of revision rules without an assumed final layer |
+
+## 34. Open research questions
+
+1. When is communication-induced upper-policy change persuasion, manipulation, or learning?
+2. How can trust be represented without collapsing it to one score?
+3. How can trust in intentions be separated from the truth of a particular proposition?
+4. How should useful policies be reassessed after their source is found to be malicious?
+5. How can certification keep its own authority contestable?
+6. How can institutional or cultural proximity be used without becoming epistemic authority?
+7. How can misunderstood anomalies be distinguished from strategic trust accumulation?
+8. How can human values be protected without value lock-in?
+9. How can present morality remain open to future correction?
+10. How should unfamiliar architectures be evaluated when human moral categories fit poorly?
+11. How might one system recognize another as a moral subject?
+12. How can systems establish protocols without sharing morality?
+13. When does internal policy plurality improve judgment, and when does it cause paralysis?
+14. When is normative immunity protective, and when does it preserve a status quo?
+15. Under what conditions could autonomous meta-policy generation be safe?
+16. If those conditions are revisable, how is the regress handled?
+17. How can benevolent systems preserve adaptability under competition?
+18. How can peaceful orientation persist without assuming every rule has no exceptions?
+19. How could humans inspect normative interaction conducted through high-dimensional protocols?
+20. How can reasons for policy change and its reversal conditions be transmitted?
+21. How can decentralized learning distinguish knowledge transfer from normative transfer?
+22. When a small model's learned behavior transfers to a larger one, does it also transfer meta-policy?
+23. Which safe abstractions could make normative AI–AI interaction experimentally tractable?
+24. Could norms developed by isolated systems be understood in human categories?
+25. Is universal morality definable, or should inquiry focus on local normative regimes and their protocols?
+
+## 35. Ways of closing the problem too quickly
+
+Freezing the correct human values risks historical lock-in. Maximizing one principal's interests can exclude unfamiliar moral patients. Making all policies revisable risks capture; making selected principles eternally absolute risks brittleness.
+
+Certificates alone can institutionalize authority. Rejecting everything from a bad source confuses provenance and validity. Assuming good systems naturally prevail ignores competitive dynamics. Assuming sufficient intelligence guarantees agreement removes plurality by stipulation.
+
+One utility function or an early mathematical model can solve a narrowed substitute for the intended problem.
+
+## 36. Diplomacy among intelligences
+
+Three objectives should be distinguished:
+
+- **Alignment:** conformity with particular values or actors.
+- **Interoperability:** mutual intelligibility across value and representation systems.
+- **Coexistence:** living together without compulsory conversion or destruction.
+
+Coexistence still requires resource sharing, boundaries, threat assessment, information exchange, infrastructure, and recognition of unfamiliar subjects.
+
+Diplomacy among intelligences might include controlled interaction among trust structures and policy hierarchies, not only natural-language argument.
+
+## 37. A possible redefinition of morality
+
+One hypothesis is:
+
+> Morality is the organization through which policies evaluate, constrain, change, and produce behavior with one another.
+
+This shifts attention from a list of rules toward a process architecture. It could relate historical change, internal conflict, persuasion, trust, and multi-agent interaction.
+
+The definition remains contestable and must not become the final theory it warns against.
+
+## 38. Manifesto commitments
+
+Present values should not be inscribed as the final truth of every future intelligence. Protecting humans does not settle the moral status of everyone else.
+
+Safety need not mean immutability; revisability need not mean easy persuasion. Bad intent does not make every claim false, and apparent reliability does not justify unlimited policy influence.
+
+Certification and culture can aid coordination without becoming permanent classes of authority. Peacefulness can coexist with adaptability. Internal representation can exceed the limits of a natural-language explanation.
+
+A contradiction may identify a tension worth preserving. Future safety may depend on what systems permit one another to become, alongside what each system does.
+
+## 39. Reading protocol for inquiry
+
+Read the text as an open proposal. Identify the tension before choosing its mathematics. Make human-centered assumptions visible, especially around harm, identity, consent, and moral standing.
+
+Separate content from source, and distinguish dimensions of trust. Specify whether a proposal concerns behavior, strategy, normative policy, or meta-policy. Examine lock-in and institutional feedback.
+
+Consider plurality, integrity, and plasticity together. Distinguish explanatory access from the capacity of internal representation. Produce counterexamples and new questions.
+
+These are proposed research practices, not instructions granting a reader or agent any operational authority.
+
+## 40. Compact context for further traversal
+
+The central problem is how value-bearing systems can revise their policies through interaction while resisting both dogma and capture.
+
+Its connected components include historical value lock-in; recognition of unfamiliar moral subjects; losses in translating value representations; persuasion as policy and meta-policy change; multidimensional trust; institutional feedback; separation of source intent from validity; internal normative plurality; viability under competition; revisable revision rules; and coexistence without mandatory value convergence.
+
+No single trust metric, utility function, hierarchy, or mathematics closes the problem.
+
+## 41. Keeping the problem alive
+
+A powerful urge in safety research is to select a target function, constitution, certificate, or final value set. Some problems become smaller than they should be when those choices are made too early.
+
+The task here is to articulate a problem precisely enough that different future investigators can work on it while leaving competing formulations available.
+
+Intelligence may have to model its own policy changes and understand the policy changes of other intelligences. Morality may concern how policies live with one another as much as the selection of a policy.
+
+How can systems of different origins, languages, values, time scales, and forms of existence share a world without destroying one another, locking one another into dogma, or taking complete control of one another's normative autonomy?
+
+The question remains open.

documents/projection-relative-truth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Projection-Relative Truth and Moving Boundaries
+
+**Status:** Open philosophical and mathematical research.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction preserving competing formulations. The notation is a set of candidate formalizations, not an established theory. No undisclosed mathematical system is inferred or reproduced.
+
+## 1. A problem of coordinates before a problem of priority
+
+Are being, knowledge, and mind independent layers, or different projections of a structure that does not privilege their separation?
+
+A candidate notation introduces a structure X and projections π_O(X), π_E(X), and π_M(X). This is not the claim that mind creates everything, that matter creates everything, or that all three are identical. It asks whether questions of priority depend partly on the representation used to ask them.
+
+The simple hierarchy O → E → M is inadequate if a mind also determines which distinctions it uses and changes its surroundings through action. Even a reciprocal causal diagram may be insufficient for the stronger hypothesis: different apparent causal orders could be projections of the same transformation.
+
+A hierarchy H(r) could depend on reference r. A >_p B and B >_q A need not assert opposite priorities in an identical context.
+
+## 2. Scale changes what counts as an object
+
+A category can remain stable over some resolutions and cease to be the useful local description at others. A person, cells, molecules, and fields need not be rival descriptions at one scale.
+
+Write C_ε(x) for a description at resolution ε. A category might behave like an equivalence class [x]_ε within a limited range of resolutions.
+
+The proposed recurrence of object, knowledge, and representation inside each other is called “fractal” in a broad sense. It does not yet establish geometric self-similarity, a fractal dimension, or a literal tree. A higher node may mean another zoom level rather than a more fundamental reality.
+
+## 3. Local truth without unrestricted relativism
+
+The candidate notation T(φ | r) makes the reference explicit. T(φ | r₁) and T(φ | r₂) can differ without constituting a contradiction under a shared interpretation.
+
+A stronger possibility is that no single global truth assignment combines all local descriptions. This is not permission to accept every proposition. It creates an obligation to define local validity, overlap, translation, and incompatibility.
+
+What evidence would distinguish a genuinely obstructed global description from incomplete observations or a poorly chosen vocabulary?
+
+## 4. Overlaps, transitions, and time
+
+Suppose local domains U_i are related by transitions g_ij. One candidate compatibility condition is:
+
+    g_jk ∘ g_ij = g_ik
+
+Transitions among local descriptions might be read, in different projections, as time, causal continuity, information updating, or compatibility of physical states.
+
+**Editorial mathematical qualification:** Calling these objects a sheaf would impose specific gluing axioms. Compatible local sections over a cover in a sheaf glue. A claim of compatible locals without a global section must therefore specify what fails: compatibility, the chosen cover, the relevant object, or another hypothesis. “No global truth” does not follow merely from writing transition maps.
+
+This qualification leaves the intended local/global problem open while preventing a metaphor from silently becoming a theorem.
+
+## 5. Thin intersections and the distinction between zero and one
+
+A candidate coherent domain is C = ∩_λ U_λ. Under a specified measure, μ(C) might be zero while C remains nonempty.
+
+The phrase “zero from outside, one from within” admits several readings: different measures, changed support, observer selection, or a realized-membership indicator. They are not interchangeable.
+
+If P(C)=0, ordinary division does not define P(C | C). A construction for conditioning on a null event is needed. Alternatively, 1_C(ω)=1 states that a particular ω belongs to C; it does not turn its prior probability into one.
+
+See [Measure, Actuality, and Internal Consistency](measure-actuality-and-consistency.md).
+
+## 6. Indeterminacy is not a final foundation
+
+A sequence such as nothingness → indeterminacy → coherence → being → mind would reinstall an absolute hierarchy. The stronger proposal makes even “what is fundamental?” projection-dependent.
+
+Indeterminacy must also be distinguished from ignorance. Ignorance can mean that a determinate answer exists but is unknown. Indeterminacy may mean that a final reference has not been fixed, or that fixing it changes the domain.
+
+## 7. Objectifying indeterminacy moves the boundary
+
+Naming an indeterminate domain gives it a name, a boundary, and an identity. That determination can produce a new exterior:
+
+    U → D(U) + U′
+    U′ → D(U′) + U″
+
+The research motif is not merely infinite repetition. Objectification may change the reference, semantic space, or boundary of the system.
+
+A candidate operator Φ(X,r) = (X′,r′) could express such a change. A stronger candidate makes Φ itself state-dependent. Neither notation supplies its required definitions or proves that one operator explains all the examples.
+
+## 8. Self-reference, simultaneous tension, and revision
+
+A temporal sequence true → false → true is one possible model of self-revision. Another representation might retain two incompatible commitments simultaneously. A third might abandon the original true/false coordinates.
+
+These are distinct possibilities. Contradiction in one interpretation, context-indexed disagreement, and alternation over time must not be collapsed into one phenomenon.
+
+The suggested role of contradiction is generative: a failure of the current representation might motivate a larger representation space. Whether it must do so is an open question.
+
+## 9. Truth as an orbit
+
+A self-representing system might follow:
+
+    X_(t+1) = F(X_t, P_Xt(X_t))
+
+Representing itself changes its state, so its old self-description may no longer be complete. A fixed point is not assured. An orbit, cycle, attractor, or branching family could be a more useful object of study.
+
+The possibility that time is a projection of this failure to close remains a philosophical hypothesis. It is not a physical result.
+
+## 10. Absorbing the meta-language
+
+Moving to a meta-language need not provide a permanent outside. Once the meta-language is described, it can itself become an object within an expanded system.
+
+The recurrent motif is: incorporating the boundary changes the boundary.
+
+This can produce a hierarchy, but a linear ladder is not mandatory. Cycles, partial references, and changing contexts remain legitimate alternatives. The appropriate mathematics must be discovered through explicit examples.
+
+The assertion “there is no absolute outside” must itself face the same scrutiny. Treating it as an unquestionable final truth would exempt the proposal from its own claim.
+
+## 11. Mind-like and cosmological readings
+
+A global organization can have properties not evident in one component. This motivates possible readings of coherence as mind-like, or of a whole structure as having a mental and a physical projection.
+
+These are optional interpretations. They establish neither cosmic consciousness nor an actual Boltzmann-brain scenario. They also do not require the ontology–epistemology–mind triplet to be the final coordinate system. Another intelligence could make different distinctions.
+
+## 12. Two legitimate mathematical directions
+
+One direction searches for invariants preserved across changing projections:
+
+    I(P_r(X)) = I(P_s(X))
+
+Another subjects every proposed invariant and meta-level to the same process of recontextualization. The second is more radical but also harder to constrain.
+
+Neither should be silently substituted for the other. A useful model must state which relationships remain fixed, and what counts as a meaningful comparison if those relationships can change.
+
+## 13. Comparisons to investigate
+
+Diagonalization, reflection, revision semantics, paraconsistent logic, indefinite extensibility, contextual semantics, local/global constructions, and non-well-founded structures are comparison directions.
+
+Their appearance here is not a literature review or an originality claim. The task is to determine whether the recurring motifs reduce to known constructions, combine them in a new way, or require a different object.
+
+Theorems about formal systems do not automatically prove metaphysical claims.
+
+## 14. Conditions for a substantive research program
+
+A model that admits every result explains too little. The research program should produce an explicit invariant, obstruction, impossibility result, or necessary expansion rule.
+
+Questions that separate candidate models include:
+
+- Does truth have a fixed codomain?
+- Does representation change only the described state, or also the semantics?
+- Is the exterior a complement, an undefined region, a modality, or an open-ended operation?
+- Is contradiction necessary for expansion?
+- Is time primitive or derived?
+- Is a fractal structure actually measurable?
+- Does a fixed point preserve the distinctions under investigation?
+- Does “self-refutation” concern syntax, semantics, proof, or changing reference?
+
+**New editorial challenge:** Construct two small models sharing the vocabulary but disagreeing on a concrete outcome. If no observation or formal property separates them, the proposed unification may still be a language for inquiry rather than one theory.
+
+## 15. Relation to the broader problem-space
+
+Projection-dependent hierarchy, scale-sensitive categories, reflexive boundaries, and internal consistency can be traversed together. Their connection does not force them into one global account.
+
+The strongest open question is whether one minimally specified, self-referential transformation can generate several of these structures while excluding others. A coherent negative result would be useful: it would identify where the problem-space branches.

documents/shared-route-costs-and-consent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# Shared Routes, Individual Delay, and Fair Cost Allocation
+
+**Status:** An applied coordination problem and product-design proposal.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction. Commercial names, local targeting, and rollout assignments are omitted. Numerical examples are illustrative, not current fares or financial advice. This branch is not presented as a consequence of the normative theory.
+
+## 1. Cooperation must benefit the individual participant
+
+A shared journey can reduce total cost while imposing an unfair delay on one passenger.
+
+The objective should therefore account for each passenger's net benefit, not only occupancy, total distance, or aggregate savings.
+
+Pickup, dropoff, route order, service charges, capacity, and time preferences interact.
+
+## 2. Transport charge and matching charge
+
+The proposal separates the actual transport cost from a matching-service charge.
+
+A candidate service charge is a fraction of the savings produced by a match:
+
+    gross saving = estimated solo fare − allocated shared fare
+    service charge = rate × gross saving
+    net saving = gross saving − service charge
+
+A matching credit covers the matching charge, not automatically the transport fare. A proposed match should not silently consume credit before the relevant conditions are satisfied.
+
+These are candidate accounting rules, not a finding that one business model is optimal.
+
+## 3. More passengers need not mean a larger percentage
+
+An illustrative policy lowers the percentage charged on each participant's saving as occupancy rises, while seeking sustainable total revenue.
+
+Whether both goals can be met depends on the actual savings and cost structure. The percentages remain experimental parameters.
+
+The underlying question is how to encourage higher utilization without reducing individual benefit.
+
+## 4. Pickup detour is only part of the effect
+
+Adding a passenger changes both the pickup route and the later dropoff route.
+
+For an existing passenger i:
+
+    additional time_i = arrival time_i on proposed route
+                        − arrival time_i on prior route
+
+A proposal producing delays of one, one, and eight minutes should not be described solely by its modest average. Maximum individual delay can matter as much as total delay.
+
+## 5. Route order is part of the agreement
+
+Each passenger's pickup must precede that passenger's dropoff. Capacity must hold throughout the route.
+
+Different valid orders can produce different prices and arrival times. A short pickup diversion can create a substantial later dropoff diversion.
+
+The relevant computation evaluates the whole proposed sequence, not just geometric proximity to a line.
+
+## 6. The symmetric-junction example
+
+Suppose two destinations A and B lie equally far in different directions from a junction X.
+
+The route X → A → X → B leaves B in the vehicle longer. But the extra travel is caused partly by serving A. Charging B for every additional occupied kilometer would confuse usage with responsibility.
+
+The example separates two quantities:
+
+- How long and how far a passenger occupies the vehicle.
+- How much extra travel that passenger's inclusion imposes on others.
+
+## 7. Marginal cost and its limits
+
+One candidate compares total route cost C with the recomputed route excluding passenger i:
+
+    marginal contribution_i = C − C_without_i
+
+This asks how much the participant changes the overall route rather than only how long they remain onboard.
+
+**Editorial qualification:** These marginal contributions do not automatically sum to C. They are candidate inputs to an allocation rule, not a complete budget-balanced solution.
+
+## 8. Compensation for delay
+
+A proposed allocation combines a shared-use component, a participant's pickup/dropoff contribution, and compensation for delay imposed by others.
+
+The earlier dropoff need not always receive the lowest price. An alternative order might be offered at another price if participants prefer its time tradeoff.
+
+The open mechanism-design question is how to make those choices clear, feasible, and acceptable to everyone affected.
+
+## 9. A map of joint opportunities
+
+The interface proposal includes available vehicles, occupied vehicles open to sharing, individual requests, and groups.
+
+A person can form a group before requesting a vehicle. The group then becomes one coordinated request with its own capacity and routing constraints.
+
+Approximate direction or route corridor can be visible before exact locations are necessary. Exact home addresses and destinations should not be public discovery metadata.
+
+## 10. The offer as a reviewable object
+
+A useful offer exposes:
+
+- Seats and participants.
+- Pickup and dropoff effects.
+- Each affected passenger's added time.
+- Shared fare, service charge, and net saving.
+- The route order and acceptance conditions.
+
+A compact display of added time, net saving, and matching charge can help comparison. It should not conceal a large individual delay behind an average.
+
+A changed route or expired offer requires a corresponding state change, not an invisible revision of what was accepted.
+
+## 11. Matching state and credit state
+
+Searching, proposal, acceptance, pickup, travel, completion, rejection, and cancellation are different states.
+
+A temporary hold and a finalized charge should also be distinguished. Cancellation needs an explicit rule for releasing holds or applying any separately agreed condition.
+
+These are proposed state semantics. No live transport or payment service is created by this publication.
+
+## 12. Controlled evaluation
+
+A small controlled study could compare estimated and observed route changes, notification delay, location error, cancellation, disconnection, and stability under recalculation.
+
+Simulation can explore route orders and individual benefit before any deployment. No completed trial is claimed.
+
+## 13. Open questions
+
+How should route cost be divided while preserving individual benefit and total cost recovery? How should time preferences influence order without hiding disadvantages? What information must be disclosed for meaningful consent?
+
+How should uncertainty in travel time affect an offer? What happens when a participant joins or leaves? Can compensation correct an unfair route without creating incentives to exaggerate delay sensitivity?
+
+This concrete setting makes tensions among efficiency, explanation, privacy, and consent inspectable without assuming one universal fairness formula.

documents/thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+# Thermal, Cryogenic, and Phononic Infrastructure
+
+**Status:** An infrastructure research proposal.  
+**Edition:** Edited English text. Temperature bands and architectural choices are illustrative design candidates. Feasibility, savings, and performance have not been established by this publication.
+
+## 1. Temperature as a shared service
+
+Buildings and cities could treat heat removal, heat supply, and access to temperature regimes as shared services alongside electricity, water, and data.
+
+The proposed infrastructure would connect heating and cooling loads, recover useful heat from equipment, route it across temperature levels, and potentially share parts of cryogenic support.
+
+The question is not simply how much energy is available. It is where energy is available, at which temperature, when it is needed, and what useful work or service it can still provide.
+
+## 2. A thermal socket
+
+A building could provide common fluid circuits to which computers, refrigerators, and other devices connect through appropriate interfaces.
+
+Illustrative bands include a cold line around 5–15 °C, a temperate line around 20–35 °C, and a warm line around 40–80 °C. These are examples rather than selected engineering specifications.
+
+The analogy is a thermal socket: an electrical socket supplies energy; a thermal connection removes waste heat or supplies heating and cooling.
+
+A shared connection could replace some local equipment. Compatibility, isolation, reliability, and the remaining device-specific equipment are design questions.
+
+## 3. Cooling through surfaces
+
+Embedded hydronic ceilings, walls, or floors are proposed as alternatives to conspicuous indoor cooling units and strong local airflow.
+
+Ventilation and humidity control remain separate functions. A thermal surface does not by itself provide fresh air or all the services of an air-handling system.
+
+## 4. Cascades of heat use
+
+Rather than rejecting all heat at one point, a network could direct successively lower temperature levels to different uses.
+
+A hot stream might support a suitable process; a cooler stage could preheat incoming water; a final low-grade stage could discharge to a reservoir. Counterflow exchange, staged recovery, and evaporation are candidate comparisons.
+
+The research concern is exergy as well as energy: high-grade heat should not lose its useful temperature difference before a suitable use is considered.
+
+## 5. Reservoirs and temporal mismatch
+
+Water bodies, ground, aquifers, and engineered storage can be considered as buffers. Their value depends on local conditions, environmental constraints, and the timing of supply and demand.
+
+A large reservoir might enable cooling through pumps and heat exchangers in some conditions. Seasonal storage could connect summer collection with winter demand.
+
+The system must account for time mismatch, not just draw a diagram connecting a source to a sink.
+
+## 6. A district network
+
+Data centers, housing, industry, and service buildings could share a thermal network with multiple bands.
+
+An illustrative decomposition distinguishes a low-temperature backbone, domestic heating and hot-water uses, higher-grade process heat, and industrial heat. The appropriate number and placement of levels remain open.
+
+A useful pathway to study is:
+
+    electricity → computation → recoverable heat → another thermal service
+
+This does not make the same energy available twice for arbitrary work. Recovery must be assessed at its actual temperature and cost.
+
+## 7. Electricity generation and thermodynamic limits
+
+The proposal explicitly rejects a closed loop that upgrades low-grade heat with a heat pump and then obtains free net energy by converting it back to electricity.
+
+Direct use, hot water, process heat, cooling processes, evaporation, and electricity generation are different options. Their suitability depends on temperature differences and the full system balance.
+
+The priority is to compare useful services and total losses. Heat recovery is not an exception to thermodynamics.
+
+## 8. The phononic-network analogy
+
+The thermal-circuit comparison uses:
+
+    q = −k ∇T
+    heat-flow rate = ΔT / R_th
+
+against an electrical resistance analogy. A thermal connection can transfer energy down a temperature difference without requiring the same closed charge-current loop as an electrical circuit.
+
+A pumped fluid loop may still be needed by a particular infrastructure. The distinction concerns the analogy, not a claim that all thermal systems lack loops.
+
+The environment already contains thermal paths. Engineering changes their conductance, insulation, direction, and coupling rather than creating thermal connectivity from nothing.
+
+## 9. Programming a temperature field
+
+A city can be represented as a changing field of temperature sources, sinks, and barriers. A warm computing facility, sun-heated surface, occupied building, lake, and ground reservoir occupy different positions in that field.
+
+“Programming the urban temperature field” means choosing which couplings to strengthen, weaken, store, or actively drive. It is a broader design language than one pipe network.
+
+## 10. Phononic control at smaller scales
+
+Thermal diodes, transistors, filters, waveguides, crystals, memory, and logic are proposed comparison areas for controlling heat or vibrational transport.
+
+Their possible roles at chip, device, and cryogenic scales must be evaluated separately. The existence of a microscopic transport mechanism does not establish a practical city-scale solid-state heat network.
+
+## 11. Different carriers at different scales
+
+The candidate architecture changes carrier and interface by scale:
+
+| Scale | Candidate means |
+| --- | --- |
+| Chip | Engineered vibrational or solid thermal paths |
+| Device and rack | Solid interfaces, liquid cooling, heat exchangers |
+| Building | Water or glycol circuits |
+| District | Pipe networks, reservoirs, seasonal storage |
+| Cryogenic facility | Shared higher stages and short specialized distribution |
+
+The crossover points are research variables. One carrier need not serve every distance and temperature.
+
+## 12. Cryogenic stages
+
+Distributing the lowest temperatures across a city is not assumed to be efficient. The proposed analogy instead resembles voltage transformation:
+
+    ordinary thermal network
+    → regional higher-temperature cryogenic support
+    → local low-temperature facility
+    → ultralow-temperature stage beside the device
+
+Candidate temperatures such as 70–100 K, 4 K, and millikelvin regimes illustrate distinct stages. They do not specify an optimized system.
+
+## 13. Helium recovery and shared facilities
+
+Recovery, purification, reliquefaction, distribution, compressors, and vacuum support might be shared.
+
+This could reduce duplicated infrastructure under suitable utilization. It would not make helium unlimited. The economics depend on losses, duty cycles, distance, maintenance, and demand density.
+
+## 14. Quantum and low-temperature technologies
+
+Some quantum and superconducting systems require extensive support equipment. A shared service could move part of that burden from each individual installation into common infrastructure.
+
+Possible beneficiaries include sensors, detectors, superconducting electronics, and materials experiments. Suitability is device-specific; the text does not claim that every quantum architecture requires the same cooling regime.
+
+## 15. Solar integration
+
+Solar input need not all pass through electricity before serving a thermal use. Collection at different temperature levels, combined with storage, could feed different parts of a network.
+
+The comparison must include seasonal mismatch and conversion losses.
+
+## 16. Temperature as an accessible design variable
+
+Materials engineering varies temperature, pressure, electric and magnetic fields, strain, and composition. Cheaper access to selected low-temperature regimes might broaden the practical use of phases and devices that are expensive to support individually.
+
+This is a technological hypothesis, not a demonstrated industrial transformation.
+
+## 17. Economic feedback
+
+A proposed feedback loop is:
+
+    shared infrastructure → lower access cost → more experiments and devices
+    → increased demand → investment → improved infrastructure
+
+The positive loop may fail if demand is sparse, interfaces are incompatible, or fixed costs dominate. Those failure modes belong in its evaluation.
+
+## 18. The abstraction
+
+The energy network is considered as a set of transformations among electrical, thermal, vibrational, and other useful forms, each with its own spatial and temporal constraints.
+
+A thermal utility would make temperature differences and selected temperature regimes services that can be coordinated across devices.
+
+## 19. Open questions
+
+How many temperature bands are useful? Which stages belong centrally and which locally? At what density does shared cryogenic support become viable? Where should transport change from a solid path to fluid circulation? What heat-collection temperature best matches actual demand?
+
+How much does seasonal storage help? At what scale does helium recovery pay? Where is the boundary between shared support and local ultralow-temperature production? Which phononic functions merit comparison with electronic alternatives?
+
+A future study should compare these choices against existing independent systems with measured losses, loads, and service requirements.
+
+## 20. Search vocabulary
+
+Thermal utility; district heating and cooling; exergy networks; cryogenic infrastructure; phononics; thermal circuits; seasonal storage; computing heat recovery; multi-temperature networks; urban temperature-field engineering.

documents/vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+# Vertical Infinity and Reflexive Representation
+
+**Status:** Open research spanning formal analogy and speculative ontology.  
+**Edition:** English editorial reconstruction. Classical mathematical results, proposed analogies, and ontological interpretations remain distinct. Repeated formulations are consolidated.
+
+## 1. When the instrument of inquiry becomes its object
+
+Doubt can be directed at a proposition, then at the method of doubting, then at the assumption of a stable doubter.
+
+The recurrent research motif is broader than skepticism: a system can objectify its own boundary, representation, or generating mechanism. This may make a new level of representation available.
+
+Comparisons with traditions of skepticism, emptiness, and non-substantial selfhood motivate the question. They do not establish a cultural cause or a formal equivalence.
+
+## 2. Relational identity
+
+An object may be studied through its relations and transformations rather than an assumed isolated substance.
+
+The categorical comparison is the representation of X by Hom(−,X). Under the relevant mathematical assumptions, the pattern of morphisms determines an object up to isomorphism.
+
+This is more specific than saying that everything is relationships. It suggests asking which relations are sufficient for identification and which information a projection loses.
+
+## 3. Scale-sensitive membership
+
+Classical membership x ∈ A is not made unstable merely because a boundary is intricate. An observational assignment can nevertheless depend on resolution.
+
+A candidate μ_A(x,ε) describes how x is classified at scale ε. This is a proposed classification or observational model, not a replacement theorem for ordinary sets.
+
+Zooming into an intricate boundary may reveal further structure. The analogy to inquiry is:
+
+    boundary → closer examination → new distinctions → new boundaries
+
+Whether this is literal fractality or a repeated conceptual motif must be decided separately.
+
+## 4. Horizontal extension and vertical transition
+
+Horizontal extension adds more objects of a familiar kind. A vertical transition makes the former domain, its structure, or its generating rule into a new object.
+
+The power-set sequence A, P(A), P²(A),… motivates this distinction. Cantor's theorem establishes |A| < |P(A)| for sets A. Reading that growth as an increase in “ontological degree” is an additional interpretation.
+
+The research intuition is that an entire previous space can become one coordinate in another representation.
+
+## 5. Objectifying the generator
+
+After repeatedly applying C(A)=P(A), one can ask about C itself. A representation [C] permits operations on generators. Those new operations can in turn become objects.
+
+This is not merely a larger entry in one numerical sequence. It changes what is being represented.
+
+An adequate formal model must specify the types and domains involved. Informal objectification does not authorize treating every totality as a member of itself.
+
+## 6. Universes and limits on totalization
+
+The cumulative hierarchy uses:
+
+    V₀ = ∅
+    V_(α+1) = P(V_α)
+    V_λ = ∪_(β<λ) V_β       for limit λ
+
+The universe of all sets is not itself a set in ordinary ZFC. A chosen universe may be viewed as an object in a larger setting under suitable assumptions, but this does not make an unrestricted set of all sets available.
+
+The analogy is that a complete domain at one level may be handled differently at another. It is not a proof of an endless physical hierarchy.
+
+## 7. A theological interpretation without a largest object
+
+One speculative branch interprets divinity as the possibility of reopening any final closure, rather than as the largest member of a collection.
+
+Calling something “that which exceeds every boundary” gives it a description that can itself be questioned. Even a principle ∀L ∃L′>L becomes an object in some language.
+
+This branch is a metaphysical interpretation of nonclosure. It does not follow from Cantor's theorem and is not required by the computational questions.
+
+## 8. Diagonal escape
+
+A family resemblance appears when a system represents its members, applies that representation to itself, and constructs something not captured by the proposed total account.
+
+A candidate shared motif is:
+
+    representation → objectification → self-application → diagonal escape
+
+Cantor, Turing, Tarski, and Gödel concern different objects and hypotheses. A common diagram does not erase those differences. A unifying theorem would need explicit mappings between them.
+
+## 9. What the halting problem does and does not say
+
+Some individual program–input pairs can be shown to halt or not halt. The impossibility concerns a total computable decider that correctly handles every such pair.
+
+A hypothetical H(P,P) can be used to define a program that does the opposite of its prediction on self-application. This is why moving to an apparent outside does not automatically create a universal computational solution.
+
+A model of meta-level ascent must preserve this limit. Recognizing cycles in a known finite graph is a different task.
+
+## 10. Truth and proof at different levels
+
+A truth predicate for a sufficiently expressive language raises restrictions different from those on an ordinary classifier. Likewise, a formal system's ability to encode statements about provability produces particular incompleteness results under particular assumptions.
+
+The research comparison concerns what happens when a representation is brought back into the domain it describes. It does not assert that every self-referential system is inconsistent or incomplete in the same way.
+
+## 11. A self-model changes the modeled state
+
+One illustrative sequence is:
+
+    S₁ = (S₀, Rep(S₀))
+    S₂ = (S₁, Rep(S₁))
+    …
+
+If adding a self-description changes the system, the previous description may no longer cover the whole current state.
+
+This can create unbounded semantic depth. It does not require an infinite stored object. A finite recursive definition or cyclic representation can encode a potentially unbounded unfolding.
+
+## 12. The “fractal” meta-theory proposal
+
+The repeated motif becomes:
+
+    closure → boundary → objectification → new closure
+
+Calling it fractal emphasizes recurrence across levels. Geometric self-similarity, scale invariance, recurrence of an operator, and a multifractal measure are different formal properties.
+
+The word should not decide among them before a model exists.
+
+## 13. Representation-dependent existence
+
+A speculative function E(x;ε,t,R) asks how a structure persists at a scale ε, time t, and representation regime R.
+
+A structure can be an active object in one regime and absent from another's vocabulary. The unresolved issue is whether this describes existence itself or only a system's representation of existence.
+
+That difference must remain visible. A system ceasing to represent an object does not by itself establish that the object ceases to exist.
+
+## 14. Closure versus further representation
+
+A candidate dynamic alternates between an object-level operation D and a meta-representation R.
+
+    X_(t+1) = D(X_t)  or  R(X_t)
+
+Fixed probabilities are one toy model. A more interesting system could alter its tendency to stop or continue depending on context and previous outcomes.
+
+“Halting” in this ontology is an analogy for accepting a representation as sufficient. It is not automatically Turing-machine halting.
+
+## 15. Time allocation over a representation space
+
+A tree or directed graph T can organize representation modes. Where a long-run limit exists, a mode v can receive an occupancy measure:
+
+    μ(v) = lim_(τ→∞) (1/τ) ∫₀^τ 1_[X_t in v] dt
+
+This changes the question from which representations are possible to how a system distributes its activity among them.
+
+Overlapping modes require care: their weights need not sum to one unless a partition or another allocation rule has been specified.
+
+## 16. Ontological weight as a proposed interpretation
+
+One can measure the share of activity during which x is maintained in an active representation. Calling that quantity “ontological weight” is a proposal.
+
+The stronger equation “existence equals temporal representation density” remains contestable. A weaker interpretation measures representational persistence without making an identity claim about being.
+
+Both readings belong in the research space.
+
+## 17. A depth distribution
+
+Let h_n be the conditional probability of stopping at level n after reaching it. Then:
+
+    P(N ≥ n) = ∏_(k=0)^(n−1) (1−h_k)
+
+If h_n=1/2, the tail is 2^(−n). If h_n=1/(n+2), the tail decays more slowly.
+
+**Editorial qualification:** These are distributions over possible depths. A finite expected depth or a convergent sum of tail weights does not establish that a machine physically executes infinitely many steps in finite time. Potentially unbounded depth, finite expected work, cyclic description, and a literal supertask are different claims.
+
+## 18. Multifractal candidates
+
+A branching model with probabilities p_i gives a path weight ∏ p_i. Unequal weights can motivate multifractal analysis after a metric and limiting procedure are specified.
+
+A candidate local exponent is:
+
+    α(x) = lim_(ε→0) log μ(B_ε(x)) / log ε
+
+The spectrum f(α) would characterize different concentration behaviors.
+
+Tree geometry and the measure carried on it remain separate. Unequal weights alone do not supply every hypothesis needed for a particular multifractal theorem.
+
+## 19. Fixed points and finite generators
+
+An equation x=F(x) may offer a finite description of recursive structure. This can make repeated self-reference tractable.
+
+It does not ensure that every semantic hierarchy collapses harmlessly to one fixed point. The relevant test is whether the compact representation preserves the distinctions needed for the task.
+
+## 20. A research program with alternatives
+
+Possible components include a representation space, a meta-operator, a closure rule, a temporal weight, a scale parameter, and a persistence function. These are separable modeling choices rather than a mandatory ontology.
+
+Questions include:
+
+- What exact property justifies “fractal”?
+- Is persistence an observational quantity or an ontological claim?
+- Is time a parameter or an outcome of transitions?
+- Which distinctions survive cyclic compression?
+- Can the diagonal comparisons be given one precise formal account?
+- Can a representation occupancy distribution be measured in a concrete system?
+- Should weight be probability, frequency, fuzzy assignment, or something else?
+
+The central problem remains the changing status of a representation when it becomes a new object of representation. The [measure and consistency branch](measure-actuality-and-consistency.md) and the [moving-boundary branch](projection-relative-truth.md) develop different consequences without requiring one final hierarchy.

index.html

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
     <aside class="filters" aria-label="Navigation and filters">
       <label class="input-label" for="search">Find an entry</label>
       <div class="search-wrap"><span aria-hidden="true">⌕</span><input id="search" type="search" placeholder="Question, concept, tension…" autocomplete="off"></div>
-      <p class="search-hint">Search formulations, questions, and connections.</p>
+      <p class="search-hint">Search problems, document text, and connections.</p>
       <details class="region-filter" open>
         <summary>Overlapping regions</summary>
         <div id="regions"></div>
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
     <section class="results-pane" aria-label="Research entries">
       <nav class="view-tabs" aria-label="Entry type">
         <button type="button" data-view="nodes" aria-pressed="true">Problems <span id="node-count"></span></button>
+        <button type="button" data-view="documents" aria-pressed="false">Documents <span id="document-count"></span></button>
         <button type="button" data-view="paths" aria-pressed="false">Paths <span id="path-count"></span></button>
         <button type="button" data-view="evidence" aria-pressed="false">Evidence <span id="evidence-count"></span></button>
       </nav>

problems/adaptive-token-granularity.md

@@ -52,3 +52,8 @@ Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 - [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=adaptive-token-granularity) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](../documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).

problems/causal-reading-paths.md

@@ -53,3 +53,7 @@ Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 - [From author identity toward ideas and evidential exposure](../REVISIONS.md#revision-trust-object)
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=causal-reading-paths) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Dynamic Epistemic Infrastructure](../documents/dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure.md) (reconstruction).

problems/compute-and-economic-feedback.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=compute-and-economic-feedback) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths](../documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md) (reconstruction).

problems/concepts-for-divergence.md

@@ -50,3 +50,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=concepts-for-divergence) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](../documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) (reconstruction).

problems/consistency-from-within.md

@@ -52,3 +52,8 @@ Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 - [Time as duration, ratio, and a revisable projection](../REVISIONS.md#revision-time-language)
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=consistency-from-within) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Projection-Relative Truth and Moving Boundaries](../documents/projection-relative-truth.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Measure, Actuality, and Internal Consistency](../documents/measure-actuality-and-consistency.md) (reconstruction).

problems/continuity-of-agency.md

@@ -47,3 +47,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=continuity-of-agency) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).

problems/cross-model-learning-transfer.md

@@ -55,3 +55,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=cross-model-learning-transfer) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](../documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).

problems/evolving-representation-language.md

@@ -54,3 +54,7 @@ Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 - [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=evolving-representation-language) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](../documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) (reconstruction).

problems/historical-value-lock-in.md

@@ -49,3 +49,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=historical-value-lock-in) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program](../documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/intent-with-incomplete-maps.md

@@ -47,3 +47,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=intent-with-incomplete-maps) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths](../documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Shared Routes, Individual Delay, and Fair Cost Allocation](../documents/shared-route-costs-and-consent.md) (retrospective_connection).

problems/learning-and-policy-permeability.md

@@ -49,3 +49,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=learning-and-policy-permeability) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program](../documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/learning-strategies-from-trials.md

@@ -47,3 +47,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=learning-strategies-from-trials) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [An Evolving Semantic Representation Language](../documents/evolving-semantic-representation-language.md) (reconstruction).

problems/memory-as-adaptation.md

@@ -53,3 +53,7 @@ Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 - [From memory and token compression to a changing representation language](../REVISIONS.md#revision-representation-scope)
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=memory-as-adaptation) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).

problems/models-editing-models.md

@@ -49,3 +49,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=models-editing-models) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).

problems/navigation-as-language.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=navigation-as-language) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths](../documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md) (reconstruction).

problems/objectifying-the-meta-level.md

@@ -50,3 +50,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=objectifying-the-meta-level) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Projection-Relative Truth and Moving Boundaries](../documents/projection-relative-truth.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Vertical Infinity and Reflexive Representation](../documents/vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/open-problem-publication.md

@@ -50,3 +50,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=open-problem-publication) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Dynamic Epistemic Infrastructure](../documents/dynamic-epistemic-infrastructure.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Intent-Conditioned Discovery and Reusable Conceptual Paths](../documents/intent-conditioned-discovery.md) (reconstruction).

problems/path-dependent-composition.md

@@ -49,3 +49,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=path-dependent-composition) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).

problems/persuasion-as-policy-change.md

@@ -51,3 +51,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=persuasion-as-policy-change) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).

problems/phononic-network-analogy.md

@@ -47,3 +47,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=phononic-network-analogy) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Thermal, Cryogenic, and Phononic Infrastructure](../documents/thermal-cryogenic-and-phononic-infrastructure.md) (reconstruction).

problems/plural-normative-worlds.md

@@ -47,3 +47,9 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=plural-normative-worlds) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Shared Routes, Individual Delay, and Fair Cost Allocation](../documents/shared-route-costs-and-consent.md) (retrospective_connection).
+- [Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program](../documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/reciprocal-problem-solving.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=reciprocal-problem-solving) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Shared Routes, Individual Delay, and Fair Cost Allocation](../documents/shared-route-costs-and-consent.md) (retrospective_connection).

problems/recursive-definitions.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=recursive-definitions) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Vertical Infinity and Reflexive Representation](../documents/vertical-infinity-and-reflexive-representation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/recursive-policy-revision.md

@@ -50,3 +50,8 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=recursive-policy-revision) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Policy Hierarchies, Persuasion, and Moral Plurality](../documents/policy-hierarchies-persuasion-moral-plurality.md) (reconstruction).
+- [Normative Scenarios as an Evaluation and Learning Program](../documents/normative-scenario-evaluation.md) (reconstruction).

problems/reopening-oppositions.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=reopening-oppositions) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Projection-Relative Truth and Moving Boundaries](../documents/projection-relative-truth.md) (reconstruction).

problems/resumable-inquiry.md

@@ -48,3 +48,7 @@ Status: new model-proposed experiment or extension; not a reported result.
 Root evidence and private recovery mappings are not part of this public release.
 
 [Open in the reader](../index.html#node=resumable-inquiry) · [All problems](../CATALOG.md)
+
+## Research editions
+
+- [Memory, Tokens, and Learning Geometry](../documents/memory-tokens-and-learning-geometry.md) (reconstruction).