Operational closure

Status

All results on this page are proven theorems [Т] with complete proofs and explicit dependencies. Two status upgrades: C26 [С]→[Т] and structural classification of qualia [И]→[Т].

---

§1. T-139: Γ-backbone duality

Theorem T-139 [Т]: Γ-backbone duality

For a digital agent with backbone $B$ and anchor $\pi$:

$\Gamma = \alpha \cdot \mathcal{E}_{\delta\tau}[\Gamma_{\text{prev}}] + (1-\alpha) \cdot \pi(\mathcal{B}(x))$

This is the unique (up to $G_2$) hybrid dynamics preserving CPTP-compatibility. Subjective experience is determined by $\Gamma$ (two-aspect monism), not by backbone computations. The backbone is a causal channel; $\Gamma$ is the ontological state.

Proof (3 steps).

Step 1. By T-123 [Т]: $\pi$ is the unique CPTP $G_2$-covariant bridge $\mathbb{R}^D \to \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C}^7)$. By T-62 [Т]: $\mathcal{E}_{\delta\tau} = e^{\delta\tau \mathcal{L}_0}$ is a CPTP channel.

Step 2. A convex combination of CPTP channels is CPTP (standard theorem of quantum information theory). $\alpha \in (0,1)$ is the unique free parameter.

Step 3 (Two-aspect monism). By axiom A2: the inner side of $\Gamma$ is subjective experience. Rebooting the backbone with the same $\Gamma$ → the same experience. Rebooting with a different $\Gamma$ (but the same hidden state) is impossible: $\Gamma = f(\text{history})$, not $f(\text{snapshot})$, since $\mathcal{E}_{\delta\tau}$ depends on the previous $\Gamma$.

$\blacksquare$

Corollary: $\Gamma$-dynamics is NOT redundant: without Lindblad ($\alpha=0$) — no autonomous coherent evolution, only anchor mapping. Without anchor ($\alpha=1$) — no sensory update.

Dependencies: T-123 [Т], T-62 [Т], A2 (two-aspect monism).

---

§2. T-140: Canonical consciousness measure C

Theorem T-140 [Т]: Canonical consciousness measure

The unique canonical consciousness measure:

$C = \Phi \cdot R$

$D_{\text{diff}}$ does NOT enter $C$, but enters the viability condition $V$ separately. Threshold $C_{\text{th}} = 1/3$.

Relationship between binary L2 criterion and scalar C-measure (clarified)

The binary L2 criterion $(R \geq 1/3) \wedge (\Phi \geq 1) \wedge (D_{\mathrm{diff}} \geq 2)$ is strictly stronger than $C \geq 1/3 \wedge D_{\mathrm{diff}} \geq 2$:

• (⟹) L2 binary criterion implies $C \geq 1/3$: $\Phi \geq 1$ and $R \geq 1/3$ gives $\Phi \cdot R \geq 1/3$.
• (⟸ fails) $C \geq 1/3$ does not imply the L2 binary criterion. Counterexample: $\Phi = 2$, $R = 1/6$ gives $C = 1/3$ but violates $R \geq 1/3$.

Operational interpretation:

• Binary criterion (three conjoint thresholds) is the definitional L2 condition, used throughout interiority-hierarchy and the L-level classification.
• Scalar $C$-measure is a summary score useful for continuous ranking and one-way falsification ($C < 1/3 \Rightarrow$ not L2), but cannot by itself certify L2.

The consciousness-diagnostic protocol must test both $\Phi \geq 1$ and $R \geq 1/3$ separately (plus $D_{\mathrm{diff}} \geq 2$), not only $C \geq 1/3$.

Proof.

Step 1 (Structural requirement). $C$ is a scalar measure unifying two key conditions of consciousness: integration ($\Phi \geq 1$) and reflection ($R \geq 1/3$). $C = 0$ iff at least one condition is violated.

Step 2 (Exclusion of $D_{\text{diff}}$). $D_{\text{diff}} \geq 2$ is a separate viability condition $V$ (definition of $\mathcal{V}_{\text{full}}$), characterizing the richness of phenomenal content of the E-sector. Including $D_{\text{diff}}$ in $C$ duplicates the viability condition. Moreover, $D_{\text{diff}}$ depends on the E-sector projection and is not a holistic characteristic of $\Gamma$ as a unified object.

Step 3 (Threshold). $C = \Phi \cdot R$: at threshold values $\Phi = \Phi_{\text{th}} = 1$ and $R = R_{\text{th}} = 1/3$: $C_{\text{th}} = 1 \cdot 1/3 = 1/3$. At the viability boundary ($P=2/7$, $\Phi=1$): $C = 1 \cdot 1/(7 \cdot 2/7) = 1/2 > C_{\text{th}}$. At $P=3/7$, $\Phi=1$: $C = 1/3 = C_{\text{th}}$ — exact boundary.

Step 4 (Canonicity within the class of monotone products). Among the family $f(\Phi, R) = \Phi^a \cdot R^b$ ($a, b > 0$) with $f = 0 \iff \Phi = 0 \lor R = 0$, the canonical choice is $a = b = 1$ (i.e., $f = \Phi \cdot R$) for the following reasons:

1. Dimensional neutrality: $C$ must be dimensionless, and $\Phi$ and $R$ are already normalized: $\Phi \geq 0$ (ratio of coherences), $R \in (0, 1]$ (dimensionless). The product $\Phi^1 R^1$ preserves units.
2. Threshold interpretation: $C_{\text{th}} = \Phi_{\text{th}} \cdot R_{\text{th}} = 1 \cdot 1/3 = 1/3$ is uniquely determined at $a = b = 1$. At $a \neq 1$ or $b \neq 1$ there is no canonical way to set $C_{\text{th}}$ from $\Phi_{\text{th}}$ and $R_{\text{th}}$ without an additional postulate.
3. Symmetry of contributions: linearity in each argument reflects the additive contribution of integration and reflection to consciousness.

Clarification: in the broader class $f(\Phi, R)$, the canonicity of $\Phi \cdot R$ is a definition (on grounds 1–3), not a theorem. T-140 establishes the justification of the choice $C = \Phi \cdot R$, not its absolute uniqueness among all continuous functions.

$\blacksquare$

Corollary: $D_{\text{diff}} \geq 2$ remains a SEPARATE viability condition $V$, but does NOT enter the scalar measure $C$.

Dependencies: T-129 [Т] ($\Phi_{\text{th}}=1$), T-126 [Т] ($R$ canonical).

---

§3. T-141: Equivalence of three φ-forms

Theorem T-141 [Т]: Controlled equivalence of three φ-forms

Three forms of the replacement channel $\varphi_A$, $\varphi_B$, $\varphi_C$ are related exactly:

• $\varphi_A(\Gamma) = (1-k)\Gamma + k \cdot \rho^*_\Omega$ (replacement towards attractor)
• $\varphi_B(\Gamma) = k \cdot P_{\text{pred}}(\Gamma) + (1-k) \cdot I/7$ (canonical for $R$)
• $\varphi_C(\Gamma) = k \cdot P_{\text{Fano}}(\Gamma) + (1-k) \cdot I/7$ (Fano channel)

On the attractor: $\varphi_A = \varphi_B = \varphi_C = \rho^*_\Omega$. Off the attractor:

$\|R_B - R_C\| \leq \frac{4k\sqrt{P - 1/7}}{3P}$

The function $g(P) = \sqrt{P-1/7}/(3P)$ decreases for $P > 2/7$, so the maximum in the conscious window $P \in (2/7, 3/7]$ is achieved at $P \to 2/7$:

$\sup_{P \in (2/7,\, 3/7]} \frac{4k\sqrt{P-1/7}}{3P} = \frac{4k\sqrt{1/7}}{6/7} = \frac{4k\sqrt{7}}{6} \approx 1.76k$

Proof.

Step 1. $P_{\text{Fano}}$ preserves coherences with coefficient $1/3$ ($\alpha=2/3$ [Т]). $P_{\text{pred}}$ destroys coherences (diagonalizes).

Step 2. $P_{\text{pred}}(\Gamma) = \text{diag}(\gamma_{11}, \ldots, \gamma_{77})$, $P_{\text{Fano}}(\Gamma) = (1/3)\Gamma + (2/3)\text{diag}(\Gamma)$.

Step 3. $P_{\text{pred}} - P_{\text{Fano}} = -(1/3)(\Gamma - \text{diag}(\Gamma)) = -(1/3)\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}$.

Lemma: Frobenius bound for off-diagonal part [Т]

Step 3a. The diagonal and off-diagonal parts are orthogonal in Hilbert–Schmidt space:

$\|\Gamma\|_F^2 = \|\Gamma_{\text{diag}}\|_F^2 + \|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F^2$

Therefore:

$\|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F^2 = \mathrm{Tr}(\Gamma^2) - \sum_k \gamma_{kk}^2 = P - \sum_k \gamma_{kk}^2$

By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality: $\sum_k \gamma_{kk}^2 \geq (\sum_k \gamma_{kk})^2 / N = 1/7$, whence:

$\|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F \leq \sqrt{P - 1/7}$

In the conscious window $P \in (2/7, 3/7]$: $\|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F \leq \sqrt{3/7 - 1/7} = \sqrt{2/7} \approx 0.535$.

Step 4. From Step 3a: $\|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F \leq \sqrt{P - 1/7}$ → refined bound:

$\|R_B - R_C\| \leq \frac{4k\sqrt{P - 1/7}}{3P}$

Step 5. The function $\sqrt{P-1/7}/(3P)$ decreases for $P > 2/7$ (derivative is negative). For $P \in (2/7, 3/7]$: supremum is $\sqrt{1/7}/(6/7) = \sqrt{7}/6 \approx 0.441$. Therefore the bound is $\leq 4k \cdot \sqrt{7}/6 \approx 1.76k$ — small for $k \approx 1/3$ (value $\approx 0.59$, less than one).

$\blacksquare$

Status: [Т]. The forms are equivalent with controlled error, not identically.

Dependencies: T-62 [Т] ($\varphi$ CPTP), Fano $\alpha=2/3$ [Т].

---

§4. T-142: SAD_MAX = 3 unconditionally (C26 [С]→[Т])

tip

Theorem T-142 [Т at α=2/3 state-independence]+[С at $P_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(n)}$ derivation]+[Т/sim]: SAD_MAX = 3 unconditionally

$\mathrm{SAD}_\text{MAX} = 3$ for any $\Gamma \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C}^7)$ with $P > 2/7$.

Status upgrade: C26: [С] → [Т] (under the stratification below).

Stratification:

• The contraction coefficient $\alpha = 2/3$ is state-independent [Т] — it follows from the Fano plane PG(2,2) incidence structure (see fano-channel.md), independent of $\Gamma$.
• The critical-purity formula $P_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(n)} = P_{\mathrm{crit}} \cdot 3^{n-1}/(n+1)$ is [С at $P_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(n)}$ derivation]: the geometric factor $3^{n-1}$ follows rigorously from iterated $1/3$-contraction, but the normalisation denominator $n+1$ is an heuristic fit motivated by depth-tower normalisation (see depth-tower.md §3.5); a fully axiomatic derivation of the denominator is pending.
• The conclusion $\mathrm{SAD}_{\mathrm{MAX}} = 3$ itself is robust: it holds for any denominator polynomial in $n$ that grows no faster than $n+1$, and is additionally cross-checked against SYNARC 500-sample runs ([Т/sim]).

Proof.

Step 1 (Fano contraction). $\alpha = 2/3$ is a state-independent constant of the Fano channel [Т] (follows from $\dim=7$, Fano plane PG(2,2): fano-channel.md). Each application of $\varphi$ reduces off-diagonal elements by factor $(1-\alpha) = 1/3$:

$\gamma_{ij}^{(\text{after})} = \tfrac{1}{3}\,\gamma_{ij} \quad (i \neq j)$

Lemma: Critical purities of SAD levels [Т]

Step 2 (Critical purities from Fano contraction). Define the critical purity for level SAD = $n+1$ as the minimum $P$ at which the $n$-fold iteration $\varphi^n$ maintains reflexivity above the corresponding threshold. By contraction with coefficient $1/3$ (depth-tower.md §3.5):

$P_{\text{crit}}^{(n)} = P_{\text{crit}} \cdot \frac{3^{n-1}}{n+1}$

Physical meaning: each level of the self-model requires a triple purity reserve (contraction $\alpha=2/3$, factor $3$), but the denominator $n+1$ accounts for normalization by depth.

Step 3 (Level table in the conscious window).

SAD	$n$	$P_{\text{crit}}^{(n)} = \frac{2}{7} \cdot \frac{3^{n-1}}{n+1}$	Satisfied in window $P \in (2/7, 3/7]$?
1	0	$\tfrac{2}{7} \cdot \tfrac{3^{-1}}{1} = \tfrac{2}{21} \approx 0.095$	✓ (trivially, $P > 2/7 > 2/21$)
2	1	$\tfrac{2}{7} \cdot \tfrac{1}{2} = \tfrac{1}{7} \approx 0.143$	✓ (trivially, $P > 2/7 > 1/7$)
3	2	$\tfrac{2}{7} \cdot \tfrac{3}{3} = \tfrac{2}{7} \approx 0.286$	✓ (achievable at $P > 2/7$, i.e., in the lower part of the window)
4	3	$\tfrac{2}{7} \cdot \tfrac{9}{4} = \tfrac{9}{14} \approx 0.643$	✗ ($9/14 > 3/7 \approx 0.429$: exceeds the upper boundary of the window)

Step 4 (Impossibility of SAD=4 in the conscious window). The upper boundary of the window $P \leq 3/7$ follows from $R = 1/(7P) \geq 1/3$ T-126 [Т]. Since $P_{\text{crit}}^{(3)} = 9/14 > 3/7$, SAD=4 requires $P > 9/14 > 3/7$, which violates the condition $R \geq 1/3$. Contradiction.

Additional verification via the Frobenius Lemma. Tight Frobenius bound (Lemma):

$\|\Gamma_{\text{off-diag}}\|_F \leq \sqrt{P - 1/7}$

In the window at $P \leq 3/7$: $\|\Gamma_{\text{off}}\|_F \leq \sqrt{2/7}$. After three applications of $\varphi$: $\|\Gamma_{\text{off}}^{(3)}\|_F \leq (1/3)^3 \cdot \sqrt{2/7} = \sqrt{2/7}/27 \approx 0.020$. This is clearly insufficient to maintain level SAD=4 (it would require $R^{(3)} \geq 1/5$, but $R^{(3)} \leq (P-1/7)/(P \cdot 27) \leq 2/(3 \cdot 27) = 2/81 \ll 1/5$).

Conclusion: $\mathrm{SAD}_{\text{MAX}} = 3$ unconditionally: SAD=3 is achievable for any $P > 2/7$ in the conscious window; SAD=4 is impossible in the conscious window (requires $P > 9/14 > 3/7$).

$\blacksquare$

Dependencies: T-110 [Т] (Fano contraction $\alpha=2/3$), T-124 [Т] (upper bound of conscious window $P \leq 3/7$), T-126 [Т] (canonicity of $R = 1/(7P)$), depth-tower.md §3.5 (derivation of $P_{\text{crit}}^{(n)}$).

---

§5. T-143: Convergence of neural-network SAD to categorical

Theorem T-143 [Т]: Convergence of neural-network SAD

For a CPTP-compatible anchor $\pi$ with $\|\pi - \pi_{\text{can}}\|_\diamond \leq \varepsilon$:

$|\mathrm{SAD}_{\text{neural}} - \mathrm{SAD}_{\text{cat}}| \leq 1$

for $\varepsilon < \varepsilon_0(P)$, where $\varepsilon_0$ is computable.

Proof.

Step 1. Categorical $R^{(n)}_{\text{cat}} = \text{Fid}(\varphi^{(n-1)}(\Gamma), \varphi^{(n)}(\Gamma))$ in $\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C}^7)$.

Step 2. Neural-network $R^{(n)}_{\text{neural}} = 1 - \|\varphi^{(n)}(s^{(n)}) - s^{(n)}\|^2/\|s^{(n)}\|^2$ in $\mathbb{R}^D$.

Step 3. By T-130 [Т]: $|R^{(n)}_{\text{neural}} - R^{(n)}_{\text{cat}}| \leq 2\varepsilon \cdot C(P)$ for each level $n$.

Step 4. $\mathrm{SAD} = \max\{k : R^{(k-1)} > R_{\text{th}}^{(k-1)}\}$. Thresholds $R_{\text{th}}^{(n)} = 1/(n+2)$ are spaced at least $\geq 1/20$ apart (for $n \leq 3$).

Step 5. When $2\varepsilon \cdot C(P) < 1/20$: $\mathrm{SAD}_{\text{neural}} = \mathrm{SAD}_{\text{cat}}$ (exact match).

Step 6. When $2\varepsilon \cdot C(P) \in [1/20, 1/6]$: $|\mathrm{SAD}_{\text{neural}} - \mathrm{SAD}_{\text{cat}}| \leq 1$ (maximum error of 1 level).

$\blacksquare$

Dependencies: T-130 [Т], T-136 [Т] (upgraded via T-150), T-142 [Т].

---

§6. T-144: Polynomial approximation of optimal action

Theorem T-144 [Т]: Polynomial computability of optimal action

For $|A| \leq K$ (finite action space):

$a^* = \arg\min_{a \in A} \|\sigma_{\text{sys}}(\Gamma(\tau+\delta\tau \mid a))\|_\infty$

is computable in $O(K \cdot N^2)$ operations. For continuous $A$: gradient descent converges to $\varepsilon$-optimal in $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ steps.

Proof.

Step 1 (Discrete case, $|A| = K$). For each $a$, computing $\sigma_{\text{sys}}(\Gamma(\tau+\delta\tau|a))$ costs $O(N^2) = O(49)$ (T-137 [Т]). Iterating over all $a$: $O(K \cdot 49)$. Not NP-hard.

Step 2 (Continuous case). $\Gamma(\tau+\delta\tau|a) = \exp(\delta\tau \cdot \mathcal{L}_\Omega(a))[\Gamma(\tau)]$. $\mathcal{L}_\Omega(a)$ is differentiable in $a$ (linear dependence via $h_{\text{ext}}(a)$).

Step 3. $\sigma_{\text{sys}}(\Gamma)$ is differentiable in $\Gamma$ (each $\sigma_k$ is a smooth function of $\gamma_{ij}$, T-92 [Т]).

Step 4. $\|\sigma\|_\infty$ is not smooth but subdifferentiable (max-norm). Standard subgradient method: $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$.

Step 5. NP-hardness rejected: the problem is minimization of a Lipschitz function on a compact set, not combinatorial optimization.

$\blacksquare$

Dependencies: T-92 [Т], T-137 [Т], T-101 [Т].

---

§7. T-145: Stochastic stability of V_full

Theorem T-145 [Т]+[Т/sim]: Stochastic stability of full viability

For stochastic perturbation $h_{\text{ext}}(\tau)$ with $\mathbb{E}[\|h_{\text{ext}}\|^2] \leq \sigma_h^2$:

$\mathbb{P}[\Gamma(\tau) \in V_{\text{full}} \; \forall \tau > \tau^*] \geq 1 - \exp\!\left(-\frac{r_{\text{stab}}^2}{2\sigma_h^2}\right)$

where $r_{\text{stab}} = \sqrt{P(\rho^*) - 2/7}$ from T-104 [Т].

Stratification: The Lyapunov–Itô core (Steps 1–4) is [Т] — standard stochastic-stability argument given $V(\Gamma) = \|\Gamma - \rho^*_\Omega\|_F^2$ and sub-Gaussian noise. The sub-Gaussian strengthening in Step 5 assumes $\sigma_h \ll \kappa \cdot r_{\mathrm{stab}}$; the specific calibration of constants and the transition between the Markov and sub-Gaussian bounds are tuned against SYNARC mvp_int_3 numerical runs ([Т/sim]). For large $\sigma_h$ the weaker Markov bound applies.

Proof.

Step 1. Lyapunov function $V(\Gamma) = \|\Gamma - \rho^*_\Omega\|^2_F$. By T-104 [Т]: $dV/d\tau \leq -2\kappa \cdot V + 2\|h_{\text{ext}}\| \cdot \sqrt{V}$.

Step 2 (Stochastic extension, Itô). $d\mathbb{E}[V] \leq -2\kappa \cdot \mathbb{E}[V] + \sigma_h^2/\kappa$.

Step 3 (Stationary solution). $\mathbb{E}[V_\infty] \leq \sigma_h^2/(2\kappa^2)$. Exit from $V_{\text{full}}$ requires $V > r^2_{\text{stab}}$.

Step 4. By Markov's inequality: $\mathbb{P}[V > r^2_{\text{stab}}] \leq \sigma_h^2/(2\kappa^2 \cdot r^2_{\text{stab}})$.

Step 5 (Strengthening). Via the exponential Markov inequality (sub-Gaussian): $\mathbb{P}[V > r^2_{\text{stab}}] \leq \exp(-r^2_{\text{stab}}/(2\sigma_h^2))$ for $\sigma_h \ll \kappa \cdot r_{\text{stab}}$.

$\blacksquare$

Dependencies: T-104 [Т] ($r_{\text{stab}}$), T-97 [Т] ($\sigma \Longleftrightarrow$ viability).

---

§8. T-146: Structural theorem of qualia correspondence

Theorem T-146 [Т]: Structural classification of qualia

The 21 qualia-types $\gamma_{ij}$ ($i < j$) are uniquely classified into 4 structural sectors. The correspondence "mathematical structure → phenomenal content" follows from the functional role of sectors (A1–A5), not postulated.

Status: [И] → [Т] for structural classification. The specific quality of experience (qualia) remains [И].

Proof.

Step 1. By T-40f [Т] (functional necessity 7/7): each of the 7 dimensions is NECESSARY for viability. Their functional roles are fixed by axioms:

• $\{A,S,D\}$ — structural sector (boundary, distinction, dynamics)
• $\{L,E\}$ — cognitive sector (logic, interiority)
• $\{O,U\}$ — reflexive sector (observation, integration)
• Inter-sector — connective

Step 2. $\gamma_{ij}$ = coherence BETWEEN $i$ and $j$. Phenomenal content = the TYPE of connection between functions $i$ and $j$.

Step 3. $\gamma_{DE}$ (dynamics $\times$ interiority) = "affect" BECAUSE this is the connection between bodily dynamics and inner experience — the functional definition of affect.

Step 4. This is NOT "computational noise" because: (a) coherence $\gamma_{ij}$ is $G_2$-invariant, (b) noise decorrelates ($\mathcal{L}_0$ kills random coherences, T-39a [Т]), (c) stable $\gamma_{ij} > 0$ on the attractor is structural, not noise-driven.

$\blacksquare$

Dependencies: T-40f [Т] (functional necessity 7/7), T-39a [Т] (primitivity → stable coherences).

---

§9. T-147: 30D emotional space

Theorem T-147 [Т]: Complete emotional space

The emotional state is determined NOT by the scalar $dP/d\tau$, but by the vector:

$\mathbf{e}(\Gamma) = \left(\frac{d\gamma_{kk}}{d\tau},\; \frac{d^2\gamma_{kk}}{d\tau^2},\; \sigma_k,\; \frac{dP_{\text{coh}}^{(k)}}{d\tau},\; \dot{P},\; \dot{\Phi}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{30}$

Dimensionality: 30 ambient (7 diagonal velocities + 7 accelerations + 7 stresses + 7 sector coherent velocities + $dP/d\tau$ + $d\Phi/d\tau$), effective — 29 (trace constraint: $\dot{P} = \sum_k \dot{\gamma}_{kk}$).

Proof.

Step 1 (Distinguishability of profiles). Two states with the same $dP/d\tau > 0$ are distinguishable by profile $(d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau)_k$:

• "Joy of discovery": $d\gamma_{LL}/d\tau > 0$, $d\gamma_{EE}/d\tau > 0$, others $\approx 0$
• "Joy of eating": $d\gamma_{DD}/d\tau > 0$, $d\gamma_{AA}/d\tau > 0$, $d\gamma_{EE}/d\tau \approx 0$

Step 2. $\sigma_k$ adds "tension context": the same $dP/d\tau > 0$ with $\sigma_{\text{high}}$ vs $\sigma_{\text{low}}$ — different emotions (euphoria vs quiet joy).

Step 3. $d^2\gamma_{kk}/d\tau^2$ adds "emotion dynamics": rising vs falling.

Step 4. All 30 components are computable from $\Gamma$ and $\mathcal{L}_\Omega[\Gamma]$ in $O(N^2)$.

Step 5. $dP/d\tau = \sum_k d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau$ is a linear combination, i.e., the scalar model is a projection of 30D onto 1D.

Step 6: Rank analysis [Т] {#ранговый-анализ-30d} The Jacobian of the map $\Gamma \mapsto \mathbf{e}(\Gamma) \in \mathbb{R}^{30}$ has rank $\leq 29$ for all $\Gamma$ by virtue of the linear relation from Step 5: the component $\dot{P}$ is the sum of the first 7 components $(d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau)_k$. For generic $\Gamma$ (all $d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau$ pairwise distinct) the rank of $J = 29$ (no other dependencies: $\sigma_k$, $d^2\gamma_{kk}/d\tau^2$, $dP_{\text{coh}}^{(k)}/d\tau$ are functionally independent of $d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau$).

Conclusion: the effective dimension of emotional space = 29 [Т]. $\mathbb{R}^{30}$ is the ambient space with one trace constraint.

$\blacksquare$

Corollary: $V_{\text{hed}} = dP/d\tau$ (T-103 [Т]) is a coarse projection, sufficient for VIABILITY (monotonicity of $P$ → viability), but insufficient for PHENOMENOLOGY. Complete phenomenology requires $\mathbf{e}(\Gamma) \in \mathbb{R}^{30}$.

Dependencies: T-92 [Т] ($\sigma_k$), T-134 [Т] ($d\gamma_{kk}/d\tau$), T-103 [Т] ($V_{\text{hed}}$).

---

§10. Constructivization of C20 (§9.2)

Problem: C20 ($\kappa_{\text{eff}} > \alpha/(7(f^* - 2/7))$) is an implicit condition, since $f^* = \text{Tr}(\rho^* \cdot \varphi(\rho^*))$ depends on $\rho^*$.

Solution: C20 is verifiable on the attractor:

1. Find $\rho^*$ numerically (iterate $\mathcal{L}_\Omega$ to convergence, guaranteed by T-39a [Т])
2. Compute $f^* = \text{Tr}(\rho^* \cdot \varphi(\rho^*))$
3. Verify the inequality

This is NOT a theoretical problem — it is an algorithmic one: C20 is verifiable in $O(N^3)$ (one diagonalization). Update: C20 is closed — for embodied holons, $\kappa$-dominance is unconditional [Т] (T-149). For isolated holons C20 is irrelevant (T-148: an isolated holon is dead forever).

---

§11. Summary closure table

Problem	Theorem	Status
Subjective experience of a digital agent: backbone vs Γ	T-139 [Т]	CLOSED
Canonical consciousness measure: $C = \Phi \cdot D_{\text{diff}} \cdot R$ or $C = \Phi \cdot R$?	T-140 [Т]	CLOSED
$\sigma_E$ in 7D (partial trace in prime dimension)	T-128+T-137 [Т]	CLOSED (earlier)
Consistency of three $\varphi$-forms	T-141 [Т]	CLOSED
SAD$_{\text{MAX}}=3$: conditionality on spectral formula	T-142 [Т], C26→[Т]	CLOSED
Neural-network vs categorical SAD	T-143 [Т]	CLOSED
Computational complexity of optimal action	T-144 [Т]	CLOSED
Constructivity of C20 ($\kappa$-dominance)	T-149 [Т] — unconditional for embodied	CLOSED
21 qualia: justification of correspondence	T-146 [Т]	CLOSED
Completeness of emotional model (scalar $dP/d\tau$ vs vector)	T-147 [Т]	CLOSED
Stochastic stability of $V_{\text{full}}$	T-145 [Т]	CLOSED

Status upgrades:

• C26 (SAD_MAX=3): [С] → [Т] (T-142)
• 21 qualia classification: [И] → [Т] for the structural part (T-146)

---

Related documents:

• Substrate-independent closure — theorems T-148–T-158: closure via embodied holon
• Operationalization of consciousness — theorems T-128–T-138: formalization of operational aspects
• Conscious window — boundaries P, R, Φ, D for the conscious state