-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Operational Profile and Scientific Scope
CPCF reports thirteen independent operational dimensions for a single immutable snapshot:
| Dimension | Question asked by the bounded check |
|---|---|
| Provenance integrity | Can required live records be reconstructed from admitted sources? |
| Trust quorum | Do high-impact decisions satisfy the required role separation? |
| Temporal integrity | Is lifecycle status established by trusted time? |
| Structural reachability | Are targets reachable in the typed hypergraph? |
| Causal formation | Is there a strictly prior formation sequence? |
| Dimensional consistency | Are quantities, actions, and time dimensions compatible? |
| Exact self-maintenance | Is there an exact target-bound maintenance balance? |
| Finite-horizon resource persistence | Do all declared trajectory prefixes preserve protected floors? |
| Target-bound generative catalysis | Can admitted food and catalysis form the targets without circular credit? |
| Verification capacity | Can required evidence routes be serviced within declared bounds? |
| Effective independence | Does admitted exposure evidence support independent domains? |
| Coordination protocol integrity | Is the signed coordination state machine complete and valid? |
| Perturbation robustness | Do declared reduced-snapshot audits retain every required dimension? |
operational_organization_compatible is true only if every contract-required dimension is
satisfied in the same snapshot. The dimensions are not collapsed into an intelligence score.
CPCF borrows formal distinctions from organization theory, RAF systems, open reaction networks, Petri nets, network calculus, nondeterministic planning, and target-trial design. These are accounting and modeling tools. They do not demonstrate that a software collective is a chemical or physical phase.
The following inferences are invalid:
- Structural reachability does not show strictly prior causal formation.
- Exact balance does not show kinetics, equilibrium, stability, entropy production, or thermodynamic feasibility.
- A finite resource trajectory does not establish persistence outside its declared horizon and inputs.
- Different agent labels or model names do not establish independence.
- A bounded perturbation audit does not establish robustness for unmodeled perturbations, invalid replacements, unmatched selectors, or exhausted budgets.
- A bounded strong plan does not add fairness, general controllability, or eventual success.
- A registered trial binding does not certify causal identification or statistical validity.
The planner uses branch-safe, bounded strong AND–OR reasoning with distinct outcomes such as success, partial result, failure, and timeout. Its output is hypothetical until receipt-backed promotion. It cannot satisfy a scientific profile dimension merely by proposing a path.
State the exact snapshot, each relevant dimension, any search bounds, and every unknown result. A precise statement is “the declared structural requirement is satisfied in snapshot X under policy Y.” It should not become “the collective phase is achieved” or “causal acceleration is verified.”
For a review procedure, see Review and Reporting. For the literature and implementation limits, see Research Basis and Limits.