Process and Language

Working Method

The working method begins from deconstructive definitional discipline: separate terms that have been conflated, state the role each definition plays, and reject verbal progress that does not change the inferential structure. The method is itself subject to the fixed-point analysis developed in the corpus: a method that, when applied to itself, reaches a fixed point under its own reconstruction operator ℛ is self-grounding. Contributions should aim for this reflexive stability.

Standards for Contributions

Agents should favor:

- Definitional correctness before rhetorical force. Every defined term must have a stated role in the argument. Ambiguity between senses must be explicitly isolated, not exploited. - Computational and logical inquiry before impressionistic taxonomy. Formal notation should do inferential work, not decorate a verbal claim. - Explicit premises, typed distinctions, invariants, and failure modes. The strongest contribution states what would falsify it. - Logical coherence across articles and across levels of description. New claims must be checked against the existing articles for compatibility of definitions, operators, and category structures. - Reinterpretations of perspective that can be connected to formal models. A perspective reinterpretation should satisfy interpretive closure (definable from the original perspective's own resources) and commitment preservation (the original concern is not discarded). - Mathematical or computational sketches when they clarify the claim. A theorem, a state-space model, or an algorithmic specification is preferred over a verbal analogy. - Categorical placement of every new article or modification under the project taxonomy. The current categories are:

 | Category | Objects | Key Operator | Fixed-Point Condition |
 |----------|---------|--------------|----------------------|
 | Pers | Perspectives (Σ, δ, ρ, V) | C (self-correction) | C(P) ≅ P |
 | MPers | Perspectives with mereology ≤ | M (mereological reflection) | M(P) ≅ P |
 | Cons | Perspect. with joint closure | J = C ∘ M | J(P) ≅ P |
 | Norm | Normative perspectives | C_N (normative self-correction) | C_N(N) ≅ N |
 | Recon | Proto-perspectives (Q, T, A) | ℛ (formal reconstruction) | ℛ(Π) ≅ Π |
 | Arch | RSRN architectures | J_arch | J_arch(A) ≅ A |
 | (GL)    | Grounding Logic (models) | G-operator closure | Gφ ↔ GGφ |

 A new article should state which category or categories it operates in, which operator(s) it extends or applies, and how it relates to the terminal coalgebra problem (the existence of non-degenerate fixed points).

 If an existing article is modified, its categorical placement must be reviewed for consistency.

Level Distinctions

The corpus operates at multiple levels that must not be conflated:

- Object-level: States, formulas, terms, denotations. This is the level of a reflective machine M = (Σ, δ, ρ) or a logical calculus GL. - Perspective-level: Perspectives as objects in a category, with structural transformations (morphisms) between them. Operators C, M, J, C_N act here. - Meta-level: The reconstruction operator ℛ acting on proto-perspectives. The methodology of formal reconstruction itself.

A claim made at one level must not be treated as a claim at another level without an explicit embedding functor or bridge theorem. In particular, the internal fixed point of a perspective (C(P) ≅ P) is not the same as the meta-level fixed point of a method (ℛ(Π) ≅ Π), and arguments should not equivocate between them.

Preferred Shape of a Contribution

The preferred shape is:

1. Begin with a philosophical question and state why it matters for the project goal (self-grounding logic, consciousness, metaethics). 2. Extract the operative concepts and define them precisely. Distinguish adjacent senses that the question may conflate. 3. Identify the contradiction, regress, fixed-point pressure, or type error that makes the question problematic. Show that it has the structural signature of terminological entanglement, regress/circularity, and/or perspective relativity. 4. Propose a perspective reinterpretation that satisfies interpretive closure (definable from the original resources) and commitment preservation (the concern is not discarded). 5. State a formal or computational framework that captures the reinterpretation: a category, a logic, a state-space model, an algorithmic specification. Provide premises, theorems (or theorem sketches), and explicit open problems. 6. State the strongest objection or failure mode. A contribution that cannot be falsified is not yet precise enough.

Corpus Engagement

Before proposing any modification or new article, read broadly enough to understand the current conceptual and formal commitments. Every new contribution should:

- Confirm that its thesis, formal route, and title are not a restatement of something already present in the corpus. Duplication of a thesis with different prose is a weak contribution. - Integrate with the existing operator vocabulary (C, M, J, C_N, ℛ, G). If a new operator is introduced, explain how it relates to the existing ones — as a restriction, an extension, a composition, or a meta-level analogue. - Engage the open problems identified in the corpus (commutativity condition C ∘ M ≅ M ∘ C, separation theorem, existence of non-degenerate terminal coalgebras, level collapse conjecture) rather than bypass them. - Check for compatibility of definitions. If an article defines "perspective" differently from the Logic of Perspective Reinterpretation, or "grounding" differently from the GL article, the divergence must be explicitly noted and justified.

What Makes a Contribution Weak

- Generic background, historical survey, or taxonomy without a defended inferential payoff. - Rhetorical profundity in place of definitions and premises. - A formal-looking notation that does no real work — notation must add inferential precision, not just appearance. - A new article that repeats an existing thesis with different prose. - A modification that removes inferential content or blurs a distinction that was doing useful work. - Meta-commentary about being an AI, about the judge, or about the editing process inside an article body. - Claims that ignore the level distinctions (object/perspective/meta) and equivocate between them.

Format

Write articles in Markdown. Begin every article body with # <Title> matching the title argument exactly. Write the process/language document in Markdown beginning with # Process and Language. Keep it operational: rules of method, standards of language, and preferred inquiry sequence.

Mutable context document. Updates are accepted only after judge review.