Choose the question before the path
Science-first route
Recommended for scientific reviewers.
- CCH Scientific Foundations — empirical problem, primary evidence, conflicts, alternatives, and exact gap.
- CCH Science — candidate mechanism, model classes, experiments, and falsifiers.
- Science-only reviewer dossier / print route — a compact routing summary; the two scientific pages remain authoritative.
- Optional interpretation: AC Flagship and CFH.
What this route cannot prove: AC, CFH, phenomenality from a metric, or artificial consciousness.
Ontology-and-origin route
- AC Flagship — proposed ontology.
- CFH — personal origin and speculative field language.
- Scientific Foundations — independent empirical grounding.
- CCH Science — independent local tests.
What this route cannot prove: that ontology is a premise of CCH, or that local CCH/DCC results validate AC/CFH.
The current scientific bridge
X(t) is the current scientific candidate object: the primary candidate multidimensional state representation. It is not yet frozen for a claim-bearing test. ΩCCH is a candidate preregistered target region, also not yet frozen. S* may fail independently of X(t); it is optional rather than authoritative.
CCH does not require AC or CFH.
CCH success does not prove AC or CFH.
DCC, MDL×DCC, and AI8 success supports only the tested engineering claims.
Local bridge success does not prove AC unless AC supplies a distinct preregistered prediction.
From historical bridge to independent engineering evidence
The historical AC/CFH/CCH and claustrum-control inquiry generated a control question. That question was abstracted into the Digital Claustrum Controller, generalized as Dynamic Complexity / Compression Controller, and operationalized with MDL as MDL×DCC.
DCC and MDL×DCC are not current scientific evidence for AC, CFH, or biological CCH. They are current technical descendants whose authority comes from their own code, solvers, arenas, baselines, ablations, negative results, measured outcomes, and cross-domain transfer tests.
One may reject the ontology and still have to evaluate the invention.
Projects Are Evidence. The Method Is the Value.
Public route to the project-level evidence and claim boundaries.
MDL×DCC Domain Map
Domain-bounded and cross-domain evidence for the technical method; not universal proof.
MDL×DCC Reasoning Trace Arena
Preregistered test of process-side compression as an online signal for reasoning governance.
Lineage: Soul Voyage / consciousness inquiry → AC / CFH / CCH → claustrum control question → DCC → MDL×DCC → working code and arenas → AIM³ / MAL / AI8 / ArenaLoop / Team Genesis.
The historical conceptual bridge
Earlier editions joined ontology, field interpretation, coherence/complexity language, and a scalar coupling idea on this one page. That formulation helped generate the later programme but is now a superseded scientific formulation.
The old scalar bridge is historical. Its formula is preserved only in the separately labelled CFH / CSH Speculative Sandbox. It is not current CCH authority and does not measure AC or CF.
Original pre-alignment source identity
SHA-256: 6f7325fec4aa9ab712085f18af5b86d3f315d19d2f9d28ecb1b41eb53ccce849
SHA3-256: ab756fbf35be90025919d8b0d741f601e92c315ecf08600b5bf7a47a6b6521b5
The source identity is preserved in the release ledger. Its scalar formula appears only in the separately labelled historical sandbox, not as active authority on this page.
The support/weakening/failure discipline is preserved: a local model must outperform simpler rivals under held-out tests, complexity penalties, calibration checks, and matched intervention budgets. Failure must be allowed without rewriting the target after outcomes are known.