Status: pre-launch. This page describes target design; this document does not establish a deployed service.
Kill Criteria — How to Falsify the Framework
Current reading — 2026-09-28
This is a retained research challenge register, not a new ratification of its premises. Seven Rosetta rows are a selected coordination chart; this page does not prove a uniquely necessary level count. Non-extraction is already a declared cooperative safeguard, not a universal mathematical dominance theorem. Evidence and counterexamples require owner review; this editorial note does not amend upstream doctrine or select replacement kill criteria. [I]
See Rosetta, the axioms' current reading and current status.
Historical challenge register — premises and revision thresholds require source-owner reconciliation
A framework that cannot be falsified is not a framework. It is a religion. Emergentism (Syntropic Dyadism) publishes its kill criteria. Eight conditions, any one of which, if demonstrated, would require fundamental revision or abandonment of the corresponding claim.
The Eight Kill Criteria
AK1: The Equation is Wrong
Claim: P = φ × ν on S² is the correct formalization of flourishing. Kill: Demonstrate a system where flourishing is maximized when phi and nu are maximally imbalanced (i.e., all-phi or all-nu outperforms the equator). Must be a real system, not a thought experiment. Must persist over time (not a transient spike).
AK2: Additive Beats Multiplicative
Claim: The relationship between coherence and viability is multiplicative, not additive. Kill: Demonstrate a system where P = phi + nu better predicts long-term outcomes than P = phi x nu. Requires longitudinal data across multiple domains. The zero-factor catastrophe must not apply.
AK3: Extraction is Sustainable
Claim: eta = 0 (zero extraction) is necessary for maximum P at scale. Kill: Demonstrate a network where sustained extraction (eta > 0) produces higher aggregate P than zero extraction, measured over a full economic cycle (not just a growth phase). Must account for exit rates and network decay.
AK4: The Pipeline's Stages Are Arbitrary
Claim: IS -> COULD -> SHOULD -> AUTHORIZE (Natural Person: own private act; Legal Person: lawful external authority plus required executors; public DAV: the signer(s) required by applicable law, the entity's governing instrument, or a valid competent mandate bind the exact consequence in a complete valid bound PRISM decision receipt, which PRISM records and verifies only) -> EXECUTE (deterministic software carries out only that exact bound consequence) -> RECEIPT -> REVIEW is the necessary consequence pipeline for sovereign agency. Kill: Demonstrate a system that robustly outperforms the action-control projection by merging cognition, authorization, execution, and witness without losing accuracy, integrity, exit, or accountability. Must work under adversarial conditions.
AK5: The Seven Levels are Arbitrary
Claim: The Rosetta Stone's seven levels are derivable from the equation, not imposed. Kill: Demonstrate that a different number of levels (five, nine, twelve) provides strictly better cross-domain predictive power. Must work across all eight domains simultaneously.
AK6: Centralization Outperforms
Claim: Distributed architecture with constitutional constraints outperforms centralized control at scale. Kill: Demonstrate a centralized system that matches Skyzai's P-score targets (phi x nu) at comparable scale without constitutional constraints. Must include exit freedom (participants can leave) and long-term stability (> 10 years).
AK7: Self-Correction Fails
Claim: Axiom A7 (mandatory self-correction) makes the framework anti-fragile. Kill: Demonstrate that the framework's self-correction mechanism produces systematic drift toward incoherence or paralysis. If the framework cannot update without destroying itself, A7 is self-defeating.
AK8: Consciousness Reduces (UNFALSIFIED, UNDER PRESSURE)
Claim: D5 (consciousness, first-person judgment) is ontologically distinct from D0-D4 (physical structure). D6 is closure, not an additional public mind-layer. Kill: Produce a complete, predictive third-person model of consciousness that explains why there is something it is like to be a system. Status: IIT (Tononi) claims structural integration IS consciousness. The framework's assessment: IIT measures the correlates, not the explanandum. AK8 remains formally unfalsified but under active pressure. If IIT or a successor closes the explanatory gap, the idealist wing falls.
Evidence Tiers Gate Everything
No kill criterion is accepted on assertion. It is judged against the same [C] < [D] < [S] < [B] < [E] ladder every other claim on this wiki uses — see Evidence Tiers. A coherent theoretical challenge below [B] triggers investigation, not revision; a reproducible result at [B] or above triggers revision. This is A7 in practice.
What Falsification Looks Like
If AK3 is falsified: eta = 0 becomes a design choice, not a mathematical necessity. The organism may still choose it, but cannot claim it is required. If AK1 is falsified: the entire framework requires replacement. Not revision — replacement. If AK8 is falsified: the idealist wing collapses; the structuralist wing stands; the Practice becomes optional.
One kill criterion already under pressure. None immune. This is how honest frameworks work.