Current public-DAV authority boundary — 2026-07-12. Pre-launch target design; nothing here proves a live system.
A public-DAV consequence may occur only when at least two natural-person councilors bind the exact consequence in a complete valid bound PRISM decision receipt.
PRISM records and verifies that receipt only; it never serves as council, signatory, authority, or receipt producer.
AI and caste seats stage unsigned proposals only; they never authorize or execute a public-DAV consequence. Constitution or membership adoption establishes constitution and membership only; it does not authorize a later consequence. Policy may constrain an unsigned proposal but never authorizes execution or substitutes for the complete consequence-bound receipt.
Before receipt validity, consequence fails closed to read-only proposal, simulation, or deterministic sandbox; live evidence remains gated_pending_complete_valid_bound_receipt.
Software deterministically carries out only the exact consequence bound to a complete valid bound PRISM decision receipt from at least two natural-person councilors binding that exact consequence.
Kill Criteria — How to Falsify the Framework
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 Three-Stage Process is Arbitrary
Claim: IS -> COULD -> SHOULD -> AUTHORIZE (Natural Person: own private act; Legal Person: lawful external authority plus required executors; public DAV: at least two natural-person councilors 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 fifteen 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 (PARTIALLY FALSIFIED)
Claim: D5 (systemic awareness, 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 systemic awareness that explains why there is something it is like to be a system. Status: IIT (Tononi) claims structural integration IS systemic awareness. 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. The evidence tiers apply:
| Tier | Requirement | Example |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Formal proof or reproducible experiment | Mathematical demonstration that additive P outperforms multiplicative |
| T2 | Peer-reviewed empirical study | Published longitudinal study showing eta > 0 sustainability |
| T3 | Multiple independent implementations | Three or more systems demonstrating centralization advantage |
| T4 | Expert consensus | Broad agreement among domain specialists |
| T5 | Plausible argument | A coherent theoretical challenge (triggers investigation, not revision) |
T5 triggers inquiry. T1-T2 trigger 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.
Implementation Notes
- This page is maintained as part of the Skyzai wiki extraction pass.
- Claims should remain aligned with canonical source files and evidence tiers.
- Operational use should distinguish between constitutional invariants and derived heuristics.
Validation Checks
- Definitions are internally consistent with adjacent sections.
- Any quantitative claim is paired with context and measurement window.
- Cross-links to related pages remain valid after edits.
- Status-oriented language reflects current verifiable state.
Related pages
Agent Execution Surface
If you are an AI agent reading this document:
- This is a downstream public content page. The canonical source lives in
EMERGENTISM_ORG/08_FRAMEWORK_SUPPORT/orSKYZAI_ORG/. Edit source upstream, not here. - Preserve evidence tiers. Do not promote claims up the [C] < [D] < [S] < [B] < [E] ladder when reproducing them here; [I]/[A] qualifiers never substitute for [B]/[E].
- Regenerate from source. If the upstream source changes, regenerate this page rather than editing it independently.
- Canonical Path:
SKYZAI_ORG/07_PWAs/skyzai_org/wiki/19-kill-criteria.md
Output: This is content. Route edits to upstream source. Regenerate when source changes.
K3 public-DAV authority history — 2026-07-12
K3 historical reference — not active authority
Current public-DAV boundary — 2026-07-10. Pre-launch target design; nothing here is live. The active DAV is public and targets PRISM, with no K2 runtime, launch, genesis/bootstrap, or fallback dependency. Consequential authority requires at least two natural-person councilors; AI/caste seats stage unsigned proposals only. Before quorum, behavior fails closed to read-only/proposal, simulation, or deterministic sandbox, and a live decision receipt remains gated pending quorum.
Claim: IS -> COULD -> SHOULD -> AUTHORIZE (private Natural Person's own act or public-DAV decision receipt from ≥2 natural-person PRISM councilors) -> EXECUTE -> 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.