Skip to main content
FRC.v2
|
|
FRC-700-005 · v0.1

The μ Atlas: Cross-System Assignment and Failure Audit v0.1

H. Servat2026-07-1710 minFRC 700 seriesSpeculativeμ4 Logical / conceptual
thresholdsmu-atlascross-systemauditinter-rater-agreementfailure-conditions

Reading status

Current statement

This paper turns the FRC μ topology into an auditable assignment task. It provides an authorial atlas for an egg, human, AI thread-agent, football match, ship, and solar system, while allowing absent and unresolved registers. Each application declares its unit, boundary, selective interface, retained and discarded information, testable link, and prohibited inference. A preregistered protocol then asks at least three blinded independent raters to classify fixed cases and records raw agreement and Fleiss' kappa before adjudication. Version 0.1 contains no independent-rater data and makes no reproducibility claim. Agreement would support methodological usability; structured disagreement would locate ambiguous definitions; arbitrary assignment would force revision or rejection.

Evidence level

Philosophical / formal framework note

preprint

Declared μ register

μ4 · Logical / conceptual

Logic, formal models, language as explicit reasoning, and computational design.

Open boundary

Review the paper’s declared scope, controls, limitations, and kill conditions.

Version lineage

v0.1 · Current release

On this page
This paper turns the FRC μ topology into an auditable assignment task. It provides an authorial atlas for an egg, human, AI thread-agent, football match, ship, and solar system, while allowing absent and unresolved registers. Each application declares its unit, boundary, selective interface, retained and discarded information, testable link, and prohibited inference. A preregistered protocol then asks at least three blinded independent raters to classify fixed cases and records raw agreement and Fleiss' kappa before adjudication. Version 0.1 contains no independent-rater data and makes no reproducibility claim. Agreement would support methodological usability; structured disagreement would locate ambiguous definitions; arbitrary assignment would force revision or rejection.

Linked from

Related

Paper

The Threshold Charter: Evidence, Interpretation, and Register Discipline v0.1

This charter defines the FRC 700.00x series as threshold work: it governs transitions among physical observations, formal models, operational realizations, and FRC μ interpretations without treating those domains as interchangeable. It classifies claims, fixes a one-way evidence rule, specifies the μ topology as an FRC convention, and requires an interface record whenever a conclusion crosses a declared boundary. Exact results from the FRC 830 series may constrain μ interpretations; μ resemblance cannot prove those results. The charter adds no physical law or universal ontology.

Paper

The Two-Face Threshold: Inward Realization, Selective Interface, and Outward Participation v0.1

A bounded unit has an inward realization and an outward participation only relative to a declared boundary. Between them lies a selective interface, not an identity. This paper represents a threshold by an inward space X, environment E, boundary, outward description L, and map ell:X→L. It proves that a noninjective interface cannot support unique inward reconstruction and gives a finite fiber example. FRC 830 strong morphisms then provide a stricter commuting-square test for proposed transformations. The result constrains the FRC μ lens without deriving the 830 mathematics from it.

Paper

The Recursive Boundary: Whole–Unit Reindexing in the μ Topology v0.1

FRC μ assignments are indexed relations among an object, its role, and a declared system boundary; they are not permanent labels attached to objects. This paper defines a bounded system, an indexed role map, and a boundary-change record. It proves the consistency of whole–unit reindexing: the same object can be a bounded unit at one boundary and a component of a larger unit at another without contradiction because the predicates have different boundary indices. 'Fractal' is restricted to recurrence of the component–unit–relation pattern under boundary change, not geometric self-similarity or fractal dimension.

Paper

Return Is an Update: Memory, Feedback, and the Next Ground v0.1

The FRC toroidal qualifier means that outward passage can return into a later ground, not that the path is a geometric circle. This paper models a state-and-environment update and separates memory, feedback, delay, and environmental input. If a selective threshold merges two reachable states and every downstream step is deterministic under fixed inputs, the completed cycle cannot distinguish their histories. Its return map is noninjective on those histories. The next ground need not equal the prior ground; equality requires a separate recurrence test.

Paper

History, Story, and Witness: The Semantic Threshold v0.1

FRC distinguishes a recorded history from its story and from a system's response. This paper defines a history space, a narrative map, and a context-indexed witness-response map. A noninjective narrative does not reconstruct its history, while one history can support several narratives when the map or context changes. Integration, monitoring, reportability, reflective witness, and subjective consciousness remain separate. A claim that a story changes a physical trajectory must identify a causal carrier and comparison protocol. The result governs the μ5–μ6 threshold without treating meaning as unreal or automatically causal.

Paper

FRC 700.777 v1.0 - μ Registers: A Nested Scope Model for Scale-Declared Reciprocity

FRC 700.777 defines μ registers as a nested scope model for the FRC corpus. μ0 names the prior ground; μ1–μ4 describe an organism's interior registers; μ5–μ6 its symbolic and witnessing envelope; and μ7 the boundary-shell coupled to what lies outside the declared system. The note distinguishes this map from physical scale selection and from the starred Boltzmann bridge k*. A μ label declares where a claim speaks; it neither sets k*, proves cross-register causation, nor transfers evidence between registers. The paper supplies an interface record for any proposed cross-register study and keeps the canonical physical relation unchanged.