Skip to content

“Phase-Lock v1.0”

Latest

Choose a tag to compare

@pdxvoiceteacher pdxvoiceteacher released this 18 Jan 02:26
· 11 commits to master since this release
57431de

What each experiment proves & how it supports GUFT, the Lattice, and the Total Action Functional
Below is a concise, per‑experiment mapping based on the current experiment harness (experiments/README.md) and the supporting governance/telemetry documentation in this repo. I also call out where GUFT is explicitly referenced and where Total Action Functional is not yet explicitly linked in the files I reviewed.

✅ Experiment 0 — Build & Verify
What it proves:
That the formal Lean layer compiles and the Python validation layer executes, establishing that the repo’s proof + runtime stack is internally consistent. This is the “project is real” proof gate described in the experiment overview.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

Lattice: The repo’s top‑level README explicitly frames the project as “CoherenceLattice — GUFT / Coherence / Sacred Geometry / Generative Engines,” which is the umbrella for the lattice formalism.

GUFT: Implicitly supported by the same project framing.

✅ Experiment 1 — Lambda_T From Series
What it proves:
Computes Λ (Lambda_T) from a deterministic numeric series and validates threshold flagging. This is a direct, minimal “governance gate on criticality” proof.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

GUFT: The Lambda gate policy explicitly ties Λ to ΔSyn/GUFT invariants, making this an operational GUFT‑adjacent check.

Lattice: As part of the CoherenceLattice governance pipeline, this is a runtime instantiation of lattice‑derived telemetry controls.

✅ Experiment 2 — Λ Gate Trigger (Synthetic)
What it proves:
Deterministic Λ spike triggers governance (warn/alarm) in a reproducible way (low compute, minimal dependencies). This is the canonical “safety gate fires when Λ exceeds threshold” proof.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

GUFT: The Lambda gate policy explicitly names “ΔSyn/GUFT invariants (Λ as criticality)”, so this is the most direct experiment tied to GUFT.

Lattice: Operates on lattice‑defined telemetry metrics such as Λ (bounded criticality).

✅ Experiment 3 — No‑Teleport (Lean Symbol Check)
What it proves:
Verifies the presence of Lean symbols tied to the “No‑Teleport” theorem—i.e., bounded transitions between regimes, no regime skipping. This is a formal‑layer anchoring experiment.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

Lattice: This is explicitly grounded in CoherenceLattice.Coherence.NoTeleport, which is part of the lattice formalization.

GUFT: Indirect support: bounded transitions align with GUFT‑style stability constraints but are not labeled “GUFT” in these files.

✅ Experiment 4 — Evidence Gate
What it proves:
Evidence extraction and minimum‑link governance—i.e., proof‑burden is enforced (links/DOI required). This is a ΔSyn‑style governance constraint, preventing exogenic offloading.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

GUFT: Indirect. This enforces governance evidence constraints, which align with ΔSyn / GUFT governance behavior but are not explicitly labeled GUFT here.

Lattice: Operational governance layer tied to the lattice runtime pipeline.

✅ Experiment 5 — Required Sections & Checklist
What it proves:
Structured output enforcement and human‑readable governance checklists. This demonstrates the Logos‑style structure enforcement (required sections are present).

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

GUFT: Indirect, via governance / structure enforcement.

Lattice: Enforced through UCC governance modules that sit on top of the CoherenceLattice runtime.

✅ Experiment 6 — Comparator (Baseline vs Lambda)
What it proves:
Quantitative comparison across runs (baseline vs lambda), showing metric deltas and governance flags. This provides operational correspondence across runs.

Support for GUFT / Lattice / Total Action Functional:

GUFT: Indirect—if Λ changes drive governance differences, this supports the GUFT‑linked Λ policy.

Lattice: Uses lattice‑defined metrics (Λ, etc.) for comparison.

Bottom line
GUFT support: Strongest in Experiment 2 (explicitly tied to ΔSyn/GUFT invariants via the Lambda gate policy), and secondarily in Experiment 1/6 (Λ‑based governance metrics).

Lattice support: Strong in Experiment 3 (Lean No‑Teleport symbol) and broadly across experiments that operate on lattice‑defined telemetry.