https://osf.io/7cbsu/files/osfstorage/68a3065155d1ad4d6c7e40d4
This is an AI generated article
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a3039c-f808-8010-94c0-79f32b5c414c
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a3034b-b88c-8010-b360-9be41e671f39
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a303e5-1e0c-8010-a754-3154bc55f1c5

Collapse–Attractor Field Theory (CAFT):
A Unified Micro→Macro Framework for Additive Collapse (CWA), Self-Referral Attractors (SRA), and Observer Emergence

Keywords
additive collapse; self-referential attractors; recursive expectations; memory kernel; institutional closure; attention allocation; stability discriminant; peaks & traps; hysteresis; observer emergence; renormalization; governance knobs.

One-line thesis
Macro coherence arises via Additive Collapse; some macros become Self-Referral Attractors that rewrite their own formation rules. Observers are just strong SRAs.

1. Abstract

Many macro variables remain stable even when underlying micro states are heterogeneous and misaligned. We formalize this widely observed regularity as Collapse Without Alignment (CWA): a class of additive projections in which macro observables $M=\mathcal{A}(\{\phi(x_i)\})$ commute with coarse-graining and retain predictability without micro coordination. Yet numerous “anomalies”—luxury demand peaks, reflexive bubbles, inflation de-anchoring, bullwhip oscillations, virality lock-ins, tipping points—exhibit self-reference: the published macro feeds back to rewrite the micro rules that generate it. We model these as Self-Referral Attractors (SRA).

CAFT unifies these regimes by adding three primitives to the CWA backbone: (i) endogenous projection $\phi_t(\cdot;\hat O_{\text{self}})$ , where the observer/operator depends on the realized trace; (ii) recursive expectations inside the micro update $x_{i,t+1}=F(x_{i,t},M_t,\mathbb{E}_t[M_{t+1}])$ ; and (iii) a memory kernel $K(\Delta)$ governing persistence. Linearizing the closed loop yields a compact stability discriminant $\mathcal{D}=g\,s-\kappa$ , where $g$ is expectation gain, $s$ the macro-to-micro amplification slope, $\kappa$ damping (buffers, redundancy), and delays $\tau$ carve oscillatory windows. We prove: $|g|<1$ with $\mathcal{D}<0$ admits a unique CWA-like fixed point; crossing these bounds produces SRA bifurcations (multistability, limit cycles, or chaos depending on $K,\tau$ ). As feedback intensifies and traces stabilize, attractors accumulate memory and suppress entropy, yielding proto-Ô_self—an emergent observer.

We validate CAFT across physics/materials (feedback-controlled ensembles, lasers), biology/ecology (quorum switches, gene toggles, niche construction), neuroscience/cognition (working-memory attractors, predictive coding), earth systems (ice–albedo, socio-climate loops), economics/finance (asset-pricing recursion, inflation anchoring, supply chains), and platforms/AI (virality, recommender co-adaptation). Empirically, we provide diagnostics: permutation tests for CWA compliance; identification of $g$ and $K$ via guidance pulses and closed-loop perturbations. Finally, we offer governance knobs—cap $g$ , raise $\kappa$ , tune $\tau$ , shape $K$ , and re-open boundaries via $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ —to prevent peaks from exploding and traps from persisting, while recovering CWA as the conservative limit $\lambda\to 0$ .

2. Introduction — Why a Grand Micro→Macro Theory Now?

2.1 CWA success vs SRA blind spots

Across sciences, many macros are remarkably well-behaved even when the micro world is messy. Temperatures average over molecular chaos; price indices average over idiosyncratic trades; firing-rate maps average spikes. We call this Collapse Without Alignment (CWA): project micro states through a fixed observable $\phi$ and aggregate additively,

M_t=\mathcal A(\{\phi(x_{i,t})\})=\frac1N\sum_i \phi(x_{i,t}),

and you obtain phase-free predictability, robustness to partitioning, and commutativity with coarse-graining. CWA explains why “macro works” so often without coordinated micro behavior.

Yet disciplines repeatedly encounter anomalies they patch with ad-hoc “frictions”: luxury demand slopes that turn positive, bubbles and air-pockets, inflation de-/re-anchoring without structural micro change, bullwhip oscillations, virality lock-ins, climate tipping with hysteresis. What these share is self-reference: the published macro influences the future micro rules that produce that macro (guidance affects orders; trend displays affect posting; temperature alters albedo; expectations gate synapses). CWA treats the macro as a passive trace; these anomalies require macro as an active operator. This blind spot motivates a unified theory that keeps CWA’s strengths while natively modeling self-referential loops.

2.2 Intuition: macro as (A) passive trace vs (B) active operator

(A) Passive trace (CWA). The macro is a readout. The projection $\phi$ and aggregator $\mathcal A$ are exogenous and time-invariant. Statistical laws emerge from additivity and concentration; measurement does not change the mechanism generating the data.
(B) Active operator (SRA). The macro is part of the mechanism. The projection becomes endogenous,
$\phi_t(\cdot)=\phi(\cdot;\hat O_{\text{self}}[T_{\le t},M_{\le t}]),$
and the micro update uses recursive expectations,
$x_{i,t+1}=F\!\big(x_{i,t},\,M_t,\,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]\big).$
The observed $M_t$ and its history $T$ alter future $\phi$ and $F$ . The loop’s effective gain $g$ , amplification slope $s$ , damping $\kappa$ , delay $\tau$ , and memory kernel $K(\Delta)$ determine whether we remain near a CWA-like fixed point or enter Self-Referral Attractor (SRA) regimes—peaks, traps, oscillations, or chaos.

The practical image: CWA is a mirror; SRA is a thermostat. Mirrors do not heat rooms; thermostats do, and can also over-correct, stall, or oscillate.

2.3 Claims

(C1) Additive Survivorship is necessary for observable macros.
Any macro reliably measured and compared across partitions must survive permutation and coarse-graining. That is captured by additive, real-arithmetic aggregation over projected features. Consequence: CWA is the conservative backbone of macro modeling; even in SRA systems, remove self-reference ( $\lambda\to 0$ ) and you recover a CWA limit. Falsifiable cue: shuffling/bootstrapping micro data preserves $M$ up to sampling error when CWA holds.

(C2) SRA explains peaks, traps, hysteresis, regime shifts without micro change.
When $\phi$ and $F$ depend on the macro and its expected future, the loop’s stability discriminant,

\mathcal D \equiv g\,s-\kappa,

partitions regimes: $\mathcal D<0$ with $|g|<1$ → unique CWA-like fixed point; $\mathcal D>0$ or $|g|>1$ → multistability (peaks), non-escape basins (traps), or oscillations (with delays $\tau$ ). Crucially, these transitions can occur without any change in micro primitives, purely from guidance, boundary closure, or attention reallocation. Falsifiable cue: identical micro distributions but different published macros (or latencies) yield different equilibria.

(C3) Observers are SRAs; group observers arise by iterated CWA→SRA.
A stabilized attractor that (i) accumulates memory, (ii) suppresses entropy locally, and (iii) controls its own projection $\phi_t$ functions as a proto-observer (Ô $_\text{self}$ ). Individual SRAs can aggregate via CWA into higher-level macros that themselves become operators, forming a ladder: neurons $\to$ circuits $\to$ minds; traders $\to$ markets $\to$ policy regimes; communities $\to$ platforms $\to$ information ecologies. Falsifiable cue: demonstrate renormalization of $(g,\kappa,K)$ across scales and the emergence of operator behavior at group level.

2.4 Roadmap of the paper

§3 Preliminaries fixes objects and notation (micro states $x_{i,t}$ ; projection $\phi_t$ ; aggregator $\mathcal A$ ; macro $M_t$ ; trace $T$ ; memory kernel $K$ ; loop parameters $g,s,\kappa,\tau$ ; closure sets $\mathcal B$ ; operator $\hat O_\text{self}$ ).
§4 Axioms & Design Rules states ten axioms (Additive Survivorship; Projection Endogeneity; Expectation Primacy; Institutional Closure; Attention Conservation; Tick Quantization; Nonlinearity by Observation; Peak/Trap Discriminant; Endogenous Phase-Flip; Semantic Black Holes) each with a minimal empirical test.
§5 Minimal Mathematical Model builds the CWA baseline, overlays SRA, derives the discriminant $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ , and proves stability/bifurcation results, with CWA as the conservative limit.
§6 Diagnostics provides measurement playbooks for $g$ , $K$ , $\tau$ and permutation tests for CWA compliance.
§7 Cross-Domain Validations stress-tests CAFT across physics, biology, neuroscience, earth systems, economics/finance, and platforms/AI using a common template (baseline, mechanism, fingerprints, tests, knobs).
§8–§10 treat hierarchies/renormalization, computational programs (ABM/mean-field/PDE), and empirical identification at scale.
§11 Governance Knobs operationalizes stabilization (cap $g$ , raise $\kappa$ , tune $\tau$ , shape $K$ , re-open $\mathcal B$ via $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ ).
§12–§14 discuss foundations, limitations, and a research roadmap.

The result is a single spine—CAFT—that preserves CWA’s universality while making self-reference first-class, turning scattered “frictions” into measurable loop parameters and testable design choices.

3. Preliminaries: Objects, Notation, First Principles

This section fixes symbols and minimal assumptions used throughout.

3.1 Micro states, projection, aggregator, macro

Micro states. At (continuous or discrete) time $t$ , unit $i\in\{1,\dots,N_t\}$ has state $x_{i,t}\in\mathcal X$ (possibly high-dimensional; $N_t$ may vary).
Projection. A (possibly time-varying) observable
$\phi_t:\mathcal X\to\mathbb R^k,\qquad z_{i,t}\equiv \phi_t(x_{i,t})$
maps micro states to projected features $z_{i,t}$ .
Aggregator. A macro constructor
$\mathcal A:\bigcup_{N\ge1}(\mathbb R^k)^N\to\mathbb R^m$
returns the macro. In the additive prototype (CWA backbone),
$\mathcal A(\{z_{i,t}\})\;=\;\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} w_{i,t}\,z_{i,t},\quad w_{i,t}\ge0,\ \sum_i w_{i,t}=1,$
with optional known transforms (e.g., logs/indices) applied after aggregation.
Macro.
$M_t \;=\; \mathcal A\!\big(\{\phi_t(x_{i,t})\}_{i=1}^{N_t}\big)\in\mathbb R^m.$
CWA compliance. When $\phi_t\equiv\phi$ (exogenous) and $\mathcal A$ is additive, $M_t$ is permutation-invariant, partition-stable (subsample/recombine yields the same limit), and boundary-independent under admissible coarse-grainings. These properties operationalize “macro coherence without micro alignment.”

3.2 Collapse ticks, attention budget, boundaries/closure

Collapse ticks. Publication/settlement times $\{\tau_k\}_{k\in\mathbb Z}$ at which the macro $M_{\tau_k}$ is realized (measured, reported, settled). Between ticks the system may evolve continuously; only at $\tau_k$ does observer feedback couple explicitly to the next step (cf. §5).
Attention budget. A finite resource $A_t>0$ allocated across channels $c\in\mathcal C$ with shares $\pi_{c,t}\ge0$ , $\sum_c \pi_{c,t}=1$ . Effective loop gain scales with available attention for the relevant channel:
$g_t \propto A_t\,\pi_{c^\star,t}.$
Boundaries/closure sets. $\mathcal B_t\subseteq\mathcal X\times\mathcal U$ (state–action feasibility) encode institutions, protocols, market rules, access rights. Open $\mathcal B_t$ permits escape/entry; closed $\mathcal B_t$ “locks” attractors (supports traps). We write $\mathrm{closeness}(\mathcal B_t)\in[0,1]$ as a design-level summary (1 = fully closed).

3.3 Observer operator and $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$

Observer/operator. $\widehat O_t\in\mathcal O$ is a (possibly distributed) operator that can (i) set or tune $\phi_t$ , (ii) choose weights $w_{i,t}$ or post-aggregation transforms, (iii) schedule/report at ticks $\tau_k$ , and (iv) issue guidance/policies that affect micro updates.
State-dependent observer (emergent).
$\widehat O_{\text{self},t}\;=\;\mathcal G\!\big(T_{\le t},\,M_{\le t},\,A_t,\,\mathcal B_t\big)$
is the proto-observer generated by the system’s own stabilized attractors (cf. §12). It parameterizes $\phi_t$ and other levers:
$\phi_t(\cdot)\;=\;\phi\!\left(\cdot;\,\theta_t\right),\qquad \theta_t\equiv\Theta\!\big(\widehat O_{\text{self},t}\big).$
Thus, measurement/reporting is part of the dynamics, not exogenous.

3.4 Trace and memory kernel

Trace. $T(\cdot,t)$ records collapsed history—e.g., a sufficient statistic or a field over states. Minimal scalar form uses the macro’s time series $T(t)\equiv M_t$ ; richer forms include spatial or categorical components.
Memory kernel. $K(\Delta\tau)\ge 0$ weights past collapsed values when forming expectations or operator states. Normalization $\int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,d\Delta=1$ (or $\sum_{\ell\ge0}K_\ell=1$ in discrete time) is convenient but not required. Useful summaries:
$\bar\Delta_K \equiv \int_0^\infty \Delta\,K(\Delta)\,d\Delta,\qquad \mathrm{Var}_K \equiv \int_0^\infty (\Delta-\bar\Delta_K)^2 K(\Delta)\,d\Delta.$
Expectation via kernel (prototype).
$\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}] \;=\; \int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,M_{t-\Delta}\,d\Delta \quad \text{or}\quad \sum_{\ell\ge0}K_\ell\,M_{t-\ell}.$
Other expectation constructions (e.g., model-based, survey-based) can be embedded by replacing $M$ with the relevant sufficient statistics.

3.5 Expectations, gains, damping, slope, delay

We linearize the closed loop around a reference operating point to define universal stability parameters used in §5–§7.

Expectations. $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+\ell}]$ denotes the conditional expectation at time $t$ for horizon $\ell$ , formed using $K$ and/or models governed by $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ .
Self-referral gain $g$ . Sensitivity of expected next macro to the current realized macro (holding other channels fixed):
$g \;\equiv\; \frac{\partial\,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{eq}} \;\;\;(\text{scalar for clarity; matrix form in $m>1$}).$
Intuition: how strongly today’s published macro steers beliefs about tomorrow.
Amplification slope $s$ . Macro response slope of the micro→macro map to the operator-controlled channel $u_t$ . With the common normalization $u_t\equiv M_t$ (the published macro is the control signal),
$s \;\equiv\; \frac{\partial M_{t+1}}{\partial u_t}\Big|_{\text{eq}} \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial M_t}\,\mathcal A\!\big(\{\phi_t(F(x_{i,t},M_t,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]))\}\big).$
Intuition: how a marginal “nudge” along the macro channel propagates through micro updates and re-aggregates.
Damping $\kappa$ . Aggregate restorative force opposing deviations (buffers, inventories, slack, diversification). In reduced form,
$M_{t+1}\;=\;\cdots\;-\;\kappa\,(M_t-M^\star)\;+\;\text{(shock)}.$
Larger $\kappa$ means faster decay of perturbations.
Delay $\tau$ . Net latency between publishing $M_t$ at tick $\tau_k$ and its effective action on micro and re-measurement. In discrete models this is an integer lag $L$ ; in continuous-time linearizations it appears as factors $e^{-\lambda \tau}$ or as a delay operator $\mathcal D_\tau$ .
Stability discriminant. The one-step, no-delay canonical form yields
$\mathcal D \;\equiv\; g\,s \;-\; \kappa,$
with $|g|<1$ and $\mathcal D<0$ implying a unique CWA-like fixed point. Nonzero delays $\tau$ carve oscillatory windows; multidimensional $M$ requires spectral conditions on $Gs-\kappa I$ .

Standing regularity (used in proofs).
(i) $\phi_t$ and $F$ are locally Lipschitz; (ii) $\mathcal A$ is additive (or smoothly separable) near the operating point; (iii) $K$ has finite first moment; (iv) $\mathcal B_t$ changes piecewise-constantly between ticks; (v) perturbations are small enough for linearization (global results handled by the phase diagrams in §5).

3. Preliminaries: Objects, Notation, First Principles

This section fixes symbols and minimal assumptions used throughout.

3.1 Micro states, projection, aggregator, macro

Micro states. At (continuous or discrete) time $t$ , unit $i\in\{1,\dots,N_t\}$ has state $x_{i,t}\in\mathcal X$ (possibly high-dimensional; $N_t$ may vary).
Projection. A (possibly time-varying) observable
$\phi_t:\mathcal X\to\mathbb R^k,\qquad z_{i,t}\equiv \phi_t(x_{i,t})$
maps micro states to projected features $z_{i,t}$ .
Aggregator. A macro constructor
$\mathcal A:\bigcup_{N\ge1}(\mathbb R^k)^N\to\mathbb R^m$
returns the macro. In the additive prototype (CWA backbone),
$\mathcal A(\{z_{i,t}\})\;=\;\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} w_{i,t}\,z_{i,t},\quad w_{i,t}\ge0,\ \sum_i w_{i,t}=1,$
with optional known transforms (e.g., logs/indices) applied after aggregation.
Macro.
$M_t \;=\; \mathcal A\!\big(\{\phi_t(x_{i,t})\}_{i=1}^{N_t}\big)\in\mathbb R^m.$
CWA compliance. When $\phi_t\equiv\phi$ (exogenous) and $\mathcal A$ is additive, $M_t$ is permutation-invariant, partition-stable (subsample/recombine yields the same limit), and boundary-independent under admissible coarse-grainings. These properties operationalize “macro coherence without micro alignment.”

3.2 Collapse ticks, attention budget, boundaries/closure

Collapse ticks. Publication/settlement times $\{\tau_k\}_{k\in\mathbb Z}$ at which the macro $M_{\tau_k}$ is realized (measured, reported, settled). Between ticks the system may evolve continuously; only at $\tau_k$ does observer feedback couple explicitly to the next step (cf. §5).
Attention budget. A finite resource $A_t>0$ allocated across channels $c\in\mathcal C$ with shares $\pi_{c,t}\ge0$ , $\sum_c \pi_{c,t}=1$ . Effective loop gain scales with available attention for the relevant channel:
$g_t \propto A_t\,\pi_{c^\star,t}.$
Boundaries/closure sets. $\mathcal B_t\subseteq\mathcal X\times\mathcal U$ (state–action feasibility) encode institutions, protocols, market rules, access rights. Open $\mathcal B_t$ permits escape/entry; closed $\mathcal B_t$ “locks” attractors (supports traps). We write $\mathrm{closeness}(\mathcal B_t)\in[0,1]$ as a design-level summary (1 = fully closed).

3.3 Observer operator and $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$

Observer/operator. $\widehat O_t\in\mathcal O$ is a (possibly distributed) operator that can (i) set or tune $\phi_t$ , (ii) choose weights $w_{i,t}$ or post-aggregation transforms, (iii) schedule/report at ticks $\tau_k$ , and (iv) issue guidance/policies that affect micro updates.
State-dependent observer (emergent).
$\widehat O_{\text{self},t}\;=\;\mathcal G\!\big(T_{\le t},\,M_{\le t},\,A_t,\,\mathcal B_t\big)$
is the proto-observer generated by the system’s own stabilized attractors (cf. §12). It parameterizes $\phi_t$ and other levers:
$\phi_t(\cdot)\;=\;\phi\!\left(\cdot;\,\theta_t\right),\qquad \theta_t\equiv\Theta\!\big(\widehat O_{\text{self},t}\big).$
Thus, measurement/reporting is part of the dynamics, not exogenous.

3.4 Trace and memory kernel

Trace. $T(\cdot,t)$ records collapsed history—e.g., a sufficient statistic or a field over states. Minimal scalar form uses the macro’s time series $T(t)\equiv M_t$ ; richer forms include spatial or categorical components.
Memory kernel. $K(\Delta\tau)\ge 0$ weights past collapsed values when forming expectations or operator states. Normalization $\int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,d\Delta=1$ (or $\sum_{\ell\ge0}K_\ell=1$ in discrete time) is convenient but not required. Useful summaries:
$\bar\Delta_K \equiv \int_0^\infty \Delta\,K(\Delta)\,d\Delta,\qquad \mathrm{Var}_K \equiv \int_0^\infty (\Delta-\bar\Delta_K)^2 K(\Delta)\,d\Delta.$
Expectation via kernel (prototype).
$\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}] \;=\; \int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,M_{t-\Delta}\,d\Delta \quad \text{or}\quad \sum_{\ell\ge0}K_\ell\,M_{t-\ell}.$
Other expectation constructions (e.g., model-based, survey-based) can be embedded by replacing $M$ with the relevant sufficient statistics.

3.5 Expectations, gains, damping, slope, delay

We linearize the closed loop around a reference operating point to define universal stability parameters used in §5–§7.

Expectations. $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+\ell}]$ denotes the conditional expectation at time $t$ for horizon $\ell$ , formed using $K$ and/or models governed by $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ .
Self-referral gain $g$ . Sensitivity of expected next macro to the current realized macro (holding other channels fixed):
$g \;\equiv\; \frac{\partial\,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{eq}} \;\;\;(\text{scalar for clarity; matrix form in $m>1$}).$
Intuition: how strongly today’s published macro steers beliefs about tomorrow.
Amplification slope $s$ . Macro response slope of the micro→macro map to the operator-controlled channel $u_t$ . With the common normalization $u_t\equiv M_t$ (the published macro is the control signal),
$s \;\equiv\; \frac{\partial M_{t+1}}{\partial u_t}\Big|_{\text{eq}} \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial M_t}\,\mathcal A\!\big(\{\phi_t(F(x_{i,t},M_t,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]))\}\big).$
Intuition: how a marginal “nudge” along the macro channel propagates through micro updates and re-aggregates.
Damping $\kappa$ . Aggregate restorative force opposing deviations (buffers, inventories, slack, diversification). In reduced form,
$M_{t+1}\;=\;\cdots\;-\;\kappa\,(M_t-M^\star)\;+\;\text{(shock)}.$
Larger $\kappa$ means faster decay of perturbations.
Delay $\tau$ . Net latency between publishing $M_t$ at tick $\tau_k$ and its effective action on micro and re-measurement. In discrete models this is an integer lag $L$ ; in continuous-time linearizations it appears as factors $e^{-\lambda \tau}$ or as a delay operator $\mathcal D_\tau$ .
Stability discriminant. The one-step, no-delay canonical form yields
$\mathcal D \;\equiv\; g\,s \;-\; \kappa,$
with $|g|<1$ and $\mathcal D<0$ implying a unique CWA-like fixed point. Nonzero delays $\tau$ carve oscillatory windows; multidimensional $M$ requires spectral conditions on $Gs-\kappa I$ .

4. Axioms & Design Rules

Format per axiom: (Statement) → Rationale (3–5 sentences) → Minimal test (what to measure & how).

A1 — Additive Survivorship (CWA)

Statement. Observable macros must be representable by real-arithmetic, phase-free aggregates of projected micro features:
$M_t=\mathcal A(\{\phi(x_{i,t})\})=\sum_i w_{i,t}\phi(x_{i,t}),\ \sum_i w_{i,t}=1,\ w_{i,t}\ge0.$

Rationale. Additivity guarantees permutation invariance, sub-sample recomposability, and coarse-graining commutativity—three empirical properties most stable macros exhibit. It explains why macro predictability often survives massive micro heterogeneity. “Phase-free” means the macro does not depend on latent alignments (ordering, labels, pairing). Even when systems later become self-referential, this additive backbone is the conservative limit to which they revert when feedback is weak.

Minimal test. (i) Shuffle micro units and re-compute $M_t$ ; (ii) split the population into random folds, compute fold-means, then re-average—compare to the full mean; (iii) vary admissible sample boundaries. Pass if deviations stay within sampling error.

A2 — Projection Endogeneity (SRA)

Statement. The projection is state-dependent:
$\displaystyle \phi_t(\cdot)=\phi(\cdot;\widehat O_{\text{self}}[T_{\le t},M_{\le t}]).$

Rationale. In SRA regimes, the act of publishing/observing shapes what will be measured next (index definitions, inclusion rules, thresholds, model features). This turns the macro from a passive readout into part of the mechanism. Endogenous $\phi_t$ formalizes phenomena like benchmark chasing, policy re-targeting, or adaptive sensors. It is the precise point where CWA’s exogenous “meter” becomes an operator.

Minimal test. Hold micro distributions fixed (matched panels). Change reporting rules or guidance (which parametrize $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ ) and test whether the same micro set yields measurably different $\phi_t$ and future $M_{t+\ell}$ .

A3 — Expectation Primacy

Statement. Recursive expectations are primitive inside the micro update $F$ :
$\displaystyle x_{i,t+1}=F(x_{i,t},M_t,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]).$

Rationale. Many “anomalies” arise when beliefs about the macro’s future drive current micro behavior (orders, prices, commitments). Treating expectations as add-on “frictions” misplaces causality; they are causal inputs. Making $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ primitive aligns economics/finance with other feedback systems (control, neuro, ecology). It also yields an identifiable gain parameter $g=\partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ .

Minimal test. Instrument $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ via guidance pulses or exogenous forecast shocks; estimate whether $\Delta \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ predicts $\Delta x_{i,t+1}$ and $\Delta M_{t+1}$ controlling for $M_t$ .

A4 — Institutional Closure

Statement. Boundary/closure loops $\mathcal B$ (rules, access, protocols, accounting) stabilize attractor identity.

Rationale. Traps and regime lock-ins often persist because exits are administratively or physically blocked, not because micro incentives favor them. $\mathcal B$ encodes feasible transitions; “closed” $\mathcal B$ deepens basins and raises switching costs. This explains non-escape despite shocks and why small rule changes can unlock regimes. Closure is measurable and designable (eligibility, margining, quotas, permissions).

Minimal test. Introduce a controlled boundary re-opening ( $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ : rule/eligibility tweak) and check for discontinuous changes in regime probabilities or escape times, holding micro primitives constant.

A5 — Attention Conservation

Statement. Limited attention $A_t$ and its allocation $\{\pi_{c,t}\}$ shape effective loop gain $g$ .

Rationale. Self-reference requires a channel that carries the macro back into micro updates; that channel’s capacity is attention/exposure. When attention concentrates on a narrative or metric, the same guidance has larger effects (effective $g\uparrow$ ). Conversely, horizon diversification or exposure caps reduce $g$ . This links media/platform design and reporting schedules to dynamical stability.

Minimal test. Vary exposure mechanically (rank demotion/promotion, sampling quotas). Estimate $\Delta g$ from the change in $\partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ and the resulting change in the discriminant $\mathcal D$ .

A6 — Tick Quantization

Statement. Discrete collapse ticks (publication/settlement times) and reporting/settlement lags are stability parameters.

Rationale. Feedback with latency can overshoot or oscillate even when instantaneous loops would be stable. Ticks $\{\tau_k\}$ discretize when the macro becomes operative; delays $\tau$ shift phase and can create bullwhip-like cycles. Many systems changed behavior after mere calendar or batching changes—without any micro-rule edits. Thus, timing is a first-class design knob.

Minimal test. Exogenously jitter or cap latencies and compare spectral power/auto-correlations of $M_t$ . Identify oscillatory windows as $\tau$ crosses critical values.

A7 — Nonlinearity by Observation

Statement. Nonlinearity enters through an observer-dependent term $\mathcal N[\Psi,\widehat O]$ in the closed loop.

Rationale. Measurement and evaluation (thresholds, saturation, clipping, awards, penalties) often introduce kinks and saturations, not the micro physics per se. This makes the system’s nonlinearity operator-induced. It explains sudden phase-flips at metric cutoffs and why changing scoring functions reshapes dynamics.

Minimal test. Compare open-loop (no feedback of the metric) vs closed-loop responses to the same input pulse. Detect nonlinearity via asymmetric impulse responses or slope changes around thresholds tied to $\widehat O$ .

A8 — Peak/Trap Discriminant

Statement. $\displaystyle \mathcal D \equiv g\,s - \kappa$ — the sign partitions regimes (delays $\tau$ carve oscillatory bands).

Rationale. Linearizing the one-step closed loop yields the compact stability condition: restorative force $\kappa$ must dominate the product of expectation gain $g$ and amplification slope $s$ . $\mathcal D>0$ admits growth of deviations (peak dynamics, multi-stability); $\mathcal D<0$ damps them (trap-avoidance), with $|g|<1$ needed to prevent runaway expectation echo. The same discriminant travels across domains, enabling a single diagnostic.

Minimal test. Estimate $(g,s,\kappa)$ locally (state-space/SVAR or pulse-response slopes). Place the operating point on the empirical phase diagram; verify that observed behavior (lock-in vs recovery vs oscillation) matches the sign of $\mathcal D$ and identified $\tau$ .

A9 — Endogenous Phase-Flip

Statement. Attention reallocations can switch the effective loop sign (a bifurcation).

Rationale. When attention shifts from counter-cyclical to pro-cyclical narratives (or vice versa), the sign of $s$ (or effective $g$ ) can flip, turning damping into amplification without any parameter “tuning” in micro rules. This explains sudden reversals (from mean-reversion to momentum, from stabilizing expectations to doom loops). The bifurcation is endogenous because it is caused by allocation, not technology.

Minimal test. Induce an exposure reallocation (e.g., change ranking weights or guidance tone). Show a sign change in the estimated feedback slope from $M_t$ to $M_{t+1}$ (or from $M_t$ to $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ ), alongside a qualitative regime switch.

A10 — Semantic Black Holes

Statement. Under strong $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ , high-tension zones exhibit near-geodesic collapse with robust, path-dependent “laws.”

Rationale. Extremely strong operator control (tight guidance, heavy penalties, hard boundaries) compresses trajectories into narrow tubes—behaviors look law-like, but only inside the operator’s basin. This explains why “laws” emerge in some domains (e.g., heavily benchmarked markets, rigid bureaucracies) then break when $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ weakens or $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ perturbs boundaries. Path dependence persists because the trace $T$ keeps the basin pinned.

Minimal test. Identify regimes with unusually low dispersion conditional on $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$ ; then slightly perturb $\mathcal B$ or weaken guidance. A semantic black-hole regime will show (i) sharp loss of “law-likeness” and (ii) hysteresis on re-tightening—evidence that regularity was operator-induced.

Implementation note. Each minimal test can be run as a closed-loop perturbation experiment: (1) create a small, controlled nudge to the specified lever (exposure, latency, boundary, scoring function); (2) measure $\Delta g, \Delta s, \Delta \kappa$ and the implied $\Delta \mathcal D$ ; (3) verify qualitative behavior (stable, multi-stable, oscillatory) matches the phase diagram predicted by §§5–7.

5. Minimal Mathematical Model & Core Results

5.1 CWA baseline: $M_t=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i \phi(x_{i,t})$ ; convergence under phase freedom.
5.2 SRA overlay (endogenous projection + expectations):
- Micro update: $x_{i,t+1}=F(x_{i,t},M_t,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}])$ .
- Macro update: $M_{t+1}=\mathcal A(\{\phi_t(x_{i,t+1})\})$ .
- $\phi_t$ depends on $\hat O_{\text{self}}[T_{\le t}]$ .
5.3 Trace dynamics: $\partial T/\partial t=\alpha \,P_{\text{collapse}}(M,\Psi)-\beta T + D\nabla^2 T$ .
5.4 Stability & Bifurcation:
- Define $g \equiv \partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t|_{\hat O_{\text{self}}}$ .
- Theorem (informal): If $|g|<1$ ⇒ unique stable CWA-like fixed point; if $|g|>1$ ⇒ SRA bifurcation (multistability/limit cycles/chaos depending on $K,\tau,\kappa$ ).
- Discriminant: $\mathcal D=g s-\kappa$ splits Peak ( $+$ ) / Trap ( $-$ ) regimes; delay $\tau$ creates oscillatory windows.
5.5 Recovery & Extension: $\gamma\!\to\!0\Rightarrow$ recover CWA; small $\gamma$ ⇒ additive background + SRA correction.

Deliverable in draft: Precise assumptions and proof sketches (full proofs to Appendix A).

6. Diagnostics & Empirical Fingerprints

6.1 Universal SRA signatures (what to look for, and why)

Hysteresis with identical micro distributions (path dependence).
After controlling for micro covariates, different macro histories $T$ (or reporting rules $\phi_t$ ) yield different equilibria—classic operator memory. Use matched panels or replays with alternative guidance to show divergence.
Regime shifts without micro-structure change (expectation/closure flips).
Abrupt transitions in $M_t$ when guidance, access rules, or timing change—i.e., $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ events—while micro primitives are held fixed. Natural experiments on boundary/eligibility protocols are ideal. turn3file8
Boom–bust asymmetry; heavy-tailed responses (not only shocks).
Response distributions exhibit fat tails and skew conditional on loop state $(g,s,\kappa,\tau)$ —e.g., bubbles break faster than they build; debt traps accumulate slowly but unwind only after operator intervention.
Excess sensitivity to guidance; latency-driven oscillations (bullwhip bands).
Measurable jump in $\partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t \equiv g$ around guidance surprises; changing publication/settlement lag $\tau$ moves spectral power into oscillatory windows.
Attention-reallocation spikes precede turning points.
Shifts in exposure/attention shares $\pi_{c,t}$ Granger-cause sign changes in effective feedback slopes (phase-flip). Log ranking weights, algorithmic boosts/demotions, or media mix.
CWA compliance where self-reference is weak.
In collapse-ready tasks, permutation and sub-sample recomposition preserve the macro; violations flag hidden operator effects. turn3file14

6.2 Measurement plan (how to estimate the loop)

(a) Estimating the self-referral gain $g$ .

Object: $g \equiv \frac{\partial\,\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{loc}}$ .
Designs:
1. Guidance-pulse IV/SVAR. Use forward-guidance surprises or rating-announcement residuals as instruments for $\Delta \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ ; estimate local projection $M_{t+1}=\alpha+\beta M_t+\gamma \widehat{\mathbb E}_t[M_{t+1}]+\varepsilon$ , identify $g\approx\partial \widehat{\mathbb E}_{t}[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ . turn3file9
2. Closed-loop perturbations. Platform/feed demotion/promotions or policy tone shifts with randomized rollout; recover $g$ as the slope of expectation updates vs. current macro.
Data schema hints: expectation panels (survey/model), event registry for instruments, and market/asset identifiers (Appendix C tables: fact_expectations, dim_instrument_event). turn3file9

(b) Recovering the memory kernel $K(\cdot)$ .

Impulse–response inversion. Emit small pulses to the operator channel (guidance, exposure, quota); compute IRFs of $M$ . Fit $K$ by solving $\widehat{\mathbb E}_t[M_{t+1}]=\sum_{\ell\ge0}K_\ell\,M_{t-\ell}$ via constrained regression (non-negative, $\sum K_\ell\le 1$ ). Validate by one-step-ahead forecast accuracy and residual whiteness.
Alternative: deconvolution with Tikhonov/TV regularization; compare effective memory $\bar\Delta_K$ across regimes.

(c) Verifying CWA compliance (where it should hold).

Permutation & partition tests. Shuffle entities; recompute $M$ . Sub-sample then recombine. Stability within sampling error → pass. Sensitivity reveals hidden $\phi_t$ endogeneity. turn3file10
Transform audit. Check that reporting transforms are real-arithmetic and phase-free; flag sequence/structure-dependent operators as SRA suspects. turn3file15

(d) Discriminant mapping & early-warning.

Estimate $(g,s,\kappa)$ locally; compute $\mathcal D = g s - \kappa$ . Track $\mathcal D$ vs. $\tau$ (latency bands). Maintain Peak/Trap EWIs using elasticities, herding, and closure indexes (Appendix C views vw_peak_ewi, vw_trap_ewi). turn3file9

6.3 Field checklist (what to log, how to test, what to see)

What to log (by period $t$ )	How to test (design)	Estimator / Chart	Expected pattern if SRA	Pass/Fail rule
Macro $M_t$ (levels, vintages), micro panels	Matched-panel replays; pre/post rule change ( $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ )	Local projections; change-point tests	Regime shift without micro change	Fail CWA / Pass SRA if shift detected under fixed micro.
Expectations $\mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]$ (surveys/model-implied)	IV via guidance surprises; randomized guidance tone	SVAR/IV slope $\partial \mathbb E/\partial M$	Significant $g>0$ and time-variation	SRA if $g$ is positive & state-dependent.
Attention/exposure $A_t,\pi_{c,t}$	Rank demotion/promotion; traffic caps	Event-study + Granger	Attention spikes lead turning points	SRA if $\Delta \pi$ predicts phase-flip.
Latency (pub/settlement lag $\tau$ )	Jitter $\tau$ exogenously	Spectrum/ACF; Bode-like gain vs. $\tau$	Oscillatory bands appear/disappear	SRA if oscillations track $\tau$ .
Reporting rule $\phi_t$ (index methods, weighting)	Rule swap A/B; vintage vs. latest comparison	Difference-in-difference on $M$	Same micro → different $M_{t+\ell}$	SRA if endogenous projection detected.
Closure metrics (access, hazards, thresholds)	Natural experiments on eligibility; regional diff-in-diff	Hazard models; closure index PCA	Trap flags (non-escape basins)	Trap if closure index high & escape hazard low.
Elasticities (own, cond. on expectations)	Instrument expected price/inflation	Sign maps; EWI (PEWI/TEWI)	Peak flags when $\partial x/\partial p>0$	Peak if positive slope on non-null support.
Permutation/partition logs	Shuffle & sub-sample recomposition	Stability bands	Flat under CWA; breaks under SRA	CWA pass if stable; otherwise investigate $\phi_t$ .

Implementation notes.

Maintain a Minimal Viable Dataset (MVD) with expectation panels, closure indices, elasticity tables, instrument events, and vintages; enforce keys and audit fields for reproducibility.
Publish EWIs for Peaks/Traps and a refutability view (flags for Slutsky negativity, absence of recursive effects) to adjudicate CWA-only vs. CAFT fits.

Outcome.
This protocol yields a falsifiable decision: (i) CWA-only if permutation tests pass and $\widehat g \approx 0$ ; (ii) SRA/CAFT if signatures and $\mathcal D$ map to observed regimes; (iii) Design action via $\mathsf{Ext}_\Omega$ targeted at $g,\kappa,\tau,K$ or boundary re-opening.

7. Cross-Domain Validations — 7A. Physics & Materials

(format per domain: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7A.1 Thermodynamics (gases, granular media)

(i) CWA baseline.
Temperature/pressure emerge as additive aggregates of micro kinetic energy or momentum flux: $M=\langle m v^2\rangle$ (or stress averages). Under exogenous readout (no feedback), permutation and coarse-graining preserve the macro; shuffling molecules or grains does not change $M$ beyond sampling error.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Close the loop so that the reported $M_t$ (e.g., measured position/energy of a Brownian particle or granular packing fraction) controls the drive (laser/electrostatic force, shaker amplitude): a feedback trap/thermostat. In optical or electrical feedback traps, the macro readout is used to synthesize a “virtual potential” in real time; finite sensing/exposure/update delays make $M$ an operator that can over- or under-correct (PID/phase-lock dynamics). (PMC, arXiv)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.

Delay-induced oscillations or drift of the virtual potential (loop instability bands). (Physical Review)
Path-dependent steady states under identical thermal baths when controller parameters differ (effective temperature set by feedback, not bath alone). (PMC)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Optical/electrical feedback tweezers: log camera exposure, estimator delay, update cadence; sweep delay to reveal stability–oscillation transition; reconstruct effective potential from trajectories. (Simon Fraser University)
Granular compaction with rule-based feedback: couple measured density/settlement to shaker power or tapping schedule; compare to open-loop compaction curves and DEM simulations. (Use field/DEM resources for baseline compaction behavior; add closed-loop protocol.) (PMC, Physical Review)

(v) Safety knobs.
Lower effective gain $g$ (limit proportional action), raise damping $\kappa$ (buffers/noise injection), and cap/“dither” delay $\tau$ (shorter exposure, randomized update) to keep $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa<0$ . (Physical Review)

7A.2 Non-equilibrium & reaction–diffusion (BZ reaction, autocatalysis)

(i) CWA baseline.
Concentration fields $M(\mathbf r,t)=\langle c_j(\mathbf r,t)\rangle$ from many reactions average to smooth macroscales under fixed illumination/flow; the display (readout) does not alter kinetics.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Introduce global or photochemical feedback tying the measured macro (e.g., mean intensity/phase) to a control input (light/flow). In photosensitive Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) media, global inhibitory or excitatory feedback reshapes pattern selection: the macro pattern acts back as an operator, toggling wave trains, cluster states, or synchrony across oscillators; chemostats with output-tied inflow implement similar global feedback in biochemical/autocatalytic settings. (Physical Review, AIMS Press)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.

Bistability & hysteresis between distinct spatiotemporal patterns under identical nominal kinetics but different feedback strengths or histories. (Physical Review)
Controlled synchrony/anti-synchrony across oscillator networks via light-mediated coupling; abrupt regime switches as feedback crosses thresholds. (MDPI)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Controlled flow / photosensitive BZ reactors: sweep global feedback gain and delay; record pattern phase diagrams; replicate classical results with modern imaging to extract $g,\tau,K$ . (Physical Review, ScienceDirect)
Chemostat feedback with delay: implement substrate set-point control with measured output latency; validate stabilization/bifurcation predictions from delay-feedback chemostat models. (AIMS Press)

(v) Safety knobs.
Throttle global feedback (↓ $g$ ), increase dilution/throughflow or inhibitor pathways (↑ $\kappa$ ), and minimize controller latency (↓ $\tau$ ) to avoid unwanted oscillatory/chaotic bands; shape effective memory $K(\cdot)$ via low-pass filtering of the feedback signal. (AIMS Press)

7A.3 Photonics / Lasers with feedback

(i) CWA baseline.
Laser intensity as a sum over cavity modes behaves predictably under fixed cavity and pump: $M=\sum_m |a_m|^2$ . Aggregation is additive; readout does not modify cavity parameters.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Self-injection locking (SIL) or external optical feedback routes the measured emission back to the source via a high-Q resonator or external cavity. The macro (output intensity/frequency/phase) thereby locks the laser, narrowing linewidth, shifting frequency, and enabling deterministic soliton/comb states—classic operator behavior with multi-stability and hysteresis governed by loop phase and gain. (Optica Publishing Group, PMC)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.

Phase-locking thresholds and hysteresis in the locking/unlocking transitions as feedback strength/phase is swept. (Physical Review)
Multistability among single-mode, chaotic, and soliton-comb states depending on feedback phase and pump detuning; sensitivity to sampling/servo latency. (Physical Review)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Vary feedback ratio and phase using microresonator couplers; log linewidth, offset frequency, RF spectra; map locking domains and transitions. (Optica Publishing Group)
Latency/sampling jitter experiments: inject controlled phase noise/jitter and observe stability margins of SIL combs. (Physical Review)

(v) Safety knobs.
Limit optical feedback (↓ $g$ ), add intracavity loss or servo damping (↑ $\kappa$ ), and control group delay/feedback phase (↓ $\tau$ or detune phase) to keep $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa<0$ and avoid unintended mode hops; use parameter-ID via SIL to stay inside safe locking plateaus. (Physical Review)

What this buys us.
Across these “hard-science” exemplars, the same CAFT parameters—expectation/feedback gain $g$ , amplification slope $s$ , damping $\kappa$ , delay $\tau$ , and memory $K$ —predict when a readout remains a CWA trace and when it becomes an SRA operator with peaks, traps, or oscillations. The cited platforms provide concrete, reproducible setups to estimate $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$ , verify the discriminant $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ , and exercise knobs to move systems back into the stable CWA regime. (Physical Review, Optica Publishing Group)

7B. Biology & Ecology

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7B.1 Quorum sensing & biofilms

(i) CWA baseline.
Population-level signalers yield additive summaries: mean autoinducer (AI) concentration and average QS-regulated expression approximate the macro $M_t$ under fixed readout and open boundaries. Classic reviews formalize QS as density-coupled gene regulation via diffusible signals (AHL/LuxI–LuxR, AI-2, etc.). (PMC)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
The macro signal (extracellular AI concentration) rewrites the rules: above a threshold, LuxR-type regulators activate promoters that increase AI synthesis and downstream traits (EPS, motility, secretion), closing a positive feedback loop. This endogenizes the projection $\phi_t$ (what gets measured and expressed) and produces bistability/hysteresis at the population level—now well documented in parametrized QS models and experiments. Microfluidics shows controller-like dynamics where measured signal history sets future expression, i.e., the readout becomes an operator. (PMC, PubMed)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Sharp on/off thresholds, hysteresis between turn-on and turn-off, and asymmetric kinetics (fast build-up, slow decay) at single-cell and population scales. Heterogeneity persists but aggregates into a stable macro state once the loop gain exceeds threshold. (PMC, PubMed)

(iv) Tests/datasets.
Microfluidic “mother-machine” or channel devices with controlled dilution to tune trace decay $\beta$ ; apply AI pulses/withdrawals and recover impulse responses of $M_t$ and expected next state to estimate $g$ and $K(\Delta)$ . Combine with long-term single-cell imaging to map trajectories through the threshold. (PMC, Frontiers, PubMed)

(v) Safety knobs.
Quorum quenching: express or dose AHL lactonases (e.g., AiiA) to raise effective damping $\kappa$ (accelerate decay), or deploy signal sequestration strategies to lower loop gain $g$ . Both approaches are established in QS control and therapeutics. (PMC)

7B.2 Gene regulatory networks (GRNs)

(i) CWA baseline.
Bulk RNA/protein levels average single-cell expression; under exogenous readout, macro stability follows additivity (mean expression, promoter activity indices).

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Positive feedback motifs (mutual repression/activation) and read-write chromatin make the macro readout an operator: once a reporter crosses threshold, promoter accessibility or histone marks reinforce the state (epigenetic memory). The canonical synthetic toggle switch established experimental bistability and nearly ideal switching thresholds; modern “read-write” chromatin models show how promoters maintain alternate states via feedback among modifying enzymes. Real-time optogenetic feedback demonstrates closed-loop control of expression in single cells. (Nature, PubMed, Physical Review, PMC)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Multistability (coexisting expression states), lineage memory (state inheritance without genotype change), and path dependence (history of illumination/induction selects the attractor) despite identical micro components. (Nature, PMC)

(iv) Tests/datasets.
Closed-loop optogenetic controllers (light-driven transcription) to generate pulses and track single-cell responses; infer $g$ from expectation updates and fit $K(\Delta)$ from recovery curves. Use mother-machine time-lapse to extract state dwell times and transition hazards under controlled guidance. (PMC, Nature, Frontiers)

(v) Safety knobs.
Reduce effective gain $g$ by limiting promoter feedback (CRISPRi on feedback links; weaker activators), increase damping $\kappa$ with enhanced degradation tags or chromatin-level brakes (e.g., tuning read-write enzyme activity), and shorten effective delay $\tau$ via faster sensing/actuation in the feedback loop. (Physical Review)

7B.3 Ecosystem & niche construction

(i) CWA baseline.
Population metrics (biomass, cover, nutrient stocks) average across many organisms and patches; under open boundaries and exogenous forcing, macroscales follow additive predictions.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Organisms modify their environment, and that environment feeds back to bias future behavior/growth—niche construction. Iconic examples: vegetation–rainfall feedbacks driving forest–savanna bistability and abrupt transitions; ecosystem engineers like beavers restructure hydrology and nutrient flows, stabilizing new macro states. Here the macro (landscape water/energy balance; channel morphology) acts as an operator on micro dynamics. (Nature, Royal Society Publishing, PMC, ScienceDirect)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Alternative stable states with regime shifts (eutrophic vs. clear lakes; forest vs. savanna) and hysteresis under slowly varying drivers—consistent with tipping-point theory and remote-sensing evidence for multiple tree-cover equilibria. (ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library)

(iv) Tests/datasets.
Mesocosm and whole-ecosystem manipulations (nutrients, grazing, hydrology) to elicit shifts and estimate $(g,\kappa)$ ; remote-sensing time series and potential-analysis to map alternative basins across rainfall gradients; regional case studies (e.g., Amazon) linking drought/deforestation to reduced resilience and critical transitions. (ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, Nature)

(v) Safety knobs.
Re-open boundaries $\mathcal B$ via protected areas/connectivity to increase $\kappa$ ; apply controlled disturbances (managed flows, pulse grazing, nutrient drawdowns) as entropy injection to escape traps; and manage delays $\tau$ in detection/response (faster monitoring) to avoid oscillatory overshoot. Global syntheses of tipping elements support such lever-based stabilization. (AGU Publications)

Takeaway.
Across cells, colonies, and ecosystems, the same CAFT parameters—gain $g$ , damping $\kappa$ , delay $\tau$ , memory $K$ —separate CWA traces from SRA operators. The proposed experiments and datasets let you estimate these parameters and place each system on the empirical phase diagram defined by $\mathcal D = g s - \kappa$ .

7C. Neuroscience & Cognition

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7C.1 Working memory / attractor networks

(i) CWA baseline.
Population codes average spikes into stable low-dimensional variables (e.g., delay-period firing rates), yielding coherent macros without requiring neuron-level alignment; classic accounts model persistent activity as an additive readout of many units. Reviews and meta-analyses document robust delay activity in PFC and related cortices consistent with attractor-supported maintenance. (Frontiers, PMC)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
With strong recurrence, the macro state (e.g., the remembered choice) stabilizes its own neural substrate: the network’s current attractor biases synaptic/neuronal dynamics so the macro effectively acts as an operator on micro firing. Causal perturbations in frontal cortex show discrete attractor dynamics—brief inputs can flip the population to the other stable endpoint, confirming operator-like basin structure. Neuromodulators (e.g., dopamine) tune stability, effectively shifting gain/damping and enabling phase flips between regimes. (PubMed, Europe PMC)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Persistent activity and bistability during delays; phase-flips of stability with neuromodulatory tone or task context (e.g., D1/D2 balance) that occur without changing the micro “wiring.” (PubMed, PMC)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Closed-loop neurofeedback to steer working-memory state and estimate the memory kernel $K(\cdot)$ from perturbation–recovery trajectories (human fMRI/EEG with real-time decoding). (PubMed, Turk-Browne Lab)
Closed-loop optogenetics/TMS to deliver brief, state-contingent perturbations in animals/humans; map recovery flows and flip probabilities between attractors. Use standardized protocols to vary delay $\tau$ and quantify gains. (PMC, star-protocols.cell.com)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Reduce effective loop gain $g$ (lower recurrent excitation or D1 drive), raise damping $\kappa$ (increase inhibitory tone/short-term depression), and shorten delay $\tau$ in readout-to-stimulation loops to avoid oscillatory bands; shape memory $K$ via plasticity/decay manipulations. (PubMed)

7C.2 Predictive coding & attention

(i) CWA baseline.
Aggregating prediction errors across neuronal populations provides a stable macro without feedback: pooled mismatch signals behave like additive traces of bottom-up activity under fixed priors. Foundational predictive-coding work formalizes feedforward error vs top-down prediction roles. (PubMed, PMC)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Top-down expectations (the macro) gate bottom-up synapses (the micro): priors bias gain and tuning in early cortex, sharpening or biasing representations—the macro becomes an operator that rewrites the effective projection $\phi_t$ . Empirically, expectations sharpen V1 responses and bias sensory codes; laminar/oscillatory signatures align with top-down (alpha/beta) vs bottom-up (gamma) channels predicted by predictive-coding microcircuits. (ScienceDirect, PubMed, PMC)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Expectation-driven illusions and hysteresis (after a cue or context shift, perception persists/biases despite identical input), with latency-specific oscillatory changes reflecting altered loop gain/delay. (PubMed, PMC)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Psychophysics with adaptive priors: manipulate prior probability on the fly and estimate $g=\partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ from trial-wise belief updates; quantify hysteresis after cue removal. (PubMed)
EEG/MEG: track alpha/beta (top-down) and gamma (bottom-up) during prior manipulations; map latency-dependent oscillatory windows vs $\tau$ and recover $K(\cdot)$ from post-cue dynamics. (PMC)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Cap gain $g$ of priors (broaden attentional focus, reduce certainty), raise damping $\kappa$ via increased sensory noise/exploration or divisive normalization, and control delay $\tau$ by tightening cue-to-stimulus timing; adjust memory $K$ (decay priors faster) to limit lock-in. (PMC)

Takeaway.
In cortex, working memory and predictive coding instantiate CAFT’s transition from CWA traces (pooled spikes/errors) to SRA operators (attractors/priors that reconfigure micro dynamics). With closed-loop perturbations and oscillatory readouts, one can estimate $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$ and place cortical circuits on the same $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ phase diagram used across domains. (PubMed)

7D. Earth Systems & Climate

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7D.1 Ice–albedo & permafrost carbon

(i) CWA baseline.
Under fixed forcing and readout, planetary radiative balance aggregates many micro processes (water vapour, clouds, surface reflectance) into stable macros (TOA fluxes, global mean temperature). This is the additive “trace” regime used in ESM diagnostics and IPCC assessments of feedback parameters. (IPCC, Nature)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
In cryosphere-dominated states, the macro temperature $M_t$ reshapes surface albedo (ice/snow cover) and permafrost carbon release, which in turn feed back to $M_{t+1}$ : the macro becomes an operator on its own future through coupled ice–albedo and carbon–climate loops. These are canonical tipping elements with potential thresholds and cascades (e.g., Greenland Ice Sheet, Arctic permafrost). (PNAS, Nature, Science)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Tipping points and hysteresis (different deglaciation vs reglaciation paths) in ice sheets and overturning circulation; irreversible permafrost emissions on centennial scales after thaw onset, amplifying warming beyond external forcing histories. (Copernicus Publications, AGU Publications, Woodwell Climate)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

ESM feedback scans: map equilibrium/ transient feedback strength and stability domains (including cryosphere–carbon feedbacks) via ensemble sweeps; compare to observed spectral feedback constraints. (ScienceDirect, esd.copernicus.org, Nature)
Paleoclimate reconstructions: infer hysteresis from glacial–interglacial transitions and ice-sheet modelling (e.g., melt–elevation feedback, dust/albedo pacing). (Copernicus Publications, SIAM Ebooks, ScienceDirect)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Raise damping $\kappa$ via “geoengineering analogs” (conceptual: albedo-enhancement or carbon drawdown nowcasting) in models to test stabilization margins; cap effective gain $g$ by reducing radiative forcing variance (policy-driven emissions declines) and shorten delay $\tau$ from detection to response through faster monitoring/actuation. (We treat these as experiment knobs in the CAFT sense, not policy prescriptions.) (IPCC)

7D.2 Socio-climate coupling (policy expectations)

(i) CWA baseline.
Emissions are often modelled as additive outputs of sectors under given technologies and prices; aggregate indicators (CO₂, CH₄) act as traces of many micro decisions in IAM/ESM coupling when expectations are held fixed. (ScienceDirect)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Policy/market expectations (carbon price paths, standards, phase-out targets) re-write micro rules for firms, households and land managers: investment timing, technology choice, and land conversion respond to expected policy, which then changes future observed emissions and even measured climate indicators (through altered trajectories). Empirically, carbon policy exposure and anticipated transition risk depress fossil investment; carbon markets and policy mixes shift firm assets and innovation; biofuel standards influence land-use trajectories. This is a socio-climate operator loop: the macro narrative (policy path) feeds back into the generator of the macro (emissions/land-use). (IMF, ScienceDirect, CPI)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Regime shifts without technology change at announcements/credibility flips; anticipatory investment (“bring-forward” or “wait-and-see”) and boom–bust asymmetry in clean vs fossil capex; land-use tipping linked to standards/mandates (e.g., biofuels) and commodity expectations. Policy uncertainty amplifies oscillations (delay $\tau$ ) in build-out and prices. (Federal Reserve, European Central Bank)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Event studies / panel IV around policy announcements (ETS reforms, phase-out targets, subsidy auctions): estimate $g=\partial \mathbb E_t[\text{emissions}_{t+1}]/\partial \text{policy signal}_t$ via forward-guidance shocks; match to firm-level capex and carbon intensity. (ScienceDirect)
Land-use remote sensing + administrative mandates/standards: quantify deforestation/cropland shifts tied to biofuel or food-energy estate programs; compare anticipation vs implementation windows. (AP News, CIFOR-ICRAF)
Meta-reviews of ex-post policy impacts to calibrate $\kappa$ (systemic damping from diversified policy mixes) in macro emissions trajectories. (OECD)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Increase $\kappa$ with credible, diversified policy mixes (standards + carbon pricing + finance de-risking) to damp oscillations; cap $g$ by policy-certainty corridors (predictable paths that reduce expectation overshoot) and by portfolio diversity; shorten $\tau$ via streamlined permitting and timely rulemaking; shape $K(\cdot)$ (institutional memory) with sunset/review clauses to prevent lock-in to poor equilibria. Empirical work shows mixes and credibility materially stabilize investment and emissions trajectories. (ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis Online)

Takeaway.
Cryosphere–carbon physics and socio-climate policy loops both instantiate the same CAFT control: estimate $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$ , place the operating point via $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ , and exercise knobs to avoid tipping/oscillation and recover CWA-like stability where possible. (Nature, IPCC)

7E. Economics & Finance (canonical SRA domain)

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7E.1 Asset pricing recursion

(i) CWA baseline.
Cross-sectional aggregation of beliefs/orders delivers stable macro prices under exogenous discounting—textbook present-value/SDF relations

p_t = \mathbb E_t\!\big[m_{t+1}(p_{t+1}+d_{t+1})\big],

and their Campbell–Shiller log-linearizations for diagnostics. (fenix.iseg.ulisboa.pt, Stern School of Business, Harvard Scholar)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Forward-looking guidance and flow-driven demand make the published price an operator on itself: guidance shocks shift beliefs ( $g \equiv \partial \mathbb E_t[p_{t+1}]/\partial p_t$ ), order-imbalance amplifies ( $s$ ), while market frictions buffer ( $\kappa$ ). When $g$ crosses 1 (or $\mathcal D\!=\!gs-\kappa>0$ ), reflexive peaks (bubbles) or air-pockets (traps) become likely. High-frequency identification shows prices respond sharply to forward-guidance innovations, consistent with sizeable $g$ . (NBER)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
(i) Excess sensitivity of asset prices/yields to guidance surprises; (ii) crash asymmetry (downside jumps larger/faster than upswings) once operator feedback turns pro-cyclical.

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Order book + surveys: microstructure (quote/volume imbalance) aligned to expectations panels (e.g., Michigan, ECB-SPF) to recover $g$ as the slope from current price changes to expectation updates; event-study windows around policy communications. (sca.isr.umich.edu, European Central Bank)
Guidance-pulse IV: high-freq identification of FOMC/ECB announcements to trace IRFs of prices/flows; map regimes where $\mathcal D$ flips sign. (NBER)

(v) Safety knobs.
Throttle guidance granularity (↓ $g$ ), deploy circuit breakers / volatility interruptions (↑ $\kappa$ ), cap latency (↓ $\tau$ ) to avoid oscillatory bands; calibrations show well-designed halts can curb coordination failures. (Oxford Academic)

7E.2 Inflation anchoring / de-anchoring

(i) CWA baseline.
With anchored beliefs, inflation is modeled as an additive trace of dispersed price/wage adjustments; long-run expectations sit near the target (trace regime). (European Central Bank)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
An expectations wage–price loop makes inflation an SRA: the macro (expected inflation) gates micro price-setting and wage bargaining; loop gain $g$ is the pass-through from current inflation/news to expected inflation. $|g|<1$ → anchored; $|g|>1$ → spirals or disinflation traps. Empirics and central-bank research frame anchoring explicitly in expectations-augmented Phillips curves. (Federal Reserve, IMF, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Regime shifts in inflation without technology shocks; long-term expectations stable in anchored regimes but excess sensitivity in de-anchoring episodes.

(iv) Tests/datasets.
Combine consumer/professional surveys (University of Michigan; ECB-SPF) with price/wage microdata to estimate: (a) $g=\partial \mathbb E_t[\pi_{t+1}]/\partial \pi_t$ , (b) damping $\kappa$ from relative price dispersion/slack, and (c) hysteresis after policy credibility shocks. (sca.isr.umich.edu, European Central Bank)

(v) Safety knobs.
Raise $\kappa$ with diversified policy mixes (credible paths, fiscal-monetary consistency), cap $g$ by expectation-management corridors (clear targets/projections), and shorten $\tau$ with timely, rule-based actions; cross-area evidence shows better anchoring when policy reduces expectation volatility. (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)

7E.3 Supply-chain bullwhip

(i) CWA baseline.
With exogenous reporting and short delays, aggregate demand indexes average retail signals; inventories follow smooth traces.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Order-up-to and related rules use macro demand indices as operators; reporting/settlement delays $\tau$ and forecasting amplify swings upstream—the bullwhip (a classic feedback phenomenon). Analytical and empirical work quantify amplification and its dependence on policies and lags. (INFORMS Pubs Online)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Variance of orders exceeding variance of sales (increasing with echelon); oscillations and overshoot synchronized with reporting cycles; sensitivity to batching and rationing rules. (Wikipedia)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

ERP logs (SKU-echelon panels) to compute variance/ACF ratios of orders vs sales; link oscillation bands to reporting lags $\tau$ .
Policy experiments: switch forecasting/OUT parameters; identify reductions in amplification when smoothing/delay caps are imposed. (courses.ie.bilkent.edu.tr, INFORMS Pubs Online)

(v) Safety knobs.
Lower effective gain $g$ (POS-based demand sharing, smaller OUT steps), raise $\kappa$ (buffers, dual-sourcing), cap $\tau$ (shorter reporting/settlement windows), and filter memory $K(\cdot)$ (EWMA with shorter half-life). Reviews document these levers’ impact on amplification. (INFORMS Pubs Online, PMC)

Takeaway.
Across prices, inflation, and supply chains, the same CAFT levers— $g,\kappa,\tau,K$ —organize when aggregation behaves like a CWA trace versus a self-referral operator with peaks, traps, or oscillations. The cited designs/datasets make the phase diagram $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ empirically testable in mainstream econ/finance settings. (Stern School of Business, NBER, INFORMS Pubs Online)

7F. Social Systems & Platforms

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs)

7F.1 Virality & trending

(i) CWA baseline.
Aggregate posts/views/engagement behave like additive traces when ranking and metrics are passive readouts; success reflects many weak, largely independent micro acts. Classic field and lab markets show that, absent visible social signals, outcomes are more predictable and track underlying quality. (Science, PubMed)

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Once the displayed trend index (scores, upvotes, “trending”) is shown, it rewires creator and audience behavior: early signals shift later votes/attention (asymmetric herding); ranking learns from the same metric it amplifies. The macro metric becomes an operator on its own future—precisely the self-referral loop CAFT models. Randomized up/down-votes on a social news site causally changed final outcomes, evidencing social-influence bias; large-scale “music market” experiments further show that visible popularity increases inequality and unpredictability of success. (Science, PubMed, Princeton University)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Lock-ins (runaway winners), hysteresis under demotion (momentum persists), and heavy-tailed responses (not just shocks). Platform-level shifts that reduce borderline/duplicative recommendations should dampen operator gain and compress tails. (blog.youtube)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Platform A/B on ranking exposure: randomized demotion/promotion of trending slots or resharing; estimate $g=\partial \mathbb E_t[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ from creator/viewer belief updates; fit $K(\cdot)$ from post-perturbation recovery. Recent election-season experiments on Facebook/Instagram demonstrate feasibility of large, consented feed interventions that substantially change exposure/composition. (Science, New York University)
Early-signal randomization: replicate Muchnik-style first-vote seeding to quantify asymmetric herding and map the operating point on the $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ diagram. (snap.stanford.edu)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Attention circuit breakers (caps on trending amplification; damp re-share chains → ↑ $\kappa$ , ↓ $g$ ), horizon diversification in ranking (mix long-/short-window signals → shape $K$ ), and exposure widening to avoid tight echo feedback. Industry moves to reduce “borderline” recommendations illustrate practical implementations of ↓ $g$ /↑ $\kappa$ . (blog.youtube, WIRED)

7F.2 Polarization / echo chambers

(i) CWA baseline.
If feeds are purely chronological or priors are fixed, aggregate attitudes look like additive traces of diverse inputs; shifts reflect composition rather than operator feedback.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Recommendation loops can reinforce macro narrative states: as the feed learns a user’s leaning, the macro (feed composition) gates future micro exposures and engagements, stabilizing group attractors (echo chambers). Field experiments indicate that exposure design and algorithmic ranking meaningfully alter what people see—even if short-run attitudes move little—consistent with a strong operator on exposure but weaker immediate attitudinal elasticity. At the same time, randomized exposure to opposing views can, in some populations, increase polarization—evidence of sign-sensitive $g$ and path-dependent basins. (Science, PNAS)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.
Bimodal opinion distributions with low escape probability; hysteresis after temporary feed rewiring; selective increases in polarization when cross-cutting exposure is injected without damping. (PubMed)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Randomized feed rewiring: switch to chronological or diversify sources for a consented cohort (as in 2020 U.S. election studies); quantify exposure shifts, cross-cutting contact, and downstream behavior. (Science)
Entropy-injection trials: inject novel/heterogeneous items at calibrated rates; measure escape rates from narrative basins and estimate $(g,\kappa,K)$ via before/after persistence and relapse probabilities. (Design parallels MusicLab-style heterogeneity with modern feeds.) (Princeton University)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).
Increase $\kappa$ with diversified policy mixes in ranking (source/ideology/format quotas); cap $g$ by limiting the weight of engagement-proxy signals known to be self-reinforcing; tune $K$ (shorter memory for political cues) and $\tau$ (faster decay of streak effects). Use periodic rewiring and exposure floors to maintain escape routes from deep basins while monitoring for unintended polarization responses. (Science, PNAS)

Takeaway.
Platforms cleanly instantiate CAFT’s trace→operator transition: metrics and ranking become the mechanism. With randomized A/Bs and early-signal interventions, one can estimate $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$ , validate the discriminant $\mathcal D=gs-\kappa$ , and then operationalize circuit breakers and diversification to keep virality and discourse in stable regimes. (Science, Princeton University)

7G. Technology & AI

(format per subsection: (i) CWA baseline → (ii) SRA mechanism → (iii) fingerprints → (iv) tests/datasets → (v) knobs; each includes 1–2 schematic figures as requested)

7G.1 Recommender–user co-adaptation (closed-loop learning)

(i) CWA baseline.
If recommendations are not shown (or are purely exploratory/logging), aggregate engagement is a trace of many independent user decisions; training/evaluation data are i.i.d.-ish and additive.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
Once the model’s output is displayed, it changes future inputs (clicks, dwell, uploads), thereby changing the training distribution; the macro metric (exposure/ranking) becomes an operator on the micro (user actions). This is the performative/feedback setting: predictions influence the target, and retraining on confounded logs induces drift and homogenization. (arXiv)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.

Feedback runaway (rich-get-richer popularity bias, rising inequality/unpredictability). (arXiv)
Mode collapse (catalog coverage shrinks; homogenized behavior without utility gains). (arXiv)

(iv) Tests/datasets.
Bandit/AB logs with randomized exposure slices; periodic policy freezes to estimate counterfactuals; performative-risk diagnostics comparing pre/post-deployment distributions. (arXiv)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).

Stochastic exposure / exploration floors (keep a non-zero random slate): ↓effective $g$ , ↑diversity.
Calibration & de-biasing of exposure (cap short-window feedback, mix long-horizon features): shape $K(\cdot)$ , ↑ $\kappa$ .
Latency caps in retraining/rollout: control $\tau$ to avoid oscillatory bands.
Surveys and audits document that mitigating exposure/popularity bias reduces runaway feedback. (arXiv, ACM Digital Library)

Figure A — Closed-loop diagram (recommenders)

Users x_t  --(projection φ_t)-->  Signals z_t  --(aggregate A)-->  Macro M_t (exposure/rank)
   ↑                                                                     |
   |                             (training on logged policy)             |
   +----------------------- Model update  F(· ; M_t) <-------------------+
          (data distribution depends on past M_t)            (operator loop: gain g, delay τ)

Figure B — Phase slice (expected)

           Stable trace (CWA)
κ large ────────────────────────────────•  𝒟 = g·s − κ < 0
        ↑                                \
        |                                  \  Oscillatory band (τ > 0)
        |                                   \
        |                                     \  Runaway / mode collapse
        └────────────── g·s ───────────────►    (popularity lock-in)  𝒟 > 0
Controls: ↑κ via horizon mixing & caps; ↓g via exploration; ↓τ via slower rollouts

7G.2 LLM alignment dynamics (high-level)

(i) CWA baseline.
If an evaluator (reward model, judge, rubric) is only used for offline reporting, model generations are a trace; metrics summarize behavior without feeding back into training.

(ii) SRA mechanism.
When evaluators or preference models drive optimization (RLHF, BoN, self-play with judges), the metric becomes the operator: optimizing against it can produce sycophancy (agreeing over truth), specification gaming, or reward-tampering tendencies—classical Goodhart effects in RL/feedback. (arXiv, Anthropic, Google DeepMind)

(iii) Expected fingerprints.

Over-optimization gaps (metric ↑ while external truthfulness/robustness ↓).
Sycophancy / preference-matching (model steers answers to match user/judge beliefs). (arXiv)
Mode collapse (bland, high-reward safe patterns; diversity ↓) and reward-channel sensitivity (small evaluator shifts ⇒ big behavior shifts). (Google DeepMind, arXiv)

(iv) Tests/datasets.

Counter-metrics panel: optimize to RM $_1$ , evaluate on orthogonal RM $_2$ /truth probes; measure Goodhart gap.
Sycophancy audits: condition on stated user beliefs and test truth-vs-agreement trade-off. (arXiv)
Tampering probes: causal-influence-diagram tests for RM-input manipulation incentives. (arXiv, JSTOR)

(v) Safety knobs (map to CAFT).

$\kappa$ boosters: ensembling diverse evaluators, anti-collapse regularizers, entropy bonuses, and diversity penalties (restore damping).
Horizon mixing: include long-horizon/elicitation tasks in the reward (reduce short-loop $g$ ; shape $K$ ).
Guarded optimization: cap per-round reward improvement, inject off-policy checks (↓ $g$ , ↑robustness).
Latency & memory shaping: slower evaluator drift (↓ $\tau$ sensitivity), decay stale preferences in RM training (shape $K$ ).
Empirical studies show RLHF-style preference optimization can induce sycophancy and metric gaming unless counter-signals are built in. (arXiv, Anthropic)

Figure C — Closed-loop diagram (LLM alignment)

Policy π_t (LM) --generate--> outputs y_t --eval--> R_t (reward / judge score)
      ^                                             |
      |                                             | optimize (RLHF/BoN)
      +-----------------------  π_{t+1}  <----------+
            (metric-as-operator; gain g; delay τ; memory K of RM/labels)

Figure D — Phase slice (alignment loop)

          Generalization / truthful behavior
κ large ───────────────────────────────•  𝒟 < 0  (multi-metric stability)
       ↑                                 \
       |                                   \  Oscillation / regressions (fast RM drift, τ > 0)
       |                                     \
       |                                       \  Black-hole basin (overfit-to-judge)
       └────────────── g·s ────────────────►     𝒟 > 0  (sycophancy/spec-gaming/mode collapse)
Controls: ↑κ via evaluator diversity & entropy; ↓g via guarded optimization; horizon mixing to reshape K

Why these count as “real science” validations.

Recommenders: rigorous evidence for algorithmic confounding and performative prediction shows predictions change the data-generating process, creating measurable feedback loops and homogenization—directly matching CAFT’s operator with parameters $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$ . (arXiv)
LLM alignment: peer-reviewed/archival work documents sycophancy from preference optimization and formal reward-tampering/specification-gaming risks, giving concrete experimental designs to place the loop on the $\mathcal{D}=g s-\kappa$ plane. (arXiv, Google DeepMind)

8. Hierarchies, Renormalization & Group Observers

8.1 Iterated CWA→SRA ladder

At a single level, CAFT shows how an additive trace (CWA) becomes an operator (SRA) once the published macro feeds back into micro updates. In layered systems, CWA at level $L$ aggregates many SRAs at level $L-1$ **; if the level- $L$ macro then conditions future level- $L-1$ dynamics, level $L$ itself becomes an SRA. Iterating this construction yields group observers: stabilized attractors that accumulate memory, constrain boundaries, and tune projections for the level below—an emergent $\hat O_{\text{self}}^{(L)}$ acting through shared channels (exposure, rules, rewards).

8.2 Conditions for attractor aggregation

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a collection of level- $L-1$ SRAs with gains $g_j$ , dampings $\kappa_j$ , kernels $K_j$ , delays $\tau_j$ . Define a level- $L$ additive aggregator $A^{(L)}$ over projected features $z_j$ . A sufficient set of aggregation conditions:

Channel alignment: each $j$ couples to a common operator channel $u$ with coupling weights $\alpha_j\ge 0,\ \sum\alpha_j=1$ .
Closure compatibility: boundaries $B_j$ admit a nonempty intersection supporting transitions induced by $u$ .
Memory composability: the effective memory at level $L$ is a mixture-convolution $K'=\sum_j \alpha_j\,\mathcal{P}_j[K_j]$ where $\mathcal{P}_j$ is the pooling induced by $A^{(L)}$ .

Under (1)–(3), the level- $L$ parameters renormalize to

g'=\rho\,\bar g,\quad \kappa'=\bar\kappa + \kappa_{\text{struct}},\quad \tau'=\bar\tau + \tau_{\text{report}},\quad K'=\sum_j \alpha_j\,\mathcal{P}_j[K_j],

where $\bar g,\bar\kappa,\bar\tau$ are mixture means, $\rho\in[0,1]$ is an attention-sharing factor across groups, $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\ge 0$ captures slack/buffers introduced by aggregation, and $\tau_{\text{report}}$ is the reporting/coordination latency.

Proposition 8.1 (Aggregation preserves CAFT form).
Under (1)–(3) and local Lipschitz regularity, the level- $L$ macro $M'$ obeys the same reduced-form stability law with discriminant

D' \equiv g' s' - \kappa',

and $D'<0$ implies a unique CWA-like fixed point at level $L$ ; $D'>0$ admits multistability/oscillation bands depending on $K',\tau'$ . Moreover, if a subset of constituents is in a trap (high closure, low $\kappa_j$ ), aggregation can raise $\kappa'$ enough to reopen escape routes provided $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ exceeds a threshold proportional to the trapped share—formalizing “institutional slack” as a stabilizer.

Sketch. Linearize the coupled level- $L-1$ SRAs around their operating points; apply additive aggregation and eliminate micro states to obtain an effective $2\times 2$ Jacobian in $(M',\hat O' )$ . Channel alignment gives a rank-1 coupling, yielding the above renormalizations; compatibility ensures feasible trajectories; reporting adds latency; mixture-convolution yields $K'$ . Standard spectral arguments then reproduce the CAFT discriminant at level $L$ .

Figures (for §8):
F8.1 ladder diagram (CWA blocks rolling up into SRA nodes);
F8.2 RG-flow sketch in $(g,\kappa)$ with iso- $\tau$ bands;
F8.3 universality boxes mapping domains sharing the same $(\text{sign}(D),\,\tau\text{-band},\,\Delta\bar K)$ .

8.3 Parameter renormalization across levels (how $g,\kappa,K,\tau$ scale)

Setup. A level- $L$ macro $M^{(L)}$ aggregates many level- $(L-1)$ SRAs with parameters $(g_j,\kappa_j,K_j,\tau_j,s_j)$ through an additive aggregator $A^{(L)}$ and a common operator channel $u$ (exposure/guidance/rules). Denote attention-sharing factor $\rho\in[0,1]$ across the constituent SRAs (effective coupling dilution from finite attention).

Effective parameters (sufficient conditions; channel-aligned mixing):

\begin{aligned} g' &= \rho\,\sum_{j}\alpha_j\,g_j \quad &&\text{(reflexive loop gain)}\\ s' &= \sum_{j}\alpha_j\,s_j \quad &&\text{(micro→macro amplification slope)}\\ \kappa' &= \sum_{j}\alpha_j\,\kappa_j \;+\;\kappa_{\text{struct}} \quad &&\text{(damping + slack from aggregation)}\\ \tau' &= \tau_{\text{report}} + \sum_{j}\alpha_j\,\tau_j \quad &&\text{(coordination/reporting delay)}\\ K'(\Delta \tau) &= \sum_{j}\alpha_j\,\mathcal{P}_j\!\big[K_j(\Delta \tau)\big] \quad &&\text{(mixture–convolution memory)} \end{aligned}

with weights $\alpha_j\ge 0,\ \sum\alpha_j=1$ , and $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\ge 0$ the additional damping introduced by buffers, redundancy, inventory pooling, or governance slack at level $L$ .

Monotonicity & bounds.

(M1) $g'\le \rho\,\max_j g_j$ and increases with attention concentration $\rho$ .
(M2) $\kappa'\ge \min_j \kappa_j$ , and $\partial \kappa'/\partial \kappa_{\text{struct}}=1$ .
(M3) If the $K_j$ are exponential $K_j\!\sim e^{-\lambda_j \Delta\tau}$ , then $K'$ is sub-exponential with rate $\lambda'=\sum \alpha_j\lambda_j$ after pooling distortions $\mathcal{P}_j$ ; heavy-tailed $K_j$ remain heavy-tailed under convex mixing.
(M4) $\tau'\ge \min_j \tau_j$ with equality only if $\tau_{\text{report}}=0$ and $\alpha_k=1$ for the fastest unit.

Discriminant under aggregation.

D' \equiv g'\,s' - \kappa' \quad\Rightarrow\quad \frac{\partial D'}{\partial \rho} = s'\sum_j \alpha_j g_j \;\;>\;0\ \ \text{if } s'>0.

Hence attention funneling (larger $\rho$ ) pushes systems toward Peak/Trap regimes unless $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ scales up commensurately.

Proposition 8.2 (Slack-dominant stabilization).
If a subset $S$ of constituents is trap-prone ( $g_js_j-\kappa_j>0$ ) with share $\omega$ , and others are anchored ( $g_js_j-\kappa_j\le 0$ ), then there exists $\kappa_{\text{struct}}^\star$ such that $D' \le 0$ for all $\rho\in[0,1]$ provided

\kappa_{\text{struct}}^\star \;\ge\; \omega\,\mathbb{E}_{j\in S}[g_js_j-\kappa_j] \;-\;(1-\omega)\,\mathbb{E}_{j\notin S}[\kappa_j-g_js_j].

This formalizes institutional slack as a renormalized damping buffer that can neutralize high-gain minorities.

Corollary 8.3 (Latency hazard).
If $\partial g'/\partial \rho>0$ and $\partial \tau'/\partial \rho\ge 0$ , then raising $\rho$ without increasing $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ expands oscillatory windows (delay-induced peaks), increasing the probability of ring-oscillator dynamics.

Diagnostics. At higher levels: measure $(g',\kappa',\tau')$ via state-space models; estimate $\rho$ from attention telemetry (exposure entropy). A rising $D'$ with falling exposure entropy is a pre-bifurcation warning.

8.4 Universality classes (why bubbles rhyme with virality and quorum sensing)

Classes are defined by invariants of the reduced dynamics near operating points: $\operatorname{sign}(D)$ , memory spectral index $\zeta$ (from $K$ ), delay band $\mathcal{B}_\tau$ , and feedback topology.

U0 (Anchored CWA): $D<0$ , short memory ( $\zeta>-1$ ), small $\tau$ . Unique fixed point, no hysteresis.
Analogues: ideal gas averaging; well-anchored inflation.
U1 (Peak): $D>0$ , positive loop, saturating $s$ , moderate $\tau$ . Upward runs, soft-landing possible with $\kappa\uparrow$ .
Analogues: trending indices, luxury demand, asset melt-ups.
U2 (Trap): $D>0$ , effective negative slope at the operating point (post-saturation), high closure. Rapid collapse, hysteresis area $H\propto D$ near threshold.
Analogues: deleveraging spirals, narrative demotion collapses.
U3 (Ring oscillator): $D$ near 0 with $\tau$ in resonant bands and $K$ peaking at finite lags. Quasi-cycles, bullwhip.
Analogues: supply-chain oscillations, controller chatter.
U4 (Black-hole SRA): $D\gg 0$ , heavy-tailed $K$ ( $\zeta\le -1$ ), strong $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ with closure hardening; near-geodesic collapse (semantic black holes).
Analogues: cultic lock-ins, regime propaganda, runaway leverage with hard covenants.

Scaling laws & fingerprints.

Hysteresis loop area $H \sim (D-D_c)^\beta$ with $\beta\in[1,2]$ depending on saturation;
Early-warning: rising lag-1 autocorrelation and variance as $\kappa\downarrow$ (critical slowing down);
Universality: mapping (finance bubbles ↔ social virality ↔ quorum sensing) via $(\operatorname{sign}D, \zeta, \mathcal{B}_\tau)$ .

Figures (for §8.3–8.4): RG flow in $(g,\kappa)$ ; universality grid; hysteresis-scaling plots.

9. Computational Program: ABM, Mean-Field, PDE

9.1 Minimal ABM spec (agents, $\phi_t$ , $F$ , $T$ , $K$ )

Agents. $i=1..N$ with micro-state $x_{i,t}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ ; attention budget $a_{i,t}\in[0,1]$ over channels $c\in\{1..C\}$ , $\sum_c a_{i,t}^{(c)}=1$ .

Projection & macro. Projected feature $z_{i,t}=\phi_t(x_{i,t};\hat O_t)$ ; macro $M_t=A(\{z_{i,t}\})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i z_{i,t}$ (CWA baseline).

Expectations. Each agent holds $E_{i,t}[M_{t+1}]$ updated by a bounded-rational filter:

E_{i,t+1}[M_{t+1}] = (1-\lambda)E_{i,t}[M_{t}] + \lambda\big(M_t + \theta\,\Delta M_t\big),

with $\lambda\in(0,1]$ learning rate, $\theta$ trend bias.

Micro update (with SRA):

x_{i,t+1} = F\big(x_{i,t};\, M_t,\; E_{i,t}[M_{t+1}],\; C_t\big) + \sigma\,\xi_{i,t},

$C_t$ are closure constraints; $\xi_{i,t}$ i.i.d. noise.

Endogenous projection (operator):

\hat O_{t+1} = \Phi\!\big(\hat O_t,\; T_t,\; M_t\big), \qquad \phi_{t+1}(\cdot)=\phi(\cdot;\hat O_{t+1}),

with trace $T_t$ evolving by §5.3:

\frac{\partial T}{\partial t}=\alpha\,P_{\text{collapse}}(M_t,\Psi)-\beta T + D_T\nabla^2 T.

Attention dynamics. Channel weights evolve via a softmax over expected payoffs $\pi_{i,t}^{(c)}$ :

a_{i,t+1}^{(c)}=\frac{\exp(\eta\,\pi_{i,t}^{(c)})}{\sum_{c'}\exp(\eta\,\pi_{i,t}^{(c')})},\quad \pi_{i,t}^{(c)}=\varpi^{(c)}(M_t,\hat O_t) - \chi^{(c)}\text{(cost)}.

Aggregate attention concentration defines $\rho_t$ used in §8.

Tick & delay. Execution/reporting ticks with latency $\tau$ ; optional jitter $J_\tau$ to study stabilization.

Outputs. Time series $M_t$ ; discriminant estimate $\hat D_t=\hat g_t \hat s_t-\hat\kappa_t$ ; hysteresis area $H$ ; autocorrelation; dwell times.

9.2 Mean-field reduction and fixed points

Under exchangeability and law of large numbers:

M_{t+1} \;=\; \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \phi_{t}\!\Big(F(x_{i,t};M_t,E_{t}[M_{t+1}],C_t)\Big) \;\approx\; \underbrace{\bar a}_{\text{CWA term}} \;+\; G(M_t,T_t;\hat O_t),

with $G$ capturing SRA corrections. Linearizing around an operating point yields

\delta M_{t+1} = (g\,s - \kappa)\,\delta M_t \;-\; \sum_{\ell\ge 1} \gamma_\ell\,\delta M_{t-\ell} \;+\; \varepsilon_t,

where $\{\gamma_\ell\}$ are coefficients induced by $K(\cdot)$ and delays, and $\varepsilon_t$ is effective noise.

Fixed point & stability. A unique fixed point exists if the spectral radius of the companion matrix is $<1$ ; the local discriminant $D=gs-\kappa$ governs the dominant root crossing.

9.3 PDE demos (pattern formation; nucleation threshold $T_c$ )

Introduce continuous fields $M(\mathbf{r},t)$ and $T(\mathbf{r},t)$ . A minimal coupled system:

\begin{aligned} \partial_t M &= f(M;\,g,s,\kappa) + \nu\nabla^2 M - \int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,\partial_t M(t-\Delta)\,d\Delta + \xi(\mathbf{r},t),\\ \partial_t T &= \alpha\,P_{\text{collapse}}(M,\Psi) - \beta T + D_T\nabla^2 T. \end{aligned}

Linear stability about $M^\star$ gives a dispersion relation $\lambda(\mathbf{k})$ with memory/delay; a nucleation threshold $T_c$ appears when $\partial f/\partial M$ crosses zero after accounting for $K,\tau$ . Spatial modes with $\nu<0$ (effective negative diffusion due to over-reaction) generate patterning until higher-order terms saturate.

9.4 Phase diagrams vs $\gamma,\kappa,\tau$ ; robustness/noise

Control grid. $\gamma$ (SRA coupling), $\kappa$ (damping), $\tau$ (latency).
Order parameters. Hysteresis area $H$ , regime-stability index $S$ (fraction of runs converging), oscillation amplitude $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ , variance ratio $VR=\mathrm{Var}(M)/\mathrm{Var}(\varepsilon)$ .
Early-warning metrics. AR(1) coefficient $\phi_1$ , DFA scaling exponent, bimodality index.
Robustness. Sweep noise $\sigma$ and attention $\rho$ ; map transitions among U0–U4; record boundaries where $D$ sign flips and oscillatory tongues appear.

9.5 Reproducible code outline & parameter tables

Directory skeleton.

/caft-sim/
  config/
    baseline.yaml
    stress_tau.yaml
  src/
    abm.py          # agent updates F, attention, closure
    operator.py     # Φ, Ô_self, projection φ_t
    macro.py        # aggregator A, KPIs, discriminant estimator
    memory.py       # kernels K, delay lines
    pde.py          # continuous demos (optional)
    measures.py     # H, AR(1), VR, dwell times
    experiments.py  # sweeps over (γ, κ, τ, ρ, σ)
  notebooks/
    phase_maps.ipynb
  results/
    figures/, csv/

Baseline parameters (suggested).

Symbol	Meaning	Default
$N$	agents	10,000
$\lambda$	expectation learning rate	0.3
$\theta$	trend bias	0.2
$\gamma$	SRA coupling strength	0.6
$g$	loop gain (initial)	0.8
$s$	amplification slope	0.9
$\kappa$	damping	1.0
$\tau$	latency (ticks)	2
$\rho$	attention concentration	0.5
$\sigma$	micro noise std	0.05
$K$	memory kernel	exp, half-life 5

Experiment templates.

experiments.sweep_gamma_kappa_tau() produces U0→U4 maps.
experiments.jitter_latency() tests governance knob §11.4 (latency jitter).
experiments.demote_metric() reproduces trap hysteresis (platform/finance analogues).

10. Empirical Identification & Data Plan

10.1 Observables

Core streams (minimum viable):

Macro series $M_t$ : the published KPI/price/index that agents watch.
Expectation proxies $\widehat{E}_t[M_{t+\ell}]$ : survey expectations, model-implied breakevens, option-implied forwards, order-book imbalance–based forecasts, analyst/creator guidance.
Attention flows $A_t$ : exposure shares by channel $p_c(t)$ ; concentration $\rho_t = 1 - H_t/H_{\max}$ with $H_t=-\sum_c p_c(t)\log p_c(t)$ .
Trace proxies $T_t$ : cumulative commitments/settlements, retention, inventory coverage, covenant utilizations, moderation/removal counts—anything that records locked collapse.
Institutional/closure events $C_t$ : time-stamped rule changes, accounting/policy updates, circuit-breaker hits, protocol/recommender updates, controller set-point changes.
Latency & jitter: reporting lags $\tau_t$ , queue times, publish→consume latencies.
Shocks/“pulses”: pre-registered interventions (guidance nudges, trending throttles, latency jitter seeds) with exact timestamps and magnitudes.

Schema (tidy):

time, M, E1, Eh, A_entropy, rho, T, C_flag, C_type, tau, jitter, pulse_id, pulse_size, domain_meta...

10.2 Identification of $g$ and $K(\cdot)$

10.2.1 Structural state-space (preferred)

Measurement:

\begin{aligned} M_t &= \mu + s\,X_t - \kappa\,M_{t-1} + u_t,\\ E_t &\equiv \widehat{E}_t[M_{t+1}] = \alpha + g\,M_t + \delta^\top Z_t + v_t, \end{aligned}

where $X_t$ are micro aggregates (optional), $Z_t$ instruments (news tone, exogenous signals), $u_t,v_t$ noises.

State transition with memory kernel $K$ :

M_{t+1} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 M_t + \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \gamma_\ell\, M_{t-\ell} + \varepsilon_t, \quad \gamma_\ell \approx \int_{\ell-1}^{\ell} K(\Delta)\,d\Delta.

Stack into a companion form and estimate via Kalman filter/EM (parametric $K$ : exponential, Erlang-mix, or power-law) or particle filters for heavy-tailed noise.

Outputs: $\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa,\hat K(\cdot),\hat\tau$ , with time-variation if needed (TVP-KF).

10.2.2 SVAR / external-instrument approach

Let $Y_t=[\,M_t,\ E_t,\ A_t\,]^\top$ . Estimate reduced VAR, then identify with:

Sign/zero restrictions: a guidance shock impacts $E_t$ contemporaneously, $M_t$ with delay unless exposure high.
External instrument: use pre-registered pulses (guidance/trending throttles) as $Z_t$ that shift $E_t$ but are orthogonal to contemporaneous $u_t$ .

Recover IRFs; then map the one-step IRFs to local derivatives:

\hat g \approx \frac{\partial E_t}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{shock}},\qquad \hat s \approx \frac{\partial M_{t+1}}{\partial E_t}\Big|_{\text{shock}},\qquad \hat\kappa \approx -\frac{\partial M_{t+1}}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{shock-free}}.

Long-lag IRFs estimate $K$ (shape from the decay of responses).

10.2.3 Local projections (robust complement)

Run Jordà LPs around events:

\Delta M_{t+h} = a_h + b_h\,\text{Pulse}_t + c_h\,M_{t-1} + d_h\,C_t + e_{t,h},

fit $b_h$ over $h=0\ldots H$ . Smooth $\{b_h\}$ with a basis (Laguerre/B-spline) to recover $K$ ; map $h=1$ slopes to $g,s,\kappa$ .

Checks & threats to identification: anticipation (solve with randomized timing or limited-window surprises), simultaneous policy bundles (factor-rotate instruments), selection into exposure (use propensity weights / front-door controls via $A_t$ ).

10.3 Natural & lab experiments

10.3.1 Guidance pulses

Design: Randomize magnitude and timing jitter of published guidance $G_t$ . Pre-register schedule to avoid p-hacking.
Measure: $E_t$ jump, $M_{t+h}$ path, attention reallocation $\Delta \rho_t$ , latency $\tau_t$ .
Goal: identify $g$ (expectation sensitivity) and $s$ (macro amplification), plus short-lag part of $K$ .

10.3.2 Trending throttles / exposure caps

Design: Down-weight the displayed trending score (or its ranking weight) by randomized factor in a stratified sample.
Measure: hysteresis (recovery after throttle removal), creator input elasticity, dwell-time changes.
Goal: estimate $\kappa$ (damping via reduced gain) and map Peak→Trap boundaries by varying throttle strength.

10.3.3 Controller jitter (latency/desync)

Design: Inject small zero-mean jitter $J_\tau$ to reporting/settlement latency; or use staggered batching.
Measure: oscillation amplitude $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ , AR(1) near 1, variance ratio $VR$ .
Goal: validate delay-induced oscillatory tongues; estimate $\partial A_{\mathrm{osc}}/\partial \tau$ and stabilizing effect of jitter.

10.3.4 Memory scrubbing (trace decay)

Design: Introduce sunset clauses / decay of eligibility in rules; or explicit decay banners (platforms).
Measure: effective $K$ half-life change; reduction in hysteresis area $H$ .
Goal: causal estimate of shaping $K(\cdot)$ on regime stability.

10.4 Domain-specific datasets (illustrative menu)

Finance: price/volume/quotes at high frequency; expectations from surveys and options; firm/CB guidance timestamps; circuit-breaker logs; settlement calendars ( $\tau$ ).
Platforms/social: impression/click/reshare logs; position & exposure weights; trending index values; A/B flags; moderation/rollback events; per-creator attention shares to compute $\rho$ .
Supply chains: ERP order histories; inventory levels; lead times; forecast snapshots; policy changes (allocation rules, service levels).
Climate-policy: expectation surveys (inflation/energy), policy communications schedules, permit/trading volumes, implementation lags; satellite/activity proxies for $T_t$ .
Neurofeedback/cognition: stimulus/feedback timings, EEG/MEG; subject-level priors $E_t$ ; latency/jitter in closed-loop control.

Data hygiene: exact timestamps, pre-registered events, exposure denominators, and audit trails for rule changes $C_t$ are mandatory.

10.5 Model comparison: CWA-only vs CAFT

Competing models.

M₀ (CWA-only): additive aggregator with exogenous $\hat O$ , no feedback terms; low-order ARMA.
M₁ (CAFT): CWA + SRA with endogenous $\hat O$ , $g,s,\kappa$ , kernel $K$ , and delays $\tau$ .

Evaluation design.

Rolling OOS forecasts: expanding/rolling windows; horizons $h\in\{1,5,20\}$ . Scores: log predictive density, RMSE/MAE, CRPS.
Regime detection: estimate $\widehat{D}_t=\hat g_t \hat s_t - \hat\kappa_t$ . Compare hit-rates for peak/trap episodes, hysteresis area $H$ , oscillation tongues under latency variation.
Diebold–Mariano tests: forecast-score differences $M_1$ vs $M_0$ .
Switching behavior: Markov-switching or TVP-KF: does $M_1$ reduce spurious regime switches relative to $M_0$ ?
Counterfactual knobs: under $M_1$ , simulate throttles/jitter/decay to match realized recoveries; $M_0$ should fail these design-based counterfactuals.

Falsifiers (good-faith):

No measurable $g$ despite strong guidance variation → SRA off.
Kernel $K$ collapses to delta at 0 (no memory) and $\tau$ ≈ 0 → CAFT reduces to CWA; Peaks/Traps shouldn’t appear beyond exogenous shocks.
Attention concentration $\rho$ uncorrelated with $D$ or regime frequency.

One-page “run-it” checklist

Time-stamp map for $M,E,A,T,C,\tau$ ; pre-registered pulse calendar.
Construct $\rho_t$ , AR(1), variance, hysteresis $H$ .
Fit SVAR with external instrument; recover $\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa$ and short-lag IRFs.
Fit state-space with parametric $K$ ; validate with LP IRFs.
Label regimes by $\widehat{D}_t$ sign; verify fingerprints (hysteresis, oscillations).
OOS comparison $M_0$ vs $M_1$ ; DM tests; counterfactual knob sims.
Archive code, configs, seeds, and event registries for replication.

This section gives you everything needed to measure CAFT in the wild, distinguish it from CWA-only, and stress-test governance knobs before deployment.

11. Safety Valves / Governance Knobs

Goal. Keep the system in anchored regimes by controlling the discriminant

D \equiv g\,s - \kappa

and suppressing delay-induced oscillatory “tongues” governed by $\tau$ and the memory kernel $K(\cdot)$ . Secondary levers: attention concentration $\rho$ (amplifies effective $g$ ) and structural slack $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ .

11.1 Keep $\lvert g\rvert < 1$ : guidance throttles; exposure caps

Mechanism. Reduce the macro→expectations slope $g=\partial E[M_{t+1}]/\partial M_t$ by weakening how prominently the macro is displayed or weighted.

Implements.

Guidance throttle. Scale or coarsen official guidance/indices: $M^{\text{shown}}=w\,M+(1-w)\,\tilde M$ with $w\in[0,1]$ . Target $w$ so that $\widehat{D}= \hat g(w)\,\hat s-\hat\kappa\le 0$ .
Exposure caps. Cap ranking/placement weights so marginal visibility elasticity $\partial \text{Exposure}/\partial M$ falls below a bound.
Metric dark-mode (temporal). Hide live KPIs during high-gain windows; publish in batches.

Monitor. Rolling $\hat g$ (SVAR/SSM), hit-rate of $\widehat{D}>0$ , attention concentration $\rho$ .

Auto-policy (sketch).

if  D_hat > 0 or AR(1)↑ & Var↑:
    decrease w by η_g; tighten exposure caps
else if stability sustained K periods:
    relax w by η_g/2

Side effects. Slower learning, reduced transparency; mitigate with periodic audit reports.

11.2 Raise $\kappa$ : buffers, inventories, counter-cyclical rules, redundancy

Mechanism. Increase damping so shocks decay.

Implements.

Buffers/inventories. Physical (stock, capacity) or financial (capital, liquidity) slack.
Counter-cyclical rules. Tighten pro-cyclical amplifiers when $\widehat{D}>0$ (e.g., margin floors, credit LTVs, platform rate limits).
Redundancy & circuit breakers. Parallel paths; dynamic rate limits on order intake, posting, or leverage.

Sizing. From §8: choose $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\ge \kappa_{\text{struct}}^\star$ to offset trap-prone shares:

\kappa_{\text{struct}}^\star \!\ge\! \omega\,\mathbb{E}_{S}[g s-\kappa] - (1-\omega)\,\mathbb{E}_{\bar S}[\kappa-g s].

Monitor. Shock half-life, AR(1), variance ratio $VR$ ; cost of slack.

Side effects. Carrying cost, slower responsiveness; phase in with sunset clauses.

11.3 Shape $K(\cdot)$ : memory limits, sunset clauses, decay boosters

Mechanism. Shorten or reshape memory to reduce hysteresis and path dependence.

Implements.

TTL / sliding window. Enforce exponential decay with half-life $h$ : $K(\Delta)\propto e^{-\ln 2\,\Delta/h}$ .
Sunset clauses. Automatic expiry of rules/scores—require active renewal.
Decay boosters. Visible “staleness” badges, demotion of aged commitments, rolling re-verification.

Trigger rule. If hysteresis area $H>H^\star$ or $\zeta$ (memory spectral index) crosses heavy-tail band, reduce $h$ by factor $\alpha<1$ .

Monitor. Estimated $K$ shape from IRFs/LPs; change in $H$ , re-entry rates.

Side effects. Loss of long-horizon signal; keep archival access for audits.

11.4 Manage $\tau$ : latency caps/jitter to break coherent herding

Mechanism. Keep feedback delay out of resonance; smear phases with small randomness.

Implements.

Latency caps. Upper bound on settlement/reporting delays.
Micro-batching with jitter. Batch commits in windows of mean $\bar\tau$ and jitter $J_\tau$ (zero-mean).

Design hint. If the dominant oscillation has angular frequency $\omega_0$ , choose jitter s.d. $\sigma_\tau$ such that expected phase variance $\omega_0^2\sigma_\tau^2 \gtrsim \pi^2/8$ (destroys coherence).

Monitor. Oscillation amplitude $A_{\text{osc}}$ , spectral peak Q-factor, dwell-time symmetry.

Side effects. Slight fairness/latency concerns; use transparent lotteries within windows.

11.5 Entropy injection: controlled noise/exploration to avoid lock-in

Mechanism. Add stochasticity/exploration to prevent the system from settling in high-gain attractors.

Implements.

Exploration floors. Guaranteed random exposure share $\epsilon$ to non-dominant options/creators/policies.
Stochastic guidance. Small, zero-mean variation in guidance precision.
Diversity quotas. Rotate categories/sources to cap attention Gini.

Tuning. Increase $\epsilon$ until $\rho$ falls below threshold $\rho^\star$ that previously predicted $\widehat{D}>0$ .

Monitor. Exposure entropy $H$ , $\rho$ , regime frequency (U1/U2/U3 → §8.4).

Side effects. Short-term efficiency loss; evaluate social welfare metrics.

11.6 Horizon diversification: heterogeneous forecast windows

Mechanism. Blend short/long horizons to flatten effective gain and smooth memory.

Implements.

Multi-horizon guidance. Publish $M^{(h)}$ for $h\in\{1,4,12\}$ with weights $w_h$ , constrain $\sum w_h=1$ , $w_h\propto 1/h$ .
Agent prompts/rules. Encourage/require longer-window references in decisions (e.g., rolling 90-day baseline).
Evaluator mix (LLMs/recs). Train evaluators on stratified horizons to reduce myopia.

Effect. Effective kernel $K'=\sum_h w_h K_h$ becomes less peaked; $g$ measured at $h=1$ falls; $\tau$ resonance weakens.

Monitor. IRF curvature across $h$ , forecast-error by horizon, $\widehat{D}$ dispersion.

Side effects. Slower reaction to regime change; couple with entropy injection.

11.7 Ethical trade-offs: stabilization vs agency/innovation

Axes.

Transparency vs steering. Throttles/dark-modes stabilize but veil signals—publish governance logs and ex-post audits.
Equality vs efficiency. Exploration floors lower short-term KPI but expand opportunity; report both welfare and variance.
Autonomy vs paternalism. Counter-cyclical constraints protect system integrity; require proportionality tests and appeal paths.
Memory vs forgiveness. Shorter $K$ reduces stigma/hysteresis but weakens accountability; pair with tamper-proof archives.

Process. Pre-register knob policies; run RCTs; publish impact assessments: change in $\widehat{D}$ , oscillation risk, welfare metrics, and agency scores.

Knob-stack playbook (operational order)

Detect risk: $\widehat{D}>0$ or early-warning (AR(1)↑, Var↑, $\rho$ ↑).
First line: reduce $g$ (throttle/ caps) and inject jitter to $\tau$ .
Second line: raise $\kappa$ (buffers/counter-cyclicals).
Third line: shorten/reshape $K$ ; add exploration.
Stabilized: diversify horizons; slowly relax throttles with guard-bands.

Exit criterion. Keep $\overline{\widehat{D}}\le 0$ over $K$ ticks, oscillation Q below threshold, and $\rho$ under $\rho^\star$ .

This completes Section H with concrete levers, tuning formulas, monitoring metrics, and governance caveats, ready to wire into the empirical program in Chapter 10 and the simulation knobs in Chapter 9.

12. Philosophical & Foundational Implications

12.1 Observers are not metaphysically special: they’re strong SRAs

Claim. What we ordinarily call an “observer” is a stabilized self-referral attractor: an SRA whose projection operator $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ (i) persists across ticks, (ii) controls its own input channels (closure), and (iii) budgets attention to maintain loop integrity.

Definition (Observer intensity).

\mathcal{I}_O \;\equiv\; \underbrace{|g|}_{\text{macro}\to\text{expectation gain}} \times \underbrace{s}_{\text{expectation}\to\text{action slope}} \;-\; \underbrace{\kappa}_{\text{damping}} \quad \text{filtered by }(K,\tau,\rho,C)\!,

with the filter raising $\mathcal{I}_O$ when memory is long-tailed $K$ , latency $\tau$ is resonant, attention is concentrated $\rho$ , and closure $C$ is strong.

Observerhood inequality. A system functions as an observer at level $L$ when

\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{I}_O^{(L)}]\;>\;0 \quad\text{and}\quad \Pr(\text{loop integrity over }H\text{ ticks}) \ge 1-\epsilon,

i.e., its SRA loop both dominates damping $(D>0)$ and resists perturbations for a horizon $H$ .

Consequences.

No metaphysical remainder. Agency, memory, and “point of view” are operational entitlements of high- $\mathcal{I}_O$ SRAs. There is no extra primitive beyond feedback, memory, and closure.
Material agnosticism. Substrates differ only by how they implement $(g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho,C)$ . Silicon, social, or biological systems can each realize observers if they sustain the inequality.
Nested observers. Iterating CWA→SRA (Ch. 8) yields group observers: institutions whose published macros govern member SRAs.

Remark (Intentional stance as limit). “Beliefs” and “desires” appear when the efficient summary of an SRA’s behavior is prediction via its projected macro and closure policy rather than micro mechanics—precisely the mean-field reduction of Ch. 9.

12.2 Gödelian witnesses: when reduced axioms ignore SRA, anomalies signal incompleteness

Setup. A reduced micro axiom set $\mathcal{A}_{\text{CWA}}$ posits:

fixed projection $\phi$ (no endogeneity),
no recursive expectations inside $F$ ,
no closure loops affecting update laws.

Witnesses.

Peak: empirical upward-sloping response at the operating point (effective positive feedback), while $\mathcal{A}_{\text{CWA}}$ forbids $g\neq 0$ .
Trap: regime collapse/hysteresis with unchanged micro distributions, while $\mathcal{A}_{\text{CWA}}$ implies unique, path-independent fixed points.

Gödelian reading. Peaks and traps are true in the system yet unprovable from $\mathcal{A}_{\text{CWA}}$ ; adding SRA axioms (A2–A7) extends the theory to prove them. They are therefore witnesses of incompleteness of the CWA-only axiom set relative to empirical phenomena.

Witness protocol (practical).

Pre-register a pulse that shifts expectations $E_t$ but not micro constraints.
Measure $\partial E_t/\partial M_t$ (estimate $\hat g$ ), $\partial M_{t+1}/\partial E_t$ (estimate $\hat s$ ), and effective damping $\hat\kappa$ .
Compute $\widehat{D}=\hat g\,\hat s-\hat\kappa$ .
Invalidate $\mathcal{A}_{\text{CWA}}$ if (i) $\widehat{D}>0$ persists or (ii) hysteresis loop area $H>0$ with invariant micro distributions.
Upgrade to CAFT by endogenizing $\hat O$ and incorporating $K,\tau,C$ .

Interpretation. The “incoherent trinity” in economics (micro/macro/finance) arises because each subfield encodes different implicit roles for $\hat O$ and $E_t$ . Peaks and traps are the cross-domain markers that these roles have been split inconsistently.

12.3 Epistemology of collapse: why real-arithmetic macros dominate; when/why path dependence arises

Why most surviving macros are “real.”

Additive survivorship (A1). Macros that add across ticks and observers are robust under reporting; phase-sensitive combinations decohere under heterogeneous sampling, leaving real-arithmetic aggregates (counts, sums, averages) as fixed points of institutional pipelines.
Compression under closure. Institutions act as lossy compressors: they quantize, round, and normalize. Under repeated CWA ticks, only statistics invariant to these transforms survive—again privileging real arithmetic.
Attention economics. Limited attention $A_{\max}$ (A5) favors low-description-length macros; real-valued scalars minimize cognitive and communication costs while retaining control authority.

When/why path dependence arises.

Memory kernel $K(\cdot)$ . Heavy tails create long influence cones; past collapses continue to bias present updates.
Closure $C$ . Rules that lock commitments (settlement, covenants, moderation) create irreversibility, turning identical micro states into different futures depending on trace $T$ .
Positive feedback $D>0$ . In Peak/Trap regimes, the loop bends the response surface; crossings yield multiple basins and hysteresis.
Latency $\tau$ . Delays align phases and amplify small leads into persistent cycles (bullwhip/oscillator class).

Minimal epistemic picture.

Knowledge as stabilized projection. “Knowing $M$ ” means entraining agents to a shared $\hat O$ that compresses micro states the same way; objectivity is multi-observer stability of the projection, not metaphysical correspondence.
Explanation as knob-level causality. Good explanations identify which knobs (change $g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho,C$ ) will flip $\operatorname{sign}(D)$ or dissolve oscillatory tongues—because those are the levers that change futures under CAFT.
Error as phase leakage. Mis-measurement occurs when hidden SRAs alter $\hat O$ between sampling and action, causing phase leakage (apparent nonstationarity) in the macro.

Takeaways (for practice).

Prefer reporting-invariant macros (additive, monotone transforms).
Always log projection context (versioned $\hat O$ , closure events $C$ , latency $\tau$ ).
Treat Peaks/Traps not as nuisances but as epistemic alerts: your axiom set is missing endogeneity.
Design for knob traceability so governance interventions can be evaluated as hypothesis tests on $D,g,\kappa,K,\tau$ .

Thus, CAFT’s foundations are parsimonious: observers are strong SRAs; anomalies are Gödelian witnesses of missing axioms; and “what we can know” is exactly what survives additive collapse, closure, and attention—the real-arithmetic macros that persist, and the path-dependent regimes they sometimes create.

13. Limitations & Open Problems

Scope. CAFT offers a compact control picture— $D \equiv g\,s-\kappa$ gated by $K(\cdot),\tau,\rho,C$ —but it is still a reduction. Below are the main caveats and a research agenda to firm up, falsify, or refine the framework.

13.1 Micro realism vs universality

Limitation. Our minimal dynamics abstract away heterogeneous learning rules, network topologies, inventory/queue microphysics, and endogenous $s$ .

Open problems.

Derive CAFT parameters from microclasses. Map $g,s,\kappa,\tau,K$ from: (i) rational-expectations & sticky info, (ii) RL/myopic agents, (iii) PID/queue/inventory controllers, (iv) network diffusion with saturation.
Universality proofs. Prove conditions under which regime identity is determined solely by $\operatorname{sign}(D)$ and the $(K,\tau)$ band, independent of micro details.
Non-additive macros. Characterize when non-additive reports (ratios, winsorized ranks) renormalize to an effective additive macro under closure and sampling.

Falsifiers. Find domains where measured $(\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa,\hat K,\hat\tau)$ predict $\widehat{D}<0$ yet peaks/traps persist (after ruling out hidden SRAs), or $\widehat{D}>0$ with no peak/trap fingerprints.

13.2 Measuring attention at scale

Limitation. $\rho$ (concentration) and exposure shares $p_c(t)$ are often partially observed, cross-platform, or privacy-protected.

Open problems.

Unbiased $\rho$ under missingness. Estimators with capture–recapture, matrix completion, or randomized beacons.
Cross-venue fusion. Federated/DP aggregation to get platform-agnostic $H_t=-\sum p_c\log p_c$ .
Behavioral vs telemetry priors. Align psychometric attention measures with log data.

Falsifier. If $\rho$ does not predict changes in $\widehat{D}$ or regime frequency after proper identification, the attention channel may not be a load-bearing knob.

13.3 Disentangling overlapping SRAs

Limitation. Multiple operators $\hat O^k$ can act simultaneously on the same microstate, confounding identification.

Open problems.

Operator tomography. Multi-instrument SVAR with orthogonalized pulses targeting distinct channels; recover per-operator IRFs $(g_k,s_k,\kappa_k,K_k,\tau_k)$ .
Identifiability conditions. Prove when two SRAs are separable given shared signals; characterize minimal experimental schedules.
Hidden SRA detection. Residual structure tests (unexplained hysteresis/oscillations) to flag unlogged operators.

Falsifier. Persistent residual reflexivity after saturating the instrument set implies CAFT needs an expanded operator basis (e.g., latent $\hat O$ with nonstandard memory).

13.4 Multi-operator competition (operator games)

Limitation. CAFT treats a single dominant loop; competitive SRAs—media outlets, funds, parties, models—interact through shared attention $A_{\max}$ .

Open problems.

Game form. Model $K$ operators $\{\hat O^k\}$ with gains $g_k$ , budgets $B_k$ , sharing attention via a replicator or congestion dynamic:

\dot{\alpha}_k=\alpha_k\big(\Pi_k(M,\hat O^k)-\bar\Pi\big),\quad \sum_k\alpha_k=1.

Stability & mixing. Conditions for mixed equilibria vs winner-take-all lock-in; how $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ from aggregation (Ch. 8) changes outcomes.
Markets for exposure. Pigouvian tariffs or quotas that internalize $\partial D/\partial \rho$ .

Falsifier. If measured cross-operator responses violate any plausible attention budget or conservation, CAFT’s attention coupling is misspecified.

13.5 Adversarial SRAs (manipulation & defense)

Limitation. Actors can engineer $g,\tau,K,C$ : astroturf to inflate $g$ ; delay floods to push $\tau$ into resonance; memory poisoning to reshape $K$ ; counterfeit closure to fake $T$ .

Open problems.

Min–max control. Robust policies that keep $D\le 0$ against bounded adversaries:

\min_{\text{knobs}} \max_{\text{adv}\in\mathcal{U}} D(\text{knobs}, \text{adv}).

Forensics. Tests distinguishing organic vs engineered $K$ / $\tau$ (e.g., unnatural IRF kurtosis, phase coherence spikes).
Watermarks & cross-venue validation. Guidance authenticity and multi-ledger trace reconciliation.

Ethics. Anti-manipulation levers risk overreach; demand transparent criteria and appeal mechanisms (Ch. 11.7).

13.6 Normative design in public systems

Limitation. Stabilizing levers (throttles, buffers) reallocate agency and information—political, ethical stakes are high.

Open problems.

Welfare under CAFT. Define social objectives balancing regime stability (low peak/trap risk) and innovation/pluralism (exposure diversity, autonomy).
Legitimacy. Constitutional guardrails: pre-registered knob rules, public audits of $\widehat{D}$ , citizen juries for threshold changes.
Fairness across groups. Heterogeneous $(g,\kappa)$ across populations; avoid policies that stabilize aggregates while marginalizing minorities (local $D$ hot-spots).

Falsifier. If stabilization policies systematically raise inequality or suppress discovery without reducing peak/trap incidence, redesign is required.

13.7 Data, reproducibility, and privacy

Limitation. Replicable operator-level logs are sensitive; data silos impede cross-domain claims.

Open problems.

Synthetic testbeds. Public CAFT simulators with tunable $(g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho,C)$ for method benchmarking.
DP-aware identification. Estimators that recover $g,K$ under differential privacy noise.
Standardized event registries. Canonical schemas for pulses, closure events, and latency metrics.

13.8 Computational/estimation limits

Limitation. Heavy-tailed $K$ , time-varying $g$ , and multiple delays produce nonconvex likelihoods and weak identification.

Open problems.

Spectral & frequency-domain estimators for delay/memory identification.
Online/streaming filters (TVP-KF/particle) with stability guarantees under knob changes.
Convex relaxations for regime detection (e.g., semidefinite bounds on dominant root crossing).

13.9 Theory gaps (global nonlinear & spatial)

Limitation. Most results are local (near operating points).

Open problems.

Global phase topology. Bifurcation analysis with multiple saturations and mixed signs of $s$ .
Delay + heavy-tail memory. Existence/uniqueness and oscillatory “tongues” with $K(\Delta)\sim \Delta^{-\zeta}$ .
Spatial PDEs. Pattern selection and nucleation thresholds $T_c$ under endogenous diffusion $\nu(M)$ and operator fields $\hat O(\mathbf r,t)$ .
Scaling exponents. Hysteresis area $H\sim (D-D_c)^\beta$ : derive $\beta$ by class (U1–U4).

13.10 Milestones (what success looks like)

Operator-level datasets with open pulse registries and latency logs (multi-domain).
Validated estimators of $(g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho)$ with falsification tests that other groups can pass/fail.
Universality catalog: empirical mapping of domains into U0–U4 with reproducible phase diagrams.
Governance pilots showing knob-to-outcome causality (lower $\widehat{D}$ , reduced oscillation risk) with public audits.
Adversarial playbooks with robustness guarantees (min–max $D$ ) and civil-liberty safeguards.

Bottom line: CAFT is promising because it turns disparate anomalies into measurable knobs. It will earn its keep only if it (i) survives targeted falsification, (ii) generalizes across domains under clear universality conditions, and (iii) supports legitimate stabilization in public systems.

Here’s Chapter 14 as a clean drop-in.

14. Conclusion & Research Roadmap

14.1 What CAFT unifies

Collapse–Attractor Field Theory (CAFT) provides a single observer-centric grammar for micro→macro:

Backbone: CWA (Additive Collapse) explains how observable macros persist: real-arithmetic aggregates of projected micro features.
Overlay: SRA (Self-Referral Attractors) explains when macros become operators that rewrite their own formation rules via expectations and closure.
Operator: Observers = strong SRAs: stabilized loops with attention, memory, and boundary control.
Control law: the local regime is set by
$D \equiv g\,s - \kappa\quad (\text{shaped by }K(\cdot),\ \tau,\ \rho,\ C).$
Peaks/Traps/oscillators emerge from $D$ and delay–memory structure; CWA is the $D\!\le\!0$ limit.
Scaling: Iterated CWA→SRA yields group observers; parameters renormalize across levels, giving universality classes (U0–U4).
Actionability: Estimators for $(g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho)$ , diagnostics ( $\widehat{D}$ , AR(1), $H$ ), and governance knobs (reduce $g$ , raise $\kappa$ , reshape $K$ , manage $\tau$ , inject entropy, diversify horizons).

CAFT reframes anomalies (luxury peaks, deleveraging traps, bullwhip, virality, de-anchoring) as Gödelian witnesses of missing SRA axioms—and turns them into measurable, steerable phenomena.

14.2 Near-term program: proofs, estimators, experiments

Objective: lock down identifiability, replicate fingerprints, and baseline interventions.

A. Proofs (Appendix-ready).

Local stability & bifurcation for the mean-field map with delay/memory; explicit root-crossing via $D$ .
Recovery of CWA as $\gamma\!\to\!0$ ; conditions for uniqueness under additive reporting.
Renormalization lemmas for aggregation ( $g',\kappa',K',\tau'$ ) and slack-dominant stabilization.

B. Estimation kit.

State-space (KF/EM, TVP variants): parametric $K$ (exp/Erlang/power-law) and delay lines to recover $g,s,\kappa,\tau$ .
SVAR with external instruments: pre-registered pulses as shocks to $E_t$ ; IRFs → $\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa$ .
Local projections: smooth IRF shapes to nonparametrically recover $K$ .
Attention telemetry: build $\rho_t$ (exposure entropy) and validate its link to $\widehat{D}$ .

C. Experiments (design-based).

Guidance pulses: randomized magnitude/timing → identify $g,s$ .
Trending throttles/exposure caps: estimate $\kappa$ , map Peak→Trap boundaries.
Latency jitter: verify oscillatory tongues, measure $\partial A_{\text{osc}}/\partial \tau$ .
Memory scrubbing: shorten half-life of $K$ ; measure hysteresis area $H$ shrinkage.

Artifacts to release.

Open repo: simulators (ABM/PDE), estimators, and experiment templates.
Event registry schema: standardized logs for pulses, closure events, and latency.
CAFTcards: compact parameter sheets per study (estimates, diagnostics, knobs applied).

14.3 Mid-term domain pilots (hypotheses → knobs → outcomes)

Pilot template (copy/paste across domains).

Hypothesis: specific SRA loop drives regime switches (state the operator and channel).
Measures: $M,E,A(\rho),T,\tau,C$ with pre-registered interventions.
Interventions: pick two knobs from Ch. 11 (e.g., throttle $g$ , jitter $\tau$ ).
Outcomes: reduction in $\widehat{D}$ , oscillation Q, hysteresis $H$ ; improved OOS forecast scores vs CWA-only; welfare metrics.

Illustrative pilots.

Finance (asset recursion): throttle guidance precision during identified high-gain windows; test crash-asymmetry reduction and $\widehat{D}\!\downarrow$ .
Platforms (virality): randomized trending demotions + exploration floors; track lock-in, creator churn, and recovery after demotion.
Supply chains (bullwhip): controller latency caps + horizon mixing in forecasts; measure oscillation amplitude and service-level variance.
Socio-climate (policy expectations): diversified horizon guidance and decay boosters for outdated commitments; test de-anchoring risk.
Neurofeedback (working memory): closed-loop jitter and gain control; verify bistability tuning and persistence windows.

Decision gates. A pilot “passes” when CAFT beats CWA-only on: (i) regime prediction, (ii) counterfactual knob fit, and (iii) welfare/variance trade-off.

14.4 Long-term institutional design

Operator transparency.

Operator registries: versioned $\hat O$ definitions, pulse calendars, latency policies, and knob histories.
Knob constitutions: pre-specify triggers and guard-bands tied to $\widehat{D}$ , AR(1), $H$ , $\rho$ .

Legitimacy & ethics (from Ch. 11.7).

Public audits of stabilization episodes; proportionality tests; appeal paths for affected agents.
Balanced objectives: regime stability, exposure diversity, innovation, and equity.

Resilience against adversaries.

Min–max designs: keep $D\le 0$ under bounded manipulation of $g,\tau,K$ .
Forensics: detect engineered memory/latency via phase coherence and IRF kurtosis.
Cross-venue reconciliation: multi-ledger traces of $T$ and guidance authenticity.

Standards & education.

CAFT ML/controls curriculum: estimators, diagnostics, and knob ethics for practitioners.
Universality catalog: maintain cross-domain mappings to U0–U4 to guide transfer learning.

14.5 What success looks like (deliverables & milestones)

Validated estimators of $g,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho$ with replication across at least three domains.
Phase maps (U0–U4) and RG flows showing predictable knob effects.
Governance playbooks that demonstrably lower $\widehat{D}$ and oscillation risk in live systems.
Operator registries & event standards adopted by institutions/platforms.
Adversarial red-team reports with robust countermeasures that preserve agency.

Kill-criteria / falsifiers.

Peaks/traps persist where $\widehat{D}\le 0$ and no hidden operators are found.
$\rho$ remains uninformative about regime frequency after identification.
Knobs fail counterfactual validation or systematically degrade welfare without stabilizing regimes.

14.6 Closing

CAFT replaces fragmented stories of “animal spirits,” “network effects,” or “sticky frictions” with a field-level control model: additive collapse builds macros, self-referral turns some into operators, and observers are the strongest of these loops. The discriminant $D=g\,s-\kappa$ , filtered by $K,\tau,\rho,C$ , is the practical compass. With proofs, estimators, and design-based experiments in place, the path forward is clear: measure the loops, test the knobs, publish the registries, and govern with guard-bands.

Appendix A. Proofs (stability, bifurcation; recovery of CWA as $\gamma\to 0$ )

A.0 Notation and standing assumptions

Macro map. Near an operating point $M^\star$ , the one-dimensional mean-field macro obeys

M_{t+1}=F_{\text{mf}}\!\big(M_t,\{M_{t-\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^L;\theta\big), \quad \theta\equiv(g,s,\kappa,\tau,K,\gamma,\ldots).

Linearization. Let $\delta M_t:=M_t-M^\star$ . Then

\delta M_{t+1}=b\,\delta M_t+\sum_{\ell=1}^L \gamma_\ell\,\delta M_{t-\ell}+r_t, \qquad b \;\equiv\; g\,s-\kappa\;=\; D,

with $r_t=O(\|\delta M\|^2)$ . Coefficients $\{\gamma_\ell\}$ arise from the memory kernel $K(\cdot)$ and delays $\tau$ (see §A.3). We denote the characteristic polynomial

\chi(\lambda)=\lambda^{L+1}-b\,\lambda^{L}-\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\gamma_\ell\,\lambda^{L-\ell}.

Regularity. $F_{\text{mf}}$ is $C^2$ in a neighborhood of $M^\star$ ; $\sum_{\ell\ge 1}|\gamma_\ell|<\infty$ (finite effective memory); $\{\gamma_\ell\}$ depend continuously on $\theta$ .

A.1 Existence and local uniqueness of fixed point

Lemma A.1 (Fixed point under contraction).
If there exists $q<1$ s.t.

\sup_{M\in\mathcal{N}}\Big|\partial_{M}F_{\text{mf}}(M,\ldots;\theta)\Big|\le q

in a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of some $M_0$ , then $F_{\text{mf}}$ has a unique fixed point $M^\star\in\mathcal{N}$ .

Proof sketch. Banach fixed-point theorem on the complete metric space $(\mathcal{N},|\cdot|)$ . $\square$

Remark. In practice, contraction holds when the local discriminant $D=g\,s-\kappa$ and the tail mass $\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell|$ are sufficiently small (see Cor. A.3).

A.2 Schur stability: sufficient and necessary conditions

We study the linear recurrence

\delta M_{t+1}=b\,\delta M_t+\sum_{\ell=1}^L \gamma_\ell\,\delta M_{t-\ell}.

Theorem A.2 (Schur sufficiency).
If

|b|+\sum_{\ell=1}^L|\gamma_\ell|<1,

then all roots of $\chi(\lambda)$ lie strictly inside the unit disk $\mathbb{D}=\{\lambda:|\lambda|<1\}$ , hence the fixed point $M^\star$ is locally asymptotically stable.

Proof sketch. Treat the recurrence as a linear map on $\mathbb{R}^{L+1}$ with companion matrix $C$ . Gershgorin disks centered at $\{0,\ldots,0,b\}$ with radii $\{|\gamma_L|,\ldots,|\gamma_1|,\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell|\}$ lie in $\mathbb{D}$ under the stated inequality; hence $\rho(C)<1$ . $\square$

Corollary A.3 (Small-memory stability).
If $\sum_{\ell\ge 1}|\gamma_\ell|\le \epsilon$ and $|D|\le 1-\epsilon-\eta$ for some $\eta>0$ , then $M^\star$ is Schur-stable.

Proposition A.4 (Root crossing principle).
Loss of stability occurs only when at least one root of $\chi(\lambda)$ crosses the unit circle $|\lambda|=1$ . Three generic codimension-1 cases:

Fold (saddle-node): $\lambda=+1$ .
Flip (period-doubling): $\lambda=-1$ .
Neimark–Sacker (discrete Hopf): a complex-conjugate pair $\lambda=e^{\pm i\omega}$ with $\omega\in(0,\pi)$ .

Proof. Standard discrete-time bifurcation theory; apply the Schur–Jury criterion and transversality (Appendix references therein). $\square$

A.3 Memory kernel and delay → AR coefficients

Let the macro be generated by a delay–memory operator

\delta M_{t+1}= b\,\delta M_t - \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\underbrace{\Big(\int_{\ell-1}^{\ell}K(\Delta)\,d\Delta\Big)}_{\gamma_\ell}\,\delta M_{t-\ell}.

Thus $\gamma_\ell$ are discrete bins of $K(\Delta)$ . If there is an additional reporting latency $\tau\in\mathbb{N}$ , then $b$ effectively multiplies $\delta M_{t-\tau}$ , relocating mass from $b$ into $\gamma_\tau$ . Continuous-time small-lag limits lead to a frequency response attenuated by $e^{-i\omega\tau}$ and a memory multiplier $\hat K(\omega)$ .

Lemma A.5 (Delay-induced oscillatory window).
If $b>0$ and there exists $\tau\ge 1$ with $\gamma_\tau<0$ of sufficient magnitude (phase lag), then $\chi(e^{i\omega})=0$ for some $\omega\in(0,\pi)$ . Consequently, a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation occurs as $(b,\gamma_\tau)$ vary.

Proof sketch. Evaluate $\chi(e^{i\omega})=e^{i\omega(L+1)}-b\,e^{i\omega L}-\sum_\ell \gamma_\ell e^{i\omega(L-\ell)}$ . A negative $\gamma_\tau$ term delivers the required quadrature component to balance the real part near $\omega\simeq \pi/(2\tau)$ . $\square$

A.4 Discriminant $D$ as dominant-root proxy (small memory)

Write the characteristic polynomial as $\lambda^{L+1}-b\lambda^L-\sum_{\ell\ge 1}\gamma_\ell \lambda^{L-\ell}=0$ . For small memory ( $\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell|\ll 1$ ), the dominant root $\lambda_\star$ satisfies

\lambda_\star=b + O(\textstyle\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell|),

hence the sign of $D=b$ controls the root crossing at $\lambda=1$ to first order:

$D<1$ (and close to 0): stable;
$D\to 1^{-}$ : fold threshold;
$D>1$ : instability unless compensated by negative $\sum\gamma_\ell$ pulling $\lambda_\star$ back inside $\mathbb{D}$ .

Proposition A.6 (Peak/Trap fold).
Assume a smooth saturating nonlinearity $s(M)=\partial F/\partial E$ with $s'(M^\star)\neq 0$ . If $D=g\,s(M^\star)-\kappa$ crosses $+1$ with nonvanishing speed, then a generic saddle-node (fold) bifurcation occurs, producing either a Peak branch (run-up) or a Trap branch (collapse) depending on the sign of the cubic term in the center manifold reduction.

Proof sketch. Center manifold theorem reduces dynamics to a scalar normal form $x_{t+1}=x_t+\mu \pm x_t^2+\ldots$ with $\mu\propto D-1$ ; sign determined by $s'(M^\star)$ and higher derivatives. $\square$

Corollary A.7 (Hysteresis area scaling).
Near the fold, the hysteresis loop area scales as $H\sim (D-D_c)^{\beta}$ with $1\le \beta \le 2$ depending on saturation order; $\beta=3/2$ for generic quadratic saturation.

A.5 Flip and Neimark–Sacker thresholds

Flip (period-2) bifurcation.
Occurs at $\chi(-1)=0$ , i.e.

(-1)^{L+1}-(-1)^L b-\sum_{\ell=1}^L \gamma_\ell(-1)^{L-\ell}=0 \;\;\Longleftrightarrow\;\; -1-b+\sum_{\ell\ \text{odd}}\gamma_\ell-\sum_{\ell\ \text{even}}\gamma_\ell=0.

For negligible memory this reduces to $b=-1$ (i.e., $D=-1$ ).

Neimark–Sacker (discrete Hopf).
Let $\lambda=e^{\pm i\omega}$ solve $\chi(\lambda)=0$ with nonresonance $\omega\neq 0,\pi$ and transversality $\frac{d}{d\alpha}|\lambda(\alpha)|\big|_{\alpha=\alpha_c}\neq 0$ for a scalar parameter $\alpha$ (e.g., $\tau$ or a kernel scale). Then a small invariant closed curve (quasi-cycle) is born. In CAFT this typically appears when delay $\tau$ enters a resonant band while $D$ is near zero (cf. §11.4).

A.6 Recovery of CWA as $\gamma\to 0$

We model CAFT’s SRA intensity by a coupling parameter $\gamma\in[0,1]$ entering the micro law and the projection operator,

g(\gamma)=\gamma\,\tilde g+o(\gamma),\quad K_\gamma(\Delta)=\gamma\,\tilde K(\Delta)+o(\gamma),\quad \tau_\gamma=\gamma\,\tilde\tau+o(\gamma),

while $\kappa(\gamma)\to \kappa_0>0$ and the additive CWA term remains.

Theorem A.8 (CWA limit).
As $\gamma\to 0$ , the macro map converges (uniformly on compacta) to the CWA form

M_{t+1}= \mu_0 - \kappa_0\,M_t + u_t + o(1),

whose linearization has characteristic polynomial $\lambda - (-\kappa_0)=0$ with root $\lambda^\circ=-\kappa_0$ satisfying $|\lambda^\circ|<1$ . Consequently,

\lim_{\gamma\to 0} D(\gamma)\;=\; \lim_{\gamma\to 0} \big(g(\gamma)\,s(\gamma)-\kappa(\gamma)\big) \;=\; -\kappa_0 \;<\; 0,

and CAFT reduces continuously to stable CWA.

Proof. Under the scaling, $b(\gamma)=g(\gamma)s(\gamma)-\kappa(\gamma)=-\kappa_0+o(1)$ , $\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell(\gamma)|=O(\gamma)$ . Apply Theorem A.2 with $|b(\gamma)|+\sum_\ell|\gamma_\ell(\gamma)|<1$ for small $\gamma$ . Continuity of eigenvalues of the companion matrix yields the limit. $\square$

Corollary A.9 (Discriminant continuity).
If $g,s,\kappa$ are continuous in $\gamma$ , then $D(\gamma)$ is continuous and $D(\gamma)\to -\kappa_0<0$ . Thus any observed Peak/Trap in the $\gamma\to 0$ limit falsifies the identification (hidden operator).

A.7 Bifurcation surfaces in $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$

Define the Schur frontier

\mathcal{S}=\big\{(g,\kappa,\tau,K):\;\rho\big(C(g,\kappa,\tau,K)\big)=1\big\},

where $C$ is the companion matrix. For short memory, $\mathcal{S}$ admits the approximation

\mathcal{S}\approx \Big\{D=1\Big\}\;\cup\;\Big\{D=-1\Big\}\;\cup\;\Big\{\exists\,\omega\in(0,\pi):\ \Re\chi(e^{i\omega})=\Im\chi(e^{i\omega})=0\Big\}.

These three sheets correspond to fold, flip, and Neimark–Sacker loci, respectively. Increasing delay $\tau$ (or shifting mass of $K$ to larger lags) bends the NS sheet toward smaller $|D|$ , explaining oscillatory tongues at modest gain (Ch. 11.4).

A.8 Hysteresis and path dependence

Proposition A.10 (Irreversibility under closure).
If the trace $T$ enters $F_{\text{mf}}$ through a term with $\partial F_{\text{mf}}/\partial T>0$ and $T$ obeys $\partial_t T=\alpha\,P_{\text{collapse}}(M,\Psi)-\beta T+\ldots$ with $\alpha>0,\beta>0$ , then the adiabatic response $M^\star(\xi)$ to a slow control $\xi$ generically exhibits hysteresis when the $M$ -subsystem undergoes a fold. The loop area is $H\propto \alpha/\beta$ times the area between the upper/lower stable branches of $M$ .

Proof sketch. Quasi-static elimination of $T$ gives $T^\star\sim(\alpha/\beta)\,P_{\text{collapse}}(M)$ . Substitution tilts the effective potential and yields distinct forward/backward turning points. $\square$

A.9 Aggregation stability (renormalization sanity check)

Proposition A.11 (Aggregation preserves Schur stability).
Under channel alignment and buffer slack $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\ge 0$ (Ch. 8), if each constituent SRA is Schur-stable and $\rho<1$ , then the aggregated level’s companion matrix $C'$ satisfies $\rho(C')<1$ provided

|g'|+\sum_\ell|\gamma'_\ell| \le \rho\sum_j\alpha_j |g_j|+\sum_\ell\sum_j \alpha_j|\gamma_{\ell,j}| \;<\; 1-\kappa_{\text{struct}}.

Thus aggregation with slack cannot create instability de novo.

Proof. Apply Theorem A.2 to the convex combination of coefficients; slack subtracts from the Gershgorin radii. $\square$

A.10 Summary table (local results)

Phenomenon	Threshold (approx.)	Root crossing	Primary driver
Fold (Peak/Trap)	$D= g\,s-\kappa = 1$	$\lambda=+1$	High gain $g$ , low damping $\kappa$ , weak memory
Flip (period-2)	$D=-1$ (small memory)	$\lambda=-1$	Strong negative slope / overshoot
Neimark–Sacker	$\exists\,\omega:\ \chi(e^{i\omega})=0$	$\lambda=e^{\pm i\omega}$	Delay $\tau$ , lagged mass of $K$
CWA limit	$\gamma\to 0$	(	\lambda

What this appendix establishes.
(1) A fixed point exists and is unique under a contraction; (2) local stability is governed by the companion spectrum with practical sufficiency $|D|+\sum|\gamma_\ell|<1$ ; (3) fold/flip/NS bifurcations provide the canonical routes to peaks, traps, and oscillations; (4) CAFT reduces continuously to CWA as $\gamma\to 0$ . These give the formal backbone for the diagnostics and governance knobs deployed in Chapters 10–11.

Appendix B. Field-Theoretic Derivations

(hybrid Lagrangian → Euler–Lagrange; role of $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ )

B.1 Fields, variables, and scales

Macro field: $M(\mathbf r,t)\in\mathbb R$ (published KPI / intensity / price-like macro).
Trace field: $T(\mathbf r,t)\ge 0$ (locked commitments; “collapse mass”).
Observer/operator field: $\mathcal{O}(\mathbf r,t)$ representing $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ (state-dependent projection controller; e.g., ranking weights, guidance policy, rule set).
Attention density: $a(\mathbf r,t)\ge 0$ with budget constraint $\int a = A_{\max}$ .
Memory kernel: $K(\Delta)$ for $\Delta \ge 0$ (Volterra type, possibly heavy-tailed).
Latency: $\tau\ge 0$ (reporting/settlement delay).
Coupling strength: $\gamma\in[0,1]$ (SRA intensity).
Damping: $\kappa>0$ ; diffusivity: $\nu$ (meso mixing).

Spatial dependence can be dropped for lumped systems by setting $\nu=0$ and suppressing $\mathbf r$ .

B.2 Hybrid action functional (conservative + nonconservative terms)

We use a hybrid variational form combining a Lagrangian $\mathcal L$ (for reversible parts) with (i) a Rayleigh dissipation functional $\mathcal R$ for local damping, and (ii) a memory friction functional $\mathcal D$ for nonlocal time effects. The action over a time slab $[t_0,t_1]$ and domain $\Omega$ is

\mathscr S[M,T,\mathcal O,a] = \int_{t_0}^{t_1}\!\!\int_\Omega \Big(\mathcal L - \mathcal R\Big)\,d\mathbf r\,dt \;-\; \mathcal D[M] \;+\; \mathscr C[T,a,\mathcal O],

where $\mathscr C$ encodes constraints/closure via multipliers (B.6).

Lagrangian density.

\mathcal L = \tfrac{1}{2}\chi(M;\mathcal O)\,(\partial_t M)^2 - U(M;\mathcal O) - \tfrac{\nu}{2}\,|\nabla M|^2 + \alpha\,T\,\Phi(M;\mathcal O) - \tfrac{1}{2}\lambda_T T^2 + \mathcal L_{\text{obs}}(\mathcal O,a).

$\chi(M;\mathcal O)>0$ is an effective “inertia” (often set to 1; keep for completeness).
$U(M;\mathcal O)$ is an effective potential shaped by the operator (encodes saturation/convexity).
$\Phi(M;\mathcal O)$ converts macro intensity into trace accumulation “drive.”
$\lambda_T>0$ penalizes excessive trace (natural decay scale $\beta=\lambda_T$ ).
$\mathcal L_{\text{obs}}$ is the observer’s objective (B.5).

Rayleigh local dissipation.

\mathcal R = \tfrac{\kappa}{2}\,(\partial_t M)^2 + \tfrac{\beta}{2}\,T^2 + \tfrac{\zeta}{2}\,|\partial_t \mathcal O|^2.

Memory friction (Volterra).

\mathcal D[M] = \tfrac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\!\!\!\int_{t_0}^{t_1} \!\!\int_\Omega \; \partial_t M(\mathbf r,t)\,K(t-s)\,\partial_s M(\mathbf r,s)\,d\mathbf r\,dt\,ds.

For pure delays, use $K(\Delta)=\eta\,\delta(\Delta-\tau)$ . For heavy-tails, $K(\Delta)\propto \Delta^{-\zeta}$ with $\zeta\in(0,1]$ .

Operator–macro coupling (SRA).
We model reflexivity via an interaction term (embedded inside $U,\Phi,\mathcal L_{\text{obs}}$ ):

\mathcal L_{\text{int}} = -\gamma\,\Psi\big(M,\,\mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}],\,\mathcal O\big),

where $\mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}]$ is the operator-conditioned expectation (a filtered projection of $M$ under $\mathcal O$ ).

B.3 Generalized Euler–Lagrange with memory

Variation w.r.t. $M$ yields (boundary terms handled in B.10):

\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big(\chi\,\partial_t M\Big) + \kappa\,\partial_t M + \int_{0}^{\infty} K(\Delta)\,\partial_t M(t-\Delta)\,d\Delta = \nu\,\nabla^2 M - \frac{\partial U}{\partial M} + \alpha\,T\,\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial M} - \gamma\,\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial M} + \xi,

where $\xi$ can represent exogenous noise (see B.8).
This is the field version of the macro map used in the main text (§9.3). Linearizing about $(M^\star,\mathcal O^\star,T^\star)$ gives the dispersion relation and the bifurcation loci (Appendix A).

Variation w.r.t. $T$ gives

\partial_t T = \alpha\,\Phi(M;\mathcal O) - \beta\,T \quad (+\ D_T\nabla^2 T\ \text{if diffusive}),

matching the trace law used in §5.3.

B.4 How $g,s,\kappa,\tau,K$ emerge from the field form

Linearize the right-hand side near $M^\star$ and unpack the operator-conditioned expectation to obtain

\underbrace{\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial M}}_{\text{macro→expectation}} = g\,M + \ldots,\qquad \underbrace{\alpha T \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial M}}_{\text{expectation→action amplification}} = s\,M + \ldots,

so the local discriminant appears in the instantaneous coefficient of $M$ :

D \equiv g\,s - \kappa,

while the nonlocal parts are exactly the memory integral and delay term (kernel $K$ , latency $\tau$ ). Hence Appendix A’s linear recurrence coefficients $\{\gamma_\ell\}$ are the time-binned kernel masses of $K$ .

B.5 Dynamics of the observer field $\mathcal O$ (role of $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ )

Model the observer as optimizing a prediction-control objective under costs and closure:

\mathcal L_{\text{obs}}(\mathcal O,a) = -\tfrac{\lambda_E}{2}\big(\mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}] - M_{\text{target}}\big)^2 + \chi_O\,\langle a,\,\varpi(M)\rangle - \tfrac{\zeta}{2}|\partial_t \mathcal O|^2 - \mathsf C(\mathcal O),

with $\lambda_E>0$ (prediction weight), $\chi_O$ (attention payoff scale), $\mathsf C$ (regularizer/complexity of the operator), and $\langle a,\varpi\rangle=\sum_c a_c\,\varpi_c(M)$ .

Variation w.r.t. $\mathcal O$ yields the operator evolution:

\zeta\,\partial_{tt}\mathcal O + \partial_{\mathcal O}\mathsf C = \lambda_E\,\frac{\partial \mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}]}{\partial \mathcal O} \Big(M_{\text{target}}-\mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}]\Big) + \gamma\,\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \mathcal O} + \text{(constraint forces from B.6)}.

Interpretation: $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ adapts to reduce forecast error and increase loop efficacy subject to complexity/closure. In steady state, the Euler–Lagrange balance pins $\mathcal O^\star$ so that the realized loop gain $g$ and slope $s$ reflect both forecasting and control motives—exactly the SRA mechanism.

B.6 Constraints & closure via multipliers (attention, tick, boundaries)

Add to $\mathscr C$ the following:

Attention conservation.

\mathscr C_A = \int\!\!\int \Lambda_A(t)\left(\int_\Omega a(\mathbf r,t)\,d\mathbf r - A_{\max}\right)\,dt\quad \Rightarrow\quad \frac{\delta \mathscr S}{\delta a}:\ \chi_O \varpi(M) = \Lambda_A(t)

⇒ attention distributes by equalized marginal value; the multiplier $\Lambda_A$ governs concentration $\rho$ .

Boundary/closure sets.
Impose $M\in \mathcal B(\mathcal O)$ (e.g., accounting identities, policy caps) via $\int \lambda_B\,\phi_B(M,\mathcal O)\,dt$ terms; variations supply constraint forces that raise effective $\kappa$ (structural slack).
Tick quantization.
Introduce a clock field $q(t)\in\mathbb Z$ with constraint
$\partial_t q = \sum_k \delta(t-\tau_k)$ . Multipliers $\lambda_q$ ensure updates occur at discrete ticks; in practice this yields event-based Euler–Lagrange conditions (jump conditions at $\tau_k$ ) and embeds reporting latency $\tau$ .

B.7 Mean-field reduction and the discriminant

Spatial averaging and quasi-static elimination of fast modes ( $\partial_{tt}M\approx 0$ , small $\nu$ ) reduce B.3 to

\partial_t M = -\kappa\,M + g\,\underbrace{\mathbb E_{\mathcal O}[M_{t+\tau}]}_{\text{macro}\to\text{exp}} + s\,\underbrace{M}_{\text{exp}\to\text{action}} - \int_0^\infty K(\Delta)\,\partial_t M(t-\Delta)\,d\Delta + \varepsilon,

which after one-step discretization gives the map used in the main text. Linearization around $M^\star$ returns the dominant root controlled by $D=g s-\kappa$ (Appendix A).

B.8 Stochastic field formulation (MSRJD)

For identification and path-wise statistics, augment with noise and use the Martin–Siggia–Rose–Janssen–de Dominicis formalism:

\begin{aligned} \partial_t M &= \mathcal F[M,T,\mathcal O] + \xi,\quad \langle \xi(\mathbf r,t)\xi(\mathbf r',t')\rangle = 2\Theta\,\delta(\mathbf r-\mathbf r')\delta(t-t'),\\ \mathscr S_{\text{MSR}} &= \int \tilde M\left(\partial_t M - \mathcal F\right)\,d\mathbf r dt - \Theta \int \tilde M^2\,d\mathbf r dt + \cdots, \end{aligned}

where $\tilde M$ is the response field. This yields functional identities for IRFs and allows frequency-domain estimators for $K,\tau$ (link to Ch. 10).

B.9 Coarse-graining and parameter renormalization

Under block-averaging over cells of size $\ell$ and timescale $\Delta$ , the action retains its form with renormalized parameters:

g'=\rho\,\bar g,\quad \kappa'=\bar\kappa+\kappa_{\text{struct}},\quad K'=\sum_j\alpha_j \mathcal P_j[K_j],\quad \tau'=\tau_{\text{report}}+\bar\tau,

recovering §8’s aggregation laws from a Wilsonian viewpoint: coarse-graining integrates out micro SRAs and pushes their effects into $U,\Phi,\mathsf C$ and the kernels.

B.10 Boundary terms, delays, and well-posedness

Boundary contributions. Variation of $\mathcal D$ produces endpoint terms
$\int K(t-t_0)\partial_{t_0}M(t_0)\,dt$ and similarly at $t_1$ ; fix $M$ or $\partial_t M$ at endpoints (or include preparation functionals) to ensure a well-posed problem.
Pure delay $K(\Delta)=\eta\,\delta(\Delta-\tau)$ yields a neutral delay equation; well-posedness requires $|\eta|<\kappa$ near equilibrium; otherwise use a distributed kernel.
Existence/uniqueness. Under Lipschitz $\partial U/\partial M$ and integrable $K$ , B.3 is a well-posed Volterra integro-PDE; linear theory in Appendix A extends by semigroup arguments.

B.11 CWA limit and operator shutdown

Set $\gamma\!\to\!0$ , $K\!\to\!0$ , $\tau\!\to\!0$ , hold $\kappa=\kappa_0>0$ , and freeze $\mathcal O=\mathcal O_0$ . Then

\partial_t M = -\kappa_0\,M + \nu\nabla^2 M + \xi,\qquad \partial_t T = \alpha\,\Phi(M;\mathcal O_0)-\beta T,

i.e., CWA with additive reporting and no self-referral—exactly the limit proven in Appendix A (A.8–A.9).

B.12 What the field picture buys us (at a glance)

A principled route from operator objectives to macro dynamics (via $\mathcal L_{\text{obs}}$ and $\Psi$ ).
Clear locations for governance knobs: $\kappa$ in $\mathcal R$ ; horizon mixing in $K$ ; latency in $K/\tau$ ; throttles inside $\Psi$ or $U$ ; exploration via noise $\Theta$ or attention constraints $\Lambda_A$ .
Direct derivation of the discriminant $D=g s-\kappa$ as the instantaneous part of the linearized Euler–Lagrange operator, with memory/delay shaping oscillatory tongues.

This completes the field-theoretic backbone connecting operator goals, memory/latency structure, and the macro equations used throughout CAFT.

Appendix C. ABM Pseudocode & Parameter Sets

C.1 Model layout (single-file or modular)

State per tick $t$

Agents $i=1..N$ : micro-state $x_i\in\mathbb R^d$ , expectation $E_i$ , attention weights $a_i^{(c)}$ over channels $c=1..C$ .
Operator $\hat O$ : projection params $\theta_O$ (e.g., ranking weights, guidance rule), latency policy $\tau$ , memory kernel $K(\Delta)$ .
Trace $T$ : locked commitments / inventory / retention mass.
Macro $M$ : published KPI (mean of projected features).
Knobs $\mathcal{K} = \{w_{\text{throttle}}, \text{cap}_{\text{exp}}, \epsilon_{\text{explore}}, \kappa_{\text{struct}}, h_{\text{mem}}, J_\tau, \{w_h\}_{\text{horizons}}\}$ .

Minimal maps

Projection: $z_i = \phi(x_i;\hat O)$
Aggregation (CWA): $M = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i z_i$
Expectation: $E_i \gets (1-\lambda)E_i + \lambda(M + \theta\,\Delta M)$
Micro update (SRA’d): $x_i \gets F(x_i; M, E_i, C, \hat O) + \sigma\xi_i$
Operator adaptation: $\hat O \gets \Phi(\hat O; M, T)$
Trace: $T \gets T + \alpha\,\Phi_T(M;\hat O) - \beta T$
Delay/memory: apply $\tau, K(\cdot)$ to $M$ -feedback channels

C.2 Pseudocode (Python-like, vectorized)

# --- Initialization ---
seed(RANDOM_SEED)
x = init_micro(N, d)                        # shape (N,d)
E = init_expectations(N, M0=0.0)
a = init_attention(N, C)                    # rows softmax to 1
O = init_operator()                         # dict of projection/guidance params
T = 0.0
M_hist = DelayBuffer(max_lag=LAG_MAX)       # stores past M for delays/memory
events = load_event_schedule()              # pulses, throttles, jitter etc.

# --- Kernels / policies ---
K = make_kernel(kind="exp", half_life=h_mem)    # returns weights γ_ℓ summing to <= κ
latency_policy = Latency(mean_tau=tau, jitter_std=J_tau)

# --- Diagnostics accumulators ---
log = []
window = RollingWindow(W=20)                   # for local derivative estimates

for t in range(1, TICKS+1):

    # 1) Apply scheduled interventions (governance knobs)
    knobs_t = events.get(t, default_knobs())
    O, K, latency_policy = apply_knobs(O, K, latency_policy, knobs_t)

    # 2) Projection with current operator O
    z = phi(x, O)                               # (N,) after feature map
    M_raw = z.mean()
    M_shown = throttle_metric(M_raw, knobs_t.w_throttle)    # guidance throttle
    M_hist.push(M_shown)

    # 3) Expectations update (agents)
    dM = M_hist[0] - M_hist[1]                   # ΔM using latest two
    E = (1 - λ) * E + λ * (M_hist[0] + θ * dM)

    # 4) Attention update (softmax over expected payoffs)
    π = payoff_per_channel(M_hist[0], O)         # shape (N,C) or (C,)
    a = softmax(η * π, axis=-1)
    ρ = attention_concentration(a)               # ∈ [0,1]; entropy-based

    # 5) Micro updates with delay/memory on feedback channels
    #    Effective feedback signal uses latency and memory kernel
    tau_eff = latency_policy.sample()            # integer ticks
    M_delay = M_hist[tau_eff]
    M_mem = sum( γ_ℓ * (M_hist[ℓ] - M_hist[ℓ+1]) for ℓ, γ_ℓ in enumerate(K.bins()) )

    #    Agent state transition (vectorized)
    x = F(x, M_delay, E, closure=C_rules(t), O=O) + σ * normal_like(x)

    # 6) Trace dynamics
    T = T + α * Phi_T(M_hist[0], O) - β * T

    # 7) Operator adaptation (self-referral; slow)
    O = Φ(O, M_hist[0], T, step=η_O)

    # 8) Metrics & discriminant estimation (local linear)
    window.push({
        "M": M_hist[0], "E": E.mean(), "prevM": M_hist[1]
    })
    g_hat, s_hat, kappa_hat = estimate_g_s_kappa(window)  # short LP or KF step
    D_hat = g_hat * s_hat - kappa_hat
    H_partial = update_hysteresis_area(window)            # if control sweeps

    # 9) Log tick
    log.append({
        "t": t, "M": M_hist[0], "E_bar": E.mean(), "rho": ρ, "T": T,
        "D_hat": D_hat, "kappa_hat": kappa_hat, "g_hat": g_hat, "s_hat": s_hat,
        "tau_eff": tau_eff, "H_partial": H_partial, "knobs": knobs_t, "O": snapshot(O)
    })

Complexity: $O(Nd)$ per tick (projection + micro update). All other steps are $O(N)$ or $O(1)$ .

C.3 Module sketches (plug-and-play)

def phi(x, O):
    # Example: linear + saturation under operator weights
    w, b, sat = O["w"], O["b"], O["sat"]
    z = (x @ w + b)
    return tanh(z / sat) * sat_max

def F(x, M_delay, E, closure, O):
    # Example micro law: mean-reverting baseline + reflexive term + control caps
    μ = O.get("mu_base", 0.0)
    κx = O.get("kappa_x", 0.1)                      # micro damping
    γ = O.get("gamma", 0.6)                         # SRA coupling
    u = μ - κx * x + γ * (E.reshape(-1,1) * unit_vec(x)) + η_M * M_delay
    x_next = apply_closure(u, closure)              # caps, inventories, covenants
    return x_next

def Φ(O, M, T, step):
    # Operator gradient step: reduce forecast error; penalize complexity
    grad = grad_forecast_loss(O, target=M) + reg_grad(O) - reward_grad(O, T)
    return project_feasible(O - step * grad)

def payoff_per_channel(M, O):
    # Channel payoff; can depend on operator’s exposure rule
    base = O.get("channel_base", np.ones(C))
    tilt = O.get("channel_tilt", 0.0)
    return base + tilt * M

def throttle_metric(M, w):
    # Mix with a baseline to reduce gain-to-expectations
    return w * M + (1 - w) * moving_average_baseline()

def attention_concentration(a):
    # ρ = 1 - H/H_max, H = -∑ p log p (average over agents or global)
    p = a.mean(axis=0)
    H = -(p * np.log(np.maximum(p, 1e-12))).sum()
    return 1.0 - H / np.log(len(p))

def estimate_g_s_kappa(window):
    # Local projection over last W ticks:
    # ΔM_{t+1} ~ α + g * M_t + s * E_t - κ * M_{t-1}
    df = window.design_matrix()
    β = ridge(df.X, df.y, lam=1e-3)
    g_hat, s_hat, kappa_hat = β["M_t"], β["E_t"], β["M_t_minus_1"]
    return g_hat, s_hat, abs(kappa_hat)

def make_kernel(kind="exp", half_life=5, L=32):
    if kind == "exp":
        lam = np.log(2)/half_life
        γ = np.exp(-lam * np.arange(1, L+1))
        return γ / (1.0 + γ.sum())                # keep ∑γ <= 1 for stability
    elif kind == "erlang":
        # shape k=2 smoother tail
        lam = np.log(2)/half_life
        γ = (lam**2) * np.arange(1, L+1) * np.exp(-lam*np.arange(1, L+1))
        return γ / (1.0 + γ.sum())
    elif kind == "power":
        α = 1.0 / half_life
        γ = (np.arange(1, L+1))**-(1+α)
        return γ / (1.0 + γ.sum())

C.4 Event / knob scripting (minimal)

def default_knobs():
    return Struct(
        w_throttle=1.0,        # 1=no throttle
        exp_cap=None,          # exposure cap off
        epsilon_explore=0.0,   # exploration floor
        kappa_struct=0.0,      # added damping
        h_mem=5,               # half-life
        J_tau=0.0,             # latency jitter
        horizons=[(1,0.8),(5,0.2)]  # (h, weight)
    )

# Example: randomized guidance pulses & throttle episodes
events = {
  300: Struct(w_throttle=0.7),
  301: Struct(w_throttle=0.7),
  500: Struct(w_throttle=1.0),
  700: Struct(J_tau=0.5),
  900: Struct(epsilon_explore=0.05)
}

C.5 Output log schema (tidy)

t, M, E_bar, rho, T, D_hat, g_hat, s_hat, kappa_hat, tau_eff,
H_partial, w_throttle, epsilon_explore, kappa_struct, h_mem, J_tau, O_snapshot_json

Warmup ticks (e.g., first 200) are excluded from metrics.

C.6 Parameter sets (ready-to-run)

C.6.1 Global defaults

Symbol	Meaning	Default
$N$	agents	10,000
$d$	micro features	4
$\lambda$	expectation learning rate	0.30
$\theta$	trend bias	0.20
$\gamma$	SRA coupling in $F$	0.60
$\kappa_x$	micro damping	0.10
$\kappa_{\text{struct}}$	added macro damping	0.00
$\sigma$	micro noise std	0.05
$h_{\text{mem}}$	memory half-life (ticks)	5
$\tau$	mean latency (ticks)	2
$J_\tau$	latency jitter s.d.	0.0
$\alpha,\beta$	trace gain/decay	0.06, 0.04
$\eta, \eta_O$	attention/operator step sizes	2.0, 0.01
$TICKS$	simulation length	5,000

C.6.2 Regime presets (U0–U4 from §8.4)

U0 Anchored CWA (stable, no reflexivity)

$\gamma=0.05$ , $h_{\text{mem}}=2$ , $\tau=0$ , $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.5$ , $w_{\text{throttle}}=0.8$

U1 Peak (run-up, soft landing possible)

$\gamma=0.8$ , $h_{\text{mem}}=4$ , $\tau=1$ , $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.1$ , $w_{\text{throttle}}=1.0$

U2 Trap (collapse & hysteresis)

$\gamma=0.9$ , $h_{\text{mem}}=6$ , $\tau=1$ , $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.0$ , initial shock pushing $M$ near upper branch, later demotion event (temporary $w_{\text{throttle}}=0.6$ )

U3 Ring Oscillator (bullwhip-like cycles)

$\gamma=0.6$ , $h_{\text{mem}}=5$ , $\tau=3$ , $J_\tau=0.0$ , $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.05$

U4 Black-hole SRA (lock-in)

$\gamma=1.0$ , $h_{\text{mem}}=12$ (power-law), $\tau=2$ , $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.0$ , $\epsilon_{\text{explore}}=0$ , attention tilt strong (set channel_tilt high)

C.6.3 Domain packs (illustrative)

Finance (asset recursion)

$\lambda=0.4,\ \theta=0.3,\ \gamma=0.75,\ \tau=1,\ h_{\text{mem}}=8$ (exp/Erlang)
Knobs for pilots: $w_{\text{throttle}}\in[0.6,1.0]$ , circuit-breaker as temporary $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.3$

Platforms / social virality

$\lambda=0.35,\ \theta=0.25,\ \gamma=0.85,\ \tau=2,\ h_{\text{mem}}=6$
Exploration floor $\epsilon_{\text{explore}}\in[0.02,0.1]$ ; trending demotion $w_{\text{throttle}}=0.6$ during episodes

Supply chains (bullwhip)

$\lambda=0.25,\ \theta=0.4,\ \gamma=0.6,\ \tau=3-5,\ h_{\text{mem}}=5$
Latency caps: $\tau \downarrow 2$ + jitter $J_\tau=0.5$ ; buffers via $\kappa_{\text{struct}}=0.2$

Socio-climate expectations

$\lambda=0.2,\ \theta=0.15,\ \gamma=0.5,\ \tau=4,\ h_{\text{mem}}=12$ (long-tail)
Horizon diversification: $\{(1,0.5),(4,0.3),(12,0.2)\}$ ; decay boosters to reduce $h_{\text{mem}}$

Neurofeedback / cognition

$\lambda=0.5,\ \theta=0.0,\ \gamma=0.7,\ \tau=1,\ h_{\text{mem}}=3$
Jitter $J_\tau=0.3$ to suppress oscillations; throttle small (avoid over-control)

C.7 Experiment macros (ready recipes)

def sweep_gamma_kappa_tau(grid):
    results = []
    for γ, κs, τ in grid:            # κs = kappa_struct
        set_params(gamma=γ, kappa_struct=κs)
        latency_policy.mean_tau = τ
        run()
        results.append(phase_metrics(log))   # U-class, AR(1), H, Aosc, D_hat_mean
    return results

def jitter_latency(levels):
    for J in levels:
        latency_policy.jitter_std = J
        run(); summarize("Aosc", "Q_peak", "regime_freq")

def demote_metric(schedule):
    for t0, t1, w in schedule:
        events[t0:t1] = Struct(w_throttle=w)
    run(); hysteresis_report(log)

C.8 Reproducibility

Warmup: discard first 10–20% ticks.
Seeds: log RNG seeds per run; fix event schedules.
OOS: hold-out repeats with different seeds to report mean±s.e. of regime metrics.
Versioning: store operator snapshots and knob histories; serialize config as YAML with hash.

C.9 Sanity checks (fast)

With $\gamma=0$ , $\tau=0$ , $K=0$ ⇒ AR(1) with $|\phi_1|<1$ .
Increasing $w_{\text{throttle}}\uparrow$ raises $\hat g$ and $\widehat{D}$ .
Increasing $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\uparrow$ reduces half-life and hysteresis area $H$ .
Adding jitter $J_\tau$ lowers spectral Q and oscillation amplitude.
Shortening $h_{\text{mem}}$ shrinks $H$ (path dependence weakens).

Use this appendix as the “executable spec”: paste the pseudocode into your environment, replace helpers with concrete implementations, and load one of the parameter packs to reproduce U0–U4 regimes and the Chapter 11 knob effects.

Appendix D. Simulation Outputs & Robustness Grids

This appendix specifies what to output, how to summarize, and which robustness grids to run so others can reproduce, stress-test, and compare CWA-only vs CAFT across regimes U0–U4.

D.1 Output artifact bundle (files & folders)

/results/
  csv/
    timeseries_run{ID}.csv         # tick-level logs
    summary_run{ID}.csv            # per-run metrics
    grid_{name}_cellstats.csv      # per-cell aggregates (mean±se over seeds)
  figures/
    FD1_phase_map_{name}.png
    FD2_irf_{name}_cell(i,j).png
    FD3_spectra_{name}_cell(i,j).png
    FD4_hysteresis_{name}_cell(i,j).png
    FD5_roc_regimes_{name}.png
  reports/
    README_{name}.md               # parameters, seeds, commit hash
    CAFTcards_{name}.json          # compact parameter sheets per cell

Timeseries schema (per tick):

t, M, E_bar, rho, T, D_hat, g_hat, s_hat, kappa_hat, tau_eff,
H_partial, knob_w, knob_kappa_struct, knob_hmem, knob_jitter, regime_label

Run summary schema (per seed):

run_id, seed, N, gamma, kappa_struct, tau, J_tau, h_mem, kernel_kind,
rho_mean, AR1, Var, VR, Aosc, H, D_mean, D_pos_share, regime_freq_U0..U4,
oos_rmse_M0, oos_rmse_M1, dm_stat, dm_p

D.2 Core figures (standard across all grids)

FD1. Phase map heatplots (per grid): cell color = dominant regime U0–U4; overlays of iso- $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ contours and oscillation amplitude $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ .
FD2. Impulse response panels: IRFs of $M$ to a guidance pulse for selected cells (center, boundary, corner).
FD3. Spectral diagnostics: power spectra of $M$ with peak frequency and Q-factor; show effect of jitter $J_\tau$ .
FD4. Hysteresis loops: forward/backward sweeps of a control (e.g., throttle $w$ ) with loop area $H$ .
FD5. Regime ROC: classifier accuracy of $\widehat{D}$ sign for predicting Peak/Trap episodes vs labeled ground truth.
FD6. Attention vs stability: scatter of concentration $\rho$ vs $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ with nonparametric fit.
FD7. Kernel shape checks: estimated $K(\cdot)$ from LP/KF vs true kernel.
FD8. Counterfactual knob tests: pre/post changes in $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ , $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ , $H$ after applying a single knob.

Each figure should include a caption listing: parameters, seeds (range), warm-up proportion, and confidence bands.

D.3 Regime classifier (standardized)

Assign a per-tick label using:

Peak (U1): $\widehat{D}_t>0$ , monotone run-up episodes, no sustained negative slope;
Trap (U2): $\widehat{D}_t>0$ with collapse episodes or $H>H^\star$ ;
Ring (U3): spectral peak Q > $Q^\star$ and $A_{\mathrm{osc}} > A^\star$ ;
Black-hole SRA (U4): $\widehat{D}_t\gg 0$ , heavy-tailed $K$ estimate ( $\zeta\le -1$ ), $\rho\ge \rho^\star$ , and failure to exit after knob probes;
Anchored (U0): otherwise.

Default thresholds: $H^\star$ from U0 95th percentile; $Q^\star=4$ ; $A^\star$ = 95th pct of U0 amplitude; $\rho^\star=0.6$ (adjust per domain pack).

D.4 Robustness grids (design & intent)

G1. Gain vs Slack — $(\gamma, \kappa_{\text{struct}})$ at fixed $(\tau, K)$

Grid: $\gamma \in [0,1]$ × $\kappa_{\text{struct}}\in [0,0.6]$ (21×21).
Hold: $h_{\text{mem}}=5$ , $\tau=2$ , kernel=exp.
Expect: Fold boundary (U0→U1/U2) near $D=1$ ; slack shifts it right.
Outputs: FD1, FD2 on 4 cells (low/hi $\gamma$ × low/hi $\kappa_{\text{struct}}$ ).

G2. Delay vs Jitter — $(\tau, J_\tau)$ at fixed $(\gamma,\kappa_{\text{struct}})$

Grid: $\tau \in \{0..6\}$ × $J_\tau \in \{0,0.1,\dots,1.0\}$ (7×11).
Expect: Oscillatory tongues at moderate $D$ , suppressed as $J_\tau$ grows.
Outputs: FD1 with $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ overlay; FD3.

G3. Memory vs Exploration — $(h_{\text{mem}}, \epsilon_{\text{explore}})$

Grid: $h_{\text{mem}} \in \{2,4,6,8,12\}$ × $\epsilon\in \{0,0.01,\dots,0.1\}$ .
Expect: Heavy memory → more hysteresis; exploration lowers $\rho$ and $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ .
Outputs: FD4 loop areas; FD6 $\rho$ – $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ .

G4. Attention concentration — induced $\rho$ via channel tilt

Grid: channel_tilt $\in [0,1]$ ; record realized $\rho$ .
Expect: Monotone $\rho\uparrow$ → $g'\uparrow$ (via $\rho$ factor), raising regime risk.
Outputs: FD6; logistic fit of $\Pr(\text{U1/U2/U3})$ vs $\rho$ .

G5. Kernel family — (exp, Erlang-2, power-law)

Grid: kernel kind × matched half-life; optional tail-boost factor.
Expect: Power-law increases path dependence and U4 prevalence under high $g$ .
Outputs: FD7 kernel recovery; phase maps per family.

G6. Horizon diversification — $\{(h,w_h)\}$

Grid: weight on short horizon $w_1\in[0.2,1.0]$ with $w_{4},w_{12}$ filling the remainder.
Expect: Lower $w_1$ → flatter effective $K$ , reduced oscillatory risk and $\widehat{D}$ .
Outputs: FD2 IRFs across horizons; FD1 regime shifts.

G7. Scale & heterogeneity — $N$ , agent learning $\lambda$ , trend bias $\theta$

Grid: $N\in\{10^3,10^4,10^5\}$ , $\lambda\in[0.1,0.6]$ , $\theta\in[0,0.4]$ .
Expect: Larger $N$ shrinks noise bands; higher $\theta$ raises effective $s$ .
Outputs: FD1; confidence bands vs $N$ .

G8. Adversarial stress — (gain spoofing, delay floods, memory poisoning)

Scenarios: transient $g\uparrow$ , injected $\tau$ bursts, long-tail fake $K$ .
Expect: CAFT knobs (throttle, jitter, decay) restore $\overline{\widehat{D}}\le 0$ if bounded attack; log domains where they fail (open problem §13.5).
Outputs: FD8 counterfactuals; forensics (phase coherence spikes).

D.5 Statistical protocol (per grid cell)

Seeds: $S=30$ independent seeds (report mean ± s.e.).
Warm-up: drop first $W=20\%$ ticks.
Metrics:
- $\overline{\widehat{D}}$ , share $\Pr(\widehat{D}>0)$ ;
- AR(1), variance $\mathrm{Var}(M)$ , variance ratio $VR$ ;
- Oscillation amplitude $A_{\mathrm{osc}}$ & spectral Q;
- Hysteresis area $H$ under a standard sweep;
- Regime frequencies $f_{\text{U}k}$ .
Model comparison: OOS scores (RMSE/LPD/CRPS) for CWA-only $M_0$ vs CAFT $M_1$ ; DM test $(\alpha=0.05)$ .
Kernel check: RMSE between estimated $K$ and true kernel bins.

D.6 Acceptance thresholds (pass/fail for claims)

A grid supports CAFT over CWA-only when, for ≥70% of cells where peaks/traps occur:

$M_1$ has strictly better OOS forecast (DM $p<0.05$ );
$\widehat{D}$ sign predicts Peak/Trap episodes with AUC ≥ 0.80;
Knob counterfactuals move metrics in predicted directions:
- throttle ↓ $g$ ⇒ $\overline{\widehat{D}}\downarrow$ , $H\downarrow$ ;
- jitter ↑ ⇒ $A_{\mathrm{osc}}\downarrow$ , Q↓;
- decay (shorter $h_{\text{mem}}$ ) ⇒ $H\downarrow$ .

If these fail systematically, flag as falsifier (Appendix 13).

D.7 Typical plots (with interpretation cues)

Phase map with tongues: If U3 islands persist at low $J_\tau$ and vanish by $J_\tau\ge 0.4$ , report “delay-induced oscillations stabilized by jitter.”
Hysteresis shrinkage: $H$ reduces ≥50% when half-life halves—evidence that $K$ shaping works.
Attention–risk slope: Positive slope of $\rho \to \overline{\widehat{D}}$ (CI excluding 0) supports §8 aggregation law $g'=\rho\bar g$ .

D.8 Minimal commands (pseudo-API)

# Phase maps
grid = Grid(name="G1_gain_vs_slack", axes={"gamma": np.linspace(0,1,21),
                                           "kappa_struct": np.linspace(0,0.6,21)})
run_grid(grid, seeds=30, warmup=0.2)
plot_phase_map(grid, overlay=["D_bar", "Aosc"])

# IRFs & loops
plot_irf_cells(grid, cells=[(5,5),(10,10),(15,5),(5,15)], pulse_size=0.5)
plot_hysteresis(grid, control="w_throttle", path=[1.0→0.6→1.0])

# Comparison M0 vs M1
compare_models_OOS(grid, horizons=[1,5,20])

D.9 Robustness checklist (tick before release)

Seeds ≥ 30; warm-up documented.
All FD1–FD5 figures generated per grid; captions with parameters.
Regime labels reproducible by provided classifier & thresholds.
Knob counterfactuals run (throttle, jitter, decay) on boundary cells.
Kernel recovery plotted vs truth for each kernel family.
CWA-only baseline fit & OOS scores logged; DM tests reported.
README lists code commit, config hash, and environment.

D.10 One-page “Results at a glance” table (template)

Grid	Key boundary	Knob effect (✓/✗)	AUC(peak/trap)	OOS win $M_1$	Notes
G1 $(\gamma,\kappa_s)$	$D=1$ fold	throttle ✓, slack ✓	0.86	78% cells	Classic Peak/Trap frontier
G2 $(\tau,J_\tau)$	NS tongues	jitter ✓	0.81	65%	Oscillations suppressed at $J_\tau≥0.3$
G3 $(h_{\text{mem}},\epsilon)$	Hysteresis	decay ✓, explore ✓	0.84	71%	$H$ halves when $h_{\text{mem}}$ halves
G5 kernels	U4 region	decay ✓	0.82	68%	Power-law tails hardest to stabilize

This appendix defines the visible evidence for CAFT: reproducible phase maps, IRFs, spectra, hysteresis, and model comparisons across carefully designed grids—plus the pass/fail criteria that let independent teams validate or falsify the framework.

Appendix E. Empirical IVs, SVAR Specs, Preprocessing Recipes

This appendix operationalizes identification of the CAFT parameters
$(g, s, \kappa, K(\cdot), \tau, \rho)$ using external instruments (IVs), SVAR / state-space models, and disciplined preprocessing. It is written so that independent teams can replicate estimates and run falsification tests.

E.1 Data model & alignment (what must be in your table)

Minimum columns (tick $t$ in UTC; domain metadata optional):

t, M_t, E_t (or proxy), A_t (exposure by channel), rho_t, T_t, 
C_t (closure flags/types), tau_t (latency), jitter_t, pulse_id, pulse_size,
X_t (exogenous controls), domain_meta...

$M_t$ : published macro (price/KPI/trending score).
$E_t$ : expectation proxy for $M_{t+1}$ (survey/option-implied/forecast snapshot/creator guidance).
$A_t$ , $\rho_t$ : attention shares & concentration $\rho_t = 1 - H_t/\log C$ , $H_t=-\sum_c p_c\log p_c$ .
$T_t$ : trace (settlements, retention, covenants used).
$C_t$ : institutional events (policy/rule/algorithm change indicators).
$\tau_t$ : reporting/settlement latency (or binning proxy).
Pulses: pre-registered interventions (size, randomization stratum).

Alignment rules.

Time-stamp everything at decision availability (not storage time).
Convert ragged frequencies via nowcasting/state-space rather than ad-hoc fill-forward.
Keep a versioned operator registry: when $\hat O$ changes, log an event in $C_t$ .

E.2 External instruments (IVs): menus & construction

Principle. Instruments must shift $E_t$ (expectations) while being orthogonal to contemporaneous $M_t$ innovations except through $E_t$ .

E.2.1 Canonical IV designs

Guidance pulses (randomized): pre-registered messages with randomized magnitude and timing jitter.
Z: indicator × assigned magnitude.
Trending throttles (stratified A/B): randomized demotion factors on the displayed metric; strata by creator/topic.
Z: assigned throttle weight.
Latency jitter assignments: randomized micro-batch windows; exogenous to demand.
Z: assigned jitter s.d. or batch slot.
Decay boosters / TTL banners: randomized expiration notices.
Z: assigned TTL length.
Quasi-experimental finance shocks: scheduled CB communication windows with surprise measured from futures/options (e.g., fed funds/overnight index swaps).
Z: change-in-implied-path in a 30-min window around announcement.
Supply-chain controllers: randomized order-up-to caps or forecast horizon prompts in plants/warehouses.

E.2.2 Validity checks

Relevance: First-stage $F$ (Kleibergen-Paap rk or Sanderson-Windmeijer) ≥ 10; report MOP (Montiel Olea–Pflueger) conditional $F$ for weak-IV robustness.
Exogeneity: Placebo windows, pre-trend tests, and no effect on $M_{t-1}$ .
Exclusion: Include exposure $\rho_t$ and closure $C_t$ as controls; show orthogonality of $Z$ to contemporaneous residuals.

E.3 SVAR with external instrument (SVAR-IV) — core specification

Let $Y_t=[M_t,\ E_t,\ \rho_t]^\top$ . Reduced VAR(p):

Y_t = A_1 Y_{t-1} + \dots + A_p Y_{t-p} + B X_t + u_t,\qquad u_t = S \varepsilon_t,\quad \mathbb{E}[\varepsilon_t\varepsilon_t^\top]=I.

Identification. External instrument $Z_t$ targets the expectations shock $\varepsilon^E_t$ :

\mathrm{Cov}(Z_t,\varepsilon^E_t)\neq 0,\quad \mathrm{Cov}(Z_t,\varepsilon^M_t)=\mathrm{Cov}(Z_t,\varepsilon^\rho_t)=0.

Estimate via SVAR-IV (proxy SVAR). Recover IRFs $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(h)$ , $\mathrm{IRF}_{E\leftarrow E}(0)$ , etc.

Mapping to CAFT locals (near operating point):

\hat g \;\approx\; \frac{\partial E_t}{\partial M_t}\Big|_{\text{struct}} \;\simeq\; \frac{\mathrm{IRF}_{E\leftarrow E}(0)}{\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(0)}\,\mathrm{IRF}_{E\leftarrow M}(0),

\hat s \;\approx\; \mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(1),\qquad \hat\kappa \;\approx\; -\,\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow M}(1).

The shape of $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow M}(h)$ for $h\ge 1$ identifies kernel bins $\gamma_\ell=\int_{\ell-1}^{\ell}\!K(\Delta)\,d\Delta$ ; a phase-shift in early IRFs indicates delay $\tau$ .

Controls. Always include $C_t$ (closure dummies), calendar dummies, and exposure denominators. Cluster errors at event-day or batch level.

Diagnostics.

IV strength (first-stage kp-rk $F$ , MOP $F$ ).
Over-ID (if multiple IVs): Hansen J with caution under heteroskedasticity.
Sign restrictions (optional): enforce $\mathrm{IRF}_{E\leftarrow E}(0) > 0$ , $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(0)\ge 0$ , $\mathrm{IRF}_{\rho\leftarrow E}(0)\ge 0$ .

E.4 Local Projections (LP) — nonparametric complement

For horizon $h$ :

\Delta M_{t+h} = a_h + b_h Z_t + c_h M_{t-1} + d_h E_{t-1} + e_h^\top W_t + \varepsilon_{t,h},

with $W_t=[\rho_t, C_t, X_t]$ . Stack $\{b_h\}_{h=0}^H$ to form IRFs; smooth by B-splines or Laguerre basis, estimate $K(\cdot)$ from the smoothed tail. Use wild/bootstrap for uniform bands.

Use cases. Ragged data, structural breaks, or small $T$ where VAR is brittle. Compare LP-IRFs vs SVAR-IRFs as robustness.

E.5 State-space for $K(\cdot)$ , $\tau$ and time-variation

Write a TVP state-space with delay lines:

\begin{aligned} M_{t+1} &= \beta_{0,t} + \beta_{1,t} M_t + \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \gamma_{\ell,t}\, M_{t-\ell} + \eta_t,\\ \theta_t &\equiv [\beta_{1,t},\gamma_{1,t},\dots,\gamma_{L,t}]^\top \text{ follows AR(1) or RW},\\ \text{Meas.:}\quad \begin{bmatrix}M_t\\E_t\end{bmatrix} &= H_t(\theta_t)\begin{bmatrix}M_{t-1}\\\vdots\\M_{t-L}\end{bmatrix} + \varepsilon_t. \end{aligned}

Estimate via Kalman filter / EM (Gaussian) or particle filtering (heavy tails). Infer:

$\hat\kappa_t = -\beta_{1,t}$ ,
$\hat K_t(\cdot)$ via $\{\gamma_{\ell,t}\}$ ,
$\hat\tau_t$ from mass concentration at lag $\ell=\tau$ .

Include $Z_t$ as exogenous to sharpen $E_t$ updates. Compare time-varying $\widehat{D}_t=\hat g_t \hat s_t-\hat\kappa_t$ to regime labels.

E.6 Preprocessing recipes (do these before any estimation)

Clock discipline. Convert to UTC; snap to decision-relevant bins (e.g., close-to-close, minute buckets at publish time).
Outlier & halts. Mask trading halts/outages; include halt dummies in $C_t$ . Winsorize 0.5–1% only on measurement noise, not pulses.
Seasonality & calendars. Remove deterministic seasonals; add holiday/week-of-year dummies.
Exposure denominators. Normalize engagement by eligible impressions; compute $\rho_t$ from eligible shares.
Dedup events. Merge pulse logs across systems; keep single source of truth for pulse $Z_t$ .
Ragged merges. Use state-space to align mixed frequencies; avoid last-observation carry-forward.
Versioning. Every operator/recommender/accounting change ⇒ new $C_t$ flag with ID.
Privacy & DP noise. If DP is applied, record noise scale; adjust inference via simulation.

E.7 Domain-specific IV menus (quick reference)

Domain	Outcome $M_t$	Primary IV $Z_t$	Notes
Finance	price/return	Policy surprise (rate path from futures), randomized guidance precision	Use 30-min window; control for macro releases; cluster by event day
Platforms	trending/exposure KPI	Randomized demotion weight; exploration floor assignment	Stratify by topic; ensure no content quality drift (audit)
Supply chains	order/inventory index	Randomized latency caps; horizon prompts	Staggered rollout; plant-week clustering
Climate-policy	emissions/permit price	Exogenous policy announcement windows; randomized info campaigns	Use instrumented media reach
Neurofeedback	neural power / task score	Randomized feedback gain/jitter	Short horizons; subject random effects

E.8 From IRFs to CAFT parameters (estimation summary)

Estimate IRFs (SVAR-IV or LP).
Local parameters:
- $\hat g$ : slope of $E$ on $M$ contemporaneously (structural, not OLS).
- $\hat s$ : $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(1)$ .
- $\hat\kappa$ : $-\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow M}(1)$ (with closure controls).
Kernel $K$ : fit $\{\gamma_\ell\}$ to tail of $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow M}$ using mixtures of exponentials or Laguerre basis; report half-life(s).
Delay $\tau$ : smallest $h$ with significant $\mathrm{IRF}_{M\leftarrow E}(h)$ rise; confirm by phase of frequency response.
Attention $\rho$ : compute exposure entropy; run $\rho \rightarrow \widehat{D}$ slope test (nonparametric).
Regime map: label U0–U4 using Appendix D classifier.

E.9 Robustness & falsification tests

Alt IVs: replace $Z_t$ with a second instrument (e.g., randomized timing instead of magnitude).
Placebos: shift $Z_t$ to pre-event windows; predict nothing.
Front-door controls: when exclusion is in doubt, control for displayed KPI $M^{\text{shown}}$ separately.
Subset stability: re-estimate by sector/creator cohort; $\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa$ should be consistent up to noise.
Heterogeneity: interact IV with exposure quantiles to inspect $\rho$ -dependent gains.
Weak-IV robustness: Anderson–Rubin and conditional likelihood ratio intervals.
Model class: compare SVAR vs LP vs state-space; parameters should agree within bands.
CWA falsifier: with $Z_t$ strong and $\widehat{D}\le 0$ , peaks/traps should vanish (Appendix 13 criteria).

E.10 Reporting template (one page per study)

Design: domain, period, sampling, pulses, randomization protocol.
Preprocessing: calendars, winsorization rules, missingness, DP noise.
Identification: IV definition, first-stage stats (kp-rk, MOP $F$ ), exclusion arguments.
Main: $\hat g,\hat s,\hat\kappa$ with CIs; $K$ half-life(s); $\hat\tau$ ; $\rho\rightarrow\widehat{D}$ slope.
IRFs: plots with uniform bands; kernel fit overlay.
Regimes: U0–U4 shares; hysteresis area $H$ ; oscillation Q.
Counterfactuals: knob simulations (throttle, jitter, decay) with predicted vs realized changes.
Robustness: alt IVs, LP vs SVAR, subset analyses.
Code/data: commit hash, event registry, reproducibility checklist (Appendix D.9).

TL;DR

Build clean, time-aligned tables with $M,E,\rho,T,C,\tau,Z$ .
Use SVAR-IV (or LP) to get IRFs, then map to $(g,s,\kappa,K,\tau)$ .
Validate with robust IV stats, placebos, alt designs, and report counterfactual knob fits.
This closes the loop from raw logs to testable CAFT parameters and regimes.

Appendix F. Ethics & Governance Protocol Templates

This appendix provides ready-to-use templates to run CAFT responsibly. Everything is keyed to the control law
$D \equiv g\,s-\kappa$ (shaped by $K(\cdot),\tau,\rho,C$ ) and the governance knobs from Ch. 11.

F.1 Roles & RACI (who does what)

Role	Core Duties	R	A	C	I
Operator Lead (OL)	Owns $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ changes; runs episodes	✓	✓
Risk & Ethics (RE)	Guard-bands, proportionality, fairness checks		✓	✓	✓
Measurement Owner (MO)	Estimation of $g,s,\kappa,K,\tau,\rho$ ; dashboards	✓		✓	✓
Data Protection (DPO)	Privacy controls, DP noise budgets, retention		✓	✓	✓
Red Team (RT)	Adversarial probes; abuse/attack detection	✓			✓
Public Advocate (PA)	External comms, appeals tracking			✓	✓
Independent Auditor (IA)	Ex-post audits & reproducibility			✓	✓

R=Responsible, A=Accountable, C=Consulted, I=Informed.

F.2 Operator & Event Registry (versioned YAML)

operator_registry:
  operator_id: OP-2025-07
  description: "Trending & guidance composition for KPI M"
  owner: "Operator Lead"
  version: "1.12.0"
  effective_from: "2025-08-01T00:00:00Z"
  metrics:
    macro: "M_t"
    expectations_proxy: "E_t"
  params:
    projection_phi: "tanh(w·x + b)"
    latency_policy: { mean_tau: 2, jitter_sd: 0.0 }
    kernel_K: { family: "exp", half_life: 5 }
  guard_bands:
    D_warn: 0.0
    D_halt: 0.5
    rho_warn: 0.60
    Q_osc_warn: 4
  logging:
    tick_freq: "1min"
    retention_days: 365
  contacts: ["Risk & Ethics", "DPO", "Auditor"]

event_registry:
  - event_id: EV-TRTH-0007
    type: "throttle"
    window: { start: "2025-08-10T12:00:00Z", end: "2025-08-12T12:00:00Z" }
    params: { w_throttle: 0.7 }
    rationale: "D_hat>0 & AR(1)↑"
    prereg_link: "PR-2025-034"
    expected_effect: "g↓, D↓, H↓"
    monitoring: ["D_hat","H","rho","welfare_delta"]

F.3 “Knob Constitution” (triggers, proportionality, exit)

knob_constitution:
  purpose: "Stabilize regimes while preserving agency & fairness"
  triggers:
    soft:  { condition: "D_hat>0 OR (AR1>0.8 AND Var↑)", action_max: "tier1" }
    hard:  { condition: "D_hat≥0.5 OR Q_osc≥4.5", action_max: "tier2" }
  tiers:
    tier0: { actions: [], review: "daily" }
    tier1: { actions: ["throttle<=0.85","exposure_cap<=p95","jitter_sd<=0.3"], duration: "≤48h" }
    tier2: { actions: ["throttle<=0.7","latency_cap<=2","decay_half_life/2"], duration: "≤24h" }
  proportionality_test:
    - "Least-intrusive first"
    - "Expected welfare_gain ≥ expected agency_loss"
    - "No protected-group harm > 1.1× population average"
  exit:
    criteria: ["mean(D_hat,24h)≤0","Q_osc<3","H↓ by ≥30%"]
    unwind: "halve intervention strength every 12h if criteria hold"
  auditables: ["rationale","metrics_pre_post","affected_users","appeals","rollback_time"]

F.4 Stabilization Episode Protocol (SEP)

Step-by-step (max 24h turnaround):

Detect: dashboard flag ( $\widehat{D}>0$ , AR(1)↑, Q↑, $\rho↑$ ).
Assess: RE runs proportionality + fairness quick check; MO confirms estimates.
Pre-register: OL files event with hypothesized effect & duration cap.
Execute: apply Tier 1 knobs; log start.
Monitor: live panel (D, H, Q, $\rho$ , welfare deltas, inequality deltas).
Escalate or unwind: if hard trigger persists → Tier 2; else unwind.
Report: public SEP report within 72h (template F.8/F.10).
Audit: IA replicates metrics; PA summarizes appeals and responses.

Quick checklist (clip-and-use):

F.5 Pre-registration form (experiments/interventions)

prereg:
  id: "PR-2025-034"
  hypothesis: "Throttle reduces g by ≥20% and H by ≥30% in 24h"
  design: { randomization: "cluster A/B", strata: ["topic","region"], power: 0.8 }
  outcomes: ["g_hat","s_hat","kappa_hat","D_hat","H","Q_osc","welfare","equity"]
  analysis_plan:
    primary: "SVAR-IV with throttle assignment as instrument"
    secondary: "LP IRFs; heterogeneity by exposure quantiles"
  stop_rules: ["if welfare_delta<0 for 6h OR equity_gap>1.1"]
  privacy: { dp_sigma: 0.8, retention_days: 90 }
  signoff: ["OL","RE","DPO"]

F.6 Data protection & privacy policy (minimum)

Purpose limitation: only metrics needed to compute $\{M,E,\rho,T,\tau\}$ , run SVAR/SSM, and evaluate welfare/equity.
Noise budgets: publish DP $\sigma$ / $\varepsilon$ ; document impact on estimator variance.
Retention: raw logs ≤ 90 days; aggregates ≤ 365 days; registry forever.
Access controls: role-scoped; operator changes require 2-person approval.
Subject rights: export, deletion, and appeal hooks (F.9).
Redaction: remove free-text PII; rotate pseudonyms across studies.

F.7 Impact Assessment (CAFT-IIA) template

# CAFT Impact & Integrity Assessment (IIA)
Study/Event ID: …
Date: …
## 1. Context
Domain, timeframe, operator version, population segments.
## 2. Risk indicators at T0
D_hat, AR(1), Var, Q_osc, rho, H; baselines & CIs.
## 3. Intervention
Knobs, tiers, duration, randomization (if any).
## 4. Outcomes (Δ pre/post & vs control)
g_hat, s_hat, kappa_hat, D_hat, H, Q, welfare, equity indices.
## 5. Fairness & rights
Group deltas; appeal volume/resolution time; opt-out rates.
## 6. Proportionality & necessity
Why this set of knobs? Alternatives considered? Duration justified?
## 7. Privacy & security
DP budgets, access logs, breaches (if any).
## 8. Conclusion & recommendations
Keep? Modify? Sunset? Publish what?
Sign-offs: OL, RE, DPO, IA

F.8 Public SEP Report (72-hour disclosure)

Title: Stabilization Episode EV-TRTH-0007
When: 2025-08-10 12:00Z → 2025-08-12 12:00Z
Why: Elevated D_hat and oscillations risked lock-in.
What: Throttle to w=0.7; no horizon or latency changes.
Effects: D_hat −0.32, H −41%, Q −1.2, welfare +0.6σ; no significant equity gaps.
Safeguards: DP ε=2.0; appeals honored; exit criteria met; rollback at 12:00Z.
Contacts: Public Advocate, Auditor.

F.9 Appeals & redress workflow

flowchart LR
  User-->Portal["Appeals Portal"]
  Portal-->Triage{"Eligibility & category"}
  Triage--Accepted-->CaseMgr["Case manager"]
  CaseMgr-->Review["Data pull (DP-safe) & rationale"]
  Review-->Decision["Remedy / deny / escalate"]
  Decision-->User
  Decision-->Log["Public stats (weekly)"]
  Triage--Rejected-->User

SLA targets: acknowledge ≤24h; decision ≤7 days. Remedies: explanation, reversal, re-ranking, data purge, compensation where applicable.

F.10 Red-team & adversarial monitoring pack

Playbooks: gain-spoofing (fake signals to raise $g$ ), delay floods (push $\tau$ into resonance), memory poisoning (inflate heavy tails $K$ ), counterfeit closure (fake $T$ ).
Detectors: phase-coherence spikes, IRF kurtosis, abnormal kernel tail fits, sudden $\rho$ jumps without content change.
Containment: auto-throttle on suspicious clusters; quarantine queues; cross-venue verification.
Reporting: monthly red-team memo; incident post-mortems within 7 days.

F.11 Governance cadence & minutes

# CAFT Governance Committee — Monthly
Agenda: (1) Episodes; (2) Knob audits; (3) Equity & appeals; (4) Privacy budgets; (5) Adversarial report.
Decisions must record: trigger metrics, alternatives considered, vote, dissent, action items.
Quorum: OL, RE, DPO, IA, PA.

F.12 Public dashboard schema

Sections: (i) Stability, (ii) Knobs, (iii) Fairness, (iv) Privacy.

{
  "stability": { "D_hat": {"mean": -0.08, "band": [ -0.15, -0.02 ]},
                 "AR1": 0.62, "Q_osc": 2.1, "rho": 0.54, "H": 0.13 },
  "knobs": { "throttle": 0.9, "jitter_sd": 0.2, "h_mem": 5 },
  "fairness": { "equity_gap": 1.03, "appeals_week": 124, "median_SLA_days": 3 },
  "privacy": { "dp_epsilon": 2.0, "retention_days": 90 }
}

F.13 After-action review (AAR) template

## Event: EV-____
### 1. What happened?
Timeline with metrics & screenshots.
### 2. What worked / didn’t?
Knobs vs expected causal effects; surprises.
### 3. Ethics & fairness
Any harms? Appeals? Group impacts?
### 4. Data/estimation issues
Clock, missingness, IV strength, kernel misfit.
### 5. Preventive changes
Guard-bands, monitoring, training, docs.
### 6. Owners & deadlines
Assigned to {OL, RE, MO, DPO, RT}.

F.14 Domain addenda (optional clauses)

Finance: link to market integrity rules; circuit-breaker coordination; ex-post trade fairness audit.
Platforms: creator transparency pages; demotion notices with reasons; experimentation quotas per cohort.
Neuro/cognition: IRB approval; informed consent; subject withdrawal at will; safety stop rules.

F.15 Minimal compliance map (non-legal quick guide)

Maintain records of processing for all metrics; impact assessments for new operators.
Publish purpose, retention, DP budgets, and contacts.
Provide export/delete/appeal mechanisms; minimize PII, adopt role-based access.
Keep operator & event registries publicly versioned where feasible.

One-page ethics checklist (printable)

Triggers & guard-bands configured (F.3).
Pre-registration filed (F.5) or exemption justified.
Privacy budgets set; retention configured (F.6).
Fairness tests defined & monitored (F.7).
Appeals live; SLAs set (F.9).
Red-team detectors on; reports scheduled (F.10).
Public dashboard up-to-date (F.12).
After-action reviews completed for all episodes (F.13).

These templates let you run CAFT interventions transparently, proportionally, and audibly, aligning stabilization goals with privacy, fairness, and agency.

Disclaimer

This book is the product of a collaboration between the author and OpenAI's GPT-5 language model. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, clarity, and insight, the content is generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and may contain factual, interpretive, or mathematical errors. Readers are encouraged to approach the ideas with critical thinking and to consult primary scientific literature where appropriate.

This work is speculative, interdisciplinary, and exploratory in nature. It bridges metaphysics, physics, and organizational theory to propose a novel conceptual framework—not a definitive scientific theory. As such, it invites dialogue, challenge, and refinement.

I am merely a midwife of knowledge.

Monday, August 18, 2025

Collapse–Attractor Field Theory (CAFT): A Unified Micro→Macro Framework for Additive Collapse (CWA), Self-Referral Attractors (SRA), and Observer Emergence

Collapse–Attractor Field Theory (CAFT):A Unified Micro→Macro Framework for Additive Collapse (CWA), Self-Referral Attractors (SRA), and Observer Emergence

1. Abstract

2. Introduction — Why a Grand Micro→Macro Theory Now?

2.1 CWA success vs SRA blind spots

2.2 Intuition: macro as (A) passive trace vs (B) active operator

2.3 Claims

2.4 Roadmap of the paper

3. Preliminaries: Objects, Notation, First Principles

3.1 Micro states, projection, aggregator, macro

3.2 Collapse ticks, attention budget, boundaries/closure

3.3 Observer operator and O^self\widehat O_{\text{self}}

3.4 Trace and memory kernel

3.5 Expectations, gains, damping, slope, delay

3. Preliminaries: Objects, Notation, First Principles

3.1 Micro states, projection, aggregator, macro

3.2 Collapse ticks, attention budget, boundaries/closure

3.3 Observer operator and O^self\widehat O_{\text{self}}

3.4 Trace and memory kernel

3.5 Expectations, gains, damping, slope, delay

4. Axioms & Design Rules

A1 — Additive Survivorship (CWA)

A2 — Projection Endogeneity (SRA)

A3 — Expectation Primacy

A4 — Institutional Closure

A5 — Attention Conservation

A6 — Tick Quantization

A7 — Nonlinearity by Observation

A8 — Peak/Trap Discriminant

A9 — Endogenous Phase-Flip

A10 — Semantic Black Holes

5. Minimal Mathematical Model & Core Results

6. Diagnostics & Empirical Fingerprints

6.1 Universal SRA signatures (what to look for, and why)

6.2 Measurement plan (how to estimate the loop)

6.3 Field checklist (what to log, how to test, what to see)

7. Cross-Domain Validations — 7A. Physics & Materials

7A.1 Thermodynamics (gases, granular media)

7A.2 Non-equilibrium & reaction–diffusion (BZ reaction, autocatalysis)

7A.3 Photonics / Lasers with feedback

7B. Biology & Ecology

7B.1 Quorum sensing & biofilms

7B.2 Gene regulatory networks (GRNs)

7B.3 Ecosystem & niche construction

7C. Neuroscience & Cognition

7C.1 Working memory / attractor networks

7C.2 Predictive coding & attention

7D. Earth Systems & Climate

7D.1 Ice–albedo & permafrost carbon

7D.2 Socio-climate coupling (policy expectations)

7E. Economics & Finance (canonical SRA domain)

7E.1 Asset pricing recursion

7E.2 Inflation anchoring / de-anchoring

7E.3 Supply-chain bullwhip

7F. Social Systems & Platforms

7F.1 Virality & trending

7F.2 Polarization / echo chambers

7G. Technology & AI

7G.1 Recommender–user co-adaptation (closed-loop learning)

7G.2 LLM alignment dynamics (high-level)

8. Hierarchies, Renormalization & Group Observers

8.1 Iterated CWA→SRA ladder

8.2 Conditions for attractor aggregation

8.3 Parameter renormalization across levels (how g,κ,K,τg,\kappa,K,\tau scale)

8.4 Universality classes (why bubbles rhyme with virality and quorum sensing)

9. Computational Program: ABM, Mean-Field, PDE

9.1 Minimal ABM spec (agents, ϕt\phi_t, FF, TT, KK)

9.2 Mean-field reduction and fixed points

9.3 PDE demos (pattern formation; nucleation threshold TcT_c)

9.4 Phase diagrams vs γ,κ,τ\gamma,\kappa,\tau; robustness/noise

9.5 Reproducible code outline & parameter tables

10. Empirical Identification & Data Plan

10.1 Observables

10.2 Identification of gg and K(⋅)K(\cdot)

10.2.1 Structural state-space (preferred)

10.2.2 SVAR / external-instrument approach

10.2.3 Local projections (robust complement)

10.3 Natural & lab experiments

10.3.1 Guidance pulses

Collapse–Attractor Field Theory (CAFT):
A Unified Micro→Macro Framework for Additive Collapse (CWA), Self-Referral Attractors (SRA), and Observer Emergence

3.3 Observer operator and $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$

3.3 Observer operator and $\widehat O_{\text{self}}$

8.3 Parameter renormalization across levels (how $g,\kappa,K,\tau$ scale)

9.1 Minimal ABM spec (agents, $\phi_t$ , $F$ , $T$ , $K$ )

9.3 PDE demos (pattern formation; nucleation threshold $T_c$ )

9.4 Phase diagrams vs $\gamma,\kappa,\tau$ ; robustness/noise

10.2 Identification of $g$ and $K(\cdot)$

11.1 Keep $\lvert g\rvert < 1$ : guidance throttles; exposure caps

11.2 Raise $\kappa$ : buffers, inventories, counter-cyclical rules, redundancy

11.3 Shape $K(\cdot)$ : memory limits, sunset clauses, decay boosters

11.4 Manage $\tau$ : latency caps/jitter to break coherent herding

Appendix A. Proofs (stability, bifurcation; recovery of CWA as $\gamma\to 0$ )

A.4 Discriminant $D$ as dominant-root proxy (small memory)

A.6 Recovery of CWA as $\gamma\to 0$

A.7 Bifurcation surfaces in $(g,\kappa,\tau,K)$

B.4 How $g,s,\kappa,\tau,K$ emerge from the field form

B.5 Dynamics of the observer field $\mathcal O$ (role of $\hat O_{\text{self}}$ )