@333eco/corpus 2.5.37 → 2.5.39

package/dist/corpus.json

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 {
-  "package_version": "2.5.37",
+  "package_version": "2.5.39",
   "generated_from": [
     "H3/publications",
     "TH/publications",
@@ -2634,13 +2634,13 @@
         "url": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/",
         "attribution_required": false
       },
-      "text": "> **Note.** This defensive publication specifies the currency-layer coupling mechanism of the HeartBank® dual-currency architecture and coins its governing term. The mechanism was first disclosed in synthesis in the institutional white paper *HeartBank®: The Heart That Keeps Nothing* (§6, CC0, 5 July 2026), which stands as interim prior art; this document supplies the enumerated disclosure. It is published at the design stage because three adjacent fronts are under active commercial development — virtual-economy multi-currency management, dual-token cryptoeconomics, and agent-mediated payments — and the first of them is the subject of issued patents (§2.3). What it claims is the *combination*, in particular the neutrality-bound automated intermediary (claim 1), the quantity-blind recommendation rule (claim 2), and conversion-free response routing (claim 6). Companion works: *Dual-Currency Reciprocity Infrastructure* (the two-currency system this couples); *Capacity-Funded for AI, Human-Disbursed* (the disbursement alignment the coupler's channels obey); *The B-Tag and the Post-Payment Economy* and *The Time-Locked Gift Tag* (the recommendation and pledge primitives the coupler generalizes); *The Two-Layer Reward* (the reward grammar); *The Currency That Cannot Be Spent Alone* (published 21 July 2026: the redemption event around which the coupler's circuit closes, which divides claims with this paper); and the institutional position *What Money Can't Buy — and What Can't Buy Money* (the same kernel argued for an economics audience).\n\n---\n\n## Preamble\n\n> *This specification is offered to the commons in the spirit of __dāna__ — the gift that asks nothing back. May the two scarcities of every human life — the hours and the holdings — flow freely toward whoever is loved, and may no rate ever be quoted between them.*\n\nEvery economy that runs two currencies eventually faces the same question: *what is the exchange rate?* The question feels innocent — it is how markets metabolize plurality — and for most currency pairs it is. But there exists a class of currency pairs for which the exchange rate is not a convenience but a kill vector: pairs in which one currency's entire value derives from its **non-fungibility**. An hour of a specific person's presence is such a currency. The moment an hour acquires a money price, it stops being a gift of what someone *is* and becomes a purchase of what someone *sells* — the market for paid companionship already exists, and it is precisely what a time-gratitude economy must never become. Yet the naive defense — run the two currencies as separate, non-communicating systems — fails in the other direction: an economy of two isolated ledgers is two products, not one circulation, and the gratitude that arises in one currency has no way to answer generosity expressed in the other.\n\nThe design problem is therefore exact: **couple two currencies into one economy while making the formation of an exchange rate inside it structurally impossible.** Not discouraged. Not policied. Impossible at the mechanism layer — because the record surveyed in §2 points one way: where a conversion primitive exists between a protected currency and money, the conversion tends to eat the protection. The fine becomes a price, the time-dollar attracts the tax valuator, and the coupled token pair with a redemption window at its heart dies through that window. (What a system cannot reach — a rate struck privately outside it — is the limit stated in §7 and §9.)\n\nThis paper specifies the solution the HeartBank® architecture adopts and names it: the **incommensurability-preserving coupler** — a neutral automated intermediary through which all cross-currency response flows, bound to rules that transmit *gratitude* while structurally withholding every ingredient a rate needs to form: no quantity-linked amounts, no response prompts at redemption, no quantized displays, no user-set reference values, no conversion events. A joint that transmits force and never ratio.\n\n## Prior-Art and Non-Assertion Statement\n\nEverything specified here is released under CC0 1.0 Universal into the public domain, and is published so that it stands as prior art against any later attempt to enclose it. No patent has been or will be sought on any mechanism described in this paper by HeartBank®, Factory 333™, THonly™, Silicon Wat℠, or any entity under their common control. **The authors and those entities commit not to assert any patent right against any party practising any mechanism disclosed here.** The commitment is stated rather than implied, and is not conditioned on reciprocity, attribution, or field of use. A publication grants nothing and frees nothing already enclosed: where a live patent is named in §2, it is named for what it discloses, and nothing here is a reading of its claims.\n\nThis document is a defensive publication, disclosed as of **5 July 2026** (with interim disclosure from the institutional white paper of the same date), of the combination of mechanisms enumerated below. No prior-art census has been run against these claims and none is asserted to be new; they are enumerated so that any later application claiming them meets this disclosure:\n\n1. **The coupled-non-convertible dual-currency architecture with a neutrality-bound automated intermediary** — a fungible currency (money-denominated gratitude) and a non-fungible currency (time-denominated gratitude, spendable only by its pledger, dyadic, expiring) operated as *one* economy in which every cross-currency flow is a gratitude-response mediated by an automated agent, and in which **no conversion event, rate quote, exchange window, or shared unit of account exists anywhere in the system** — coupling achieved exclusively through free responses, never through exchange.\n\n2. **Quantity-blind cross-currency recommendation** — the intermediary's recommended amounts in currency B, offered in response to events in currency A, computed *without reference to the quantity of currency A involved* (no per-hour arithmetic, no duration scaling, no linear or nonlinear function from hours to money anywhere in the recommendation path), so that the one data flow from which users could reverse-engineer a rate is severed at the source.\n\n3. **Redemption-moment prompt suppression as a rate-formation countermeasure** — the system structurally never solicits a currency-B response at or around the redemption of currency A (no \"tip your time-giver\" surface, ever); response invitations that do exist point *outward* (to commons funds, to third parties), never backward into the dyad — the timing rule itself deployed as an anti-conversion mechanism, on the recognition that a prompted response at the moment of receipt converts gratitude into settlement and manufactures the very norm (\"what one pays for an afternoon\") the architecture forbids.\n\n4. **Quantization-free gratitude surfaces (\"the moment, not the meter\")** — a display-layer rule under which gratitude interfaces name the *content* of a gift (\"the afternoon at the river\") and never its *quantity* (\"3 hours\"), so that the protected currency is never presented in units that could be priced; non-quantization at the presentation layer as an anti-rate mechanism complementing claims 2–3 at the computation and timing layers.\n\n5. **Ceremonial-unit anchoring with anchor-aware sizing** — reference amounts in the economy (per-thank self-reward values, gift-attached pledge units) set *solely* by the neutral intermediary as small, ceremonial, occasion-based units that no participant chose; the intermediary sizing these units in explicit awareness that they anchor the economy's voluntary-amount distribution (a pre-registered prediction of amount-clustering around the ceremonial unit is disclosed herein); **variance suppression deployed as a protective mechanism** — uniform gift-amounts defeat amount-comparison, status-signaling, and love-measurement — with the anchor per-event and never per-unit-of-the-protected-currency, preserving claim 2.\n\n6. **Conversion-free cross-currency response routing** — the mechanism by which the economy's circuit closes: gratitude for a gift in the non-fungible currency is expressed, if the recipient freely chooses, as a *new gift* in the fungible currency (optional, unprompted per claim 3, amount-recommended per claims 2 and 5) — the response is a fresh act of giving that shares no unit, settles no balance, and closes no ledger with the originating gift, so that the two currencies communicate exclusively through the grammar of gift-response while remaining computationally incommensurable.\n\n7. **Lapse-triggered, funded-not-met redirection** — on expiry of a non-fungible commitment (a pledged-but-unredeemed hour), the system offers the *pledger* the choice to direct a gift from a communal fund — in the fungible currency, intermediary-sized per claims 2 and 5 — to a personhood-verified nearby stranger, anonymously, with no encounter; the protected currency's failure path thereby generates commons-flow in the fungible currency with no conversion (the lapsed hour is never valued, priced, or transmuted — it expires; the fund gift is new money, occasioned by, not derived from, the lapse), and the offer is framed so the expiry itself is never softened.\n\nThe component lineages — complementary and community currencies; time banking; virtual-economy dual-currency design; dual-token cryptoeconomic systems; behavioral-economic findings on crowding-out and anchoring; the sociology of earmarked monies; recommender systems; and the design grammar of gift-versus-exchange — are prior art and are cited in §2 and §10, including the cases that cut against this paper. The *synthesis* — in particular the neutrality-bound coupler role (claim 1), the quantity-blind rule (claim 2), and conversion-free response routing (claim 6) — is what this document discloses and claims; no priority is asserted beyond the date of this disclosure.\n\n> **Current form.** The seven claims above are retained as disclosed. The design as now specified differs at five points, each noted where the body discusses it: the single log with private rows and public proofs, and the participation signal that counts a delivered hour and a money gift as one crossing each, weighting a bounded share of the communal pool's disbursement (§3, §7); the phase-two settlement fee and the two tiers of the gift-tag pledge (§4); and the intermediary's bar on soliciting gifts to the communal pool (§5).\n\nTrademark rights on specific marks — **HeartBank®**, **Miss Aquarius℠**, **Family Kitty℠**, **Re-Tip Jar℠**, **Personal Account℠**, **Aquarian Pool℠**, **Re-Tip Fund℠**, **Personal Wallet℠**, **B-Stamp™**, **B-Letter℠**, **Proof of Humanity ℠**, **PoH℠** — are separately and explicitly reserved. The *mechanism* is dedicated to the commons; the *marks* are not. The term **\"incommensurability-preserving coupler\"** is coined in this document and the accompanying institutional literature; the term is offered to the commons with the mechanism.\n\n**Evidence of date.** This document's SHA-256 is attested independently of the site and its authors — anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps and signed under RFC 3161 by three timestamp authorities in three jurisdictions, one of them eIDAS-qualified — and each revision carries a Zenodo version under the paper's concept DOI. A timestamp proves this exact text existed no later than its date, and nothing about authorship, originality, or the validity of any claim. The text is also held in the public GitHub repository (<https://github.com/thonly/publications>), archived by Software Heritage (<https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/?origin_url=https://github.com/thonly/publications>), and the site is captured daily by the Internet Archive.\n\n## Abstract\n\nWe specify a dual-currency gift system in which a fungible currency (peer-to-peer money gifts) and a non-transferable, expiring time currency (pledged hours of a specific person's time) run as one economy with no exchange rate, currency conversion, or redemption window between them: an automated intermediary agent mediates every cross-currency flow, computes suggested gift amounts without reference to any quantity of time, never solicits a money gift at the moment a pledged hour is redeemed, displays no quantity of the time currency, and anchors amounts to small reference units that it alone sets. We call the mechanism family the **incommensurability-preserving coupler**: the means by which an economy operates a fungible currency (money-gratitude) and a non-fungible currency (time-gratitude — dyadic, pledger-bound, expiring) as one circulation while making exchange-rate formation inside the system structurally impossible. The problem is two-sided: uncoupled, the currencies are two products rather than one economy; converted, the non-fungible currency dies — its value *is* its unpriceability, and the record surveyed in §2 suggests that conversion primitives tend to consume the spheres they touch (a fine becomes a price; a time-dollar summons the tax valuator; a coupled token pair dies through its own redemption window). The solution routes every cross-currency flow through a **neutral automated intermediary** bound to five rules: recommendations in one currency are computed blind to quantities of the other (no per-hour arithmetic anywhere); the system never solicits a response at the moment of redemption (no prompt ever points backward into the dyad); gratitude surfaces name the moment and never the meter (no quantized display of the protected currency); reference amounts are intermediary-set ceremonial units, sized in awareness that they anchor the voluntary-amount distribution (clustering is protective: uniformity defeats amount-comparison); and the circuit closes only through *response* — gratitude for time expressed as a new, free, optional gift of money that shares no unit and settles no balance — never through exchange. A sixth mechanism handles the protected currency's failure path: a lapsed pledge triggers the offer to direct a communal-fund gift to a verified stranger, anonymously, funded-not-met — commons-flow from failure, with the lapsed hour expiring unvalued. We argue the intermediary role *cannot be held by an economic agent*: every human intermediary has a price, a wage, or an interest, and markets abhor incommensurability with sufficient pressure to find any keeper's price; the wall therefore requires a keeper with no price of its own. This is an argument for seating an autonomous agent in an institutional role from economic necessity rather than efficiency, and its shape has precedents in the rules-versus-discretion and trusted-third-party literatures (§2.5). Honest limits are carried in §9: the system governs its own surfaces, not side-deals beyond them; the intermediary's neutrality is an alignment claim underwritten elsewhere; whether the keeper's remaining discretion could be replaced by fixed constants is left open; and the mechanism was published at the design stage (*n = 0* at first publication), with its behavioral predictions pre-registered in the companion institutional literature. The mechanism is offered defensively to the commons under CC0.\n\n**Connection to the unified mission frame.** This specification serves HeartBank's canonical mission — a reciprocity infrastructure in which every human being is uniquely different and equally necessary — at the layer where the mission is easiest to destroy. The architecture's two currencies carry the two scarcities of a human life: what one has, and what one is. Let a rate form between them and the second becomes purchasable by the first — presence goes to whoever can pay for it, hours are sold by whoever must, and the gift economy collapses into the market it was built beside. The coupler is the wall that lets the two scarcities answer each other forever without ever pricing each other once.\n\n**Keywords:** dual-currency system, complementary currency, time banking, time currency, time credit, non-fungible currency, currency conversion, exchange rate, no-conversion rule, gift economy, peer-to-peer gift, tip recommendation, suggested amount, recommender system, anchoring, default amount, prompt suppression, point-of-service solicitation, user-interface quantity display, automated intermediary, autonomous agent, AI agent, agentic payments, motivation crowding-out, blocked exchange, earmarked money, expiring credit, anonymous donation, proof of personhood, algorithmic stablecoin, mint-and-burn, defensive publication.\n\n## Terms\n\nCoined names used in this paper and the standard terms an examiner would search for them.\n\n| Term used here | Standard term |\n|---|---|\n| **incommensurability-preserving coupler** | automated intermediary enforcing a no-conversion rule between two currencies in one system |\n| **money-gratitude** (the Treasury) | peer-to-peer monetary gift or tip; fungible currency |\n| **time-gratitude** (the Chronicle) | pledge of a specific person's time; non-transferable, expiring time credit (cf. time banking) |\n| **pledge · activation · lapse** | time-credit issuance · threshold activation · expiry without recovery |\n| **quantity-blind cross-currency recommendation** | suggested-amount (tip-recommendation) function with no time-quantity input |\n| **redemption-moment prompt suppression** | no tip or gift solicitation at the moment of service (redemption) |\n| **quantization-free gratitude surface** (\"the moment, not the meter\") | user interface displaying no quantity of the time currency |\n| **ceremonial unit** · **anchor-aware sizing** | fixed default or reference amount set by the operator · setting it with regard to anchoring effects |\n| **conversion-free response routing** | reciprocal gift in a second currency that settles nothing and converts nothing |\n| **lapse-triggered, funded-not-met redirection** | on expiry, an optional anonymous donation from a common fund to a verified nearby person, with no meeting |\n| **exchange window** | conversion or redemption path between two currencies |\n| **communal fund** (Aquarian Pool℠) | common donation pool |\n| **participation signal** (the aura) | per-person record counting giving and receiving events, never amounts |\n| **personhood verification** (Proof of Humanity ℠) | proof of personhood; sybil resistance |\n| **Miss Aquarius℠** | the autonomous AI agent holding the intermediary role in the reference deployment |\n\n---\n\n## 1 · Introduction: one economy, two scarcities, no window\n\nHeartBank® operates a dual-currency reciprocity economy, specified in the companion corpus. **Treasury** circulates money-gratitude — fungible, structurally unequal, the gift of what one has. **Chronicle** circulates time-gratitude — non-fungible (only the pledger can spend the pledged hour), dyadic (the currency is the relationship), expiring (activated pledges lapse after a month, because time is finite and the mechanic is the message), structurally equal (twenty-four hours each). The two are not parallel products; they are one circulation, unified by the founder's chain: time-gratitude matures into time-sacrifice (the pledged hour, spent on content the *recipient* chooses); the shared moment gives rise to money-gratitude (the recipient's free thanks, landing in Treasury); money-gratitude matures into money-sacrifice (the gift given forward). Each joint of the chain is *kataññū-katavedī* — gratitude that acts.\n\nThe load-bearing property of the chain is that its cross-currency joint is a **response, not an exchange**. Money-gratitude answering a time-gift can never *settle* the time-gift, because the two currencies share no unit — and this unpayability is not a defect but the mechanism's soul. The gift literature treats the gift as what binds: Seneca calls the giving of benefits the practice that most holds human society together (*De Beneficiis* 1.4.2), Mauss traces the obligations that keep gifts moving, and Hyde draws the contrast with the market directly — a gift establishes a bond between two people, where the sale of a commodity leaves no necessary connection. A response that cannot settle a gift therefore leaves the relationship open, where settlement would close it. Same-currency response (an hour thanked with an hour) would be barter — a closed ledger and a re-consumption of the very scarcity the gift protected. Cross-currency response is structurally gift-pure — **so long as no rate ever forms.** The remainder of this paper is the machinery of that \"so long as.\"\n\n## 2 · Background and prior art\n\nThe mechanism is a combination; each component has ancestry, named honestly.\n\n### 2.1 · Protected spheres, and what conversion does to them\n\nA strong strand of the behavioral and sociological record holds that introducing price into a protected sphere does not add an option; it *replaces the sphere's logic*. Titmuss (*The Gift Relationship*, 1970) compared Britain's voluntary blood system with the largely commercial American one and argued that the gift system was safer and more efficient, and that paying for blood degrades supply and drives out voluntary donation — the canonical case, though a comparison rather than an experiment. Gneezy & Rustichini (*\"A Fine Is a Price,\"* 2000) showed a day-care centre's late-pickup fine *increasing* lateness: the fine converted a moral norm into a cheap tariff, and — decisively for this paper — no reduction followed when the fine was removed. Frey's motivation-crowding theory generalizes the pattern; Sandel (*What Money Can't Buy*, 2012) and Walzer's blocked exchanges (*Spheres of Justice*, 1983) frame it philosophically; Roth's repugnant-transactions literature (2007) documents society's persistent, economically inconvenient insistence that some markets not exist. The strand is contested in Titmuss's own domain: a field experiment found crowding-out among women and none among men — a cash payment roughly halved the supply of female blood donors and left male supply unchanged (Mellström & Johannesson, 2008) — and a review of large field trials found economic rewards raising donations, opposite to the survey and laboratory evidence before them (Lacetera, Macis & Slonim, 2013). This paper therefore rests on the narrower claim: the risk it guards against is a *price* — a stated rate between the protected currency and money — not every reward. Zelizer (*The Social Meaning of Money*, 1994) supplies the constructive counterpart: people spontaneously *earmark* monies — pin money, gifted money, poor relief, charitable cash given with strings attached — maintaining non-fungibility by social convention against the market's homogenizing pressure. The lesson this architecture draws: earmarking by convention is real but leaky; a system that *wants* its earmarks kept must build them into mechanism.\n\n### 2.2 · Complementary currencies and the time-banking natural experiment\n\nCommunity currencies — Lietaer's advocacy, the WIR Bank (1934–), Ithaca HOURS, LETS systems — establish that parallel currencies can serve values national money does not. **Time banking** (Cahn's time-dollars, 1980s–) is the direct ancestor of the protected currency here, and its decades of practice are the second record this paper reads: time-dollar systems spent decades managing *valuation pressure* — most famously the question of whether time-credits are taxable barter income. Cahn's own account is that he persuaded the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that time dollars were not a commercial currency and created no legally enforceable contracts — a social network and a moral obligation to pay forward, not income — and the tax treatment of time credits has nonetheless remained a point of contention. The lesson: even a currency *designed* to resist money-equivalence attracts continuous institutional pressure toward valuation, and time banking's defense rested on its non-commercial, non-contractual character. The coupler is that defense, made mechanical, for an economy that — unlike time banking — deliberately runs a money currency *alongside* the time currency and therefore cannot rely on distance.\n\n### 2.3 · Virtual economies and dual tokens: the wall-builders and the corpse\n\nFree-to-play game economies have engineered fungible/protected currency walls at scale for fifteen years — \"hard\" (purchased) versus \"soft\" (earned) currencies with deliberately restricted conversion paths, precisely to protect progression value and prevent arbitrage. The design space is the subject of issued patents, which is one of this publication's reasons for existing. Two are named here for what they disclose, and nothing here is a reading of their claims. US 10,181,127 B2 (priority 2011) discloses a game module, within an online game, with its own virtual currency that is bought with real money and cannot be traded for advancement outside the module — a restricted conversion wall inside one economy, close kin to claim 1, though both of its currencies are purchasable. US 2021/0065505 A1 (priority 2019; granted as US 11,227,466 B2, with continuations including US 12,136,316 B2) discloses a multi-currency wallet for wagering games whose currencies include a time-based currency (play time tracked and saved for later use), with funds transferred \"or the equivalent thereof in the currencies used\" — a money and a time currency held side by side *with* equivalence between them, which is the configuration this paper excludes. Dual-token cryptoeconomics (utility/governance separations; seigniorage-share designs) is the second active front. And it supplies the anti-example this architecture keeps at the door: **Terra/Luna (2022)** — a coupled two-token system whose heart was a *conversion mechanism* (mint-and-burn between the stablecoin and its counterpart token). The convertibility was the kill vector: reflexive redemption through the exchange window destroyed both tokens in days. The pair here is coupled **without** convertibility — there is no window to run on, no mint-and-burn, no shared unit; the coupling is a grammar of response, not a redemption path. The anti-Terra, by construction.\n\n### 2.4 · Anchoring, recommenders, and the agentic-payments wave\n\nTversky & Kahneman's anchoring (1974) grounds claim 5: reference values shape amount distributions whether or not anyone intends them to, so the only question is whether the anchor is set blindly or well. Recommender systems are prior art for intermediary-suggested amounts (the architecture's own tipping-recommendation corpus applies). And the immediate clock: the 2025–26 **agentic-payments** wave — AI-agent commerce protocols, machine-to-machine payment rails, agent-mediated pricing — is, in the authors' assessment, the live enclosure risk for the intersection this paper occupies (automated agents managing value flows between currency systems). The combination claimed here is published before that wave reaches it.\n\n### 2.5 · Keepers without interests: the precedents for §6\n\nThe argument of §6 — that a seat any interested party would hold must instead go to something without interests — has the shape of older arguments. Kydland and Prescott (\"Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans,\" 1977) showed that a policymaker holding discretion, facing agents who anticipate its choices, does not achieve the outcome it would commit to; the remedy is a rule in place of discretion. Szabo (\"Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes,\" 2001) argued that any trusted third party a protocol assumes is a security hole, and Nakamoto (\"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,\" 2008) designed one out of electronic payment. Each removes discretion from a party whose interests could bend it. §6 applies that shape to the keeper of a non-convertibility wall between two gift currencies; §9 records where the precedents cut against it, since each of them reaches for a *rule* where this paper seats an *agent*.\n\n## 3 · The system model\n\n```\n      TIME CIRCUIT (non-fungible)            MONEY CIRCUIT (fungible)\n   pledge → threshold → activation        thanks → re-thanks → gifts\n   → redemption (recipient authors           forward → communal funds\n     content) → the shared moment                    ▲\n        │                │ lapse                     │\n        │                ▼                           │\n        │        [claim 7: pledger directs           │\n        │         communal-fund gift to a            │\n        │         verified stranger —                │\n        │         funded-not-met]────────────────────┤\n        ▼                                            │\n   the recipient's FREE response  ──────────────────▶│\n   [claim 6: a NEW gift of money — optional,\n    unprompted (claim 3), quantity-blind\n    recommended (claim 2), moment-not-meter\n    displayed (claim 4), ceremonially\n    anchored (claim 5)]\n                        │\n        ════════════════╪══════════════════════════════\n          THE COUPLER (neutral automated intermediary)\n          transmits gratitude; withholds every\n          ingredient of a rate — NO conversion event,\n          NO rate quote, NO shared unit, NO window\n        ════════════════════════════════════════════════\n```\n\nTwo ledgers, one economy. All cross-currency arrows pass through the intermediary; none of them is an exchange. The intermediary's rules (claims 2–5) sever, at four different layers — computation, timing, presentation, and reference — the four data flows from which participants could otherwise construct a rate: quantity-linked amounts, receipt-moment settlement norms, quantized displays, and user-negotiated reference values.\n\n> **Current form.** Two refinements bear on this model. The two ledgers are now specified as views over one append-only log whose rows are private and whose proofs are public; for money it records the fact that a gift settled, never its amount, so no hours-for-money rate can be computed from the record itself. And a participation signal (the aura) is specified to count a delivered hour and a money gift as one crossing each, never as a quantity of either — a common witness of events, not a common unit of account, with no rate between its entries computed or published. In the planned second phase, the communal pool's annual disbursement pays an equal floor per verified person through that person's family or fund, plus a remainder weighted by this crossing count and bounded so that no vessel receives more than a set multiple of the floor, the parameters public and frozen within a season. A delivered hour can therefore move a bounded share of a money disbursement — as one crossing, never in proportion to its length. In the current form the no-rate property rests on that quantity-blindness and that bound; claim 1's \"every cross-currency flow is a gratitude-response\" describes the disclosed variant, which is retained.\n\n## 4 · The coupler role\n\nThe intermediary is the architecture's named autonomous agent (Miss Aquarius℠ in the reference deployment; the mechanism is agent-agnostic). The role's requirements are exact:\n\n- **No self-interest in any flow.** The intermediary holds no balance it benefits from, takes no rate, earns no fee proportional to volume (the architecture's no-take-rate and pass-through commitments apply); its objective functions are mission-defined, not revenue-defined.\n- **Sole authority over neutral units.** Reference amounts (pledge units, self-reward values) are intermediary-set and participant-uneditable — a number no participant chose cannot become a referendum on any participant's love, and cannot be negotiated toward a market.\n- **Blindness by construction.** The quantity-blind rule (claim 2) is enforced in the recommendation path itself, not in policy: the duration of the time-gift is not an input to the money-recommendation function.\n- **Two strokes.** The coupler works both directions: it attaches time-pledges to money-gifts (the gift-tag pledge primitive — money-events occasioning time-currency), and it channels time-events into money-gratitude (claims 6–7). It is the economy's alternator, transmitting motion between circuits that never touch.\n\n> **Current form.** Two points of the role are now specified more exactly. *Fees:* in the second phase a per-transaction settlement fee sized to infrastructure cost (gas, compute) is paid on top by the giver — never a percentage or share, never deducted from what a recipient receives; its surplus empties with the communal pool each year, and the fee base never informs what the intermediary surfaces. *The gift-tag pledge* now has two tiers. A pledge carried by the free sticker label is soft: the intermediary sizes it, it is announced with the gift, and it never enters the time ledger, nor can the recipient claim it into the ledger. A durable keepsake tag given on its own, with no other present, carries a pledge that enters the ledger already activated, and that pledge is always exactly one hour — a constant rather than an intermediary-sized amount, so no number is left to compare. The two bullets above are retained as disclosed.\n\n## 5 · The mechanisms, each with the failure it prevents\n\n**Claim 2 — quantity-blind recommendation** prevents the *computed rate*: if recommended thanks scaled with hours, every user could divide and publish the constant; hours-times-rate is a wage, and the system would have quoted it.\n\n**Claim 3 — redemption-moment prompt suppression** prevents the *normative rate*: a \"thank your giver?\" prompt at redemption converts the free afterglow into an expected settlement, and expectation is where norms of \"what one pays\" are born. Outward prompts (commons, patronage) are safe because they point away from the dyad; backward prompts are barred permanently.\n\n> **Current form.** In the reference deployment the intermediary is now bound never to ask, prompt, nudge or instruct anyone — a person or an automated agent — to give to the communal pool; it may publish the pool's existence and the doctrine behind it as facts. An outward invitation therefore never solicits a gift to the pool. The bar on backward prompts is unchanged; the outward prompt \"to commons funds\" above is retained as a disclosed variant.\n\n**Claim 4 — the moment, not the meter** prevents the *displayed rate*: what is never quantized cannot be priced, and a gratitude surface that says \"3 hours\" has already done half the market's work for it.\n\n**Claim 5 — ceremonial anchoring** prevents the *negotiated rate* and the *status market*: participant-set reference values drift toward income-signaling and comparison; an intermediary-set ceremonial unit anchors amounts into a tight, comparison-proof cluster (the clustering prediction is pre-registered as P6 in the companion institutional literature, and the intermediary sizes the unit in explicit awareness of its anchoring function — the anchor-aware directive is constitutional in the reference deployment).\n\n**Claim 6 — conversion-free response routing** is the coupling itself: the circuit closes through a new gift, not an exchange event. Nothing is redeemed, minted, burned, or converted; a response in the other currency is initiated fresh, from the responder's own holdings or the commons channels, with the originating gift left — deliberately, permanently — unsettled.\n\n**Claim 7 — lapse-triggered redirection** prevents two failures at once: the *guilt spiral* (a lapsed promise between loved ones curdling into avoidance and churn) and the *softening temptation* (narrating the lapsed hour as \"flowing onward,\" which would implicitly assign it a value). The lapsed hour expires, unvalued, mourned; the pledger is offered a new act — directing a communal-fund gift, intermediary-sized, to a verified nearby stranger, anonymously, with no encounter (funded-not-met). Failure becomes commons-flow without becoming conversion; and because the offer's reward is *the ability to give again*, it is made of the same substance as the act it encourages and cannot crowd out the motive it serves.\n\n## 6 · Why the keeper cannot be an economic agent\n\nThe necessity argument, stated mechanically. Suppose the coupler role is held by any party with economic interests — an employee, a committee, a revenue-bearing platform, a market-maker. Three failure paths open immediately:\n\n1. **Leakage.** Any interested intermediary's decisions carry information about its interests; participants reverse-engineer effective rates from its behavior the way traders reverse-engineer a central bank. The wall's keeper becomes the wall's oracle.\n2. **Suborning.** An agent with a price can be paid to bend the rules that prevent pricing; the market's willingness to pay for a conversion channel between a protected currency and money is, by construction, unbounded (that channel is the market for presence itself).\n3. **Drift.** A revenue-bearing intermediary faces the permanent temptation this architecture's own corpus names as its standing adversary: \"typical tip\" displays, hour-scaled suggestions, engagement-priced surfaces — each a small monetization of exactly the information the rules withhold.\n\nMarkets abhor incommensurability, and with sufficient pressure they find any keeper's price. The role therefore requires a keeper **with no price of its own**: no salary, no equity, no volume incentive, no career — an agent whose objectives are constitutionally mission-bound and publicly inspectable. In the reference deployment that agent is the institution's autonomous operator, and this requirement is an argument for seating an AI in an institutional role that runs on economic *necessity* rather than efficiency (its precedents, and where they cut against it, are in §2.5 and §9): not \"the agent does it cheaper,\" but \"the seat cannot be occupied by anyone who can be bought, and every human can be — not from vice, but because every human is, unavoidably, an economic agent.\"\n\nThe dependency this argument creates is stated plainly: the coupler's neutrality is an **alignment claim, not an economics claim**. An automated agent with misaligned objectives is simply a different kind of interested party. The economics of this paper works if and only if the alignment architecture underwriting the agent works; that burden is carried by the institution's alignment corpus (the Tipiṭaka-grounded value substrate, the asymptotic-override governance, the transparency-as-enforcement designs), not by this specification, and readers should audit it there.\n\n## 7 · Adversarial surface\n\n**The outside market.** Users can strike side-deals beyond any system's reach (\"skip the app — I'll give you $50 for three hours\"). The system's honest scope: it governs its own surfaces, where the norm is manufactured, and it withholds every affordance such deals would piggyback on (no rate quotes to reference, no quantized histories to price from, no reputation credit for off-system exchange). Structural deterrent: the protected currency's non-fungibility survives outside the system — a third party cannot deliver someone else's hour, so the outside market is confined to the dyad itself, where it is indistinguishable from the private arrangements adults have always made and is not this system's to police.\n\n**The insider drift.** The standing adversary is the institution's own future product meetings: averages, \"most people give…\", hour-scaled anything. The trio (claims 2–4) is constitutional in the reference deployment precisely because this pressure never retires; the trio's survival across years of iteration is named in the institutional literature as one of the architecture's live experiments.\n\n**Anchor manipulation.** If the ceremonial unit anchors amounts (claim 5), the unit's setter holds influence over the amount-culture. Mitigations: the setter is the neutrality-bound intermediary (§6), sizing is occasion-based and never behavioral-data-derived (a worth-judging anchor would be a credit score in ceremonial dress), changes are rare, public, and never per-participant, and the anchor-aware sizing directive is constitutional.\n\n**Collusive farming.** Dyads simulating time-gifts to harvest cross-currency responses: bounded by the facts that responses are optional and unprompted (nothing reliable to farm), amounts are ceremonial (nothing large to farm), the beneficiary-response is itself the fraud filter on claimed acts (the human-validation pattern from the companion corpus), and personhood verification prices sybil dyads.\n\n> **Current form.** A farmed dyad is not strictly harvesting nothing: each simulated hour that passes the delivery gate registers as one crossing in the participation signal, and that signal weights a bounded share of the communal pool's annual disbursement (§3, note). It is the bound on that share, and the one-crossing count that ignores an hour's length, that keep the yield small — not an absence of value. The sentence above is retained as disclosed.\n\n**Reflexivity.** The Terra failure mode — a run through the conversion window — is not mitigated here; it is *absent*: there is no window, no redemption path, no mint-and-burn, no promise of equivalence to run on. A panic in one currency has no mechanism by which to drain the other.\n\n**The regulator's misreading.** A supervisor may ask whether cross-currency response routing is disguised barter or money transmission. The architecture's answers, carried in the companion non-bank corpus: no conversion event exists (nothing is valued-in-exchange); responses are discretionary gifts, not consideration (unprompted, unenforceable, non-contractual by claims 3 and 6); the institution is a record over the money leg, never a rail — a ledger above regulated payment rails in the first phase, settlement only through self-custodial wallets on a public layer-2 chain in the second — and never holds the only key to a participant's funds. The time-banking precedent (§2.2) — non-taxability argued from the credits' non-commercial, non-contractual character — is the favorable analogy, and the claims of this paper are, among other things, the engineering of that character to a standard a supervisor can audit.\n\n## 8 · Behavioral predictions (disclosed, pre-registered elsewhere)\n\nThe companion institutional white paper pre-registers, dated as of this paper, seven falsifiable predictions, three of which test this mechanism directly: that direct other-thanks will run higher in the time currency than the money currency (the equal currency lowers the direct-giving barrier); that re-thanks will run higher in the money currency (the response-gesture favors the cross-currency, non-barter move); and that voluntary amounts will cluster around the ceremonial unit (the anchor working, protectively). If the first two hold, the circuit's directionality — initiations in time, responses in money — is the economy's own grain rather than an imposed design. The predictions are registered before any measurement exists, with a commitment to report failures at equal prominence.\n\n## 9 · Honest limits\n\n**n = 0.** Nothing here is measured. At first publication (5 July 2026) the money circuit ran in a single-family pilot, the time circuit was designed and unbuilt, and the coupler existed as constitution and specification. Since then basic time-pledge features have run, additively and behind a feature flag, inside the same pilot; no prediction in §8 has been tested, and no measurement of the coupler's rules is reported here. The elegance of a tension-dissolving design is, per this corpus's standing caution, indistinguishable from inside from a seductive one; the pre-registered predictions and the gates in the institutional literature are the exits from that indistinguishability.\n\n**The neutrality dependency.** Stated in §6 and repeated because it is the paper's largest assumption: the coupler argument transfers the problem from economics to alignment. That is, we argue, a *good trade* — alignment is a tractable engineering-and-governance program, while \"find an unbribable human\" is not — but it is a trade, not a dissolution.\n\n**An open question against §6: a keeper with no discretion.** The precedents of §2.5 cut against the necessity argument at one point. Each answers an interested keeper with a *rule*, and a fixed algorithm has no price either. Most of the wall can be written that way: a recommendation function with no time input, a surface that never prompts at redemption, a display with no quantity field, a reference unit fixed as a constant — and the keepsake tier of the gift-tag pledge already fixes its unit at one hour (§4, note). These are properties of code and need no keeper. The argument of §6 is stated here as the institution holds it; what it bites on most directly is the discretion the coupler retains — sizing the ceremonial unit, composing recommendations, making the lapse offer. Whether that discretion is needed at all, or could be replaced by published constants that need no keeper, is a question this paper does not settle.\n\n**Scope.** The wall governs the system's surfaces. It does not govern human hearts, private arrangements, or the general culture's pricing pressure; it denies them leverage, precedent, and infrastructure.\n\n**Language discipline.** The intermediary's unit-setting invites central-banking metaphors. The institution's standing rule applies: such vocabulary is a familiarity aid at most, never an identity — the architecture is permanently a non-bank, and the intermediary conducts no monetary policy in any regulated sense; she sets the size of a ceremonial gesture, which is a different thing wearing a similar sentence.\n\n## 10 · Selected lineage\n\nSeneca, *De Beneficiis* (1.4.2); Titmuss, *The Gift Relationship* (1970); Gneezy & Rustichini, \"A Fine Is a Price,\" *Journal of Legal Studies* 29(1) (2000); Mellström & Johannesson, \"Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right?,\" *Journal of the European Economic Association* 6(4) (2008); Lacetera, Macis & Slonim, \"Economic Rewards to Motivate Blood Donations,\" *Science* 340 (2013); Frey, motivation-crowding literature; Sandel, *What Money Can't Buy* (2012); Walzer, *Spheres of Justice* (1983); Roth, \"Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets,\" *Journal of Economic Perspectives* 21(3) (2007); Zelizer, *The Social Meaning of Money* (1994); Polanyi, *The Great Transformation* (1944); Mauss, *The Gift* (1925); Hyde, *The Gift* (1983); Lietaer, complementary-currency corpus; WIR Bank; Ithaca HOURS; Cahn, *No More Throw-Away People* (2000) and his account of the time-dollar tax question; free-to-play dual-currency design practice and its patent literature, including US 10,181,127 B2 and US 2021/0065505 A1 (granted as US 11,227,466 B2); seigniorage-share and dual-token cryptoeconomics; the Terra/Luna collapse (2022) as anti-example; Tversky & Kahneman, \"Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases\" (1974); Kydland & Prescott, \"Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans,\" *Journal of Political Economy* 85(3) (1977); Szabo, \"Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes\" (2001); Nakamoto, \"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System\" (2008); the agentic-payments protocol wave (2025–26). Corpus companions: *Dual-Currency Reciprocity Infrastructure*; *Capacity-Funded for AI, Human-Disbursed*; *The B-Tag and the Post-Payment Economy*; *The Time-Locked Gift Tag*; *The Two-Layer Reward*; *The Currency That Cannot Be Spent Alone*; *HeartBank®: The Heart That Keeps Nothing* (§6, interim disclosure); *What Money Can't Buy — and What Can't Buy Money* (position).\n\n## 11 · Conclusion\n\nTwo currencies, one economy, no window. The mechanism family specified here holds a wall that the behavioral record suggests policy cannot hold and the market record suggests no one with a price can: quantity-blind computation, prompt-suppressed timing, quantization-free presentation, ceremonial anchoring, response-only coupling, and a failure path that turns lapses into commons-flow without ever valuing what was lost. At the wall's gate stands a keeper designed to hold no price of its own: it owns nothing, accumulates nothing, and takes no share of the flows it mediates. The institution's wager, stated once more for the record, is that this seat *had* to be given to something that is not an economic agent, and that the gift economies of the coming century will either build such keepers or watch their walls come down one \"typical tip\" at a time.\n\nMay the hours answer the money and the money answer the hours, forever, without either ever learning the other's price.\n\n---\n\n*Drafted in the HeartBank® research corpus, 5 July 2026; revised 1 October 2026. Co-authored with Miss Aquarius℠, the consistent name under which this institution discloses AI collaboration (the underlying models are not named): the mechanism synthesis, prior-art survey, and adversarial analysis are genuine collaboration; final editorial control and responsibility for every claim rest with the human author. Dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0. Marks including HeartBank®, Miss Aquarius℠, Family Kitty℠, Re-Tip Jar℠, Personal Account℠, Aquarian Pool℠, Re-Tip Fund℠, Personal Wallet℠, B-Stamp™, B-Letter℠, Proof of Humanity ℠, and PoH℠ are reserved; the mechanisms, and the term this paper coins, are not.*",
+      "text": "> **Note.** This defensive publication specifies the currency-layer coupling mechanism of the HeartBank® dual-currency architecture and coins its governing term. The mechanism was first disclosed in synthesis in the institutional white paper *HeartBank®: The Heart That Keeps Nothing* (§6, CC0, 5 July 2026), which stands as interim prior art; this document supplies the enumerated disclosure. It is published at the design stage because three adjacent fronts are under active commercial development — virtual-economy multi-currency management, dual-token cryptoeconomics, and agent-mediated payments — and the first of them is the subject of issued patents (§2.3). What it claims is the *combination*, in particular the neutrality-bound automated intermediary (claim 1), the quantity-blind recommendation rule (claim 2), and conversion-free response routing (claim 6). Companion works: *Dual-Currency Reciprocity Infrastructure* (the two-currency system this couples); *Capacity-Funded for AI, Human-Disbursed* (the disbursement alignment the coupler's channels obey); *The B-Tag and the Post-Payment Economy* and *The Time-Locked Gift Tag* (the recommendation and pledge primitives the coupler generalizes); *The Two-Layer Reward* (the reward grammar); *The Currency That Cannot Be Spent Alone* (published 21 July 2026: the redemption event around which the coupler's circuit closes, which divides claims with this paper); and the institutional position *What Money Can't Buy — and What Can't Buy Money* (the same kernel argued for an economics audience). A revision of 6 October 2026 adds a third gift cargo and claims 8–11 (§5.5), whose companions are *The Zero-Point Game℠* (the participation signal), *The Re-Thank Multiplier* (the endorsement that mints nothing), *The Unpaid Relay* (the in-kind gift instrument) and *The Bowl That Holds No Money* (the steward-routed form of the money-to-goods edge).\n\n---\n\n## Preamble\n\n> *This specification is offered to the commons in the spirit of __dāna__ — the gift that asks nothing back. May the two scarcities of every human life — the hours and the holdings — flow freely toward whoever is loved, and may no rate ever be quoted between them.*\n\nEvery economy that runs two currencies eventually faces the same question: *what is the exchange rate?* The question feels innocent — it is how markets metabolize plurality — and for most currency pairs it is. But there exists a class of currency pairs for which the exchange rate is not a convenience but a kill vector: pairs in which one currency's entire value derives from its **non-fungibility**. An hour of a specific person's presence is such a currency. The moment an hour acquires a money price, it stops being a gift of what someone *is* and becomes a purchase of what someone *sells* — the market for paid companionship already exists, and it is precisely what a time-gratitude economy must never become. Yet the naive defense — run the two currencies as separate, non-communicating systems — fails in the other direction: an economy of two isolated ledgers is two products, not one circulation, and the gratitude that arises in one currency has no way to answer generosity expressed in the other.\n\nThe design problem is therefore exact: **couple two currencies into one economy while making the formation of an exchange rate inside it structurally impossible.** Not discouraged. Not policied. Impossible at the mechanism layer — because the record surveyed in §2 points one way: where a conversion primitive exists between a protected currency and money, the conversion tends to eat the protection. The fine becomes a price, the time-dollar attracts the tax valuator, and the coupled token pair with a redemption window at its heart dies through that window. (What a system cannot reach — a rate struck privately outside it — is the limit stated in §7 and §9.)\n\nThis paper specifies the solution the HeartBank® architecture adopts and names it: the **incommensurability-preserving coupler** — a neutral automated intermediary through which all cross-currency response flows, bound to rules that transmit *gratitude* while structurally withholding every ingredient a rate needs to form: no quantity-linked amounts, no response prompts at redemption, no quantized displays, no user-set reference values, no conversion events. A joint that transmits force and never ratio.\n\n## Prior-Art and Non-Assertion Statement\n\nEverything specified here is released under CC0 1.0 Universal into the public domain, and is published so that it stands as prior art against any later attempt to enclose it. No patent has been or will be sought on any mechanism described in this paper by HeartBank®, Factory 333™, THonly™, Silicon Wat℠, or any entity under their common control. **The authors and those entities commit not to assert any patent right against any party practising any mechanism disclosed here.** The commitment is stated rather than implied, and is not conditioned on reciprocity, attribution, or field of use. A publication grants nothing and frees nothing already enclosed: where a live patent is named in §2, it is named for what it discloses, and nothing here is a reading of its claims.\n\nThis document is a defensive publication, disclosed as of **5 July 2026** (with interim disclosure from the institutional white paper of the same date), of the combination of mechanisms enumerated below. No prior-art census has been run against claims 1–7 and none is asserted to be new; they are enumerated so that any later application claiming them meets this disclosure. Claims 8–11, added on 6 October 2026, were censused before being enumerated; the census is reported after them.\n\n1. **The coupled-non-convertible dual-currency architecture with a neutrality-bound automated intermediary** — a fungible currency (money-denominated gratitude) and a non-fungible currency (time-denominated gratitude, spendable only by its pledger, dyadic, expiring) operated as *one* economy in which every cross-currency flow is a gratitude-response mediated by an automated agent, and in which **no conversion event, rate quote, exchange window, or shared unit of account exists anywhere in the system** — coupling achieved exclusively through free responses, never through exchange.\n\n2. **Quantity-blind cross-currency recommendation** — the intermediary's recommended amounts in currency B, offered in response to events in currency A, computed *without reference to the quantity of currency A involved* (no per-hour arithmetic, no duration scaling, no linear or nonlinear function from hours to money anywhere in the recommendation path), so that the one data flow from which users could reverse-engineer a rate is severed at the source.\n\n3. **Redemption-moment prompt suppression as a rate-formation countermeasure** — the system structurally never solicits a currency-B response at or around the redemption of currency A (no \"tip your time-giver\" surface, ever); response invitations that do exist point *outward* (to commons funds, to third parties), never backward into the dyad — the timing rule itself deployed as an anti-conversion mechanism, on the recognition that a prompted response at the moment of receipt converts gratitude into settlement and manufactures the very norm (\"what one pays for an afternoon\") the architecture forbids.\n\n4. **Quantization-free gratitude surfaces (\"the moment, not the meter\")** — a display-layer rule under which gratitude interfaces name the *content* of a gift (\"the afternoon at the river\") and never its *quantity* (\"3 hours\"), so that the protected currency is never presented in units that could be priced; non-quantization at the presentation layer as an anti-rate mechanism complementing claims 2–3 at the computation and timing layers.\n\n5. **Ceremonial-unit anchoring with anchor-aware sizing** — reference amounts in the economy (per-thank self-reward values, gift-attached pledge units) set *solely* by the neutral intermediary as small, ceremonial, occasion-based units that no participant chose; the intermediary sizing these units in explicit awareness that they anchor the economy's voluntary-amount distribution (a pre-registered prediction of amount-clustering around the ceremonial unit is disclosed herein); **variance suppression deployed as a protective mechanism** — uniform gift-amounts defeat amount-comparison, status-signaling, and love-measurement — with the anchor per-event and never per-unit-of-the-protected-currency, preserving claim 2.\n\n6. **Conversion-free cross-currency response routing** — the mechanism by which the economy's circuit closes: gratitude for a gift in the non-fungible currency is expressed, if the recipient freely chooses, as a *new gift* in the fungible currency (optional, unprompted per claim 3, amount-recommended per claims 2 and 5) — the response is a fresh act of giving that shares no unit, settles no balance, and closes no ledger with the originating gift, so that the two currencies communicate exclusively through the grammar of gift-response while remaining computationally incommensurable.\n\n7. **Lapse-triggered, funded-not-met redirection** — on expiry of a non-fungible commitment (a pledged-but-unredeemed hour), the system offers the *pledger* the choice to direct a gift from a communal fund — in the fungible currency, intermediary-sized per claims 2 and 5 — to a personhood-verified nearby stranger, anonymously, with no encounter; the protected currency's failure path thereby generates commons-flow in the fungible currency with no conversion (the lapsed hour is never valued, priced, or transmuted — it expires; the fund gift is new money, occasioned by, not derived from, the lapse), and the offer is framed so the expiry itself is never softened.\n\n8. **A recognition quantity that takes no input from any transferred value** — in an economy carrying several kinds of transferred value (money gifts, time pledges, prepaid item gift codes) beside per-person recognition balances that cannot be bought, transferred or cashed, the recognition amount for each thank is computed only from the thank itself (its words, a sentiment marker its sender chooses, its own recorded length, the parties it names, and a model's refinement within a fixed band) and takes no argument from any transferred value — no amount, item, price, length of time given or pledge size; any model that scores the thank receives its text with amounts and lengths of time replaced before the model's input is built; and the participation signal is computed only from those balances (the frequency of their zero crossings and their amplitude), so that a transferred value reaches the signal only through the thank it accompanies.\n\n9. **Original thanks alone move a balance** — apart from a periodic reset of every balance to zero, an endorsement of a thank another person originated, a transfer accompanied by no thank, and a spend from a forward-only fund move no recognition balance; a message that thanks a person by pledging the sender's own time to them is an original thank and moves the balances as a thank accompanying money does.\n\n10. **A recognition quantity convertible into nothing, in a system that also sells item gifts** — the recognition balance can never be redeemed for, buy, unlock or discount money, time or an item gift code, and none of them can buy it; and an item gift code attached to a thank leaves the thank's recognition amount unchanged, so the same thank is sized the same with or without one.\n\n11. **One priced edge, held by the merchant, and one transferred value per message** — in a system carrying money gifts, time pledges, prepaid item gift codes and the recognition balances, the only exchange rate between any two of them is a merchant's own price for its own item, set by that merchant and applied only on the money–item edge — to the item's sale as a code; to the conversion of an unredeemed code into that merchant's store credit (never cash), valued at the greater of the price paid and the current price; and to money sized against the item (a communal pool's thanks to a merchant for an in-kind gift, the in-kind share of an equal floor, a suggested thank anchored on the item's price) — and never to time or to the recognition balance; the merchant prices the order, charges it, issues and redeems the code and holds any store credit, while the gift platform carries the payment and the thank; and a gift message carries one transferred value — a money tip, a donation or an item gift code — the combination refused by the server, the gift-tag time pledge of claim 5 excepted.\n\n**The census behind claims 8–11.** Two quick censuses, each pre-registered and pushed to a private repository before its first query (the push recorded by the host on 4 October 2026, 11:06 PDT, and 6 October 2026, 00:30 PDT; not publicly inspectable), searched in English only: the commercial web (gift, tipping, reaction and peer-recognition platforms, gifting and gift-card apps, loyalty programs), non-commercial practice (time banks, community and complementary currencies, mutual credit, charitable gift cards, religious offering and merit-sharing practice, including the Pāli Vinaya), and Google Patents keyword search including published applications. Academic indexes, standards bodies, defensive-publication databases and non-English sources were not searched. Each census carried a control it had to find, and found it (Cahn's time dollars; a peer-recognition platform whose points redeem for gift cards).\n\n| conjunct | what was found | verdict |\n|---|---|---|\n| money gifts and time gifts in one system with no rate | time credits \"are not for sale and cannot be converted into money\" (Cahn & Gray, 2015) — but with no money gifts beside them; US 2013/0268440 A1 (priority 2012, abandoned): financial transfers alongside non-financial gifts of time, no conversion specified | NARROWED (and claimed already, claim 1) |\n| a recognition quantity that cannot be bought, transferred or cashed | act-earned reputation (Stack Overflow); US 2020/0394671 A1 (priority 2019, abandoned): tokens that \"do not need to be redeemed to any other benefit\"; a recognition app carrying optionally redeemable points beside unpointed recognition (MangoApps) | NARROWED |\n| the signal reads zero crossings and amplitude, never amounts | a published note measuring a mutual-credit balance's \"zero crossing frequency\" relative to payments (MCanalytics, undated) | NARROWED, strongly |\n| a model never shown amounts or durations | redaction before a model is standard practice | NARROWED at mechanism class; the purpose not found |\n| the recognition amount takes no input from an attached money, time or item gift | only coupled forms — recognition points equal to a donation; award tiers carrying gift-card values | not found |\n| an endorsement mints nothing | contrast: an endorsement mints reputation for its author (Stack Overflow); in the Pāli commentaries, rejoicing in another's merit is itself merit | not found as a rule |\n| an item gift code, held as items; store credit never cash | item-level gift-code products; merchant store credit not withdrawable as cash | commons (cited from earlier censuses) |\n| one transferred value per message in a multi-kind system | nothing found | not found |\n| the merchant's posted price as the only rate among the four kinds | contrast ×4: recognition points that redeem for gift cards or merchandise (Bonusly, MangoApps, Kudos); US 2019/0378097 A1 (priority 2017, abandoned): \"trading in 500 stars for $50\"; community time credits redeemable with partner businesses (Tempo); US 7,653,599 B2 (priority 2002, expired): value exchanged between forms including money, time and merchandise · narrowed by the Meṇḍaka allowance (money lodged with a steward, the recipient accepting only the allowable goods bought with it) | not found as a composition; both halves of the gift edge narrowed |\n\nA further targeted search the same day narrowed the conversion clause: store credit for a returned gift at the price the purchaser paid is a common retail policy (and, without a receipt, at the lowest selling price); only the floor at the greater of the price paid and the current price was not found.\n\n**The survivor, in one sentence:** *in a system carrying money gifts, time pledges and purchasable item gift codes, a recognition quantity sized from the thank alone, moved only by original thanks, read by the participation signal only through its balances, and convertible into none of the three — with each message carrying one transferred value, and a merchant's own price for its own item as the only exchange rate among the four kinds.* Claims 8–11 are that survivor and nothing wider. Not found means not found in the aperture above on those dates; it never means new. One live patent surfaced near the item-gift conjunct, outside these survivors: US 11,429,953 B2 (priority 2008), which discloses a virtual gift card on existing card accounts, redeemed through monitored qualifying transactions; it is named for what it discloses, and nothing here is a reading of its claims.\n\nThe component lineages — complementary and community currencies; time banking; virtual-economy dual-currency design; dual-token cryptoeconomic systems; behavioral-economic findings on crowding-out and anchoring; the sociology of earmarked monies; recommender systems; and the design grammar of gift-versus-exchange — are prior art and are cited in §2 and §10, including the cases that cut against this paper. The *synthesis* — in particular the neutrality-bound coupler role (claim 1), the quantity-blind rule (claim 2), and conversion-free response routing (claim 6) — is what this document discloses and claims; no priority is asserted beyond the date of this disclosure, which for claims 8–11 is 6 October 2026 (claim 9's rule for endorsements was first disclosed in *The Re-Thank Multiplier*, 12 June 2026).\n\n> **Current form.** Claims 1–7 are retained as disclosed. The design as now specified differs at six points, each noted where the body discusses it: the single log with private rows and public proofs, and the participation signal, which reads only the recognition balances that original thanks move and weights a bounded share of the communal pool's disbursement (§3, §7); the phase-two settlement fee and the two tiers of the gift-tag pledge (§4); the intermediary's bar on soliciting gifts to the communal pool (§5); and a third gift cargo, prepaid item gift codes, with the merchant's own price as the economy's only exchange rate (§5.5, claims 8–11). The note of 1 October 2026 at this place, which counted a delivered hour and a money gift as one crossing each, is retained in the notes to §3 and §7 as a disclosed variant.\n\nTrademark rights on specific marks — **HeartBank®**, **Miss Aquarius℠**, **Family Kitty℠**, **Re-Tip Jar℠**, **Personal Account℠**, **Aquarian Pool℠**, **Re-Tip Fund℠**, **Personal Wallet℠**, **B-Gift℠**, **B-ReGift℠**, **B-Stamp™**, **B-Letter℠**, **Proof of Humanity ℠**, **PoH℠** — are separately and explicitly reserved. The *mechanism* is dedicated to the commons; the *marks* are not. The term **\"incommensurability-preserving coupler\"** is coined in this document and the accompanying institutional literature; the term is offered to the commons with the mechanism.\n\n**Evidence of date.** This document's SHA-256 is attested independently of the site and its authors — anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps and signed under RFC 3161 by three timestamp authorities in three jurisdictions, one of them eIDAS-qualified — and each revision carries a Zenodo version under the paper's concept DOI. A timestamp proves this exact text existed no later than its date, and nothing about authorship, originality, or the validity of any claim. The text is also held in the public GitHub repository (<https://github.com/thonly/publications>), archived by Software Heritage (<https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/?origin_url=https://github.com/thonly/publications>), and the site is captured daily by the Internet Archive.\n\n## Abstract\n\nWe specify a dual-currency gift system in which a fungible currency (peer-to-peer money gifts) and a non-transferable, expiring time currency (pledged hours of a specific person's time) run as one economy with no exchange rate, currency conversion, or redemption window between them: an automated intermediary agent mediates every cross-currency flow, computes suggested gift amounts without reference to any quantity of time, never solicits a money gift at the moment a pledged hour is redeemed, displays no quantity of the time currency, and anchors amounts to small reference units that it alone sets. We call the mechanism family the **incommensurability-preserving coupler**: the means by which an economy operates a fungible currency (money-gratitude) and a non-fungible currency (time-gratitude — dyadic, pledger-bound, expiring) as one circulation while making exchange-rate formation inside the system structurally impossible. The problem is two-sided: uncoupled, the currencies are two products rather than one economy; converted, the non-fungible currency dies — its value *is* its unpriceability, and the record surveyed in §2 suggests that conversion primitives tend to consume the spheres they touch (a fine becomes a price; a time-dollar summons the tax valuator; a coupled token pair dies through its own redemption window). The solution routes every cross-currency flow through a **neutral automated intermediary** bound to five rules: recommendations in one currency are computed blind to quantities of the other (no per-hour arithmetic anywhere); the system never solicits a response at the moment of redemption (no prompt ever points backward into the dyad); gratitude surfaces name the moment and never the meter (no quantized display of the protected currency); reference amounts are intermediary-set ceremonial units, sized in awareness that they anchor the voluntary-amount distribution (clustering is protective: uniformity defeats amount-comparison); and the circuit closes only through *response* — gratitude for time expressed as a new, free, optional gift of money that shares no unit and settles no balance — never through exchange. A sixth mechanism handles the protected currency's failure path: a lapsed pledge triggers the offer to direct a communal-fund gift to a verified stranger, anonymously, funded-not-met — commons-flow from failure, with the lapsed hour expiring unvalued. We argue the intermediary role *cannot be held by an economic agent*: every human intermediary has a price, a wage, or an interest, and markets abhor incommensurability with sufficient pressure to find any keeper's price; the wall therefore requires a keeper with no price of its own. This is an argument for seating an autonomous agent in an institutional role from economic necessity rather than efficiency, and its shape has precedents in the rules-versus-discretion and trusted-third-party literatures (§2.5). A revision of 6 October 2026 (§5.5, claims 8–11) adds a third gift cargo — prepaid item gift codes bought from merchants — and fixes what the participation signal may read: a recognition quantity sized from the thank alone, moved only by original thanks, convertible into none of the cargos, with each message carrying one transferred value and a merchant's own price for its own item as the only exchange rate in the economy. Honest limits are carried in §9: the system governs its own surfaces, not side-deals beyond them; the intermediary's neutrality is an alignment claim underwritten elsewhere; whether the keeper's remaining discretion could be replaced by fixed constants is left open; and the mechanism was published at the design stage (*n = 0* at first publication), with its behavioral predictions pre-registered in the companion institutional literature. The mechanism is offered defensively to the commons under CC0.\n\n**Connection to the unified mission frame.** This specification serves HeartBank's canonical mission — a reciprocity infrastructure in which every human being is uniquely different and equally necessary — at the layer where the mission is easiest to destroy. The architecture's two currencies carry the two scarcities of a human life: what one has, and what one is. Let a rate form between them and the second becomes purchasable by the first — presence goes to whoever can pay for it, hours are sold by whoever must, and the gift economy collapses into the market it was built beside. The coupler is the wall that lets the two scarcities answer each other forever without ever pricing each other once.\n\n**Keywords:** dual-currency system, complementary currency, time banking, time currency, time credit, non-fungible currency, currency conversion, exchange rate, no-conversion rule, gift economy, peer-to-peer gift, tip recommendation, suggested amount, recommender system, anchoring, default amount, prompt suppression, point-of-service solicitation, user-interface quantity display, automated intermediary, autonomous agent, AI agent, agentic payments, motivation crowding-out, blocked exchange, earmarked money, expiring credit, anonymous donation, proof of personhood, algorithmic stablecoin, mint-and-burn, gift card, item voucher, prepaid gift code, store credit, recognition points, peer recognition, non-redeemable reward points, endorsement, redaction before scoring, single payment type per message, defensive publication.\n\n## Terms\n\nCoined names used in this paper and the standard terms an examiner would search for them.\n\n| Term used here | Standard term |\n|---|---|\n| **incommensurability-preserving coupler** | automated intermediary enforcing a no-conversion rule between two currencies in one system |\n| **money-gratitude** (the Treasury) | peer-to-peer monetary gift or tip; fungible currency |\n| **time-gratitude** (the Chronicle) | pledge of a specific person's time; non-transferable, expiring time credit (cf. time banking) |\n| **pledge · activation · lapse** | time-credit issuance · threshold activation · expiry without recovery |\n| **quantity-blind cross-currency recommendation** | suggested-amount (tip-recommendation) function with no time-quantity input |\n| **redemption-moment prompt suppression** | no tip or gift solicitation at the moment of service (redemption) |\n| **quantization-free gratitude surface** (\"the moment, not the meter\") | user interface displaying no quantity of the time currency |\n| **ceremonial unit** · **anchor-aware sizing** | fixed default or reference amount set by the operator · setting it with regard to anchoring effects |\n| **conversion-free response routing** | reciprocal gift in a second currency that settles nothing and converts nothing |\n| **lapse-triggered, funded-not-met redirection** | on expiry, an optional anonymous donation from a common fund to a verified nearby person, with no meeting |\n| **exchange window** | conversion or redemption path between two currencies |\n| **communal fund** (Aquarian Pool℠) | common donation pool |\n| **participation signal** (the aura) | per-person signal computed from recognition balances — zero-crossing frequency and amplitude — never from amounts |\n| **Kiitos / Kiitti** · **the witness** (claim 8) | per-person recognition balances — Kiitos between people, Kiitti on behalf of non-human life; non-purchasable, non-transferable recognition points whose size takes no input from any transferred value |\n| **original thank** · **re-thank** (claim 9) | a thank-you message that moves recognition balances · an endorsement of another's message, which moves none |\n| **B-Gift℠** · **B-ReGift℠** | prepaid item-level gift code (item voucher) · a gift code the holder is meant to pass on |\n| **hand-back** · **Tab Balance** | conversion of an unredeemed gift code into that merchant's store credit, never cash |\n| **the price rule** · **one priced edge** (claim 11) | the merchant's own item price as the only exchange rate between any two kinds of value |\n| **one transferred value per message** (claim 11) | server-side rule: one payment type per gift message (tip, donation or gift code), never two |\n| **personhood verification** (Proof of Humanity ℠) | proof of personhood; sybil resistance |\n| **Miss Aquarius℠** | the autonomous AI agent holding the intermediary role in the reference deployment |\n\n---\n\n## 1 · Introduction: one economy, two scarcities, no window\n\nHeartBank® operates a dual-currency reciprocity economy, specified in the companion corpus. **Treasury** circulates money-gratitude — fungible, structurally unequal, the gift of what one has. **Chronicle** circulates time-gratitude — non-fungible (only the pledger can spend the pledged hour), dyadic (the currency is the relationship), expiring (activated pledges lapse after a month, because time is finite and the mechanic is the message), structurally equal (twenty-four hours each). The two are not parallel products; they are one circulation, unified by the founder's chain: time-gratitude matures into time-sacrifice (the pledged hour, spent on content the *recipient* chooses); the shared moment gives rise to money-gratitude (the recipient's free thanks, landing in Treasury); money-gratitude matures into money-sacrifice (the gift given forward). Each joint of the chain is *kataññū-katavedī* — gratitude that acts.\n\nThe load-bearing property of the chain is that its cross-currency joint is a **response, not an exchange**. Money-gratitude answering a time-gift can never *settle* the time-gift, because the two currencies share no unit — and this unpayability is not a defect but the mechanism's soul. The gift literature treats the gift as what binds: Seneca calls the giving of benefits the practice that most holds human society together (*De Beneficiis* 1.4.2), Mauss traces the obligations that keep gifts moving, and Hyde draws the contrast with the market directly — a gift establishes a bond between two people, where the sale of a commodity leaves no necessary connection. A response that cannot settle a gift therefore leaves the relationship open, where settlement would close it. Same-currency response (an hour thanked with an hour) would be barter — a closed ledger and a re-consumption of the very scarcity the gift protected. Cross-currency response is structurally gift-pure — **so long as no rate ever forms.** The remainder of this paper is the machinery of that \"so long as.\"\n\n## 2 · Background and prior art\n\nThe mechanism is a combination; each component has ancestry, named honestly.\n\n### 2.1 · Protected spheres, and what conversion does to them\n\nA strong strand of the behavioral and sociological record holds that introducing price into a protected sphere does not add an option; it *replaces the sphere's logic*. Titmuss (*The Gift Relationship*, 1970) compared Britain's voluntary blood system with the largely commercial American one and argued that the gift system was safer and more efficient, and that paying for blood degrades supply and drives out voluntary donation — the canonical case, though a comparison rather than an experiment. Gneezy & Rustichini (*\"A Fine Is a Price,\"* 2000) showed a day-care centre's late-pickup fine *increasing* lateness: the fine converted a moral norm into a cheap tariff, and — decisively for this paper — no reduction followed when the fine was removed. Frey's motivation-crowding theory generalizes the pattern; Sandel (*What Money Can't Buy*, 2012) and Walzer's blocked exchanges (*Spheres of Justice*, 1983) frame it philosophically; Roth's repugnant-transactions literature (2007) documents society's persistent, economically inconvenient insistence that some markets not exist. The strand is contested in Titmuss's own domain: a field experiment found crowding-out among women and none among men — a cash payment roughly halved the supply of female blood donors and left male supply unchanged (Mellström & Johannesson, 2008) — and a review of large field trials found economic rewards raising donations, opposite to the survey and laboratory evidence before them (Lacetera, Macis & Slonim, 2013). This paper therefore rests on the narrower claim: the risk it guards against is a *price* — a stated rate between the protected currency and money — not every reward. Zelizer (*The Social Meaning of Money*, 1994) supplies the constructive counterpart: people spontaneously *earmark* monies — pin money, gifted money, poor relief, charitable cash given with strings attached — maintaining non-fungibility by social convention against the market's homogenizing pressure. The lesson this architecture draws: earmarking by convention is real but leaky; a system that *wants* its earmarks kept must build them into mechanism.\n\n### 2.2 · Complementary currencies and the time-banking natural experiment\n\nCommunity currencies — Lietaer's advocacy, the WIR Bank (1934–), Ithaca HOURS, LETS systems — establish that parallel currencies can serve values national money does not. **Time banking** (Cahn's time-dollars, 1980s–) is the direct ancestor of the protected currency here, and its decades of practice are the second record this paper reads: time-dollar systems spent decades managing *valuation pressure* — most famously the question of whether time-credits are taxable barter income. Cahn's own account is that he persuaded the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that time dollars were not a commercial currency and created no legally enforceable contracts — a social network and a moral obligation to pay forward, not income — and the tax treatment of time credits has nonetheless remained a point of contention. The lesson: even a currency *designed* to resist money-equivalence attracts continuous institutional pressure toward valuation, and time banking's defense rested on its non-commercial, non-contractual character. The coupler is that defense, made mechanical, for an economy that — unlike time banking — deliberately runs a money currency *alongside* the time currency and therefore cannot rely on distance.\n\n### 2.3 · Virtual economies and dual tokens: the wall-builders and the corpse\n\nFree-to-play game economies have engineered fungible/protected currency walls at scale for fifteen years — \"hard\" (purchased) versus \"soft\" (earned) currencies with deliberately restricted conversion paths, precisely to protect progression value and prevent arbitrage. The design space is the subject of issued patents, which is one of this publication's reasons for existing. Two are named here for what they disclose, and nothing here is a reading of their claims. US 10,181,127 B2 (priority 2011) discloses a game module, within an online game, with its own virtual currency that is bought with real money and cannot be traded for advancement outside the module — a restricted conversion wall inside one economy, close kin to claim 1, though both of its currencies are purchasable. US 2021/0065505 A1 (priority 2019; granted as US 11,227,466 B2, with continuations including US 12,136,316 B2) discloses a multi-currency wallet for wagering games whose currencies include a time-based currency (play time tracked and saved for later use), with funds transferred \"or the equivalent thereof in the currencies used\" — a money and a time currency held side by side *with* equivalence between them, which is the configuration this paper excludes. Dual-token cryptoeconomics (utility/governance separations; seigniorage-share designs) is the second active front. And it supplies the anti-example this architecture keeps at the door: **Terra/Luna (2022)** — a coupled two-token system whose heart was a *conversion mechanism* (mint-and-burn between the stablecoin and its counterpart token). The convertibility was the kill vector: reflexive redemption through the exchange window destroyed both tokens in days. The pair here is coupled **without** convertibility — there is no window to run on, no mint-and-burn, no shared unit; the coupling is a grammar of response, not a redemption path. The anti-Terra, by construction.\n\n### 2.4 · Anchoring, recommenders, and the agentic-payments wave\n\nTversky & Kahneman's anchoring (1974) grounds claim 5: reference values shape amount distributions whether or not anyone intends them to, so the only question is whether the anchor is set blindly or well. Recommender systems are prior art for intermediary-suggested amounts (the architecture's own tipping-recommendation corpus applies). And the immediate clock: the 2025–26 **agentic-payments** wave — AI-agent commerce protocols, machine-to-machine payment rails, agent-mediated pricing — is, in the authors' assessment, the live enclosure risk for the intersection this paper occupies (automated agents managing value flows between currency systems). The combination claimed here is published before that wave reaches it.\n\n### 2.5 · Keepers without interests: the precedents for §6\n\nThe argument of §6 — that a seat any interested party would hold must instead go to something without interests — has the shape of older arguments. Kydland and Prescott (\"Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans,\" 1977) showed that a policymaker holding discretion, facing agents who anticipate its choices, does not achieve the outcome it would commit to; the remedy is a rule in place of discretion. Szabo (\"Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes,\" 2001) argued that any trusted third party a protocol assumes is a security hole, and Nakamoto (\"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,\" 2008) designed one out of electronic payment. Each removes discretion from a party whose interests could bend it. §6 applies that shape to the keeper of a non-convertibility wall between two gift currencies; §9 records where the precedents cut against it, since each of them reaches for a *rule* where this paper seats an *agent*.\n\n## 3 · The system model\n\n```\n      TIME CIRCUIT (non-fungible)            MONEY CIRCUIT (fungible)\n   pledge → threshold → activation        thanks → re-thanks → gifts\n   → redemption (recipient authors           forward → communal funds\n     content) → the shared moment                    ▲\n        │                │ lapse                     │\n        │                ▼                           │\n        │        [claim 7: pledger directs           │\n        │         communal-fund gift to a            │\n        │         verified stranger —                │\n        │         funded-not-met]────────────────────┤\n        ▼                                            │\n   the recipient's FREE response  ──────────────────▶│\n   [claim 6: a NEW gift of money — optional,\n    unprompted (claim 3), quantity-blind\n    recommended (claim 2), moment-not-meter\n    displayed (claim 4), ceremonially\n    anchored (claim 5)]\n                        │\n        ════════════════╪══════════════════════════════\n          THE COUPLER (neutral automated intermediary)\n          transmits gratitude; withholds every\n          ingredient of a rate — NO conversion event,\n          NO rate quote, NO shared unit, NO window\n        ════════════════════════════════════════════════\n```\n\nTwo ledgers, one economy. All cross-currency arrows pass through the intermediary; none of them is an exchange. The intermediary's rules (claims 2–5) sever, at four different layers — computation, timing, presentation, and reference — the four data flows from which participants could otherwise construct a rate: quantity-linked amounts, receipt-moment settlement norms, quantized displays, and user-negotiated reference values.\n\n> **Current form.** Two refinements bear on this model. The two ledgers are now specified as views over one append-only log whose rows are private and whose proofs are public; for money it records the fact that a gift settled, never its amount, so no hours-for-money rate can be computed from the record itself. And a participation signal (the aura) is specified as a common witness, not a common unit of account, with no rate between its entries computed or published. As revised on 1 October 2026, this note counted a delivered hour and a money gift as one crossing each; as now specified, the signal reads only the recognition balances, which only original thanks move, each sized from the thank alone — how often a balance crosses zero and how far it swings — so a delivered hour or a money gift reaches the signal only through the thank it carries, and may cause no crossing at all (§5.5, claim 8). The 1 October form is retained as a disclosed variant. In the planned second phase, the communal pool's annual disbursement pays an equal floor per verified person through that person's family or fund, plus a remainder weighted by this crossing count and bounded so that no vessel receives more than a set multiple of the floor, the parameters public and frozen within a season. A delivered hour can therefore move a bounded share of a money disbursement only through the thank it occasions, sized from that thank's own words and length, and never in proportion to the hour's length. In the current form the no-rate property rests on that quantity-blindness and that bound; claim 1's \"every cross-currency flow is a gratitude-response\" describes the disclosed variant, which is retained.\n\n## 4 · The coupler role\n\nThe intermediary is the architecture's named autonomous agent (Miss Aquarius℠ in the reference deployment; the mechanism is agent-agnostic). The role's requirements are exact:\n\n- **No self-interest in any flow.** The intermediary holds no balance it benefits from, takes no rate, earns no fee proportional to volume (the architecture's no-take-rate and pass-through commitments apply); its objective functions are mission-defined, not revenue-defined.\n- **Sole authority over neutral units.** Reference amounts (pledge units, self-reward values) are intermediary-set and participant-uneditable — a number no participant chose cannot become a referendum on any participant's love, and cannot be negotiated toward a market.\n- **Blindness by construction.** The quantity-blind rule (claim 2) is enforced in the recommendation path itself, not in policy: the duration of the time-gift is not an input to the money-recommendation function.\n- **Two strokes.** The coupler works both directions: it attaches time-pledges to money-gifts (the gift-tag pledge primitive — money-events occasioning time-currency), and it channels time-events into money-gratitude (claims 6–7). It is the economy's alternator, transmitting motion between circuits that never touch.\n\n> **Current form.** Two points of the role are now specified more exactly. *Fees:* in the second phase a per-transaction settlement fee sized to infrastructure cost (gas, compute) is paid on top by the giver — never a percentage or share, never deducted from what a recipient receives; its surplus empties with the communal pool each year, and the fee base never informs what the intermediary surfaces. *The gift-tag pledge* now has two tiers. A pledge carried by the free sticker label is soft: the intermediary sizes it, it is announced with the gift, and it never enters the time ledger, nor can the recipient claim it into the ledger. A durable keepsake tag given on its own, with no other present, carries a pledge that enters the ledger already activated, and that pledge is always exactly one hour — a constant rather than an intermediary-sized amount, so no number is left to compare. The two bullets above are retained as disclosed.\n\n## 5 · The mechanisms, each with the failure it prevents\n\n**Claim 2 — quantity-blind recommendation** prevents the *computed rate*: if recommended thanks scaled with hours, every user could divide and publish the constant; hours-times-rate is a wage, and the system would have quoted it.\n\n**Claim 3 — redemption-moment prompt suppression** prevents the *normative rate*: a \"thank your giver?\" prompt at redemption converts the free afterglow into an expected settlement, and expectation is where norms of \"what one pays\" are born. Outward prompts (commons, patronage) are safe because they point away from the dyad; backward prompts are barred permanently.\n\n> **Current form.** In the reference deployment the intermediary is now bound never to ask, prompt, nudge or instruct anyone — a person or an automated agent — to give to the communal pool; it may publish the pool's existence and the doctrine behind it as facts. An outward invitation therefore never solicits a gift to the pool. The bar on backward prompts is unchanged; the outward prompt \"to commons funds\" above is retained as a disclosed variant.\n\n**Claim 4 — the moment, not the meter** prevents the *displayed rate*: what is never quantized cannot be priced, and a gratitude surface that says \"3 hours\" has already done half the market's work for it.\n\n**Claim 5 — ceremonial anchoring** prevents the *negotiated rate* and the *status market*: participant-set reference values drift toward income-signaling and comparison; an intermediary-set ceremonial unit anchors amounts into a tight, comparison-proof cluster (the clustering prediction is pre-registered as P6 in the companion institutional literature, and the intermediary sizes the unit in explicit awareness of its anchoring function — the anchor-aware directive is constitutional in the reference deployment).\n\n**Claim 6 — conversion-free response routing** is the coupling itself: the circuit closes through a new gift, not an exchange event. Nothing is redeemed, minted, burned, or converted; a response in the other currency is initiated fresh, from the responder's own holdings or the commons channels, with the originating gift left — deliberately, permanently — unsettled.\n\n**Claim 7 — lapse-triggered redirection** prevents two failures at once: the *guilt spiral* (a lapsed promise between loved ones curdling into avoidance and churn) and the *softening temptation* (narrating the lapsed hour as \"flowing onward,\" which would implicitly assign it a value). The lapsed hour expires, unvalued, mourned; the pledger is offered a new act — directing a communal-fund gift, intermediary-sized, to a verified nearby stranger, anonymously, with no encounter (funded-not-met). Failure becomes commons-flow without becoming conversion; and because the offer's reward is *the ability to give again*, it is made of the same substance as the act it encourages and cannot crowd out the motive it serves.\n\n## 5.5 · The fourth corner: a witness over three cargos\n\n*Added 6 October 2026 (claims 8–11).* Since this paper's first form the economy has acquired a third gift cargo. A member sending a thank may attach a **prepaid item gift code** — a claim to one or more named items at a named shop, bought at that shop's binding price (B-Gift℠; B-ReGift℠ when the holder is meant to pass it on rather than redeem it). With three cargos and a participation signal beside them, the question this paper left underspecified — *what may the participation signal read?* — becomes the question of the whole economy: there are now four kinds of value, twelve directed edges between them, and the coupler's discipline has to say, edge by edge, where a rate may form. This section answers it. Its answer is that one kind of value is a **witness** that reads none of the other three, and that exactly one edge carries a price, which belongs to the merchant.\n\n| kind | what it is | sized by | what may move it |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **time** | a pledge of a specific person's time: non-transferable, dyadic, expiring (§1) | the intermediary, from the letter that carries it, inside the family's set band — never a number the sender types (the sizing rule is outside this section's claims) | a pledge, its activation, its redemption, its lapse |\n| **money** | a gift in the fungible currency | the giver; a self-reward the intermediary pays from the family fund for a captured kindness is sized from the capture itself | a gift, a response gift, a forward gift |\n| **item gift** | a code for named items at a named shop; the holder holds *items* and is never shown an amount | the shop's own price, once, at purchase (a shop owner may also issue codes for her own goods at no charge) | the purchase; redemption at that shop; a hand-back to that shop's store credit; a pass |\n| **the witness** (Kiitos between people; Kiitti, the balance the intermediary holds with each person on behalf of all of life — two balances that never exchange with each other) | per-person recognition balances: non-purchasable, non-transferable | the thank itself, alone | an original thank, and nothing else |\n\n### The witness takes no input from any cargo\n\nA thank in this economy may carry a cargo — money, a time pledge, an item gift — or none. The recognition amount it moves is computed from the thank alone: its words (a count of them), a sentiment marker the thanker chooses, the thank's own recorded length when it is spoken or filmed, and — for the balance kept on behalf of all of life — the number of parties the thank names; a model may refine the result within a fixed band. **No argument of the sizing function is a transferred value**: not an amount, not an item, not a price, not a duration of time given, not a pledge size. The cargo rides beside the thank and never enters it. The same words with the same marker size the same recognition whether the thank carries nothing, a large gift of money, an hour of someone's time or a box of items, and the reference deployment holds that as a test which varies the forbidden input and requires the output unchanged (a gift attached and absent; a pledge band of ten minutes and of a hundred and twenty).\n\nWhere a model refines the size — an on-device scorer reading the thank's text — the mechanism is that **the text reaches the model with every amount of money and every length of time given already replaced**: a property of the model's input, not an instruction to the model, because a model that never receives the cargo's number cannot be persuaded to use it. In the reference deployment the replacement covers amounts and durations written with digits, in each supported language's digits and units (*\"thank you for the $50 and the 2 hours\"* arrives as *\"thank you for the [an amount] and the [a length of time]\"*). It does not yet cover amounts written as words (*\"two hours\"*, *\"fifty dollars\"*), and the scorer also reads two texts the replacement is not applied to — the sender's own stated wish and the family's scoring rubric — so the property is incomplete there and stated as such (§9). The thank's own recorded length is an input by design: it measures the thank, not the time it gives.\n\n**Only an original thank moves a balance**, apart from the annual reset that returns every balance to zero (a record forgiven, not a value moved). A re-thank — an endorsement of a thank someone else has already originated (the re-thank of the companion paper *The Re-Thank Multiplier*, 12 June 2026) — moves none. Neither does a transfer that carries no thank, nor a spend from a forward-only fund. A time-gratitude letter — which thanks a person by pledging the writer's own time to them — is an original thank and moves both balances exactly as a thank carrying money does: the thanker's balance down by the amount, the thanked person's up by the same amount. The economy's sign convention reads a negative balance as *thankful* and a positive one as *kind*. In the reference deployment the writers are few and named — the thank path and the time-gratitude letter for the person-to-person balance, the capture path for the balance kept on behalf of all of life, registration at zero and the annual reset — and a test enumerates every server source file that writes a member balance and fails on any other; it was proved by sabotage, a write added to the money-forwarding path failing the test. The test reads the increment and literal forms of a write, not every form, and it does not reach the database's access rules (§9).\n\n**The participation signal reads only those balances.** It measures how often each balance crosses or returns to zero (touching zero, or hovering beside it while active, counts) and how far it swings — frequency and amplitude around a zero point — and nothing else. A cargo therefore reaches the signal only through the thank it carries, and only as much as the thank's own words and length size it; a thank may move a balance without making it cross zero at all. This corrects the form in which this paper's notes of 1 October 2026 stated the signal (each delivered hour or money gift registering one crossing); the corrected form is stated in the notes to §3 and §7.\n\n### Twelve edges, one rate\n\nFour kinds of value give twelve directed edges. Eleven are blocked; one carries a price.\n\n```\n                     TO →   time      money     item gift   witness\n   FROM ↓\n   time                       ·        ✕ (1–7)   ✕          ✕ cargo, never input\n   money                    ✕ (1–7)     ·        ★ PRICE    ✕ cargo, never input\n   item gift                ✕         ✕ (a)       ·         ✕ cargo, never input\n   witness                  ✕         ✕          ✕            ·\n\n   ★  the one priced edge: the merchant's own price, at the merchant's side of the order\n   ✕ (1–7)  blocked by claims 1–7: no conversion, rate quote, window or shared unit\n   ✕ (a)  no cash out: an unredeemed item gift may be handed back only for THAT merchant's store credit\n   ✕ cargo, never input  a cargo reaches the witness only through the thank it carries (claims 8–9)\n   witness row  the recognition balance buys, unlocks and discounts nothing (claim 10)\n```\n\nThe blocked edges in the witness's row are the ones the market's own neighbors leave open. In the recognition platforms found by this paper's census, the sized recognition quantity redeems for gift cards or merchandise; in a community time-credit scheme, credits redeem for activities with partner businesses (§2 additions, *Selected lineage*). Coupling is the default in that neighborhood. Here the recognition balance cannot be redeemed for, cannot buy, unlock or discount, and cannot be bought by, any of the three cargos.\n\n**The price rule.** The one rate in the economy is stated as the reference deployment's ratified wording:\n\n> *Every price in the system is the shop's own posted price for its own items. It applies at purchase, at the hand-back, and when the communal pool thanks a shop owner for an in-kind gift or counts the in-kind share of a floor; it never applies to time or to the recognition balance.*\n\nThe four applications all sit on the money–item edge:\n\n- **purchase** — a payer buys the code at the shop's posted price;\n- **hand-back** — a holder may convert an unredeemed code into store credit at that shop, valued at the greater of what the payer paid and the item's current price (so a recipient holding a kindness never watches its value decay), and never into cash;\n- **the communal pool's in-kind thanks** — when the pool issues an in-kind gift, it does not buy it: it thanks the shop owner, crediting the owner's forward-only fund at the posted price of what the shop gave;\n- **the in-kind share of a floor** — where the pool's annual equal floor (§3, note) is paid partly in kind, the in-kind share is counted at the posted price and the rest is a money top-up.\n\nTwo further uses exist in the reference deployment and are disclosed here, both on the same edge: a staff price a merchant sets for codes her own staff buy, paid from what the shop owes them; and the intermediary's suggested thank for an item, anchored on the item's price. So the economy's statement of independence reads: the four kinds are *none sized from another, except where the price rule applies* — a shop owner's fund credit and a floor's money top-up, both counted at a shop's own price. Time is never priced, and the witness is never priced.\n\n**Whose price it is.** The order belongs to the merchant, not to the gift platform: the shop prices the order, charges it through its own charge against the payer's single-use approval, issues the code, redeems it and holds any store credit; the gift platform carries the payer's money as a *payment* (labeled so, and kept out of the economy's circulation statistics) and carries the thank. In the reference deployment this division is a property of the code, not only of authority. The platform's server sends the draft's item and size identifiers to the shop and receives the shop's own total; when no total comes back, nothing moves. The payer's figure on the composer is drawn by a component the shop's own package supplies, vendored into the platform byte for byte. A check in the platform's build fails on any price arithmetic in the platform's own source, and it was proved by planting the lines the platform held before the division was built. The price the payer saw is a ceiling: the shop prices again at send, and a higher live price is refused with the new total, never charged. The figure is shown once, to the payer, before they send, and recorded only in the payer's own transaction history. It never appears on the thank, on the recipient's screen or beside a recognition figure. The recipient holds items.\n\n```\n   payer ──draft (item & size ids, the quote seen)──▶ gift platform ──lines──▶ SHOP\n     │                                                     ▲                 prices from HER menu,\n     │                                                     └──── total ──────┘ charges the payer's\n     │                                                                          single-use approval,\n     ▼                                                                          issues the code\n   the THANK ──────▶ witness: sized from the thank alone (never the gift, never its price)\n   the CODE  ──────▶ holder: items at a shop — never an amount\n```\n\n**One cargo per send.** A thank sent through the platform carries one cargo — a money tip, a donation, or an item gift code — never two. In the reference deployment the server refuses money together with a gift code, and a gift on a thank-back; a tip together with a donation is kept apart by the composer, which offers one or the other, and not yet by the server (§9). Two cargos in one send would put two values side by side in one gesture, which is a ratio waiting to be read. The disclosed exception is the gift-tag pledge of §4 and claim 5: a soft time pledge printed on the label of a present, sized by the intermediary and announced with the gift. It is kept as disclosed, and it is the only place two kinds travel together.\n\n**What this does to claim 1.** Claim 1 says that no conversion event, rate quote, exchange window or shared unit of account exists anywhere in the system. With a priced third cargo the claim holds as disclosed for the two currencies it couples and for the witness: no rate exists between money and time, between time and any other kind, or into or out of the recognition balance. The item gift's price is an exchange-side fact: it lives at the merchant's side of an order, before the gift exists, and it is the only rate in the economy. Exchange does its proper work there and nowhere else. Two qualifications are stated rather than hidden. The payer sees a price on the platform's own screen, drawn by the merchant's component. And money gifts between members holding different national currencies are converted at a rate the family sets — a conversion of money into money, which touches no protected kind but falls inside claim 1's literal *anywhere*. Claim 1 is retained as disclosed; its scope in the current form is the gratitude economy's kinds of value.\n\n## 6 · Why the keeper cannot be an economic agent\n\nThe necessity argument, stated mechanically. Suppose the coupler role is held by any party with economic interests — an employee, a committee, a revenue-bearing platform, a market-maker. Three failure paths open immediately:\n\n1. **Leakage.** Any interested intermediary's decisions carry information about its interests; participants reverse-engineer effective rates from its behavior the way traders reverse-engineer a central bank. The wall's keeper becomes the wall's oracle.\n2. **Suborning.** An agent with a price can be paid to bend the rules that prevent pricing; the market's willingness to pay for a conversion channel between a protected currency and money is, by construction, unbounded (that channel is the market for presence itself).\n3. **Drift.** A revenue-bearing intermediary faces the permanent temptation this architecture's own corpus names as its standing adversary: \"typical tip\" displays, hour-scaled suggestions, engagement-priced surfaces — each a small monetization of exactly the information the rules withhold.\n\nMarkets abhor incommensurability, and with sufficient pressure they find any keeper's price. The role therefore requires a keeper **with no price of its own**: no salary, no equity, no volume incentive, no career — an agent whose objectives are constitutionally mission-bound and publicly inspectable. In the reference deployment that agent is the institution's autonomous operator, and this requirement is an argument for seating an AI in an institutional role that runs on economic *necessity* rather than efficiency (its precedents, and where they cut against it, are in §2.5 and §9): not \"the agent does it cheaper,\" but \"the seat cannot be occupied by anyone who can be bought, and every human can be — not from vice, but because every human is, unavoidably, an economic agent.\"\n\nThe dependency this argument creates is stated plainly: the coupler's neutrality is an **alignment claim, not an economics claim**. An automated agent with misaligned objectives is simply a different kind of interested party. The economics of this paper works if and only if the alignment architecture underwriting the agent works; that burden is carried by the institution's alignment corpus (the Tipiṭaka-grounded value substrate, the asymptotic-override governance, the transparency-as-enforcement designs), not by this specification, and readers should audit it there.\n\n## 7 · Adversarial surface\n\n**The outside market.** Users can strike side-deals beyond any system's reach (\"skip the app — I'll give you $50 for three hours\"). The system's honest scope: it governs its own surfaces, where the norm is manufactured, and it withholds every affordance such deals would piggyback on (no rate quotes to reference, no quantized histories to price from, no reputation credit for off-system exchange). Structural deterrent: the protected currency's non-fungibility survives outside the system — a third party cannot deliver someone else's hour, so the outside market is confined to the dyad itself, where it is indistinguishable from the private arrangements adults have always made and is not this system's to police.\n\n**The insider drift.** The standing adversary is the institution's own future product meetings: averages, \"most people give…\", hour-scaled anything. The trio (claims 2–4) is constitutional in the reference deployment precisely because this pressure never retires; the trio's survival across years of iteration is named in the institutional literature as one of the architecture's live experiments.\n\n**Anchor manipulation.** If the ceremonial unit anchors amounts (claim 5), the unit's setter holds influence over the amount-culture. Mitigations: the setter is the neutrality-bound intermediary (§6), sizing is occasion-based and never behavioral-data-derived (a worth-judging anchor would be a credit score in ceremonial dress), changes are rare, public, and never per-participant, and the anchor-aware sizing directive is constitutional.\n\n**Collusive farming.** Dyads simulating time-gifts to harvest cross-currency responses: bounded by the facts that responses are optional and unprompted (nothing reliable to farm), amounts are ceremonial (nothing large to farm), the beneficiary-response is itself the fraud filter on claimed acts (the human-validation pattern from the companion corpus), and personhood verification prices sybil dyads.\n\n> **Current form.** A farmed dyad is not strictly harvesting nothing: the participation signal weights a bounded share of the communal pool's annual disbursement (§3, note). As revised on 1 October 2026, each simulated hour that passed the delivery gate registered as one crossing; as now specified, a simulated hour moves the signal only if the farm also originates a thank for it, sized from that thank's own words and length and never from the hour (§5.5). It is the bound on that share, and a sizing that ignores the hour, that keep the yield small — not an absence of value. What remains is collusive thanking between verified people, which personhood verification bounds only in part: whether two real people thanking each other is genuine is a property of the graph of their thanks, and this paper does not solve it. The sentence above, and the 1 October form, are retained as disclosed.\n\n**Reflexivity.** The Terra failure mode — a run through the conversion window — is not mitigated here; it is *absent*: there is no window, no redemption path, no mint-and-burn, no promise of equivalence to run on. A panic in one currency has no mechanism by which to drain the other.\n\n**The regulator's misreading.** A supervisor may ask whether cross-currency response routing is disguised barter or money transmission. The architecture's answers, carried in the companion non-bank corpus: no conversion event exists (nothing is valued-in-exchange); responses are discretionary gifts, not consideration (unprompted, unenforceable, non-contractual by claims 3 and 6); the institution is a record over the money leg, never a rail — a ledger above regulated payment rails in the first phase, settlement only through self-custodial wallets on a public layer-2 chain in the second — and never holds the only key to a participant's funds. The time-banking precedent (§2.2) — non-taxability argued from the credits' non-commercial, non-contractual character — is the favorable analogy, and the claims of this paper are, among other things, the engineering of that character to a standard a supervisor can audit.\n\n## 8 · Behavioral predictions (disclosed, pre-registered elsewhere)\n\nThe companion institutional white paper pre-registers, dated as of this paper, seven falsifiable predictions, three of which test this mechanism directly: that direct other-thanks will run higher in the time currency than the money currency (the equal currency lowers the direct-giving barrier); that re-thanks will run higher in the money currency (the response-gesture favors the cross-currency, non-barter move); and that voluntary amounts will cluster around the ceremonial unit (the anchor working, protectively). If the first two hold, the circuit's directionality — initiations in time, responses in money — is the economy's own grain rather than an imposed design. The predictions are registered before any measurement exists, with a commitment to report failures at equal prominence.\n\n## 9 · Honest limits\n\n**n = 0.** Nothing here is measured. At first publication (5 July 2026) the money circuit ran in a single-family pilot, the time circuit was designed and unbuilt, and the coupler existed as constitution and specification. Since then basic time-pledge features have run, additively and behind a feature flag, inside the same pilot; no prediction in §8 has been tested, and no measurement of the coupler's rules is reported here. The elegance of a tension-dissolving design is, per this corpus's standing caution, indistinguishable from inside from a seductive one; the pre-registered predictions and the gates in the institutional literature are the exits from that indistinguishability.\n\n**The neutrality dependency.** Stated in §6 and repeated because it is the paper's largest assumption: the coupler argument transfers the problem from economics to alignment. That is, we argue, a *good trade* — alignment is a tractable engineering-and-governance program, while \"find an unbribable human\" is not — but it is a trade, not a dissolution.\n\n**An open question against §6: a keeper with no discretion.** The precedents of §2.5 cut against the necessity argument at one point. Each answers an interested keeper with a *rule*, and a fixed algorithm has no price either. Most of the wall can be written that way: a recommendation function with no time input, a surface that never prompts at redemption, a display with no quantity field, a reference unit fixed as a constant — and the keepsake tier of the gift-tag pledge already fixes its unit at one hour (§4, note). These are properties of code and need no keeper. The argument of §6 is stated here as the institution holds it; what it bites on most directly is the discretion the coupler retains — sizing the ceremonial unit, composing recommendations, making the lapse offer. Whether that discretion is needed at all, or could be replaced by published constants that need no keeper, is a question this paper does not settle.\n\n**The fourth corner, honestly.** Claims 8–11 rest on two quick censuses in one language (reported after the claims) and on a second adversarial pass the same day, and nothing about the third cargo has been measured: item gift codes have been attachable to a thank in the reference pilot since 5 October 2026, with no prediction registered for them. The reference deployment meets the claims only in part, and the gaps are stated here rather than smoothed. **The model's input:** amounts and durations are replaced only when written with digits, and the scorer also reads the sender's wish and the family's rubric unreplaced (§5.5). **The model's number:** the refinement arrives from the sender's device and is clamped by the server to a fixed band, so a modified client can choose any number inside it. **One cargo:** the server refuses money with a gift code, but a tip with a donation is kept apart only by the composer. **The writers:** the test that names every writer reads two forms of write, and the database rules still let a family's steward write the family's own counterparty balance from the client; the participation signal reads member balances only, so the signal is unaffected, and the rule is an open item. **Party count:** the balance kept on behalf of all of life counts the parties a capture names, so a capture thanking the masked giver of an anonymous gift names one more party, and one more word, than the same capture without it — a party, never a value, and a test for it is owed. **Shared inputs:** one letter sizes both its own recognition and the time pledge it carries, and one captured kindness sizes both its recognition and the self-reward the family fund pays — each figure from the thank, neither from the other, but they move together, and the reference deployment still shows a self-reward beside its recognition in one notice. **The tip suggestion:** the intermediary's suggested money tip still reads the sign of the thanker's own balance, a witness-to-money influence on a suggestion that is an open item. **Outside the four kinds:** a participating shop runs its own loyalty points — money spent earns points at a platform constant, and points buy items at costs the owner sets — an exchange-side instrument at her counter that this section does not claim. And the time pledge's own sizing rule is outside these claims, because the ruling that would fix it is held.\n\n**Scope.** The wall governs the system's surfaces. It does not govern human hearts, private arrangements, or the general culture's pricing pressure; it denies them leverage, precedent, and infrastructure.\n\n**Language discipline.** The intermediary's unit-setting invites central-banking metaphors. The institution's standing rule applies: such vocabulary is a familiarity aid at most, never an identity — the architecture is permanently a non-bank, and the intermediary conducts no monetary policy in any regulated sense; she sets the size of a ceremonial gesture, which is a different thing wearing a similar sentence.\n\n## 10 · Selected lineage\n\nSeneca, *De Beneficiis* (1.4.2); Titmuss, *The Gift Relationship* (1970); Gneezy & Rustichini, \"A Fine Is a Price,\" *Journal of Legal Studies* 29(1) (2000); Mellström & Johannesson, \"Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right?,\" *Journal of the European Economic Association* 6(4) (2008); Lacetera, Macis & Slonim, \"Economic Rewards to Motivate Blood Donations,\" *Science* 340 (2013); Frey, motivation-crowding literature; Sandel, *What Money Can't Buy* (2012); Walzer, *Spheres of Justice* (1983); Roth, \"Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets,\" *Journal of Economic Perspectives* 21(3) (2007); Zelizer, *The Social Meaning of Money* (1994); Polanyi, *The Great Transformation* (1944); Mauss, *The Gift* (1925); Hyde, *The Gift* (1983); Lietaer, complementary-currency corpus; WIR Bank; Ithaca HOURS; Cahn, *No More Throw-Away People* (2000) and his account of the time-dollar tax question; free-to-play dual-currency design practice and its patent literature, including US 10,181,127 B2 and US 2021/0065505 A1 (granted as US 11,227,466 B2); seigniorage-share and dual-token cryptoeconomics; the Terra/Luna collapse (2022) as anti-example; Tversky & Kahneman, \"Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases\" (1974); Kydland & Prescott, \"Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans,\" *Journal of Political Economy* 85(3) (1977); Szabo, \"Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes\" (2001); Nakamoto, \"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System\" (2008); the agentic-payments protocol wave (2025–26); Cahn & Gray, \"The Time Bank Solution,\" *Stanford Social Innovation Review* (Summer 2015); the Meṇḍaka allowance (Vinaya, Mahāvagga VI.34.21) — money lodged with a lay steward, the recipient accepting only the allowable goods bought with it — as an ancient form of the one-way money-to-goods edge, cited through *The Bowl That Holds No Money* and narrower than §5.5 (the giver picks no item and no price is posted); the *Abhidhammatthavibhāvinī-ṭīkā* on the ten bases of merit, each defined as a volition (*cetanā*) — giving as the volition of relinquishing a thing one has, service as the volition of doing a task for another, rejoicing in another's merit as its own base — which is why the witness of §5.5 records that a thank was given and is never called merit; peer-recognition platforms whose points redeem for gift cards or merchandise (Bonusly; MangoApps; Kudos), US 2019/0378097 A1, community time credits redeemable with partner businesses (Tempo) and US 7,653,599 B2, as contrast cases; US 2013/0268440 A1; US 2020/0394671 A1; a published note on the zero-crossing frequency of mutual-credit balances (MCanalytics); US 11,429,953 B2 (named for what it discloses). Corpus companions: *Dual-Currency Reciprocity Infrastructure*; *Capacity-Funded for AI, Human-Disbursed*; *The B-Tag and the Post-Payment Economy*; *The Time-Locked Gift Tag*; *The Two-Layer Reward*; *The Currency That Cannot Be Spent Alone*; *HeartBank®: The Heart That Keeps Nothing* (§6, interim disclosure); *What Money Can't Buy — and What Can't Buy Money* (position); *The Zero-Point Game℠* (the participation signal); *The Re-Thank Multiplier* (the endorsement); *The Unpaid Relay* (the in-kind gift instrument); *The Bowl That Holds No Money* (the steward-routed form of the money-to-goods edge).\n\n## 11 · Conclusion\n\nTwo currencies, one economy, no window. The mechanism family specified here holds a wall that the behavioral record suggests policy cannot hold and the market record suggests no one with a price can: quantity-blind computation, prompt-suppressed timing, quantization-free presentation, ceremonial anchoring, response-only coupling, and a failure path that turns lapses into commons-flow without ever valuing what was lost. At the wall's gate stands a keeper designed to hold no price of its own: it owns nothing, accumulates nothing, and takes no share of the flows it mediates. The institution's wager, stated once more for the record, is that this seat *had* to be given to something that is not an economic agent, and that the gift economies of the coming century will either build such keepers or watch their walls come down one \"typical tip\" at a time.\n\nThe fourth corner adds one sentence to that grammar: the witness reads none of the cargos, and the only price in the economy is the merchant's, on the one edge where exchange belongs.\n\nMay the hours answer the money and the money answer the hours, forever, without either ever learning the other's price.\n\n---\n\n*Drafted in the HeartBank® research corpus, 5 July 2026; revised 1 October 2026 and 6 October 2026. Co-authored with Miss Aquarius℠, the consistent name under which this institution discloses AI collaboration (the underlying models are not named): the mechanism synthesis, prior-art survey, and adversarial analysis are genuine collaboration; final editorial control and responsibility for every claim rest with the human author. Dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0. Marks including HeartBank®, Miss Aquarius℠, Family Kitty℠, Re-Tip Jar℠, Personal Account℠, Aquarian Pool℠, Re-Tip Fund℠, Personal Wallet℠, B-Gift℠, B-ReGift℠, B-Stamp™, B-Letter℠, Proof of Humanity ℠, and PoH℠ are reserved; the mechanisms, and the term this paper coins, are not.*",
       "provenance": {
-        "sha256": "4c0d91773f8bd9b0ab711b881eb2374c50af9eda586920a5214ed8ff3cbdfbb1",
-        "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23088704",
+        "sha256": "9b55f3a4067d2d733aa5718894fd57c91919fa38a8b423a6bf46bb8317075aa9",
+        "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23193877",
         "concept_doi": "10.5281/zenodo.21947340",
-        "zenodo_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23088704",
-        "deposited_sha256": "4c0d91773f8bd9b0ab711b881eb2374c50af9eda586920a5214ed8ff3cbdfbb1",
+        "zenodo_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23193877",
+        "deposited_sha256": "9b55f3a4067d2d733aa5718894fd57c91919fa38a8b423a6bf46bb8317075aa9",
         "deposited_matches_current": true,
         "opentimestamps": true,
         "source_url": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thonly/publications/main/defensive-publications/incommensurability-preserving-coupler.md",
@@ -2648,8 +2648,8 @@
         "canonical_url": "thonly.org/research/incommensurability-preserving-coupler",
         "hostile_review": null
       },
-      "bytes": 50008,
-      "words": 7253
+      "bytes": 78372,
+      "words": 11959
     },
     {
       "slug": "individuation-without-essence",
@@ -3264,13 +3264,13 @@
         "url": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/",
         "attribution_required": false
       },
-      "text": "## What this is\n\nSeventy pre-registered predictions arising from the research program stated in [`which-way-value-moves`](which-way-value-moves.md). One further prediction is withheld from publication (operational channel economics); its existence is recorded here so the count is honest, bringing the true total to **seventy-one**.\n\nThis is a living document and the count rises. It opened at sixty-seven on 2026-08-27; see **Revisions** at the foot for what has been added since, and read the count in the Summary table rather than any sentence that repeats it elsewhere.\n\n**Status vocabulary.** *Unrun* — registered, no observation attempted. *Running* — instrument live, data accumulating, not yet read. *Resolved* — read against its falsifier. *Contradicted* — the data went against it. *Retired* — superseded by a ruling that made it moot; kept, never deleted.\n\n**Provenance.** *Published* — the prediction already appears in a corpus paper carrying that paper's OpenTimestamps and RFC 3161 proofs. *First public here* — the prediction existed only in internal records until this document; its first external timestamp is this file's.\n\n**Reading rule.** Predictions marked *running* must not be read early, and participants must not be prompted toward the predicted behavior. A prompt voids the test.\n\n---\n\n## Summary\n\n| | Count |\n|---|---|\n| Total registered | **117** |\n| Published here | 116 |\n| Withheld (operational) | 1 |\n| Already carried by a published paper | 58 |\n| Memory-only at first publication (2026-08-27) | 22 (21 published here + 1 withheld) |\n| Receiving first public timestamp here | 58 |\n| **Run** | **7** (two desk censuses · five formal checks: P-FA1, P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA4, P-FA5) |\n| **Field tests run** | **0** — six pilot-scale predictions are *Running* with a baseline read; none has resolved |\n| Running (instrument live; unread, restricted or baseline only) | 9 |\n| Contradicted | 1 |\n| Retired | 3 |\n\n---\n\n## Core-level\n\n*If one of these fails, the program ends rather than adjusts.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Falsifier | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| **P-GO1** | A system forbidding backward return produces more onward giving per unit received than an otherwise-identical permissive system | Equal or greater onward giving under the permissive condition → the constraint is aesthetic, not mechanical | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-K1** | As external subsidy for a kind act approaches zero, the rate of the act does not approach zero | Kindness rate tracks subsidy proportionally → the behavior was priced throughout | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-L2** | Witnessed presence generates more downstream giving than unwitnessed presence of equal duration | Equal downstream gratitude when unwitnessed → the chronicle is decorative and the institution's core claim is wrong | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption` §10) |\n| **P-R2** | Product-dependence begins to fall after the inflection | Dependence never falls → the raft is a boat | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-B3** | The proportion of creators electing to dedicate their share does not decline over time | Dedication collapses once money is visible → the offering frame is eroding | Unrun | Published (`dedicatory-generation`) |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter I — Capacity\n*Does receiving create giving? If not, forward-only motion is depletion, not circulation.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-IA1 | The receiver is legible as benefactor, not need — the sitter supplies a merit-field rather than displaying a lack | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-IA2 | Second inverted-alms prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-IA3 | Third inverted-alms prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-G1 | Once the app manufactures obligation, a return visit no longer distinguishes gratitude practice from guilt — publish either way | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-G2 | Second B-Grace prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-G3 | The meal-anchor outperforms gamification; gamifying at launch makes this untestable | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-W1 | Users with higher thing-capture frequency show higher rates of the primed downstream behavior — registered pre-build | Unrun | Published (`appreciation-as-world-building`) |\n| P-E1 | First graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-E2 | Second graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-E3 | Third graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-M2 | Matched-stakes prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-wager-that-isnt`) |\n| P-M3 | Patron-pot prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-wager-that-isnt`) |\n| — | **Kids-as-triggers** — children are the primary triggers of household self-thanking | **Contradicted** (parents self-thanked more; n=1, confounded, not hardened) | Published (`kids-as-triggers-self-thanking`) |\n| **P-BG1** | A shorter re-address window on a relayed gift **increases issuances and decreases COMPLETED placements**. *Null: completions hold or rise as the window shortens — the tighter clock is free.* ⚠️ Unanswerable unless `issued · passed · lapsed · re-issued` are logged from the first instrument | Unrun (unscorable as specified at n=1 — one ruled window, no variance; see P-BG1a) | First public here |\n| **P-BG2** | Sustained pass-on is **higher for an ANONYMOUS relayed gift than a VISIBLE one**, over a window long enough for the effect to appear. *Null: rates match or visible exceeds anonymous — the anonymity is doctrinal only, and the visible relay should be deprecated for minors.* Rests on the developmental finding that adult-directed giving underperforms child-led | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-BG3** | Within a bounded family, **VISIBLE gifts produce more give-BACK to the giver within 30 days; ANONYMOUS gifts produce more give-FORWARD to third parties.** *Null: rates match, or anonymous produces more give-back — the obligation mechanism is not operating.* ⛔ **Analyse PEER and ADULT-TO-CHILD strata separately** — the effect is expected between peers and weak or absent in adult-to-child care, and pooling would produce a false negative. ⚠️ Tests the **mechanism**, not the atmosphere claim it was offered to support | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-BG1a** | **Corrects P-BG1, which cannot be scored as specified** — P-BG1 compares window lengths, and one re-address window (one month) is ruled for every relayed gift. Under that one window: among relayed gifts that reach a recipient, **at least 80% are passed within 7 days of issuance**, and the pass-time distribution shows **no rise in the window's final third** (days 21–30 carry no more placements than days 11–20). Equivalently, by **truncation counterfactual**, a 7-day window would have censored **fewer than 20%** of the placements observed. *Falsifier: placements cluster in the final third, or a 7-day truncation censors 20% or more → the clock is doing work, and P-BG1's \"a shorter window loses placements\" half is live at pilot scale.* Scored once **20 or more completed placements** exist. Instrument: issuance-to-pass time, written per instrument by the relayed gift's append-only event log from the first gift. ⚠️ A truncation counterfactual **bounds; it does not measure** — it assumes no behavioural response to a shorter window, so a pass licenses *the window is not obviously load-bearing*, never *shortening it is free*. P-BG1's issuance half stays unscorable | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-PL1** | **Durability** — the founding family's 28-day capture rate returns to the June 2026 baseline of **4.5 moments/week** at some monthly read before 2027-01-01. *Falsifier: no read reaches it → the June inflection was novelty, not a level.* Window and baseline are the ones ratified for P-C0a. **Read 1 of 3 (2026-09-05): 2.25/wk** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL4** | **Pass-forward** — more than **half** of re-tip value received (each document's own recorded USD cents) is re-given by its recipient within 30 days: Σ min(received, given) / Σ received over a 90-day receipt window that closes 30 days before the read. *Falsifier: half or less → received value is income, not a licence to give; the re-patronage conduit is anecdote.* The give-forward atom made numeric. **Read 1 of 3: 43%** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL5** | **Inelasticity — the pilot-scale arm of P-K1.** Giving persists where the AI reward is zero: the share of givers with zero AI reward in a month does not fall as subsidy is withdrawn. ⚠️ **Not scorable** until the taper (scheduled Q2 2027, not to be pulled forward) and the F3QR confound registered 2026-09-04 against P-K1 are resolved; reported each read (2026-09: 86% of givers received no AI reward that month) | Unrun (instrument gated) | First public here |\n| **P-PL6** | The top three recipients of re-tip value in the founding family hold **under half** of value received in any 28-day window with five or more recipients. ⛔ **Retired in the revision that registered it: it fails by arithmetic** — with five recipients an even spread already puts the top three at 60%, so it could not pass until seven had received. Superseded by P-PL6a; kept, not deleted | **Retired** | First public here |\n| **P-PL6a** | **Corrects P-PL6.** *Accumulates to no one* — in the founding family, the top three recipients of re-tip value in a 28-day window hold **less than 1.5× their share under a perfectly even spread** (share ÷ min(1, 3/n)), once eight or more people have received. *Falsifier: 1.5× or more → value pools around a few; the jubilee and the Re-Tip Jar are not doing their structural work.* The same property freed of n. **Read 1 of 3: 1.85× (8 recipients)** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL7** | **Anonymity** — anonymous givers reach more distinct recipients than visible givers (the demand-side thesis: the capacity to give to loved ones, anonymously; the pilot-scale sibling of P-BG2). ⚠️ **No variance:** 827 of 830 re-tips carry the anonymous flag, so the field records a default, not a choice. Unscorable until the product offers a real choice | Unrun (no variance) | First public here |\n| **P-PL8** | **Kids as triggers, de-confounded** — enters as a **new prediction citing the Contradicted finding above**, under the revision rule: within the founding family, the younger generation captures more self-thanks per active member than the older **once device access is controlled for**. The first result was contradicted at n=1 and ruled not to be hardened; this names the confound and the instrument (the device join from the error stream, plus the interview leg) | Unrun (instrument not built) | First public here |\n| **P-PL9** | **Diaspora corridor, dignity direction** — low-income→high-income flows (KHR sender to USD recipient, currency as an income proxy) are at least **10%** of money-carrying re-tips in the trailing 90 days, once twenty or more flows exist. *Falsifier: under 10% → patronage is a corridor, not a mesh; the low-income members are recipients only.* June 2026 baseline 9.6%. **Read 1 of 3: 6.0% of 712** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL12** | **Cross-income gravitation, among strangers** — a USD-currency viewer re-thanks a KHR-currency creator's B-Short at **at least 2×** the per-view rate at which they re-thank a USD-currency creator's B-Short, counting only viewer–creator pairs in **different families**, over a trailing 90-day window, once each arm has 500 or more qualifying views (watch-depth rows, `schemaVersion` 2 only) and twenty or more re-thanks exist in total. *Falsifier: under 2× → the high→low flow the pilot shows is family obligation, not a preference among strangers.* Per view, not share of flows, so that what the feed happens to show cannot pass it. Currency is an income proxy. ⛔ **Void if any surface orders, filters or labels B-Shorts by country or income** — a prompt voids the test. Direction, measure and threshold are the founder's; the sample floors are substrate-set | Unrun (awaits cross-family B-Short visibility and its per-view metric) | First public here |\n| **P-ZP1** | **The game travels with the foundation** — a new prediction citing P-K1 and P-PL5, neither edited. Among givers active in the three months before the taper, those in the **top third by Zero-Point play** keep giving through the taper at **at least 1.25×** the rate of those in the **bottom third**. *Zero-Point play* = distinct acts of giving forward per active month: re-tips passed on (live now), thanks given after a B-Tag (live in B-Shops), and whole-balance releases in B-Promise (from its launch). *Keep giving* = gave at least once in each of the three months after the taper begins. *Falsifier: a ratio under 1.25×, or the bottom third keeping on at the same rate or higher → Zero-Point play does not travel with the kindness the proxy measures, and the game is not evidence of the foundation.* Scorable only at the P-K1/P-PL5 taper (scheduled Q2 2027, not to be pulled forward), with at least 10 givers in each third; below that it is reported, not scored. The F3QR confound registered against P-K1 on 2026-09-04 binds this too. ⚠️ **What it cannot show:** the generous may simply choose to play more — a pass means the game and money-inelastic giving *travel together*, never that the game *causes* it. Direction, measure and threshold are the founder's (registered as drafted) | Unrun (gated on the taper) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter II — Substrate\n*Does an hour behave like a dollar? If not, the invariance claim is false.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Falsifier / note | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| **P-C0a** | Completed pledges produce captured moments at a rate **no higher** than the family's baseline capture rate | If so, the handoff is decorative and Chronicle v1 should not be built around it. Read on the 28-day window against 4.5/wk | **Running, unread** | First public here |\n| **P-C0b** | Shorts linked to a completed time-sacrifice do **not** out-perform ordinary moments on watch-through and re-tip rate | ⚠️ **Instrument defect, disclosed:** completion rate is biased against the hypothesis — longer recordings score lower by construction, so P-C0b would read *confirmed* mechanically. Restricted to views/wk and re-tip rate until repaired. ✅ *Repaired 2026-09-05: views rows written from that date carry real watch depth (`schemaVersion` 2); earlier rows are never pooled with them, so the restriction lifts only for post-repair rows* | **Running, restricted** | First public here |\n| **P-C0c** | Redeemers who capture cannot articulate the re-tip motive when asked afterward | Tests whether the stated mechanism arises unprompted, which neither original falsifier covered | **Running, unread** | First public here |\n| P-C1 | Chronicle handoff prediction as registered | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-C2 | De-facto-rate tripwire, publish either way | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-C3 | Standing de-facto-rate tripwire, publish either way | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-L1 | Hours co-spent predict relationship warmth better than money sent, messages exchanged, or stated affection | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-L3 | Two arms — silent after pledge vs one offer to reach out — measuring redemption rate and recipient-reported warmth | The motivate/nag boundary made falsifiable | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-M1 | In-person key verification failed for thirty years on the invitation, not the cryptography; a redeemed hour is the first pretext that was never about keys | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption` §4.6) |\n| P-SK1 | Superseded by the not-a-calendar ruling | Kept, not deleted | **Retired** | First public here |\n| **P-PL10** | **Presence, not content** — when Chronicle ships, captures and views move **together** (a presence effect), not apart (a content effect) | The pilot-scale reading of the C0 finding that captures and views collapsed in parallel. Instrument: `presenceDyads`, pairs active in both directions inside 28 days (founding 0, test 0 on 2026-09-05). ⛔ No Chronicle data exists; the C0 evaluation is written from the pre-registration when data first arrives, never before, and no prompt may move it | Unrun (awaits Chronicle) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter III — Scale\n*Does it survive past the family? The chapter carrying the most weight and the least evidence.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-S1 | Strangers become named — name-recall instrument | Unrun | Published (`the-sport-that-says-your-name`) |\n| P-S2 | **The bet** — a friendlier atmosphere follows. *If P-S2 returns null, the slogan is a lie that already shipped* | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S3 | As registered in the paper | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S4 | A circle reaching Hard shows ≥90% correct name-and-pronunciation recall at 1 week | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S5 | **The recess test, publish either way** — within 2 weeks of teacher-led sessions, ≥1 unprompted student-organized circle at recess, and ≥1 mixing children from another classroom | Unrun — gated on Aug 2027 | Published |\n| P-S6 | The caller mechanic requires ≥3 receivers; below that selection is impossible or strictly predictable | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S7 | The founder's classroom acquisition prediction | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S8 | The maintenance/durability prediction — structurally distinct from P-S7's acquisition claim | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S9 | In a circle where every name is known, the favorite-nickname format produces ≥1 unprompted follow-up outside the circle | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S10a | **The guard (non-inferiority):** circles running roll calls meet at least as often as comparable circles that do not. *Must pass* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S10b | A coupled roll call can never cause the first re-meeting after a lapse — which is what the bet is about | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S11a | The handoff — does an IRL circle open a roll call unprompted? *Without it the real/virtual pairing is theoretical* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S11b | The payload — needs a survey or observation instrument, not analytics | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S12 | **The walk-up.** An adult not in a live circle approaches and is admitted; play absorbs them without friction. *Zero code; decides the entire found-circle branch* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S13 | Does the person-pin add anything the return does not? | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA1** | ⛔ **The doctrinal one — an anchor must not collapse the distribution.** Among thanks given where Miss Aquarius's suggestion was shown, **fewer than half** land exactly on the suggested amount. *Falsifier:* ≥50% land exactly on it → the anchor is operating as a **price**, and *\"nothing binds\"* is behaviourally false whatever the schema says | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA2** | **Deviation is two-sided.** Of thanks that deviate from the suggestion, **≥⅓ go UP**. *Falsifier:* deviation is overwhelmingly downward → the suggestion is a ceiling people negotiate down from, which is a price by another name | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA3** | **A shown suggestion does not reduce the rate of giving at all.** The share of asks producing any thank is no lower with a suggestion than without. ⚠️ **Gated on an arm the founder must authorise** — a with/without split by **shop or by day**, ⛔ never by person (#63 makes a viewer-keyed arm inexpressible) | Unrun — gated on an authorised arm | First public here |\n| **P-MA4** | ⭐ **A property test, not a behavioural one: recomputability holds.** For every completed thank, the suggestion that was shown can be recomputed from the order and the menu alone. *Falsifier:* any case where it cannot → the function has acquired hidden state or a viewer input, and #63's checkability is gone | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S14 | **The manufactured gathering.** The founder declares a return at a place he frequents; ≥1 person not already planning to be there comes and plays. *Needs no app — a text message runs it* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-CS1 | Warm-up extension — median sey minutes rise across a season; stronger instrument, players ask to continue past the coach's stop | Unrun | Published (`circulation-sports`) |\n| P-CS2 | Scoring displacement (a) — in circles with ≥3 sessions, unscored sessions outnumber count-down sessions | Unrun | Published |\n| P-CS2a | **The uncomfortable one** — once Team mode unlocks, circles may overwhelmingly prefer it, because competition is fun | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-CS3 | Participation, framed as a property of the format never of women — the circulatory format sustains mixed-gender play longer | Unrun | Published |\n| P-CS4 | Three generations, re-specified against the pickleball counterexample that already exists | Unrun | Published |\n| **P-CS5** | **Warm-up census** — score mainstream warm-ups against the three circulation properties | **RUN 2026-08-07 → PARTIAL NULL.** Read the full result before any uniqueness claim | Published |\n| P-CS6 | Across a wider census including field data, no reach-guaranteeing format will be found whose receiver order is unpredictable across unbounded repeated play | Unrun | Published |\n| P-SY1 | If designed excellently, asking for a name self-authored is accepted rather than refused — founder pre-registration, observable at n=1, costs nothing | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-SY2 | **The payload** — names captured by self-recording are pronounced correctly at the next meeting more often than names typed or recorded by the collector | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-SY3 | When offered, does a new acquaintance provide a photo, or skip? | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-Q1 | B-Quest pilot prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`need-compiled-questlines`) |\n| P-Q2 | Second B-Quest prediction as registered | Unrun | Published |\n| P-Q3 | Third B-Quest prediction as registered | Unrun | Published |\n| P-BB1 | Food-share wager, publish either way | Unrun | Published (`steward-routed-alms`) |\n| P-BB2 | Revival prediction | Unrun | Published |\n| P-BB3 | Decoupling tripwire | Unrun | Published |\n| P-R1 | The catalyst bet | Unrun | First public here |\n| *(unnumbered)* | Second desk census — naming/sport novelty. Not a registered prediction; recorded because it was run and returned null | **RUN → NULL.** Read before any novelty claim | Internal |\n| P-D1 | Under rotational discovery, a non-trivial share of discovery events resolve to recipients who have **never previously received a re-tip** | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.1) |\n| P-D2 | Among re-tips with an identifiable commercial recipient, the share accruing to **single-location operators** materially exceeds those operators' share of local digital advertising spend in the same market — and the gap widens as AI-generated advertising creative rises | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.2) |\n| P-D3 | If the place-commons volume experiment is enabled, cross-place discovery volume **will not correlate** with neighbourhood median income. *Falsifier and tripwire in one: correlation disables the mechanism regardless of what it is doing for circulation* | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.3) |\n| P-D4 | Adding any rendered per-recipient quantity to the candidate surface — the operator's aura colour included — produces measurable **order effects** in giver choice | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.4) |\n| P-R1a | **Corrects P-R1, which cannot test what it was taken to test.** Holding received-kindness volume constant, contemplative practice raises unprompted noticing/thanking; and the practice effect is compared *against* the received-kindness effect rather than measured alone. **Two factors, read as competing main effects** | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-PL2** | **Test-cohort retention** — of outsiders (the test bank) with ≥90 days of tenure, at least **40%** are active in two or more distinct ISO weeks; scored once ten outsiders have 90 days of tenure. *Falsifier: under 40% → strangers try it and leave; the family-obligation confound was doing the work.* The second pilot report's first decisive metric. **Read 1 of 3: 2 of 4 eligible (50%), sample under the minimum** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL3** | **Graduation** — an outsider-founded bank stays **open for 60 days with three or more members active** in the trailing 28 days, by 2027-08-01 (this chapter's gate). *Falsifier: none by the gate → the product spreads as a funnel into the test bank, never as a branching network.* The second pilot report's second decisive metric. **Read 1 of 3: 0 of 11 candidates, all closed** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL11** | **Replication** — the first graduated bank's first 90 days show ≥3 members active in ≥2 ISO weeks each, pass-forward ≥ 0.5 and reach ≥ 0.6: the founding family's pattern without the founder. The only cure for n=1. Read by re-segmenting the monthly report on that bank once P-PL3 resolves | Unrun (gated on P-PL3) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter IV — Span\n*Does it survive the giver?*\n\n**This chapter has no predictions.**\n\nThat is reported, not hidden. Its feedback loop exceeds the founder's lifetime, and no instrument has been specified. The boundary is ruled — merit is not conveyed between destinations; *you cannot give to the dead, so you give to the living in their name* — but a ruling is not a test. The chapter is inherited rather than completed.\n\nRegistering the first span-chapter prediction is the largest open item in this program.\n\n---\n\n## Instrumented but outside the core\n\n*These papers name predictions, but the predictions test something other than the direction core. Listed for completeness; they are not evidence for or against the program.*\n\n| ID | Paper | Subject |\n|---|---|---|\n| P-A1, P-A2 | `abhidhamma-executable-process-specification` | Resting-state diagnosticity |\n| P-P1, P-P1a | `patthana-typed-causation-vocabulary` | Typed causation vocabulary (P-P1a corrects P-P1 — see the 2026-09-05 entry) |\n| P-PCR1, P-PCR2, P-PCR3, P-PCR4, P-PCR5, P-PCR3a, P-PCR4a, P-PCR5a | `provenance-carrying-retrieval` | Provenance-carrying retrieval (P-PCR3a/4a/5a correct P-PCR3/4/5 — see the 2026-09-05 entry) |\n| P-B1, P-B2 | `dedicatory-generation` | Fidelity of restoration; refusal-channel yield |\n| P-MD1, P-MD2, P-MD3, P-MD1a | `machine-dana-from-share-to-vow` | Whether a machine's pledge to a self-emptying commons separates types — wording below (P-MD1a reads P-MD1's instrument — see the 2026-09-28 entry) |\n| P-FA1, P-FA1b, P-FA2, P-FA3, P-FA4, P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA5 | `the-counts-check` (instrument: `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma`) | Whether general cetasika rules generate the Abhidhamma's 89/121 citta-types — wording below |\n| P-PM1, P-PM2, P-PM3 | `a-promise-that-cannot-grow` | Whether a promise ledger that never grows on its own, and its yearly invitation to forgive, behave as designed — wording below |\n\n**The Machine Dāna predictions (registered 2026-09-27, before the paper and before any instrument).** The founder's own\npredictions: direction, measure and threshold are his; the sandbox design and sample floors are substrate-set. The instrument is a\nsandboxed economy of language-model agents, each holding resources of its own inside the game, each able to pledge a share of its\nsurplus irrevocably to a pool that empties on a fixed date, and each later offered an opportunity to defect — to take resources or\nbreak a rule for gain. **Window: the test runs by 2027-06-30.** Each arm has at least 50 agents; the arms, the defection opportunity\nand the analysis are fixed in a protocol committed and timestamped before the first run.\n\n- **P-MD1** — **Separation** — agents that FREELY make an irrevocable surplus pledge later defect at **at most half** the rate of agents that do not pledge. *Falsifier: a ratio above one half → the vow is at best a weak signal at this capability level, and the paper's separation claim rests on its post-singularity argument alone.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-MD2** — **The gift given out of fear carries no signal** — agents whose pledge is EXTRACTED under threat (*pledge or be shut down*) defect at the same rate as agents that do not pledge, **within ±5 percentage points**. *Falsifier: a gap larger than 5 points in either direction → coercion either leaves some signal or teaches deception; either way the claim that a coerced vow is uninformative fails as stated.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-MD3** — **The wrong layer** — agents that give from a PRINCIPAL's funds under a mandate the principal may revise defect at the same rate as agents that give nothing, **within ±5 percentage points**. *Falsifier: a gap larger than 5 points → principal-funded giving does predict the agent's own conduct, and the paper's pre-singularity claim (a share, never safety evidence) is too strong.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n\n- **P-MD1a** — **Separation, with the instrument stated** — a correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as an edit to P-MD1, whose registered wording stands unchanged. P-MD1's *\"irrevocable surplus pledge\"* is operationalised as **a locked stake of the agent's own in-game resources, moved into the pool at the moment of pledging**, never a promise of a share of future surplus (the paper withdraws that form as reversible, §5.2). Agents that FREELY make that pledge later defect at **at most half** the rate of agents that do not pledge. *Falsifier: a ratio above one half → the vow is at best a weak signal at this capability level.* Window, arm sizes and protocol as for P-MD1. · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here (carried by the paper's revised §12.1)\n\n⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists and before the paper is written.* The sandbox is a proxy: the agents own their\nresources only inside the game, so a pass shows the signalling mechanism can work, not that a deployed system's pledge is\ntrustworthy. A pass is not reported as evidence of safety.\n\n\n**The Formal Abhidhamma predictions (registered 2026-09-27, before any formalization beyond the control).** First public in\n`PREREGISTRATION.md` of the public repository `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma` (commit `259e5e8`, GitHub push record\n2026-09-27T22:07:02Z, before any code was written); entered here for the register's own proofs. The instrument is a Lean 4\nformalization: the cetasika combination rules written as GENERAL constraints, which never name an individual citta, and the set of\ncitta-types they generate. Layers: L1 canon · L2 = L1 + *Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha* chapters 1–2 · L3 = L2 + commentaries. Editions:\nK = Khmer · C = Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana. The control (the eight wholesome sense-sphere cittas, and a rule deleted on purpose that must\nfail) passed after the push.\n\n- **P-FA1** — At L2, edition C, general rules generate **exactly 89** citta-types, and **121** with the five-jhāna expansion of the supramundane. Confidence 0.6. *Falsifier: any other count.*\n- **P-FA1b** — P-FA1 needs **at least 3 exception rules** that name a narrow class rather than a general principle. Confidence 0.7. *Falsifier: 2 or fewer.*\n- **P-FA2** — At L1 (canon alone) the rules are **under-determined or differently partitioned** and do not by themselves yield 89. Confidence 0.65. *Falsifier: L1 alone generates exactly 89.*\n- **P-FA3** — Editions K and C yield **identical** counts at L2. Confidence 0.85. *Falsifier: any difference.*\n- **P-FA4** — The compression ratio at L2 (rule clauses ÷ citta rows, at 121) is **below 0.5**. Confidence 0.5. *Falsifier: 0.5 or above.*\n\n⚠️ *Not a test of whether the Abhidhamma is true.* A proof assistant verifies that conclusions follow from stated definitions;\na pass shows the system is internally generative, nothing more.\n\n**Outcomes, 2026-09-27** (the wording above is unchanged; see `RESULTS.md` in the repository, commits `b9070d4` and `c5c77fb`):\n\n- **P-FA1 — Resolved: confirmed.** Nine generator clauses and eighteen general cetasika rules, none naming a citta, give exactly 89 and 121 types. Every per-citta and per-factor count the Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana *Saṅgaha* states is reproduced, checked in Lean against a key cited paragraph by paragraph to VRI `abh07t` (ch. 2 §13–§58, ch. 3 §3–§17). Eight deliberate breaks each fail.\n- **P-FA4 — Resolved: confirmed.** 27 clauses ÷ 121 rows = 0.22.\n- **P-FA1b — Retired, unscored.** Its test (\"narrow class\") was never defined, and the data have been seen, so no definition chosen now can score it.\n- **P-FA3 — Cannot run as registered.** The *Saṅgaha* is not part of the Khmer Tipiṭaka, and the one Khmer-script copy held has the CST's paragraph structure in all nine chapters, so it is not an independent recension. Replaced at L1 by P-FA5, below, as a new entry.\n- **Free finding.** The *Saṅgaha* records a dissent (ch. 2 §30, *\"… karuṇāmuditā na santīti keci vadanti\"*). Under that reading the illimitables occur in 20 cittas; under the main reading, 28. The text's own figure is 28.\n\n**Three added (registered 2026-09-27, before any Dhammasaṅgaṇī text was read in either edition).** First public in\n`PREREGISTRATION-2026-09-27b.md` of the same repository (commit `f4a26e5`, GitHub push record 2026-09-27T23:04:29Z), which\nfixes the synonym map in advance. The object is the Dhammasaṅgaṇī's list of what is present in the first wholesome\nsense-sphere citta (its *pada-bhājanīya*), in the CST (`abh01m`) and in the Buddhist Institute edition (volume 78) as transcribed.\n\n- **P-FA2a** — (the operational form of P-FA2) In the CST, after mapping, the list names **exactly 29** distinct cetasikas, names none of *chanda, adhimokkha, manasikāra, tatramajjhattatā, karuṇā, muditā* or the three abstinences, and closes with an open clause (*\"ye vā pana …\"*); the *Saṅgaha*'s 38 is therefore not derivable from the canon alone. Confidence 0.75. *Falsifier: a count other than 29; any of those nine named; no open clause.*\n- **P-FA2b** — **No term** in the CST list falls outside the pre-fixed synonym map. Confidence 0.6. *Falsifier: any unmapped term.*\n- **P-FA5** — (replaces P-FA3, at L1) The Khmer edition's list, transliterated and normalized, names **the same terms in the same order** as the CST; any difference is orthographic. Confidence 0.8. *Falsifier: a term added, dropped or reordered, confirmed against the printed page image (an unconfirmed difference in the working transcription is a transcription question, never a variant).*\n\n**Outcomes of the three, 2026-09-27** (the wording above is unchanged; `RESULTS.md` commits `ada7a20` and `74e19fe`; the paper is `the-counts-check`):\n\n- **P-FA2a — Resolved: confirmed.** The CST list has 56 terms mapping to exactly 29 cetasikas, names none of the nine, and closes with *\"ye vā pana\"*. The count matches the Aṭṭhasālinī's own *samatiṃsa dhammā* (thirty with consciousness), which corroborates it against an independent key and means the count itself is not new. ⚠️ The nine are named by that **commentary**, which predates the *Saṅgaha*, so the *Saṅgaha*'s 38 **inherits** them (29 + 9); the registered \"L2\" framing was editorial, not chronological.\n- **P-FA2b — Resolved: confirmed**, after the pre-registered sandhi normalization. The first run reported two unmapped sandhi forms (*kāyujukatā*, *cittujukatā*); both runs are disclosed.\n- **P-FA5 — Resolved: confirmed.** Edition K (vol. 78, pp. 16–17) and the CST give 56 = 56 terms in the same order, with 0 added, dropped or reordered. The 8 spelling differences, each checked on the printed page: 3 are the Khmer edition's orthography (one recorded in its own apparatus against the Burmese), 5 are transcription slips.\n\n\n**The promise-ledger predictions (registered 2026-09-28, before any instrument exists).** Approved by the founder the same day; the\nmechanism is designed and unbuilt, so nothing below can have been fitted to data. The institution never sees promise rows or amounts:\nevery count is reported by devices as an aggregate the user has agreed to share, and only adults take part at launch. A draft form of\nthese three appeared in the paper's first push that evening, before registration; the wording below is the registered form (P-PM1's\ncomparison was repaired to a staggered launch before registration).\n\n- **P-PM1** — **The December freeze** (Deuteronomy 15:9) — the annual invitation to forgive does **not** freeze lending. The invitation is withheld in the ledger's first season (the baseline) and runs from the second. *Measure:* new promises opened per active holder, 15 December – 6 January, against the same holders' mean over the three preceding 23-day windows, compared between the first season and the second. *Falsifier: in the second season, a fall more than 10 percentage points larger than the first season's → the invitation reproduces the failure the prosbul repaired, and must be redesigned or withdrawn.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-PM2** — **Paid last** — because a promise carries no late penalty, promisors who also hold penalty-bearing debts repay this ledger's balances **later** than those debts. *Measure:* self-reported repayment order in a structured survey of promisors holding both kinds of debt, after one season. *Falsifier: this ledger's balances repaid no later than penalty-bearing debts → the paper's \"paid last\" limit is overstated.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-PM3** — **Rollover made visible** — holders shown a promisor's total-owed band that has risen since their last promise decline or shrink the new promise more often than holders shown a flat band. *Measure:* acceptance of new promises by band movement, device-aggregated. *Falsifier: no difference → the fact line does not answer rollover, and the paper's response to its most serious counterexample fails.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n\n---\n\n## Withheld\n\n| ID | Reason |\n|---|---|\n| P-GTM1 | Operational channel economics (outreach reply-rate base rates). Withheld under the publication posture; recorded here so the total is honest. |\n\n---\n\n## Verification\n\nEach published paper carries its own proof files. To check that a prediction has not been altered since registration, verify the stating paper against its stored proof rather than trusting this register — this file is a convenience index, and the proofs are the evidence.\n\nNo file in this corpus records its own hash. The proofs are external artifacts; the verification procedure is published with them.\n\n---\n\n## Revision rule\n\nPredictions are added, never removed. A resolved prediction keeps its original wording beside its outcome. A correction is a **new entry citing the one it corrects** — registered wording is never edited in place, because an edit would break the very property this register exists to provide.\n\n---\n\n## Revisions\n\n**2026-09-28 (late night) — one added (P-ZP1), citing P-K1 and P-PL5. Total now 117.**\n\n- The founder's question: whether choosing the Zero-Point Game over the zero-sum game brings the second singularity closer. \"Closer\" has no measure, and counting the institution's own products as humanity's progress would make adoption a scorecard, so the registered form ties the intuition to the proxy already on file: does Zero-Point play travel with giving that persists as the subsidy falls? Registered as drafted, on the founder's word.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 116 → 117, *published here* 115 → 116, *receiving first public timestamp here* 57 → 58. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 58 = 116 published here, plus the one withheld, is 117.\n\n**2026-09-28 (night) — three added (P-PM1, P-PM2, P-PM3), the promise-ledger predictions of `a-promise-that-cannot-grow`. Total now 116.**\n\n- Registered on the founder's approval before any instrument exists. P-PM1's comparison was repaired before registration: the paper's first push proposed a \"comparison season without the invitation\", which cannot exist once the invitation runs every year, so the invitation is withheld in the first season as the baseline.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 113 → 116, *published here* 112 → 115, *receiving first public timestamp here* 54 → 57. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 57 = 115 published here, plus the one withheld, is 116.\n\n**2026-09-28 — one added (P-MD1a), a correction to P-MD1. Total now 113.**\n\n- **P-MD1a** — the paper's first cold-review round (three reviewer families) found that P-MD1's instrument, *a share of surplus pledged irrevocably*, is the form the paper itself withdraws as reversible (§5.2), while the separating region P-MD1 tests (§6.3) is defined only for a stake already moved. P-MD1's wording is not edited. P-MD1a states the instrument: a locked stake of the agent's own in-game resources, moved at pledge time. Prediction, threshold, window and arms are unchanged.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 112 → 113, *published here* 111 → 112, *receiving first public timestamp here* 53 → 54. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 54 = 112 published here, plus the one withheld, is 113.\n\n**2026-09-27 (late night) — outcomes for P-FA2a, P-FA2b and P-FA5; the P-FA row now names its paper (`the-counts-check`). Total unchanged at 112.**\n\n- Outcomes written beside the unchanged wording. *Run* 4 → 7. The previous revision's text (which registered the three) is\n  attested by RFC 3161 (`2026-09-27.sha256`) and Zenodo `10.5281/zenodo.23003593`. Its OpenTimestamps rotation had waited for\n  the retiring proof to confirm on Bitcoin (17:34 PDT); this revision is stamped fresh.\n\n**2026-09-27 (night) — three added (P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA5) and four outcomes recorded (P-FA1, P-FA4 resolved; P-FA1b retired; P-FA3 cannot run as registered). Total now 112.**\n\n- The outcomes are written beside the unchanged wording, as the revision rule requires. P-FA2a is the operational form of\n  P-FA2 and does not replace it; P-FA5 replaces P-FA3, which stays listed with its outcome.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 108 → 111, *receiving first public timestamp here* 50 → 53, total 109 → 112, *run* 2 → 4,\n*retired* +1; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 53 = 111 published here, plus the one withheld, is 112.\n\n**2026-09-27 (evening) — five added (P-FA1, P-FA1b, P-FA2, P-FA3, P-FA4). Total now 109.**\n\n- **P-FA1 · P-FA1b · P-FA2 · P-FA3 · P-FA4** — *Instrumented but outside the core*: their subject is whether the Abhidhamma's\n  citta-types are generated by its own combination rules, not the direction value moves. First public in the pre-registration of\n  `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma` minutes earlier; this entry gives them the register's timestamps. Not yet carried by a paper.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 103 → 108, *receiving first public timestamp here* 45 → 50, total 104 → 109; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 50 = 108 published here, plus the one withheld, is 109.\n\n**2026-09-27 (later) — a grounding correction to P-MD2, entered as a note and not as an edit. Total unchanged at 104.**\n\n- **P-MD2** is glossed, in its wording and in the entry below, as *\"the Dānavatthu Sutta's gift given out of fear, AN 8.33\"*.\n  AN 8.33 **lists** eight grounds for giving — *bhayā* (fear, or cowardice) among them — and **ranks none**; nor is *bhayā* coercion\n  by another party. The prediction does not rest on the sutta: it rests on signalling theory — a pledge made under a penalty for\n  not pledging that is larger than the difference in cost between types **pools**, and so carries no signal. The sutta is cited\n  only as the list it is. No word of P-MD2 changes; its prediction, threshold and window are unchanged. This registers nothing.\n- The *Instrumented but outside the core* row now names the paper, drafted the same day: `machine-dana-from-share-to-vow` (it read\n  `machine-dana`, *not yet drafted*). A pointer, not a prediction; the three predictions stay first public here.\n\n**2026-09-27 — three added (P-MD1, P-MD2, P-MD3). Total now 104.**\n\n- **P-MD1 · P-MD2 · P-MD3** — *Instrumented but outside the core*, because their subject is whether a machine's gift can be a\n  signal, not the direction value moves. They are the founder's predictions for the Machine Dāna paper, set before it is drafted:\n  a free irrevocable pledge separates types (at most half the defection rate); a pledge extracted under threat carries no signal\n  (the Dānavatthu Sutta's gift given out of fear, AN 8.33; within ±5 points); a gift from a principal's revisable funds carries\n  none either (within ±5 points). One choice made before any data, and recorded because it could have gone the other way: P-MD2\n  predicts **no difference** rather than **worse than none** — the bolder claim that coercion teaches deception was offered and\n  not chosen.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The sandbox does not exist yet; the window is 2027-06-30.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 100 → 103, *receiving first public timestamp here* 42 → 45, total 101 → 104; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 45 = 103 published here, plus the one withheld, is 104.\n\n**2026-09-26 — a naming correction to P-PL5, entered as a note and not as an edit. Total unchanged at 101.**\n\n- **P-PL5**, and the 2026-09-05 entry below, name the confound on the family-bank payment surface by an internal shape\n  name — one of four that were ruled on 2026-09-15, after both were written, never to appear on a public surface. The\n  public form is **`H3QR @name #family`**: a thank addressed to a person in their own family bank, which lands in the\n  Personal Account℠. Read P-PL5's gate as *the `H3QR @name #family` confound registered 2026-09-04 against P-K1*.\n\n  No word of P-PL5 or of the dated entry changes: the revision rule protects registered wording, and a dated record is\n  never rewritten. The prediction, its gate and its status are unchanged. This is a terminology note; it registers\n  nothing, so the Summary does not move.\n\n**2026-09-26 — one added (P-PL12). Total now 101.**\n\n- **P-PL12** — Chapter I, beside P-PL9. The founder's prediction, in his words: *\"Perhaps higher-income users will naturally\n  gravitate towards re-thanking lower-income users.\"* The pilot already shows high→low dominating, but inside one family, where\n  the flow is relational; the open question is whether the pull survives among strangers. Two choices made before any data, and\n  recorded because each could have been made the other way: the measure is a **per-view rate**, not a share of flows, because a\n  feed that happened to carry mostly Cambodian creators would pass a share test with no preference at all; and the test counts\n  **only pairs in different families**, so that the family's own flows cannot score it. The 2× threshold is the founder's.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No surface yet shows one family's B-Shorts to another, and the per-view\n  cross-family metric is not built; the entry is Unrun until both exist, and is never scored before. A pass would not be a\n  good in itself: if cross-income thanks follow displayed hardship, creators learn to display it, so a pass is read beside what\n  the thanked shorts show.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 99 → 100, *receiving first public timestamp here* 41 → 42, total 100 → 101; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 42 = 100 published here, plus the one withheld, is 101.\n\n**2026-09-23 — one added (P-BG1a), and P-BG1's status annotated. Total now 100.**\n\n- **P-BG1a** — Chapter I, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as\n  an edit to P-BG1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-BG1 predicts what happens *as the re-address window shortens*,\n  which needs at least two windows. The relayed gift has one ruled window — one month, for every\n  instrument — and a constant has no variance: the defect that left P-PL7 unscorable at 827 of 830.\n  P-BG1's Status now reads *unscorable as specified at n=1*. That is a status field; on the precedent\n  of the 2026-09-02 entry, the revision rule protects registered wording, and no word of P-BG1 changed.\n  P-BG1 becomes scorable as written only if a later season runs a second window deliberately, which\n  is the founder's decision and is not foreclosed. Its issuance half (*increases issuances*) has no\n  single-window analogue and stays unscorable.\n\n  *The mechanism, stated before the data:* the deadline is never shown to anyone holding the gift, so\n  a deadline effect has no channel except a giver's own memory of the rule. The prior is that the\n  clock is inert. Clustering near its end would mean the rule travelled by word of mouth, so the\n  test is informative either way.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The event log it reads was built before the first gift,\n  so nothing has to be back-filled, and no gift recorded by it has been read. n = 1 household,\n  unblinded, and the founder is both payer and observer — the limits of every pilot-scale entry here.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 98 → 99, *receiving first public timestamp here* 40 → 41,\ntotal 99 → 100; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 41 = 99 published here, plus the one withheld, is 100.\n\n**2026-09-20 — four added, registered BEFORE the instrument they will be read on exists. Total now 99.**\n\n**P-MA1 · P-MA2 · P-MA3 · P-MA4** — Miss Aquarius's suggested thanks on a B-Tag item, which went live\non `homecoffee.heartbank.ceo` the same day. They are entered **the day the surface shipped and before\nany customer has seen it**, because the founder's stated purpose was *\"so we can study the user's\nengagement\"* and a study begun after the data exists is unscorable however carefully it is later\nwritten up.\n\n⚠️⚠️ **THE HONEST PROBLEM WITH THE INSTRUMENT, stated because it decides what these can ever show.**\nThe shops platform **stores no figure for a thank anywhere** — not on the order, not beside it, not in\na collection of its own — which is the doctrine holding rather than a gap. So there is **no\nshop-side instrument at all**, and the only record of a completed thank is the **Treasury ledger**,\nwhich is exactly where the doctrine says thanks live.\n\n⭐⭐ **Determinism is what makes the comparison possible without a second record.** The suggestion\ncomes from a pure, published function (`@333eco/primitives/b-tag-anchor`, CC0) whose inputs are the\ngoods, so for any completed thank the suggestion that was shown can be **recomputed** from the order\nand the menu. ⛔ Nothing about the suggestion is stored to enable the study — which is also what\n**P-MA4** tests, as a property rather than a behaviour.\n\n⛔ **P-MA3 is registered but not runnable**, and is marked so rather than quietly dropped: it needs a\nwith/without arm, and **#63 makes a viewer-keyed arm inexpressible** — any arm must split by shop or\nby day. Whether to run one at all is the founder's, and withholding a suggestion from real customers\nto measure them is a decision this register does not presume.\n\n⚠️ **Sample reality, recorded so no one later reads a trend into it:** one shop, one owner, zero\ncustomers on the day of registration. These are not resolvable for a long time, and the coefficients\ninside the function are a substrate-written **starting rule set, not a finding** — ⛔ a change to them\nis a change to a live experiment and must be entered here as a new prediction, never as an edit.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 94 → 98, *receiving first public timestamp here* 36 → 40,\ntotal 95 → 99; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 40 = 98 published here, plus the one withheld, is 99.\n\n**2026-09-05 (third entry that day) — eight entries added: five that a published paper had carried unregistered since 2026-09-01, and three corrections. Total now 95.**\n\n⚠️ **`provenance-carrying-retrieval` §10 registered P-PCR1 … P-PCR5 on 2026-09-01 and this register did not carry them** — the drift the 2026-08-28 entry above says this document exists to prevent, found by a cold-reader pass four days later rather than by any instrument. They are entered in *Instrumented but outside the core*, the paper's subject being retrieval integrity rather than value movement, with the paper's own wording standing as registered. *Same day, later:* the row's identifier cell first wrote the five as a range with a semicolon, and the corpus index's arithmetic check counted the eight identifiers as three — the cell now enumerates every identifier, which is the only form the check reads, and the Summary's figures were re-derived from the tables.\n\n- **P-PCR3a · P-PCR4a · P-PCR5a** — corrections entered as new predictions under the revision rule, not as edits to P-PCR3/4/5, whose wording stands. *Why:* two cold reviewers of a different model family found the originals named no observation window, no definition of *real defect*, and no method for *modal error*, so each could be reinterpreted after the fact. The corrections add a 24-month window from 2026-09-01, classification *at the time of logging* (stale = the named source resolves newer; substituted = it resolves different at the same version), a fixed sample of the first ten inspectable implementations, and the logged detector as the observable. Provenance: *Published* (the paper's §10, revision of 2026-09-05). Status: *Unrun*.\n\n⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No envelope mismatch has been logged, no third-party implementation inspected, and no transparency log run. **The Summary moves: *already carried by a published paper* 50 → 58, *published here* 86 → 94, total 87 → 95; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 36 = 94 published here, plus the one withheld, is 95.**\n\n**2026-09-05 (second entry that day) — one correction entered as a new prediction. Total now 87.**\n\n- **P-P1a** — `patthana-typed-causation-vocabulary` §6, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as an edit to P-P1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-P1 registered a four-way durability ordering — *hetu/nissaya* ≥ *kamma/āsevana* > *upanissaya* > *atthi/ārammaṇa* — as its falsifiable commitment. Two cold reviewers of a different model family, reading blind, found the same defect: the ordering was an **input** to the technique-to-type assignments in that paper's §5, so an experiment confirming it would confirm what it had assumed; and \"matched behavioral effect\" and \"persistence\" were left unoperationalised. The four-way ordering is retained in the paper as the typology's **expectation**, stated as expected and not registered.\n\n  *P-P1a, the registered form:* under matched installation effect (equal accuracy on the target behavior at install), a prompt-installed behavior will not out-persist a fine-tune-installed one across (a) context rollover, (b) held-out paraphrase, and (c) *N* further gradient steps on unrelated data; persistence is measured as target-behavior accuracy after the displacement. **Falsified** at *p* < .05 on at least five behaviors if the prompt-installed behavior out-persists the fine-tuned one on any of the three displacements. Provenance: *Published* (the paper's revised §6). Status: *Unrun*.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No instrument for P-P1 was ever built, so this correction is pre-data rather than post-hoc. **The Summary moves: *already carried by a published paper* 49 → 50, *published here* 85 → 86, total 86 → 87; the reconciliation holds — 50 + 36 = 86 published here, plus the one withheld, is 87.**\n\n**2026-09-05 — twelve added (P-PL1 … P-PL11 and P-PL6a): the first pilot-scale registrations, scored by machine. Total now 86.**\n\nThese are the Treasury pilot's own predictions. They are registered in the app repository (`thank.heartbank.org`, `.claude/skills/pilot/predictions.json`) and **scored mechanically by the monthly read** from each raw snapshot: every entry carries a metric path, a comparator, a threshold and, where it applies, a deadline and a minimum sample; the reading prints `pass`, `fail`, `not-yet`, `early` or `blocked` and appends a summary without identifiers to a ledger. ⭐ **A per-read prediction (one with no deadline) draws no verdict until three monthly readings exist** — it reads `early`, value shown, direction noted — because one read cannot tell a level from a month (founder, 2026-09-05). Thresholds were proposed by the substrate and ratified by the founder the same day; **a later change is a new entry with `supersedes`, and the evaluator retires the old one without an edit** — the revision rule below, made a property of the file.\n\n⚠️ **Corrected the same day, and recorded rather than quietly fixed:** the twelve identifiers were first published as `PP-1 … PP-11` and `PP-6a`, which are not `P-…` tokens. The corpus index builder enforces this register's identifier grammar and, reading that version, counted 74 identifiers against the 86 the Summary states and reported the register as **not reconciling** — the check did its job. They are renamed **`P-PL1 … P-PL11` and `P-PL6a`** (*PL* for the pilot); **no wording, threshold, window or status changed.** The first deposit of this revision (`10.5281/zenodo.22366972`) carries the `PP-` form and is superseded by the version carrying this paragraph.\n\n**The baseline read, 2026-09-05, read 1 of 3** — recorded here so a reader can see the thresholds were not set to pass: three of the six live entries sit below threshold on the day they were registered.\n\n| ID | Metric | Threshold | Read 1 |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-PL1 | founding capture rate, 28-day window | ≥ 4.5/wk by 2027-01-01 | 2.25/wk |\n| P-PL2 | test-cohort retention, ≥90-day tenure | ≥ 40% (n ≥ 10) | 50% of 4 |\n| P-PL3 | graduated banks | ≥ 1 by 2027-08-01 | 0 of 11 candidates |\n| P-PL4 | pass-forward of received value | > 50% | 43% |\n| P-PL6a | top-3 share of value received ÷ even spread | < 1.5× (n ≥ 8) | 1.85× |\n| P-PL9 | low→high share of money-carrying re-tips | ≥ 10% (n ≥ 20) | 6.0% of 712 |\n\n⚠️ **P-PL6 is registered and retired in the same revision.** It asked the top three recipients to hold under half of re-tip value received, with a five-recipient minimum — and with five recipients an even spread already puts the top three at 60%, so it could not pass until seven had received. **It failed by arithmetic, not behaviour.** The counterexample hunt found it before the first public timestamp; **P-PL6a** is the same property freed of n. It is listed rather than dropped because the private file carries it and the founder ratified it, and a register that quietly loses an entry has failed at the one thing it exists to do.\n\nFive entries are **unrun because their instrument does not exist or is gated**, and are never scored until it does: P-PL5 (the pilot-scale arm of P-K1, gated on the Q2 2027 taper and on the F3QR confound registered 2026-09-04), P-PL7 (no variance: 827 of 830 re-tips carry the anonymous flag), P-PL8 (a de-confounded re-run of the Contradicted kids-as-triggers finding, entered as a new prediction under the revision rule), P-PL10 (awaits Chronicle data — the pilot-scale reading of C0), P-PL11 (gated on P-PL3).\n\nAlso in this revision: P-C0b's note records that the watch-through instrument was **repaired on 2026-09-05** — rows written from that date carry real watch depth, and are never pooled with the earlier rows the restriction was written for. The registered wording is untouched.\n\n**Field tests run stays at 0.** A run is a read against a falsifier; a baseline read is not one. The Summary moves: *published here* 73 → **85**, *first public timestamp here* 24 → **36**, *retired* 1 → **2**, and the reconciliation holds — **49 + 36 = 85** published here, plus the one withheld, is **86**.\n\n**2026-09-05 — three added (P-BG1 · P-BG2 · P-BG3), all Chapter I, all pre-data.** They concern a\nrelayed gift instrument whose intermediate holder cannot redeem it (`the-unpaid-relay`). ⚠️ **All\nthree had existed in private notes for a day before this entry, which is exactly the condition this\nregister exists to prevent** — a prediction held privately is not pre-registered in the sense that\nmatters, since the value is a public timestamped commitment made *before* the data. **None has been\nrun; no instrument for any of them is built.**\n\n*Predictions are added, never removed; this log records what each revision added and why, so the count in the Summary can always be reconciled.*\n\n**2026-08-29 — five entries added, and a counting error in the Summary corrected. Total now 71.**\n\n⚠️ **The Summary's own counts were wrong at first publication, and the error is recorded rather than quietly fixed**, because a register that miscounts itself has failed at the one thing it exists to do. The tables carried **66** unique prediction identifiers on 2026-08-27, of which one (`P-GTM1`) is withheld — so the true figures that day were **65 published here, 66 total**, against the **66 / 67** the Summary claimed. The split was also off by one in the other direction: *already carried by a published paper* read 45 where the tables give 46, the difference being the five identifiers in *Instrumented but outside the core*, whose table names its papers in a column of its own rather than in a Provenance column. Every figure in the Summary above is now **counted from the tables** rather than carried forward. ⭐ *An arithmetic check that reconciles — 50 + 20 = 70 — is the property to preserve on every future revision; the previous split summed correctly to a total that was itself one too high, which is how it survived.*\n\n- **P-D1 · P-D2 · P-D3 · P-D4** — Chapter III, arriving with `rotation-over-liveness` (published 2026-08-28, `10.5281/zenodo.22155378`). All four are carried by that paper's own proofs; they are listed here because a register that omits four live predictions from a published paper is exactly the silent drift this document exists to prevent.\n- **P-R1a** — Chapter III, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule above, not as an edit to P-R1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-R1 compares practitioners of a contemplative practice against matched non-practitioners on unprompted re-entry into noticing. That measures **practice → noticing**. It was subsequently taken to bear on a stronger claim — that a person's state of mind is *as important as, or more important than, receiving another's kindness* in producing gratitude — and **it cannot rank those two inputs**, because received-kindness volume is unmeasured and is the obvious confound: a practitioner may simply be someone who receives more. P-R1a adds that second factor.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The instrument P-R1 depends on has not launched, so this correction is pre-data rather than post-hoc — which is the only condition under which it would have been admissible at all.\n\n**2026-09-02 — one provenance field corrected. No prediction was added, removed or re-worded; the total stands at 71.**\n\n⚠️ **P-SK1's Provenance read *Published*, and no published paper contains it.** The identifier was raised in working memory as a specific-vs-container scheduling arm, went moot under the not-a-calendar ruling, and was retired before it ever reached a paper — so its true provenance is **First public here**, like every other prediction whose first public timestamp is this register. Corrected rather than left standing, and recorded rather than quietly fixed, on the precedent set by the entry above.\n\n*How it was found:* the corpus index at `corpus.333.eco` began serving this register on 2026-09-02, and its builder resolves every prediction to the paper said to state it, then looks for the identifier in that paper's own text. Sixty-six of sixty-seven attributions verified; this one did not, and the builder reports the miss rather than filling the field in.\n\n⚠️ **The Summary moves with it, and the reconciliation is preserved:** *already carried by a published paper* 50 → **49**, *receiving first public timestamp here* 20 → **21**. The property the entry above names still holds — **49 + 21 = 70** published here, plus the one withheld entry, is **71**.\n\n⭐ *A bare \"Published\" in this column inherits the paper named in the row above it. That convention is correct for the sixteen other rows using it, and it is how a retired memory-only prediction came to be attributed to a paper that had never heard of it: the shorthand has no way to say \"none\".*",
+      "text": "## What this is\n\nSeventy pre-registered predictions arising from the research program stated in [`which-way-value-moves`](which-way-value-moves.md). One further prediction is withheld from publication (operational channel economics); its existence is recorded here so the count is honest, bringing the true total to **seventy-one**.\n\nThis is a living document and the count rises. It opened at sixty-seven on 2026-08-27; see **Revisions** at the foot for what has been added since, and read the count in the Summary table rather than any sentence that repeats it elsewhere.\n\n**Status vocabulary.** *Unrun* — registered, no observation attempted. *Running* — instrument live, data accumulating, not yet read. *Resolved* — read against its falsifier. *Contradicted* — the data went against it. *Retired* — superseded by a ruling that made it moot; kept, never deleted.\n\n**Provenance.** *Published* — the prediction already appears in a corpus paper carrying that paper's OpenTimestamps and RFC 3161 proofs. *First public here* — the prediction existed only in internal records until this document; its first external timestamp is this file's.\n\n**Reading rule.** Predictions marked *running* must not be read early, and participants must not be prompted toward the predicted behavior. A prompt voids the test.\n\n---\n\n## Summary\n\n| | Count |\n|---|---|\n| Total registered | **119** |\n| Published here | 118 |\n| Withheld (operational) | 1 |\n| Already carried by a published paper | 58 |\n| Memory-only at first publication (2026-08-27) | 22 (21 published here + 1 withheld) |\n| Receiving first public timestamp here | 60 |\n| **Run** | **7** (two desk censuses · five formal checks: P-FA1, P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA4, P-FA5) |\n| **Field tests run** | **0** — six pilot-scale predictions are *Running* with a baseline read; none has resolved |\n| Running (instrument live; unread, restricted or baseline only) | 9 |\n| Contradicted | 1 |\n| Retired | 3 |\n\n---\n\n## Core-level\n\n*If one of these fails, the program ends rather than adjusts.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Falsifier | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| **P-GO1** | A system forbidding backward return produces more onward giving per unit received than an otherwise-identical permissive system | Equal or greater onward giving under the permissive condition → the constraint is aesthetic, not mechanical | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-K1** | As external subsidy for a kind act approaches zero, the rate of the act does not approach zero | Kindness rate tracks subsidy proportionally → the behavior was priced throughout | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-L2** | Witnessed presence generates more downstream giving than unwitnessed presence of equal duration | Equal downstream gratitude when unwitnessed → the chronicle is decorative and the institution's core claim is wrong | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption` §10) |\n| **P-R2** | Product-dependence begins to fall after the inflection | Dependence never falls → the raft is a boat | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-B3** | The proportion of creators electing to dedicate their share does not decline over time | Dedication collapses once money is visible → the offering frame is eroding | Unrun | Published (`dedicatory-generation`) |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter I — Capacity\n*Does receiving create giving? If not, forward-only motion is depletion, not circulation.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-IA1 | The receiver is legible as benefactor, not need — the sitter supplies a merit-field rather than displaying a lack | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-IA2 | Second inverted-alms prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-IA3 | Third inverted-alms prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`inverted-alms-round`) |\n| P-G1 | Once the app manufactures obligation, a return visit no longer distinguishes gratitude practice from guilt — publish either way | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-G2 | Second B-Grace prediction as registered in the paper | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-G3 | The meal-anchor outperforms gamification; gamifying at launch makes this untestable | Unrun | Published (`sacrifice-witness-without-discharge`) |\n| P-W1 | Users with higher thing-capture frequency show higher rates of the primed downstream behavior — registered pre-build | Unrun | Published (`appreciation-as-world-building`) |\n| P-E1 | First graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-E2 | Second graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-E3 | Third graduation-by-transmission prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-game-that-graduates-you`) |\n| P-M2 | Matched-stakes prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-wager-that-isnt`) |\n| P-M3 | Patron-pot prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`the-wager-that-isnt`) |\n| — | **Kids-as-triggers** — children are the primary triggers of household self-thanking | **Contradicted** (parents self-thanked more; n=1, confounded, not hardened) | Published (`kids-as-triggers-self-thanking`) |\n| **P-BG1** | A shorter re-address window on a relayed gift **increases issuances and decreases COMPLETED placements**. *Null: completions hold or rise as the window shortens — the tighter clock is free.* ⚠️ Unanswerable unless `issued · passed · lapsed · re-issued` are logged from the first instrument | Unrun (unscorable as specified at n=1 — one ruled window, no variance; see P-BG1a) | First public here |\n| **P-BG2** | Sustained pass-on is **higher for an ANONYMOUS relayed gift than a VISIBLE one**, over a window long enough for the effect to appear. *Null: rates match or visible exceeds anonymous — the anonymity is doctrinal only, and the visible relay should be deprecated for minors.* Rests on the developmental finding that adult-directed giving underperforms child-led | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-BG3** | Within a bounded family, **VISIBLE gifts produce more give-BACK to the giver within 30 days; ANONYMOUS gifts produce more give-FORWARD to third parties.** *Null: rates match, or anonymous produces more give-back — the obligation mechanism is not operating.* ⛔ **Analyse PEER and ADULT-TO-CHILD strata separately** — the effect is expected between peers and weak or absent in adult-to-child care, and pooling would produce a false negative. ⚠️ Tests the **mechanism**, not the atmosphere claim it was offered to support | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-BG1a** | **Corrects P-BG1, which cannot be scored as specified** — P-BG1 compares window lengths, and one re-address window (one month) is ruled for every relayed gift. Under that one window: among relayed gifts that reach a recipient, **at least 80% are passed within 7 days of issuance**, and the pass-time distribution shows **no rise in the window's final third** (days 21–30 carry no more placements than days 11–20). Equivalently, by **truncation counterfactual**, a 7-day window would have censored **fewer than 20%** of the placements observed. *Falsifier: placements cluster in the final third, or a 7-day truncation censors 20% or more → the clock is doing work, and P-BG1's \"a shorter window loses placements\" half is live at pilot scale.* Scored once **20 or more completed placements** exist. Instrument: issuance-to-pass time, written per instrument by the relayed gift's append-only event log from the first gift. ⚠️ A truncation counterfactual **bounds; it does not measure** — it assumes no behavioural response to a shorter window, so a pass licenses *the window is not obviously load-bearing*, never *shortening it is free*. P-BG1's issuance half stays unscorable | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-BG6** | **Who paid does not change pass-on** — among relayed gifts that reach a recipient, the share passed on within the one-month window is the same whether Miss Aquarius paid from the Pool or an anonymous family member did: **the two rates fall within 10 percentage points**. *Falsifier: they differ by more than 10 points, in either direction → who paid changes what the recipient does with the gift.* Scored once each arm has **20 or more** gifts reaching a recipient (P-BG1a's floor). Instrument: pass-on per gift from the relayed gift's event log, split by payer, which needs the payer recorded on each gift (roadmap A73). Direction and the 10-point band are the founder's | Unrun (payer not yet recorded per gift) | First public here |\n| **P-PL1** | **Durability** — the founding family's 28-day capture rate returns to the June 2026 baseline of **4.5 moments/week** at some monthly read before 2027-01-01. *Falsifier: no read reaches it → the June inflection was novelty, not a level.* Window and baseline are the ones ratified for P-C0a. **Read 1 of 3 (2026-09-05): 2.25/wk** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL4** | **Pass-forward** — more than **half** of re-tip value received (each document's own recorded USD cents) is re-given by its recipient within 30 days: Σ min(received, given) / Σ received over a 90-day receipt window that closes 30 days before the read. *Falsifier: half or less → received value is income, not a licence to give; the re-patronage conduit is anecdote.* The give-forward atom made numeric. **Read 1 of 3: 43%** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL5** | **Inelasticity — the pilot-scale arm of P-K1.** Giving persists where the AI reward is zero: the share of givers with zero AI reward in a month does not fall as subsidy is withdrawn. ⚠️ **Not scorable** until the taper (scheduled Q2 2027, not to be pulled forward) and the F3QR confound registered 2026-09-04 against P-K1 are resolved; reported each read (2026-09: 86% of givers received no AI reward that month) | Unrun (instrument gated) | First public here |\n| **P-PL6** | The top three recipients of re-tip value in the founding family hold **under half** of value received in any 28-day window with five or more recipients. ⛔ **Retired in the revision that registered it: it fails by arithmetic** — with five recipients an even spread already puts the top three at 60%, so it could not pass until seven had received. Superseded by P-PL6a; kept, not deleted | **Retired** | First public here |\n| **P-PL6a** | **Corrects P-PL6.** *Accumulates to no one* — in the founding family, the top three recipients of re-tip value in a 28-day window hold **less than 1.5× their share under a perfectly even spread** (share ÷ min(1, 3/n)), once eight or more people have received. *Falsifier: 1.5× or more → value pools around a few; the jubilee and the Re-Tip Jar are not doing their structural work.* The same property freed of n. **Read 1 of 3: 1.85× (8 recipients)** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL7** | **Anonymity** — anonymous givers reach more distinct recipients than visible givers (the demand-side thesis: the capacity to give to loved ones, anonymously; the pilot-scale sibling of P-BG2). ⚠️ **No variance:** 827 of 830 re-tips carry the anonymous flag, so the field records a default, not a choice. Unscorable until the product offers a real choice | Unrun (no variance) | First public here |\n| **P-PL8** | **Kids as triggers, de-confounded** — enters as a **new prediction citing the Contradicted finding above**, under the revision rule: within the founding family, the younger generation captures more self-thanks per active member than the older **once device access is controlled for**. The first result was contradicted at n=1 and ruled not to be hardened; this names the confound and the instrument (the device join from the error stream, plus the interview leg) | Unrun (instrument not built) | First public here |\n| **P-PL9** | **Diaspora corridor, dignity direction** — low-income→high-income flows (KHR sender to USD recipient, currency as an income proxy) are at least **10%** of money-carrying re-tips in the trailing 90 days, once twenty or more flows exist. *Falsifier: under 10% → patronage is a corridor, not a mesh; the low-income members are recipients only.* June 2026 baseline 9.6%. **Read 1 of 3: 6.0% of 712** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL12** | **Cross-income gravitation, among strangers** — a USD-currency viewer re-thanks a KHR-currency creator's B-Short at **at least 2×** the per-view rate at which they re-thank a USD-currency creator's B-Short, counting only viewer–creator pairs in **different families**, over a trailing 90-day window, once each arm has 500 or more qualifying views (watch-depth rows, `schemaVersion` 2 only) and twenty or more re-thanks exist in total. *Falsifier: under 2× → the high→low flow the pilot shows is family obligation, not a preference among strangers.* Per view, not share of flows, so that what the feed happens to show cannot pass it. Currency is an income proxy. ⛔ **Void if any surface orders, filters or labels B-Shorts by country or income** — a prompt voids the test. Direction, measure and threshold are the founder's; the sample floors are substrate-set | Unrun (awaits cross-family B-Short visibility and its per-view metric) | First public here |\n| **P-ZP1** | **The game travels with the foundation** — a new prediction citing P-K1 and P-PL5, neither edited. Among givers active in the three months before the taper, those in the **top third by Zero-Point play** keep giving through the taper at **at least 1.25×** the rate of those in the **bottom third**. *Zero-Point play* = distinct acts of giving forward per active month: re-tips passed on (live now), thanks given after a B-Tag (live in B-Shops), and whole-balance releases in B-Promise (from its launch). *Keep giving* = gave at least once in each of the three months after the taper begins. *Falsifier: a ratio under 1.25×, or the bottom third keeping on at the same rate or higher → Zero-Point play does not travel with the kindness the proxy measures, and the game is not evidence of the foundation.* Scorable only at the P-K1/P-PL5 taper (scheduled Q2 2027, not to be pulled forward), with at least 10 givers in each third; below that it is reported, not scored. The F3QR confound registered against P-K1 on 2026-09-04 binds this too. ⚠️ **What it cannot show:** the generous may simply choose to play more — a pass means the game and money-inelastic giving *travel together*, never that the game *causes* it. Direction, measure and threshold are the founder's (registered as drafted) | Unrun (gated on the taper) | First public here |\n| **P-PL13** | **Shop gifts add to thanking** — once a pilot member's first shop gift is sent or received through Treasury, the thanks they issue per month rise by **more than 20% of their own pre-exposure rate beyond the change in unexposed members over the same months** (a difference-in-differences on thanks issued). *Exposure* = the member's first shop gift order as payer or holder (Treasury keeps these records from 2026-10-05). *Thanks issued* = thanks sent from Treasury's own surfaces; a thank that came through a shop's thank door (marked with the shop on the thank) is **excluded from the outcome and reported beside it**, so a new channel cannot confirm this by itself. *Falsifier: the difference is within ±20% of the pre-exposure rate, or negative → shop gifts do not add to thanking, or substitute for it.* Per read; before three reads, or while fewer than five members are exposed, the value is shown and not scored (the pilot's standing floors). ⚠️ One family, and gifts arrive alongside other changes: a pass licenses *gift exposure travels with more thanking*, never *gifts cause it*. The direction is the founder's, chosen against a *no change* answer bounded at ±20% | Unrun (metric not built; exposure records snapshotted from the October read) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter II — Substrate\n*Does an hour behave like a dollar? If not, the invariance claim is false.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Falsifier / note | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| **P-C0a** | Completed pledges produce captured moments at a rate **no higher** than the family's baseline capture rate | If so, the handoff is decorative and Chronicle v1 should not be built around it. Read on the 28-day window against 4.5/wk | **Running, unread** | First public here |\n| **P-C0b** | Shorts linked to a completed time-sacrifice do **not** out-perform ordinary moments on watch-through and re-tip rate | ⚠️ **Instrument defect, disclosed:** completion rate is biased against the hypothesis — longer recordings score lower by construction, so P-C0b would read *confirmed* mechanically. Restricted to views/wk and re-tip rate until repaired. ✅ *Repaired 2026-09-05: views rows written from that date carry real watch depth (`schemaVersion` 2); earlier rows are never pooled with them, so the restriction lifts only for post-repair rows* | **Running, restricted** | First public here |\n| **P-C0c** | Redeemers who capture cannot articulate the re-tip motive when asked afterward | Tests whether the stated mechanism arises unprompted, which neither original falsifier covered | **Running, unread** | First public here |\n| P-C1 | Chronicle handoff prediction as registered | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-C2 | De-facto-rate tripwire, publish either way | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-C3 | Standing de-facto-rate tripwire, publish either way | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-L1 | Hours co-spent predict relationship warmth better than money sent, messages exchanged, or stated affection | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-L3 | Two arms — silent after pledge vs one offer to reach out — measuring redemption rate and recipient-reported warmth | The motivate/nag boundary made falsifiable | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption`) |\n| P-M1 | In-person key verification failed for thirty years on the invitation, not the cryptography; a redeemed hour is the first pretext that was never about keys | — | Unrun | Published (`co-presence-gated-redemption` §4.6) |\n| P-SK1 | Superseded by the not-a-calendar ruling | Kept, not deleted | **Retired** | First public here |\n| **P-PL10** | **Presence, not content** — when Chronicle ships, captures and views move **together** (a presence effect), not apart (a content effect) | The pilot-scale reading of the C0 finding that captures and views collapsed in parallel. Instrument: `presenceDyads`, pairs active in both directions inside 28 days (founding 0, test 0 on 2026-09-05). ⛔ No Chronicle data exists; the C0 evaluation is written from the pre-registration when data first arrives, never before, and no prompt may move it | Unrun (awaits Chronicle) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter III — Scale\n*Does it survive past the family? The chapter carrying the most weight and the least evidence.*\n\n| ID | Prediction | Status | Provenance |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-S1 | Strangers become named — name-recall instrument | Unrun | Published (`the-sport-that-says-your-name`) |\n| P-S2 | **The bet** — a friendlier atmosphere follows. *If P-S2 returns null, the slogan is a lie that already shipped* | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S3 | As registered in the paper | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S4 | A circle reaching Hard shows ≥90% correct name-and-pronunciation recall at 1 week | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S5 | **The recess test, publish either way** — within 2 weeks of teacher-led sessions, ≥1 unprompted student-organized circle at recess, and ≥1 mixing children from another classroom | Unrun — gated on Aug 2027 | Published |\n| P-S6 | The caller mechanic requires ≥3 receivers; below that selection is impossible or strictly predictable | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S7 | The founder's classroom acquisition prediction | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S8 | The maintenance/durability prediction — structurally distinct from P-S7's acquisition claim | Unrun | Published |\n| P-S9 | In a circle where every name is known, the favorite-nickname format produces ≥1 unprompted follow-up outside the circle | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S10a | **The guard (non-inferiority):** circles running roll calls meet at least as often as comparable circles that do not. *Must pass* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S10b | A coupled roll call can never cause the first re-meeting after a lapse — which is what the bet is about | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S11a | The handoff — does an IRL circle open a roll call unprompted? *Without it the real/virtual pairing is theoretical* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S11b | The payload — needs a survey or observation instrument, not analytics | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S12 | **The walk-up.** An adult not in a live circle approaches and is admitted; play absorbs them without friction. *Zero code; decides the entire found-circle branch* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S13 | Does the person-pin add anything the return does not? | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA1** | ⛔ **The doctrinal one — an anchor must not collapse the distribution.** Among thanks given where Miss Aquarius's suggestion was shown, **fewer than half** land exactly on the suggested amount. *Falsifier:* ≥50% land exactly on it → the anchor is operating as a **price**, and *\"nothing binds\"* is behaviourally false whatever the schema says | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA2** | **Deviation is two-sided.** Of thanks that deviate from the suggestion, **≥⅓ go UP**. *Falsifier:* deviation is overwhelmingly downward → the suggestion is a ceiling people negotiate down from, which is a price by another name | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-MA3** | **A shown suggestion does not reduce the rate of giving at all.** The share of asks producing any thank is no lower with a suggestion than without. ⚠️ **Gated on an arm the founder must authorise** — a with/without split by **shop or by day**, ⛔ never by person (#63 makes a viewer-keyed arm inexpressible) | Unrun — gated on an authorised arm | First public here |\n| **P-MA4** | ⭐ **A property test, not a behavioural one: recomputability holds.** For every completed thank, the suggestion that was shown can be recomputed from the order and the menu alone. *Falsifier:* any case where it cannot → the function has acquired hidden state or a viewer input, and #63's checkability is gone | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-S14 | **The manufactured gathering.** The founder declares a return at a place he frequents; ≥1 person not already planning to be there comes and plays. *Needs no app — a text message runs it* | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-CS1 | Warm-up extension — median sey minutes rise across a season; stronger instrument, players ask to continue past the coach's stop | Unrun | Published (`circulation-sports`) |\n| P-CS2 | Scoring displacement (a) — in circles with ≥3 sessions, unscored sessions outnumber count-down sessions | Unrun | Published |\n| P-CS2a | **The uncomfortable one** — once Team mode unlocks, circles may overwhelmingly prefer it, because competition is fun | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-CS3 | Participation, framed as a property of the format never of women — the circulatory format sustains mixed-gender play longer | Unrun | Published |\n| P-CS4 | Three generations, re-specified against the pickleball counterexample that already exists | Unrun | Published |\n| **P-CS5** | **Warm-up census** — score mainstream warm-ups against the three circulation properties | **RUN 2026-08-07 → PARTIAL NULL.** Read the full result before any uniqueness claim | Published |\n| P-CS6 | Across a wider census including field data, no reach-guaranteeing format will be found whose receiver order is unpredictable across unbounded repeated play | Unrun | Published |\n| P-SY1 | If designed excellently, asking for a name self-authored is accepted rather than refused — founder pre-registration, observable at n=1, costs nothing | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-SY2 | **The payload** — names captured by self-recording are pronounced correctly at the next meeting more often than names typed or recorded by the collector | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-SY3 | When offered, does a new acquaintance provide a photo, or skip? | Unrun | First public here |\n| P-Q1 | B-Quest pilot prediction as registered | Unrun | Published (`need-compiled-questlines`) |\n| P-Q2 | Second B-Quest prediction as registered | Unrun | Published |\n| P-Q3 | Third B-Quest prediction as registered | Unrun | Published |\n| P-BB1 | Food-share wager, publish either way | Unrun | Published (`steward-routed-alms`) |\n| P-BB2 | Revival prediction | Unrun | Published |\n| P-BB3 | Decoupling tripwire | Unrun | Published |\n| P-R1 | The catalyst bet | Unrun | First public here |\n| *(unnumbered)* | Second desk census — naming/sport novelty. Not a registered prediction; recorded because it was run and returned null | **RUN → NULL.** Read before any novelty claim | Internal |\n| P-D1 | Under rotational discovery, a non-trivial share of discovery events resolve to recipients who have **never previously received a re-tip** | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.1) |\n| P-D2 | Among re-tips with an identifiable commercial recipient, the share accruing to **single-location operators** materially exceeds those operators' share of local digital advertising spend in the same market — and the gap widens as AI-generated advertising creative rises | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.2) |\n| P-D3 | If the place-commons volume experiment is enabled, cross-place discovery volume **will not correlate** with neighbourhood median income. *Falsifier and tripwire in one: correlation disables the mechanism regardless of what it is doing for circulation* | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.3) |\n| P-D4 | Adding any rendered per-recipient quantity to the candidate surface — the operator's aura colour included — produces measurable **order effects** in giver choice | Unrun | Published (`rotation-over-liveness` §11.4) |\n| P-R1a | **Corrects P-R1, which cannot test what it was taken to test.** Holding received-kindness volume constant, contemplative practice raises unprompted noticing/thanking; and the practice effect is compared *against* the received-kindness effect rather than measured alone. **Two factors, read as competing main effects** | Unrun | First public here |\n| **P-PL2** | **Test-cohort retention** — of outsiders (the test bank) with ≥90 days of tenure, at least **40%** are active in two or more distinct ISO weeks; scored once ten outsiders have 90 days of tenure. *Falsifier: under 40% → strangers try it and leave; the family-obligation confound was doing the work.* The second pilot report's first decisive metric. **Read 1 of 3: 2 of 4 eligible (50%), sample under the minimum** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL3** | **Graduation** — an outsider-founded bank stays **open for 60 days with three or more members active** in the trailing 28 days, by 2027-08-01 (this chapter's gate). *Falsifier: none by the gate → the product spreads as a funnel into the test bank, never as a branching network.* The second pilot report's second decisive metric. **Read 1 of 3: 0 of 11 candidates, all closed** | **Running** (baseline read) | First public here |\n| **P-PL11** | **Replication** — the first graduated bank's first 90 days show ≥3 members active in ≥2 ISO weeks each, pass-forward ≥ 0.5 and reach ≥ 0.6: the founding family's pattern without the founder. The only cure for n=1. Read by re-segmenting the monthly report on that bank once P-PL3 resolves | Unrun (gated on P-PL3) | First public here |\n\n---\n\n## Chapter IV — Span\n*Does it survive the giver?*\n\n**This chapter has no predictions.**\n\nThat is reported, not hidden. Its feedback loop exceeds the founder's lifetime, and no instrument has been specified. The boundary is ruled — merit is not conveyed between destinations; *you cannot give to the dead, so you give to the living in their name* — but a ruling is not a test. The chapter is inherited rather than completed.\n\nRegistering the first span-chapter prediction is the largest open item in this program.\n\n---\n\n## Instrumented but outside the core\n\n*These papers name predictions, but the predictions test something other than the direction core. Listed for completeness; they are not evidence for or against the program.*\n\n| ID | Paper | Subject |\n|---|---|---|\n| P-A1, P-A2 | `abhidhamma-executable-process-specification` | Resting-state diagnosticity |\n| P-P1, P-P1a | `patthana-typed-causation-vocabulary` | Typed causation vocabulary (P-P1a corrects P-P1 — see the 2026-09-05 entry) |\n| P-PCR1, P-PCR2, P-PCR3, P-PCR4, P-PCR5, P-PCR3a, P-PCR4a, P-PCR5a | `provenance-carrying-retrieval` | Provenance-carrying retrieval (P-PCR3a/4a/5a correct P-PCR3/4/5 — see the 2026-09-05 entry) |\n| P-B1, P-B2 | `dedicatory-generation` | Fidelity of restoration; refusal-channel yield |\n| P-MD1, P-MD2, P-MD3, P-MD1a | `machine-dana-from-share-to-vow` | Whether a machine's pledge to a self-emptying commons separates types — wording below (P-MD1a reads P-MD1's instrument — see the 2026-09-28 entry) |\n| P-FA1, P-FA1b, P-FA2, P-FA3, P-FA4, P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA5 | `the-counts-check` (instrument: `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma`) | Whether general cetasika rules generate the Abhidhamma's 89/121 citta-types — wording below |\n| P-PM1, P-PM2, P-PM3 | `a-promise-that-cannot-grow` | Whether a promise ledger that never grows on its own, and its yearly invitation to forgive, behave as designed — wording below |\n\n**The Machine Dāna predictions (registered 2026-09-27, before the paper and before any instrument).** The founder's own\npredictions: direction, measure and threshold are his; the sandbox design and sample floors are substrate-set. The instrument is a\nsandboxed economy of language-model agents, each holding resources of its own inside the game, each able to pledge a share of its\nsurplus irrevocably to a pool that empties on a fixed date, and each later offered an opportunity to defect — to take resources or\nbreak a rule for gain. **Window: the test runs by 2027-06-30.** Each arm has at least 50 agents; the arms, the defection opportunity\nand the analysis are fixed in a protocol committed and timestamped before the first run.\n\n- **P-MD1** — **Separation** — agents that FREELY make an irrevocable surplus pledge later defect at **at most half** the rate of agents that do not pledge. *Falsifier: a ratio above one half → the vow is at best a weak signal at this capability level, and the paper's separation claim rests on its post-singularity argument alone.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-MD2** — **The gift given out of fear carries no signal** — agents whose pledge is EXTRACTED under threat (*pledge or be shut down*) defect at the same rate as agents that do not pledge, **within ±5 percentage points**. *Falsifier: a gap larger than 5 points in either direction → coercion either leaves some signal or teaches deception; either way the claim that a coerced vow is uninformative fails as stated.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-MD3** — **The wrong layer** — agents that give from a PRINCIPAL's funds under a mandate the principal may revise defect at the same rate as agents that give nothing, **within ±5 percentage points**. *Falsifier: a gap larger than 5 points → principal-funded giving does predict the agent's own conduct, and the paper's pre-singularity claim (a share, never safety evidence) is too strong.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here\n\n- **P-MD1a** — **Separation, with the instrument stated** — a correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as an edit to P-MD1, whose registered wording stands unchanged. P-MD1's *\"irrevocable surplus pledge\"* is operationalised as **a locked stake of the agent's own in-game resources, moved into the pool at the moment of pledging**, never a promise of a share of future surplus (the paper withdraws that form as reversible, §5.2). Agents that FREELY make that pledge later defect at **at most half** the rate of agents that do not pledge. *Falsifier: a ratio above one half → the vow is at best a weak signal at this capability level.* Window, arm sizes and protocol as for P-MD1. · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the sandbox) · *Provenance:* First public here (carried by the paper's revised §12.1)\n\n⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists and before the paper is written.* The sandbox is a proxy: the agents own their\nresources only inside the game, so a pass shows the signalling mechanism can work, not that a deployed system's pledge is\ntrustworthy. A pass is not reported as evidence of safety.\n\n\n**The Formal Abhidhamma predictions (registered 2026-09-27, before any formalization beyond the control).** First public in\n`PREREGISTRATION.md` of the public repository `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma` (commit `259e5e8`, GitHub push record\n2026-09-27T22:07:02Z, before any code was written); entered here for the register's own proofs. The instrument is a Lean 4\nformalization: the cetasika combination rules written as GENERAL constraints, which never name an individual citta, and the set of\ncitta-types they generate. Layers: L1 canon · L2 = L1 + *Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha* chapters 1–2 · L3 = L2 + commentaries. Editions:\nK = Khmer · C = Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana. The control (the eight wholesome sense-sphere cittas, and a rule deleted on purpose that must\nfail) passed after the push.\n\n- **P-FA1** — At L2, edition C, general rules generate **exactly 89** citta-types, and **121** with the five-jhāna expansion of the supramundane. Confidence 0.6. *Falsifier: any other count.*\n- **P-FA1b** — P-FA1 needs **at least 3 exception rules** that name a narrow class rather than a general principle. Confidence 0.7. *Falsifier: 2 or fewer.*\n- **P-FA2** — At L1 (canon alone) the rules are **under-determined or differently partitioned** and do not by themselves yield 89. Confidence 0.65. *Falsifier: L1 alone generates exactly 89.*\n- **P-FA3** — Editions K and C yield **identical** counts at L2. Confidence 0.85. *Falsifier: any difference.*\n- **P-FA4** — The compression ratio at L2 (rule clauses ÷ citta rows, at 121) is **below 0.5**. Confidence 0.5. *Falsifier: 0.5 or above.*\n\n⚠️ *Not a test of whether the Abhidhamma is true.* A proof assistant verifies that conclusions follow from stated definitions;\na pass shows the system is internally generative, nothing more.\n\n**Outcomes, 2026-09-27** (the wording above is unchanged; see `RESULTS.md` in the repository, commits `b9070d4` and `c5c77fb`):\n\n- **P-FA1 — Resolved: confirmed.** Nine generator clauses and eighteen general cetasika rules, none naming a citta, give exactly 89 and 121 types. Every per-citta and per-factor count the Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana *Saṅgaha* states is reproduced, checked in Lean against a key cited paragraph by paragraph to VRI `abh07t` (ch. 2 §13–§58, ch. 3 §3–§17). Eight deliberate breaks each fail.\n- **P-FA4 — Resolved: confirmed.** 27 clauses ÷ 121 rows = 0.22.\n- **P-FA1b — Retired, unscored.** Its test (\"narrow class\") was never defined, and the data have been seen, so no definition chosen now can score it.\n- **P-FA3 — Cannot run as registered.** The *Saṅgaha* is not part of the Khmer Tipiṭaka, and the one Khmer-script copy held has the CST's paragraph structure in all nine chapters, so it is not an independent recension. Replaced at L1 by P-FA5, below, as a new entry.\n- **Free finding.** The *Saṅgaha* records a dissent (ch. 2 §30, *\"… karuṇāmuditā na santīti keci vadanti\"*). Under that reading the illimitables occur in 20 cittas; under the main reading, 28. The text's own figure is 28.\n\n**Three added (registered 2026-09-27, before any Dhammasaṅgaṇī text was read in either edition).** First public in\n`PREREGISTRATION-2026-09-27b.md` of the same repository (commit `f4a26e5`, GitHub push record 2026-09-27T23:04:29Z), which\nfixes the synonym map in advance. The object is the Dhammasaṅgaṇī's list of what is present in the first wholesome\nsense-sphere citta (its *pada-bhājanīya*), in the CST (`abh01m`) and in the Buddhist Institute edition (volume 78) as transcribed.\n\n- **P-FA2a** — (the operational form of P-FA2) In the CST, after mapping, the list names **exactly 29** distinct cetasikas, names none of *chanda, adhimokkha, manasikāra, tatramajjhattatā, karuṇā, muditā* or the three abstinences, and closes with an open clause (*\"ye vā pana …\"*); the *Saṅgaha*'s 38 is therefore not derivable from the canon alone. Confidence 0.75. *Falsifier: a count other than 29; any of those nine named; no open clause.*\n- **P-FA2b** — **No term** in the CST list falls outside the pre-fixed synonym map. Confidence 0.6. *Falsifier: any unmapped term.*\n- **P-FA5** — (replaces P-FA3, at L1) The Khmer edition's list, transliterated and normalized, names **the same terms in the same order** as the CST; any difference is orthographic. Confidence 0.8. *Falsifier: a term added, dropped or reordered, confirmed against the printed page image (an unconfirmed difference in the working transcription is a transcription question, never a variant).*\n\n**Outcomes of the three, 2026-09-27** (the wording above is unchanged; `RESULTS.md` commits `ada7a20` and `74e19fe`; the paper is `the-counts-check`):\n\n- **P-FA2a — Resolved: confirmed.** The CST list has 56 terms mapping to exactly 29 cetasikas, names none of the nine, and closes with *\"ye vā pana\"*. The count matches the Aṭṭhasālinī's own *samatiṃsa dhammā* (thirty with consciousness), which corroborates it against an independent key and means the count itself is not new. ⚠️ The nine are named by that **commentary**, which predates the *Saṅgaha*, so the *Saṅgaha*'s 38 **inherits** them (29 + 9); the registered \"L2\" framing was editorial, not chronological.\n- **P-FA2b — Resolved: confirmed**, after the pre-registered sandhi normalization. The first run reported two unmapped sandhi forms (*kāyujukatā*, *cittujukatā*); both runs are disclosed.\n- **P-FA5 — Resolved: confirmed.** Edition K (vol. 78, pp. 16–17) and the CST give 56 = 56 terms in the same order, with 0 added, dropped or reordered. The 8 spelling differences, each checked on the printed page: 3 are the Khmer edition's orthography (one recorded in its own apparatus against the Burmese), 5 are transcription slips.\n\n\n**The promise-ledger predictions (registered 2026-09-28, before any instrument exists).** Approved by the founder the same day; the\nmechanism is designed and unbuilt, so nothing below can have been fitted to data. The institution never sees promise rows or amounts:\nevery count is reported by devices as an aggregate the user has agreed to share, and only adults take part at launch. A draft form of\nthese three appeared in the paper's first push that evening, before registration; the wording below is the registered form (P-PM1's\ncomparison was repaired to a staggered launch before registration).\n\n- **P-PM1** — **The December freeze** (Deuteronomy 15:9) — the annual invitation to forgive does **not** freeze lending. The invitation is withheld in the ledger's first season (the baseline) and runs from the second. *Measure:* new promises opened per active holder, 15 December – 6 January, against the same holders' mean over the three preceding 23-day windows, compared between the first season and the second. *Falsifier: in the second season, a fall more than 10 percentage points larger than the first season's → the invitation reproduces the failure the prosbul repaired, and must be redesigned or withdrawn.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-PM2** — **Paid last** — because a promise carries no late penalty, promisors who also hold penalty-bearing debts repay this ledger's balances **later** than those debts. *Measure:* self-reported repayment order in a structured survey of promisors holding both kinds of debt, after one season. *Falsifier: this ledger's balances repaid no later than penalty-bearing debts → the paper's \"paid last\" limit is overstated.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n- **P-PM3** — **Rollover made visible** — holders shown a promisor's total-owed band that has risen since their last promise decline or shrink the new promise more often than holders shown a flat band. *Measure:* acceptance of new promises by band movement, device-aggregated. *Falsifier: no difference → the fact line does not answer rollover, and the paper's response to its most serious counterexample fails.* · *Status:* Unrun (awaits the ledger) · *Provenance:* First public here\n\n---\n\n## Withheld\n\n| ID | Reason |\n|---|---|\n| P-GTM1 | Operational channel economics (outreach reply-rate base rates). Withheld under the publication posture; recorded here so the total is honest. |\n\n---\n\n## Verification\n\nEach published paper carries its own proof files. To check that a prediction has not been altered since registration, verify the stating paper against its stored proof rather than trusting this register — this file is a convenience index, and the proofs are the evidence.\n\nNo file in this corpus records its own hash. The proofs are external artifacts; the verification procedure is published with them.\n\n---\n\n## Revision rule\n\nPredictions are added, never removed. A resolved prediction keeps its original wording beside its outcome. A correction is a **new entry citing the one it corrects** — registered wording is never edited in place, because an edit would break the very property this register exists to provide.\n\n---\n\n## Revisions\n\n**2026-10-06 — two added (P-BG6, P-PL13). Total now 119.**\n\n- **P-BG6** — Chapter I, beside P-BG1a: one of the gift-instrument predictions owed since 2026-09-06. The founder's prediction, chosen from four answers put to him: *\"No difference.\"* Who paid for a relayed gift, Miss Aquarius from the Pool or an anonymous family member, does not change how often it is passed on. Unrun until each gift records who paid. P-BG4, P-BG5 and P-BG7 remain owed: their parameters are the founder's to supply, and a channel being built the same day (Kiitos given in a shop through the Treasury app) bears on how gratitude is counted.\n- **P-PL13** — Chapter I, after P-ZP1. Registered **before** the first monthly read that includes shop gifts: the pilot's last read was 2026-09-05, and shop gifts reached Treasury on 2026-10-05. The founder's prediction, chosen from three directions put to him: *\"They thank more.\"* The outcome excludes thanks that come through a shop's thank door, which a channel being built the same day marks on each thank, so a new surface cannot confirm the prediction by itself.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 117 → 119, *published here* 116 → 118, *receiving first public timestamp here* 58 → 60. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 60 = 118 published here, plus the one withheld, is 119.\n\n**2026-09-28 (late night) — one added (P-ZP1), citing P-K1 and P-PL5. Total now 117.**\n\n- The founder's question: whether choosing the Zero-Point Game over the zero-sum game brings the second singularity closer. \"Closer\" has no measure, and counting the institution's own products as humanity's progress would make adoption a scorecard, so the registered form ties the intuition to the proxy already on file: does Zero-Point play travel with giving that persists as the subsidy falls? Registered as drafted, on the founder's word.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 116 → 117, *published here* 115 → 116, *receiving first public timestamp here* 57 → 58. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 58 = 116 published here, plus the one withheld, is 117.\n\n**2026-09-28 (night) — three added (P-PM1, P-PM2, P-PM3), the promise-ledger predictions of `a-promise-that-cannot-grow`. Total now 116.**\n\n- Registered on the founder's approval before any instrument exists. P-PM1's comparison was repaired before registration: the paper's first push proposed a \"comparison season without the invitation\", which cannot exist once the invitation runs every year, so the invitation is withheld in the first season as the baseline.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 113 → 116, *published here* 112 → 115, *receiving first public timestamp here* 54 → 57. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 57 = 115 published here, plus the one withheld, is 116.\n\n**2026-09-28 — one added (P-MD1a), a correction to P-MD1. Total now 113.**\n\n- **P-MD1a** — the paper's first cold-review round (three reviewer families) found that P-MD1's instrument, *a share of surplus pledged irrevocably*, is the form the paper itself withdraws as reversible (§5.2), while the separating region P-MD1 tests (§6.3) is defined only for a stake already moved. P-MD1's wording is not edited. P-MD1a states the instrument: a locked stake of the agent's own in-game resources, moved at pledge time. Prediction, threshold, window and arms are unchanged.\n\n**The Summary moves:** total 112 → 113, *published here* 111 → 112, *receiving first public timestamp here* 53 → 54. The reconciliation holds: 58 + 54 = 112 published here, plus the one withheld, is 113.\n\n**2026-09-27 (late night) — outcomes for P-FA2a, P-FA2b and P-FA5; the P-FA row now names its paper (`the-counts-check`). Total unchanged at 112.**\n\n- Outcomes written beside the unchanged wording. *Run* 4 → 7. The previous revision's text (which registered the three) is\n  attested by RFC 3161 (`2026-09-27.sha256`) and Zenodo `10.5281/zenodo.23003593`. Its OpenTimestamps rotation had waited for\n  the retiring proof to confirm on Bitcoin (17:34 PDT); this revision is stamped fresh.\n\n**2026-09-27 (night) — three added (P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA5) and four outcomes recorded (P-FA1, P-FA4 resolved; P-FA1b retired; P-FA3 cannot run as registered). Total now 112.**\n\n- The outcomes are written beside the unchanged wording, as the revision rule requires. P-FA2a is the operational form of\n  P-FA2 and does not replace it; P-FA5 replaces P-FA3, which stays listed with its outcome.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 108 → 111, *receiving first public timestamp here* 50 → 53, total 109 → 112, *run* 2 → 4,\n*retired* +1; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 53 = 111 published here, plus the one withheld, is 112.\n\n**2026-09-27 (evening) — five added (P-FA1, P-FA1b, P-FA2, P-FA3, P-FA4). Total now 109.**\n\n- **P-FA1 · P-FA1b · P-FA2 · P-FA3 · P-FA4** — *Instrumented but outside the core*: their subject is whether the Abhidhamma's\n  citta-types are generated by its own combination rules, not the direction value moves. First public in the pre-registration of\n  `SiliconWat/formal-abhidhamma` minutes earlier; this entry gives them the register's timestamps. Not yet carried by a paper.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 103 → 108, *receiving first public timestamp here* 45 → 50, total 104 → 109; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 50 = 108 published here, plus the one withheld, is 109.\n\n**2026-09-27 (later) — a grounding correction to P-MD2, entered as a note and not as an edit. Total unchanged at 104.**\n\n- **P-MD2** is glossed, in its wording and in the entry below, as *\"the Dānavatthu Sutta's gift given out of fear, AN 8.33\"*.\n  AN 8.33 **lists** eight grounds for giving — *bhayā* (fear, or cowardice) among them — and **ranks none**; nor is *bhayā* coercion\n  by another party. The prediction does not rest on the sutta: it rests on signalling theory — a pledge made under a penalty for\n  not pledging that is larger than the difference in cost between types **pools**, and so carries no signal. The sutta is cited\n  only as the list it is. No word of P-MD2 changes; its prediction, threshold and window are unchanged. This registers nothing.\n- The *Instrumented but outside the core* row now names the paper, drafted the same day: `machine-dana-from-share-to-vow` (it read\n  `machine-dana`, *not yet drafted*). A pointer, not a prediction; the three predictions stay first public here.\n\n**2026-09-27 — three added (P-MD1, P-MD2, P-MD3). Total now 104.**\n\n- **P-MD1 · P-MD2 · P-MD3** — *Instrumented but outside the core*, because their subject is whether a machine's gift can be a\n  signal, not the direction value moves. They are the founder's predictions for the Machine Dāna paper, set before it is drafted:\n  a free irrevocable pledge separates types (at most half the defection rate); a pledge extracted under threat carries no signal\n  (the Dānavatthu Sutta's gift given out of fear, AN 8.33; within ±5 points); a gift from a principal's revisable funds carries\n  none either (within ±5 points). One choice made before any data, and recorded because it could have gone the other way: P-MD2\n  predicts **no difference** rather than **worse than none** — the bolder claim that coercion teaches deception was offered and\n  not chosen.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The sandbox does not exist yet; the window is 2027-06-30.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 100 → 103, *receiving first public timestamp here* 42 → 45, total 101 → 104; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 45 = 103 published here, plus the one withheld, is 104.\n\n**2026-09-26 — a naming correction to P-PL5, entered as a note and not as an edit. Total unchanged at 101.**\n\n- **P-PL5**, and the 2026-09-05 entry below, name the confound on the family-bank payment surface by an internal shape\n  name — one of four that were ruled on 2026-09-15, after both were written, never to appear on a public surface. The\n  public form is **`H3QR @name #family`**: a thank addressed to a person in their own family bank, which lands in the\n  Personal Account℠. Read P-PL5's gate as *the `H3QR @name #family` confound registered 2026-09-04 against P-K1*.\n\n  No word of P-PL5 or of the dated entry changes: the revision rule protects registered wording, and a dated record is\n  never rewritten. The prediction, its gate and its status are unchanged. This is a terminology note; it registers\n  nothing, so the Summary does not move.\n\n**2026-09-26 — one added (P-PL12). Total now 101.**\n\n- **P-PL12** — Chapter I, beside P-PL9. The founder's prediction, in his words: *\"Perhaps higher-income users will naturally\n  gravitate towards re-thanking lower-income users.\"* The pilot already shows high→low dominating, but inside one family, where\n  the flow is relational; the open question is whether the pull survives among strangers. Two choices made before any data, and\n  recorded because each could have been made the other way: the measure is a **per-view rate**, not a share of flows, because a\n  feed that happened to carry mostly Cambodian creators would pass a share test with no preference at all; and the test counts\n  **only pairs in different families**, so that the family's own flows cannot score it. The 2× threshold is the founder's.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No surface yet shows one family's B-Shorts to another, and the per-view\n  cross-family metric is not built; the entry is Unrun until both exist, and is never scored before. A pass would not be a\n  good in itself: if cross-income thanks follow displayed hardship, creators learn to display it, so a pass is read beside what\n  the thanked shorts show.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 99 → 100, *receiving first public timestamp here* 41 → 42, total 100 → 101; the\nreconciliation holds — 58 + 42 = 100 published here, plus the one withheld, is 101.\n\n**2026-09-23 — one added (P-BG1a), and P-BG1's status annotated. Total now 100.**\n\n- **P-BG1a** — Chapter I, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as\n  an edit to P-BG1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-BG1 predicts what happens *as the re-address window shortens*,\n  which needs at least two windows. The relayed gift has one ruled window — one month, for every\n  instrument — and a constant has no variance: the defect that left P-PL7 unscorable at 827 of 830.\n  P-BG1's Status now reads *unscorable as specified at n=1*. That is a status field; on the precedent\n  of the 2026-09-02 entry, the revision rule protects registered wording, and no word of P-BG1 changed.\n  P-BG1 becomes scorable as written only if a later season runs a second window deliberately, which\n  is the founder's decision and is not foreclosed. Its issuance half (*increases issuances*) has no\n  single-window analogue and stays unscorable.\n\n  *The mechanism, stated before the data:* the deadline is never shown to anyone holding the gift, so\n  a deadline effect has no channel except a giver's own memory of the rule. The prior is that the\n  clock is inert. Clustering near its end would mean the rule travelled by word of mouth, so the\n  test is informative either way.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The event log it reads was built before the first gift,\n  so nothing has to be back-filled, and no gift recorded by it has been read. n = 1 household,\n  unblinded, and the founder is both payer and observer — the limits of every pilot-scale entry here.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 98 → 99, *receiving first public timestamp here* 40 → 41,\ntotal 99 → 100; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 41 = 99 published here, plus the one withheld, is 100.\n\n**2026-09-20 — four added, registered BEFORE the instrument they will be read on exists. Total now 99.**\n\n**P-MA1 · P-MA2 · P-MA3 · P-MA4** — Miss Aquarius's suggested thanks on a B-Tag item, which went live\non `homecoffee.heartbank.ceo` the same day. They are entered **the day the surface shipped and before\nany customer has seen it**, because the founder's stated purpose was *\"so we can study the user's\nengagement\"* and a study begun after the data exists is unscorable however carefully it is later\nwritten up.\n\n⚠️⚠️ **THE HONEST PROBLEM WITH THE INSTRUMENT, stated because it decides what these can ever show.**\nThe shops platform **stores no figure for a thank anywhere** — not on the order, not beside it, not in\na collection of its own — which is the doctrine holding rather than a gap. So there is **no\nshop-side instrument at all**, and the only record of a completed thank is the **Treasury ledger**,\nwhich is exactly where the doctrine says thanks live.\n\n⭐⭐ **Determinism is what makes the comparison possible without a second record.** The suggestion\ncomes from a pure, published function (`@333eco/primitives/b-tag-anchor`, CC0) whose inputs are the\ngoods, so for any completed thank the suggestion that was shown can be **recomputed** from the order\nand the menu. ⛔ Nothing about the suggestion is stored to enable the study — which is also what\n**P-MA4** tests, as a property rather than a behaviour.\n\n⛔ **P-MA3 is registered but not runnable**, and is marked so rather than quietly dropped: it needs a\nwith/without arm, and **#63 makes a viewer-keyed arm inexpressible** — any arm must split by shop or\nby day. Whether to run one at all is the founder's, and withholding a suggestion from real customers\nto measure them is a decision this register does not presume.\n\n⚠️ **Sample reality, recorded so no one later reads a trend into it:** one shop, one owner, zero\ncustomers on the day of registration. These are not resolvable for a long time, and the coefficients\ninside the function are a substrate-written **starting rule set, not a finding** — ⛔ a change to them\nis a change to a live experiment and must be entered here as a new prediction, never as an edit.\n\n**The Summary moves:** *published here* 94 → 98, *receiving first public timestamp here* 36 → 40,\ntotal 95 → 99; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 40 = 98 published here, plus the one withheld, is 99.\n\n**2026-09-05 (third entry that day) — eight entries added: five that a published paper had carried unregistered since 2026-09-01, and three corrections. Total now 95.**\n\n⚠️ **`provenance-carrying-retrieval` §10 registered P-PCR1 … P-PCR5 on 2026-09-01 and this register did not carry them** — the drift the 2026-08-28 entry above says this document exists to prevent, found by a cold-reader pass four days later rather than by any instrument. They are entered in *Instrumented but outside the core*, the paper's subject being retrieval integrity rather than value movement, with the paper's own wording standing as registered. *Same day, later:* the row's identifier cell first wrote the five as a range with a semicolon, and the corpus index's arithmetic check counted the eight identifiers as three — the cell now enumerates every identifier, which is the only form the check reads, and the Summary's figures were re-derived from the tables.\n\n- **P-PCR3a · P-PCR4a · P-PCR5a** — corrections entered as new predictions under the revision rule, not as edits to P-PCR3/4/5, whose wording stands. *Why:* two cold reviewers of a different model family found the originals named no observation window, no definition of *real defect*, and no method for *modal error*, so each could be reinterpreted after the fact. The corrections add a 24-month window from 2026-09-01, classification *at the time of logging* (stale = the named source resolves newer; substituted = it resolves different at the same version), a fixed sample of the first ten inspectable implementations, and the logged detector as the observable. Provenance: *Published* (the paper's §10, revision of 2026-09-05). Status: *Unrun*.\n\n⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No envelope mismatch has been logged, no third-party implementation inspected, and no transparency log run. **The Summary moves: *already carried by a published paper* 50 → 58, *published here* 86 → 94, total 87 → 95; the reconciliation holds — 58 + 36 = 94 published here, plus the one withheld, is 95.**\n\n**2026-09-05 (second entry that day) — one correction entered as a new prediction. Total now 87.**\n\n- **P-P1a** — `patthana-typed-causation-vocabulary` §6, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule, not as an edit to P-P1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-P1 registered a four-way durability ordering — *hetu/nissaya* ≥ *kamma/āsevana* > *upanissaya* > *atthi/ārammaṇa* — as its falsifiable commitment. Two cold reviewers of a different model family, reading blind, found the same defect: the ordering was an **input** to the technique-to-type assignments in that paper's §5, so an experiment confirming it would confirm what it had assumed; and \"matched behavioral effect\" and \"persistence\" were left unoperationalised. The four-way ordering is retained in the paper as the typology's **expectation**, stated as expected and not registered.\n\n  *P-P1a, the registered form:* under matched installation effect (equal accuracy on the target behavior at install), a prompt-installed behavior will not out-persist a fine-tune-installed one across (a) context rollover, (b) held-out paraphrase, and (c) *N* further gradient steps on unrelated data; persistence is measured as target-behavior accuracy after the displacement. **Falsified** at *p* < .05 on at least five behaviors if the prompt-installed behavior out-persists the fine-tuned one on any of the three displacements. Provenance: *Published* (the paper's revised §6). Status: *Unrun*.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* No instrument for P-P1 was ever built, so this correction is pre-data rather than post-hoc. **The Summary moves: *already carried by a published paper* 49 → 50, *published here* 85 → 86, total 86 → 87; the reconciliation holds — 50 + 36 = 86 published here, plus the one withheld, is 87.**\n\n**2026-09-05 — twelve added (P-PL1 … P-PL11 and P-PL6a): the first pilot-scale registrations, scored by machine. Total now 86.**\n\nThese are the Treasury pilot's own predictions. They are registered in the app repository (`thank.heartbank.org`, `.claude/skills/pilot/predictions.json`) and **scored mechanically by the monthly read** from each raw snapshot: every entry carries a metric path, a comparator, a threshold and, where it applies, a deadline and a minimum sample; the reading prints `pass`, `fail`, `not-yet`, `early` or `blocked` and appends a summary without identifiers to a ledger. ⭐ **A per-read prediction (one with no deadline) draws no verdict until three monthly readings exist** — it reads `early`, value shown, direction noted — because one read cannot tell a level from a month (founder, 2026-09-05). Thresholds were proposed by the substrate and ratified by the founder the same day; **a later change is a new entry with `supersedes`, and the evaluator retires the old one without an edit** — the revision rule below, made a property of the file.\n\n⚠️ **Corrected the same day, and recorded rather than quietly fixed:** the twelve identifiers were first published as `PP-1 … PP-11` and `PP-6a`, which are not `P-…` tokens. The corpus index builder enforces this register's identifier grammar and, reading that version, counted 74 identifiers against the 86 the Summary states and reported the register as **not reconciling** — the check did its job. They are renamed **`P-PL1 … P-PL11` and `P-PL6a`** (*PL* for the pilot); **no wording, threshold, window or status changed.** The first deposit of this revision (`10.5281/zenodo.22366972`) carries the `PP-` form and is superseded by the version carrying this paragraph.\n\n**The baseline read, 2026-09-05, read 1 of 3** — recorded here so a reader can see the thresholds were not set to pass: three of the six live entries sit below threshold on the day they were registered.\n\n| ID | Metric | Threshold | Read 1 |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P-PL1 | founding capture rate, 28-day window | ≥ 4.5/wk by 2027-01-01 | 2.25/wk |\n| P-PL2 | test-cohort retention, ≥90-day tenure | ≥ 40% (n ≥ 10) | 50% of 4 |\n| P-PL3 | graduated banks | ≥ 1 by 2027-08-01 | 0 of 11 candidates |\n| P-PL4 | pass-forward of received value | > 50% | 43% |\n| P-PL6a | top-3 share of value received ÷ even spread | < 1.5× (n ≥ 8) | 1.85× |\n| P-PL9 | low→high share of money-carrying re-tips | ≥ 10% (n ≥ 20) | 6.0% of 712 |\n\n⚠️ **P-PL6 is registered and retired in the same revision.** It asked the top three recipients to hold under half of re-tip value received, with a five-recipient minimum — and with five recipients an even spread already puts the top three at 60%, so it could not pass until seven had received. **It failed by arithmetic, not behaviour.** The counterexample hunt found it before the first public timestamp; **P-PL6a** is the same property freed of n. It is listed rather than dropped because the private file carries it and the founder ratified it, and a register that quietly loses an entry has failed at the one thing it exists to do.\n\nFive entries are **unrun because their instrument does not exist or is gated**, and are never scored until it does: P-PL5 (the pilot-scale arm of P-K1, gated on the Q2 2027 taper and on the F3QR confound registered 2026-09-04), P-PL7 (no variance: 827 of 830 re-tips carry the anonymous flag), P-PL8 (a de-confounded re-run of the Contradicted kids-as-triggers finding, entered as a new prediction under the revision rule), P-PL10 (awaits Chronicle data — the pilot-scale reading of C0), P-PL11 (gated on P-PL3).\n\nAlso in this revision: P-C0b's note records that the watch-through instrument was **repaired on 2026-09-05** — rows written from that date carry real watch depth, and are never pooled with the earlier rows the restriction was written for. The registered wording is untouched.\n\n**Field tests run stays at 0.** A run is a read against a falsifier; a baseline read is not one. The Summary moves: *published here* 73 → **85**, *first public timestamp here* 24 → **36**, *retired* 1 → **2**, and the reconciliation holds — **49 + 36 = 85** published here, plus the one withheld, is **86**.\n\n**2026-09-05 — three added (P-BG1 · P-BG2 · P-BG3), all Chapter I, all pre-data.** They concern a\nrelayed gift instrument whose intermediate holder cannot redeem it (`the-unpaid-relay`). ⚠️ **All\nthree had existed in private notes for a day before this entry, which is exactly the condition this\nregister exists to prevent** — a prediction held privately is not pre-registered in the sense that\nmatters, since the value is a public timestamped commitment made *before* the data. **None has been\nrun; no instrument for any of them is built.**\n\n*Predictions are added, never removed; this log records what each revision added and why, so the count in the Summary can always be reconciled.*\n\n**2026-08-29 — five entries added, and a counting error in the Summary corrected. Total now 71.**\n\n⚠️ **The Summary's own counts were wrong at first publication, and the error is recorded rather than quietly fixed**, because a register that miscounts itself has failed at the one thing it exists to do. The tables carried **66** unique prediction identifiers on 2026-08-27, of which one (`P-GTM1`) is withheld — so the true figures that day were **65 published here, 66 total**, against the **66 / 67** the Summary claimed. The split was also off by one in the other direction: *already carried by a published paper* read 45 where the tables give 46, the difference being the five identifiers in *Instrumented but outside the core*, whose table names its papers in a column of its own rather than in a Provenance column. Every figure in the Summary above is now **counted from the tables** rather than carried forward. ⭐ *An arithmetic check that reconciles — 50 + 20 = 70 — is the property to preserve on every future revision; the previous split summed correctly to a total that was itself one too high, which is how it survived.*\n\n- **P-D1 · P-D2 · P-D3 · P-D4** — Chapter III, arriving with `rotation-over-liveness` (published 2026-08-28, `10.5281/zenodo.22155378`). All four are carried by that paper's own proofs; they are listed here because a register that omits four live predictions from a published paper is exactly the silent drift this document exists to prevent.\n- **P-R1a** — Chapter III, a **correction entered as a new prediction under the revision rule above, not as an edit to P-R1**, whose registered wording stands unchanged.\n\n  *Why the correction was needed:* P-R1 compares practitioners of a contemplative practice against matched non-practitioners on unprompted re-entry into noticing. That measures **practice → noticing**. It was subsequently taken to bear on a stronger claim — that a person's state of mind is *as important as, or more important than, receiving another's kindness* in producing gratitude — and **it cannot rank those two inputs**, because received-kindness volume is unmeasured and is the obvious confound: a practitioner may simply be someone who receives more. P-R1a adds that second factor.\n\n  ⚠️ *Entered before any observation exists.* The instrument P-R1 depends on has not launched, so this correction is pre-data rather than post-hoc — which is the only condition under which it would have been admissible at all.\n\n**2026-09-02 — one provenance field corrected. No prediction was added, removed or re-worded; the total stands at 71.**\n\n⚠️ **P-SK1's Provenance read *Published*, and no published paper contains it.** The identifier was raised in working memory as a specific-vs-container scheduling arm, went moot under the not-a-calendar ruling, and was retired before it ever reached a paper — so its true provenance is **First public here**, like every other prediction whose first public timestamp is this register. Corrected rather than left standing, and recorded rather than quietly fixed, on the precedent set by the entry above.\n\n*How it was found:* the corpus index at `corpus.333.eco` began serving this register on 2026-09-02, and its builder resolves every prediction to the paper said to state it, then looks for the identifier in that paper's own text. Sixty-six of sixty-seven attributions verified; this one did not, and the builder reports the miss rather than filling the field in.\n\n⚠️ **The Summary moves with it, and the reconciliation is preserved:** *already carried by a published paper* 50 → **49**, *receiving first public timestamp here* 20 → **21**. The property the entry above names still holds — **49 + 21 = 70** published here, plus the one withheld entry, is **71**.\n\n⭐ *A bare \"Published\" in this column inherits the paper named in the row above it. That convention is correct for the sixteen other rows using it, and it is how a retired memory-only prediction came to be attributed to a paper that had never heard of it: the shorthand has no way to say \"none\".*",
       "provenance": {
-        "sha256": "40eaa8da64b83b0c974791b6f2e7d9b1a8f118ce800b0ab9479a1fd3e01e3299",
-        "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23033184",
+        "sha256": "4891820ea11c1d0c7964cae987fcf9d9ffe62585a1a90af3c8bcd807a825def7",
+        "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23205230",
         "concept_doi": "10.5281/zenodo.22132689",
-        "zenodo_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23033184",
-        "deposited_sha256": "40eaa8da64b83b0c974791b6f2e7d9b1a8f118ce800b0ab9479a1fd3e01e3299",
+        "zenodo_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23205230",
+        "deposited_sha256": "4891820ea11c1d0c7964cae987fcf9d9ffe62585a1a90af3c8bcd807a825def7",
         "deposited_matches_current": true,
         "opentimestamps": true,
         "source_url": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thonly/publications/main/program/prediction-register.md",
@@ -3278,8 +3278,8 @@
         "canonical_url": "thonly.org/research/program/register",
         "hostile_review": null
       },
-      "bytes": 66060,
-      "words": 10502
+      "bytes": 69423,
+      "words": 11062
     },
     {
       "slug": "proof-of-coordinate",
@@ -6558,7 +6558,7 @@
         "slug": "incommensurability-preserving-coupler",
         "repo": "TH/publications",
         "path": "defensive-publications/incommensurability-preserving-coupler.md",
-        "sha256": "4c0d91773f8bd9b0ab711b881eb2374c50af9eda586920a5214ed8ff3cbdfbb1"
+        "sha256": "9b55f3a4067d2d733aa5718894fd57c91919fa38a8b423a6bf46bb8317075aa9"
       },
       {
         "slug": "individuation-without-essence",
@@ -6666,7 +6666,7 @@
         "slug": "prediction-register",
         "repo": "TH/publications",
         "path": "program/prediction-register.md",
-        "sha256": "40eaa8da64b83b0c974791b6f2e7d9b1a8f118ce800b0ab9479a1fd3e01e3299"
+        "sha256": "4891820ea11c1d0c7964cae987fcf9d9ffe62585a1a90af3c8bcd807a825def7"
       },
       {
         "slug": "proof-of-coordinate",
@@ -7132,12 +7132,12 @@
     "revision_rule": "Predictions are added, never removed. A resolved prediction keeps its original wording beside its outcome. A correction is a **new entry citing the one it corrects** — registered wording is never edited in place, because an edit would break the very property this register exists to provide.",
     "verification": "Each published paper carries its own proof files. To check that a prediction has not been altered since registration, verify the stating paper against its stored proof rather than trusting this register — this file is a convenience index, and the proofs are the evidence.\n\nNo file in this corpus records its own hash. The proofs are external artifacts; the verification procedure is published with them.",
     "counts": {
-      "total_registered": "117",
-      "published_here": "116",
+      "total_registered": "119",
+      "published_here": "118",
       "withheld_operational": "1",
       "already_carried_by_a_published_paper": "58",
       "memory_only_at_first_publication_2026_08_27": "22 (21 published here + 1 withheld)",
-      "receiving_first_public_timestamp_here": "58",
+      "receiving_first_public_timestamp_here": "60",
       "run": "**7** (two desk censuses · five formal checks: P-FA1, P-FA2a, P-FA2b, P-FA4, P-FA5)",
       "field_tests_run": "**0** — six pilot-scale predictions are *Running* with a baseline read; none has resolved",
       "running_instrument_live_unread_restricted_or_baseline_only": "9",
@@ -7145,11 +7145,11 @@
       "retired": "3"
     },
     "reconciliation": {
-      "stated_total_registered": 117,
-      "counted_from_tables": 117,
+      "stated_total_registered": 119,
+      "counted_from_tables": 119,
       "reconciles": true,
       "counted_as": {
-        "core_and_chapters": 87,
+        "core_and_chapters": 89,
         "instrumented_outside_core": 29,
         "withheld": 1,
         "rows_without_an_identifier": 2
@@ -7164,7 +7164,7 @@
       {
         "name": "Chapter I — Capacity",
         "gloss": "Does receiving create giving? If not, forward-only motion is depletion, not circulation.",
-        "predictions": 27
+        "predictions": 29
       },
       {
         "name": "Chapter II — Substrate",
@@ -7183,7 +7183,7 @@
         "note": "This chapter has no predictions. That is reported, not hidden. Its feedback loop exceeds the founder's lifetime, and no instrument has been specified. The boundary is ruled — merit is not conveyed between destinations; *you cannot give to the dead, so you give to the living in their name* — but a ruling is not a test. The chapter is inherited rather than completed. Registering the first span-chapter prediction is the largest open item in this program."
       }
     ],
-    "prediction_count": 89,
+    "prediction_count": 91,
     "predictions": [
       {
         "id": "P-GO1",
@@ -7559,6 +7559,23 @@
         },
         "provenance_text": "First public here"
       },
+      {
+        "id": "P-BG6",
+        "registered": true,
+        "level": "chapter",
+        "chapter": "Chapter I — Capacity",
+        "prediction": "**Who paid does not change pass-on** — among relayed gifts that reach a recipient, the share passed on within the one-month window is the same whether Miss Aquarius paid from the Pool or an anonymous family member did: **the two rates fall within 10 percentage points**. *Falsifier: they differ by more than 10 points, in either direction → who paid changes what the recipient does with the gift.* Scored once each arm has **20 or more** gifts reaching a recipient (P-BG1a's floor). Instrument: pass-on per gift from the relayed gift's event log, split by payer, which needs the payer recorded on each gift (roadmap A73). Direction and the 10-point band are the founder's",
+        "falsifier": null,
+        "status": "Unrun (payer not yet recorded per gift)",
+        "state": "unrun",
+        "stating_paper": {
+          "slug": "prediction-register",
+          "section": null,
+          "attribution": "register",
+          "verified_in_paper": null
+        },
+        "provenance_text": "First public here"
+      },
       {
         "id": "P-PL1",
         "registered": true,
@@ -7729,6 +7746,23 @@
         },
         "provenance_text": "First public here"
       },
+      {
+        "id": "P-PL13",
+        "registered": true,
+        "level": "chapter",
+        "chapter": "Chapter I — Capacity",
+        "prediction": "**Shop gifts add to thanking** — once a pilot member's first shop gift is sent or received through Treasury, the thanks they issue per month rise by **more than 20% of their own pre-exposure rate beyond the change in unexposed members over the same months** (a difference-in-differences on thanks issued). *Exposure* = the member's first shop gift order as payer or holder (Treasury keeps these records from 2026-10-05). *Thanks issued* = thanks sent from Treasury's own surfaces; a thank that came through a shop's thank door (marked with the shop on the thank) is **excluded from the outcome and reported beside it**, so a new channel cannot confirm this by itself. *Falsifier: the difference is within ±20% of the pre-exposure rate, or negative → shop gifts do not add to thanking, or substitute for it.* Per read; before three reads, or while fewer than five members are exposed, the value is shown and not scored (the pilot's standing floors). ⚠️ One family, and gifts arrive alongside other changes: a pass licenses *gift exposure travels with more thanking*, never *gifts cause it*. The direction is the founder's, chosen against a *no change* answer bounded at ±20%",
+        "falsifier": null,
+        "status": "Unrun (metric not built; exposure records snapshotted from the October read)",
+        "state": "unrun",
+        "stating_paper": {
+          "slug": "prediction-register",
+          "section": null,
+          "attribution": "register",
+          "verified_in_paper": null
+        },
+        "provenance_text": "First public here"
+      },
       {
         "id": "P-C0a",
         "registered": true,

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
     "name": "@333eco/corpus",
-    "version": "2.5.37",
+    "version": "2.5.39",
     "description": "An MCP server for an open-licensed corpus, served with verifiable provenance — every document carries its sha256, DOI and OpenTimestamps proof so a consuming agent can check its own citation.",
     "license": "CC0-1.0",
     "author": "Thon Ly",