An LLM as a controllable, fully-inspectable model of measurement: which features of quantum measurement are generic to bounded inference, and which are not
An autoregressive language model, read at the token-commit step, is a near-fully-inspectable classical bounded-inference substrate: the competing-route distribution over candidate tokens — the live propensity before it resolves into one committed answer — is read directly from the output logits. Used as a measurement model, it lets each structural signature of quantum measurement be tested one by one, and the genuinely-quantum residue isolated by its absence. The substrate reproduces the phenomenology of quantum measurement from classical self-conditioning — back-action, non-commutativity (order effects), entropy-collapse on commitment, a substantial Busemeyer–Wang QQ-structure (order-effect difference q not distinguishable from the parameter-free quantum value 0; pooled across eight de-saturated base models over five vendors and four architectures, N=96, q=-0.003, 95% CI [-0.025, +0.019]), interference, einselection, an Aharonov-style weak-versus-strong asymmetry, and measurement-mode dependence — but not the quantum core: genuine contextuality is robustly absent (an analog Contextuality-by-Default cyclic-4 analysis gives CNT < 0 in every model and scenario), and no phase/coherence is demonstrated. A controllable analog Bell-loophole testbed makes each premise's price visible within one substrate (S_analog ~ 2.00 with all loopholes closed; ~ 2.8 on opening locality or measurement-independence), and a within-substrate timeline reads the propensity resolving across network depth, including a maximally-contested case whose outcome is never created. The order-effect incompatibility is shown to be a measured, correctly-signed classical-complementarity dial that falls as the readout partition refines. Positioning. The contribution is the demarcation itself, with statistics, made possible by an inspectability no veiled (physical or psychological) substrate allows. It instantiates beim Graben & Atmanspacher's classical complementarity and the Busemeyer–Wang / Pothos quantum-cognition program empirically; it makes no claim about physical reality. Companion papers (Friction Theory series): Paper 1 — Friction as the cost of probabilistic computation (10.5281/zenodo.20012654); Paper 10 — Race all the way down/up (10.5281/zenodo.20014567); Paper 21 — LLMs as a measurement model for bounded-decision cognition (10.5281/zenodo.20562416); Paper 28 — Dread without a dreader (10.5281/zenodo.20690747).Paper 18 in the Friction Theory paper-series. Submitted as a careful, honestly-scoped empirical demarcation (target venue: Entropy, Quantum Information / quantum-cognition & foundations-of-measurement). v2 (August 2026) — prior-art revision. The paper describes competition resolving to a commitment and cited none of the tradition that formalised it. Luce (1959) for the choice axiom the softmax implements, Ratcliff (1978) for evidence accumulated to a bound, and Usher and McClelland (2001) for the leaky competing accumulator are now credited at the point where the reading is made, with the limit stated: the estimators here are computed on a language model's output distribution, and the parallel is why the measurement was worth making rather than evidence of a shared mechanism. Editorial pass. Earlier versions remain in the version history.
An autoregressive language model, read at the token-commit step, is a near-fully-inspectable classical bounded-inference substrate: the competing-route distribution over candidate tokens — the live propensity before it resolves into one committed answer — is read directly from the output logits. Used as a measurement model, it lets each structural signature of quantum measurement be tested one by one, and the genuinely-quantum residue isolated by its absence. The substrate reproduces the phenomenology of quantum measurement from classical self-conditioning — back-action, non-commutativity (order effects), entropy-collapse on commitment, a substantial Busemeyer–Wang QQ-structure (order-effect difference q not distinguishable from the parameter-free quantum value 0; pooled across eight de-saturated base models over five vendors and four architectures, N=96, q=-0.003, 95% CI [-0.025, +0.019]), interference, einselection, an Aharonov-style weak-versus-strong asymmetry, and measurement-mode dependence — but not the quantum core: genuine contextuality is robustly absent (an analog Contextuality-by-Default cyclic-4 analysis gives CNT < 0 in every model and scenario), and no phase/coherence is demonstrated. A controllable analog Bell-loophole testbed makes each premise's price visible within one substrate (S_analog ~ 2.00 with all loopholes closed; ~ 2.8 on opening locality or measurement-independence), and a within-substrate timeline reads the propensity resolving across network depth, including a maximally-contested case whose outcome is never created. The order-effect incompatibility is shown to be a measured, correctly-signed classical-complementarity dial that falls as the readout partition refines. Positioning. The contribution is the demarcation itself, with statistics, made possible by an inspectability no veiled (physical or psychological) substrate allows. It instantiates beim Graben & Atmanspacher's classical complementarity and the Busemeyer–Wang / Pothos quantum-cognition program empirically; it makes no claim about physical reality. Companion papers (Friction Theory series): Paper 1 — Friction as the cost of probabilistic computation (10.5281/zenodo.20012654); Paper 10 — Race all the way down/up (10.5281/zenodo.20014567); Paper 21 — LLMs as a measurement model for bounded-decision cognition (10.5281/zenodo.20562416); Paper 28 — Dread without a dreader (10.5281/zenodo.20690747).Paper 18 in the Friction Theory paper-series. Submitted as a careful, honestly-scoped empirical demarcation (target venue: Entropy, Quantum Information / quantum-cognition & foundations-of-measurement). v2 (August 2026) — prior-art revision. The paper describes competition resolving to a commitment and cited none of the tradition that formalised it. Luce (1959) for the choice axiom the softmax implements, Ratcliff (1978) for evidence accumulated to a bound, and Usher and McClelland (2001) for the leaky competing accumulator are now credited at the point where the reading is made, with the limit stated: the estimators here are computed on a language model's output distribution, and the parallel is why the measurement was worth making rather than evidence of a shared mechanism. Editorial pass. Earlier versions remain in the version history.
The QBist and Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) informational readings of quantum theory have been developed across two decades without a clear position on what kind of physical system qualifies as an "agent" or "observer" for the formalism. Fuchs, Mermin, and Schack write as if the agent is a human physicist or a generic Bayesian; Rovelli writes as if any physical system can play the relational-observer role; Healey deflates the agent into an abstract Bayesian without specifying its substrate; the recent Khrennikov-Schack-Zwirn intersubjectivity exchange sharpens the question without resolving it. This paper argues that the QBism/RQM informational reading is substrate-flexible: any physical system whose input-output statistics admit characterization through quantum-probability structure with non-trivial Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) signatures resistant to simplex-embeddable ontological models is a candidate epistemic agent for the formalism. Substrate flexibility is the most coherent reading of the shared formal commitments of QBism and RQM once the agent role is separated from historically human-centered examples; the non-triviality requirement is necessary but not sufficient for agency, which additionally requires an input-output architecture capable of state-sensitive updating across measurement contexts. The thesis preserves the QBist objection to view-from-nowhere framings while removing the requirement that agents be human or conscious; it disciplines Rovelli's "any physical system" claim by indexing it to the non-triviality requirement; and it specifies what would count as evidence for or against. Engineered cortical wetware preparations (Cortical Labs CL1, DishBrain) provide a non-human, non-conscious-in-any-unambiguous-sense, controllable testbed on which the question can be empirically pursued; nothing in the argument requires attributing phenomenal consciousness or quantum-coherent biological dynamics to such systems. The paper distinguishes substrate flexibility from Pienaar's prior extension of the QBist agent (which extends the agent's senses, not its substrate), engages the neo-Everettian opposition (Wallace 2012, 2023) directly, and rejects the recent attempts (Edwards 2024, 2025) to fold classical large language models into a QBism-grounded formalism. Classical AI architectures admit simplex-embeddable models for their token-generation processes and therefore fail the non-triviality requirement; substrate flexibility is narrower, not wider, than such proposals.
A single bit-exactly reversible, integer-valued lattice automaton in which a broad range of quantum phenomenology arises as measurable, checksum-reproducible behaviour of one classical substrate. A second-order Frenkel–Kontorova / sine-Gordon integer automaton supports localized particles with additive mass towers (1 : 2 : 3 and 1 : 4 : 9), emergent Lorentz contraction (fitted c to 0.3 %), and a token-accounted local-time sector with a general-relativity-like time well (ω ∝ n to 0.06 %). Within it, a first-order Visscher–Feistel integer Schrödinger sector is realized in pure integer arithmetic with exact bit-reversibility. The integer/floor-reversible lifting of the Visscher scheme was already noted by Fredkin (1999) and Martin-Delgado (2004); the contribution here is its first computationally tested and validated realization — against exact dispersion, group velocity and envelope reduction — embedded in an interacting substrate. Main results: Emergence bridge. The narrow-band envelope of the classical automaton obeys the Schrödinger equation with an effective mass fixed by the curvature of the exact discrete dispersion (group velocity to ≤0.2 %, curvature to ≤2 %). The dimensionless spreading of two microscopically different substrates collapses onto the single universal law √(1+τ²). Deterministic quantum statistics. Bohmian tracers reproduce double-slit single-object interference (p < 10⁻⁴), with trajectories matching the weak-measurement reconstruction of Kocsis et al. (2011). Bell / CHSH. A value of S = 2.79 from position-valued outcomes with a no-signalling control (0.3 %), via explicitly nonlocal guidance in configuration space. Measurement. A measurable Gaussian collapse law (R² = 0.997); a quantum eraser with literal bit-reversible un-measurement of the entire measurement chain; Pauli exclusion as a bit-conserved invariant; and relaxation to the Born rule with a reversible arrow of time. Surviving the isotropy no-go, and a falsifiable prediction (new in v2). On the live integer engine, velocity anisotropy vanishes as k² in the infrared with first-principles coefficients in both 2D and 3D (agreement ≈ 1 %) — rotational isotropy emerges as an infrared fixed point, meeting the sharpest no-go every lattice candidate faces. From the same structure follows a concrete, quadratically Planck-suppressed dispersion prediction (δγ,2 ≈ 2×10−40 GeV−2, subluminal), lying only ~50× below the tightest ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray bound — the programme's first falsifiable departure from standard QM/GR. Individual phenomena have known precedents — double-slit Bohmian trajectories (Philippidis, Dewdney & Hiley 1979), Born-rule relaxation (Valentini & Westman 2005), the Schrödinger update scheme (Visscher 1991; integer lifting Fredkin 1999, Martin-Delgado 2004) — and are framed accordingly. The contribution is their tested, validated realization on one exactly reproducible integer substrate, several genuinely new exact constructions (tested integer bit-reversible Schrödinger sector; literal bit-exact un-measurement; exchange statistics as a bit-conserved invariant; two-substrate universal collapse; measured lattice isotropy with a Planck-scale dispersion prediction), and a pre-registered, falsification-first methodology (criteria committed to version control before each run; fourteen self-retractions on record). This is an existence result, strengthened by a survived no-go and a falsifiable prediction — not a claim that our universe is this automaton (that step requires a prediction to pass experiment): a fully classical, deterministic, reversible integer computation can carry quantum phenomenology, quantitatively and reproducibly, and this substrate meets a no-go every discrete candidate must survive. Preprint v2 (self-contained; bibliographic audit completed against arXiv/DOI sources). Code, pre-registered gates, per-run reports and figures are included in this archive. Produced in an AI-assisted workflow (Anthropic Claude) under the author's direction; all pre-registration and interpretation is on record in the version history.
The QBist and Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) informational readings of quantum theory have long lacked a clear account of what kind of physical system qualifies as an “agent” or “observer.” Fuchs, Mermin, and Schack often treat the agent as a human physicist or Bayesian decision-maker; Rovelli suggests that any physical system may serve as a relational observer; Healey abstracts the agent into a Bayesian role without specifying its substrate; and the Khrennikov-Schack-Zwirn exchange sharpens, but does not resolve, the intersubjectivity problem. This paper argues that the QBism/RQM informational reading is best understood as substrate-flexible: any physical system whose input-output statistics exhibit quantum-probability structure, including non-trivial Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) signatures resistant to simplex-embeddable ontological models, is a candidate epistemic agent. This condition is necessary but not sufficient: agency also requires state-sensitive updating across measurement contexts. The argument preserves QBism’s rejection of view-from-nowhere objectivity while removing the assumption that agents must be human or conscious, and disciplines Rovelli’s “any physical system” claim by tying observerhood to measurable non-triviality. Engineered cortical wetware systems such as CL1 and DishBrain offer controllable, non-human, and not clearly conscious testbeds for evaluating this claim, without requiring phenomenal consciousness or quantum-coherent biological dynamics. The paper distinguishes substrate flexibility from Pienaar’s extension of the QBist agent, which expands the agent’s senses rather than its substrate; engages neo-Everettian objections; and rejects Edwards’s attempts to fold classical large language models into QBist formalism. Classical AI token-generation systems remain simplex-embeddable and therefore fail the non-triviality requirement. Substrate flexibility is thus narrower than proposals that include current AI systems.
This is the Technical Supplement — the proof-dense companion and the canonical formal record for the paper's claims. The main paper argues; the supplement proves. Every load-bearing claim traces to a named check function in the APF verification engine, and the supplement is the document a referee should audit first. The supplement is self-contained for Paper 14: every definition, proof, and grade the paper rests on appears in this one document — the substrate primitives and the marginal admissibility floor, proved; the locality and cost-uniqueness lemmas; the Δ calculus with both fences' witnesses written out; the Boolean-defender bridge with its five certified physical hypotheses and the 3-4-5 worked witness computed on the page; the gate pipeline with a gate-by-axiom comparison to the operational-reconstruction literature (Hardy; Chiribella–D'Ariano–Perinotti; Masanes–Müller; Barnum–Wilce; Spekkens; Abramsky–Brandenburger); the native correlation family constructed explicitly, rung by rung; the resolution triad set against standard thermodynamics (Landauer, erasure, environment-assisted recovery); a consolidated readings register listing every claim below [P] with its falsifier and status; a glossary mapping the framework's vocabulary onto standard quantum-information terms; and a worked end-to-end instance — device to interrogation normal form to exact feasibility certificate to priced ledger, with every tolerance explicit. A reproducibility appendix pins every claim to the APF theorem bank at a named GitHub commit and the archived Engine release (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18529115); the certificates reproduce deterministically in exact rational arithmetic. About the series. Admissibility Physics is a structural realist reconstruction program built on a single commitment: any bounded region of the world can hold only finitely many distinctions. A principle of least enforcement cost then selects, among all the ways those distinctions might be arranged, the configurations a finite world can sustain. From this the content of physics is reconstructed rather than postulated: the Standard Model's gauge group and matter content, the Hilbert-space and Born-rule architecture of quantum mechanics, the geometry and field equations of general relativity, the four laws of thermodynamics, and the large-scale budget of cosmology emerge as different readings of one finite-capacity ledger. The unification is quantitative as well as conceptual: the framework's dimensionless constants appear not as free parameters but as counts read off that ledger — among them the dark-energy fraction ΩΛ = 42/61 and the weak mixing angle sin2θW = 3/13 — fixed, in the strongest cases, to within current measurement. The core derivation runs Papers 0–11; the extension papers carry the individual sectors. Each paper's main text and Technical Supplement is deposited separately; every quantitative claim traces to a named, executable check in the public theorem bank (over 3,800 bank-registered theorems, 48 quantitative predictions); and each result is carried at an explicit, graded level of confidence — from analytically forced to structurally grounded — with the measurements that would refute it named. Admissibility Physics is offered as a candidate, not a finished theory. If the program holds, the laws of physics could not have been otherwise: they are what a finite world permits. Website: admissibilityphysics.com. Engine and theorem bank: https://github.com/Ethan-Brooke/APF-Engine. Full series and latest deposits: Zenodo community admissibility_physics. The Engine — Admissibility Physics: An Executable Constraint Framework and Constants Map — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18529115. Paper 0 — What Physics Permits: A Constraint-First Framework for Physics — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439523 Paper 1 — The Enforceability of Distinction — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439200 Paper 2 — Finite Admissibility and the Failure of Global Description — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439274 Paper 3 — Entropy, Time, and Accumulated Cost — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439363 Paper 4 — Admissibility Constraints and Structural Saturation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439397 Paper 5 — Quantum Structure from Finite Enforceability — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439433 Paper 6 — Dynamics and Geometry as Optimal Admissible Reallocation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439445 Paper 7 — A Minimal Quantum of Action from Finite Admissibility — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439513 Paper 8 — The Admissibility-Capacity Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19721384 Paper 9 — The Geometric Substrate as Cost Structure of Comparison Continuations — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20041675 Paper 10 — The Calculus of Finite Continuability — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20041680 Paper 11 — Forced Universality from Capacity-Bounded Admissibility — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684198 Paper 12 — The Gauge Sector of Admissibility Physics — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21212521 Paper 13 — The Minimal Admissibility Core — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18361446 Paper 14 — The Quantum Story — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21212188 Paper 16 — Markov Breakdown and the Hard Problems — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684207 Paper 18 — The Electroweak Sector as a Capacity Equilibrium — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684209 Paper 19 — Large-Angle CMB Suppression as a Finite-Continuability Constraint — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199218 Paper 20 — The Enforcement Crystal — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18531732 Paper 23 — Magnetically Dark Winding-Class Quantum Processors — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199220 Paper 24 — The Recruitment-Radius Extension — Foundations — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684211 Paper 25 — The Recruitment-Radius Extension: Applications — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199222 Paper 28 — Absolute Mass Scales from Electroweak Capacity Saturation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684215 Paper 29 — Plaquette Representation Dominance and Confinement — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684218 Paper 30 — A Tube Mechanism for the Lattice Mass Gap — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684220 Paper 31 — Osterwalder–Schrader Structure of Lattice Yang–Mills — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684222 Paper 32 — Quark Anchors as APF Trace Masses — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199226 Paper 33 — Trace-to-Scheme Export Architecture — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684224 Paper 35 — The Dark Sector as a Two-Role Capacity Decomposition — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684228 Paper 36 — The Missing Floor — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199228 Paper 37 — Collapse as Realignment — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199231 Paper 38 — Unification as Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199233 Paper 39 — Coherent Phase Regimes in the APF Interface Engine — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199235 Paper 40 — The Thermodynamics of Finite Distinction (Between Symmetry and the Void) — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684235 Paper 41 — The Horizon as a Continuation Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684241 Paper 42 — The Weak Mixing Angle Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684245 Paper 43 — The Neutrino Sector — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194191 Paper 44 — What a Finite Theory Owes the Continuum — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21195874 Paper 45 — What the Vacuum Can Keep — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194195 Paper 46 — The Strong CP Angle Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194197 Paper 47 — The Confinement Antecedent Is Not Forced — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194199 Paper 48 — The Light-Bending Weight Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199627 Technical Supplements cross-link to their main paper via isSupplementTo and to the engine via isDocumentedBy. Concept DOIs above resolve to the latest version.
Quantum mechanics predicts measurement outcomes with remarkable accuracy, yet it does not identify the physical mechanism that produces them. Standard formalisms treat collapse as an external postulate or an informational update, leaving the origin of measurement undefined. This paper develops a substrate-based account in which measurement arises from the structural properties of mass rather than from observation, information, or consciousness. Within the Quantum Substrate Dynamics (QSD) framework, all stable matter possesses a finite coherence envelope and participates in discrete Causality Intervals (CIs) that bound how the substrate can reconfigure. Massless excitations such as photons do not possess coherence envelopes and therefore cannot induce or modify collapse; they only traverse the geometric constraints imposed by nearby mass-phase structures.From this asymmetry, a coherent picture of measurement emerges. Collapse occurs when the envelope of a mass-phase structure overlaps a propagating excitation and enforces local CI pacing and curvature--compliance limits, defining which outcomes are structurally supportable. This mechanism reproduces the behavior of detectors, the material dependence of diffraction, the emergence of interference patterns only at mass-phase boundaries, and the well-established fact that light beams in free space do not interact. Classical paradoxes: Wigner's friend, Schrodinger's cat, contextuality, and delayed-choice interference are resolved without invoking global wavefunctions, observer-dependent realities, or branching worlds.The result is a fully physical, mass-induced account of quantum measurement. Collapse becomes a structural re-lock within the substrate rather than an epistemic update or interpretational supplement. This framework preserves the successful predictions of quantum theory while supplying the missing mechanism: observation is not a special act, but the structural consequence of mass interacting with serialized, massless propagations under finite substrate throughput.Version 2 Revision:The title and abstract have been updated to improve clarity and better reflect the paper’s central mechanism. No changes have been made to the analysis or conclusions.
This paper tells the quantum-mechanical account of Admissibility Physics in one place, from the first declared fact to the last committed record. From a single finite-capacity axiom (A1) plus one declared occupancy fact, the story runs through the Δ calculus that prices jointness (Δ = ε(J − R), derived, with two fences: Δ is not an information functional, and Δ > 0 is not a quantum criterion); the separable / irreducibly-joint fork, decided by an exact Boole-polytope feasibility test; the Boolean-defender bridge that forces noncommutativity where the global Boolean section fails; the gate pipeline that earns complex Hilbert space and the finite Born trace rule as endpoint theorems rather than postulates; the correlation ladder from product states to Tsirelson, with a native family ceiling 2√2·102/103 carried at honest reading grade with a live falsifier; resolution as a class transition, with the free/spend/permanent triad proved as a composition of banked theorems and measurement, decoherence, the Page curve, and the Diósi–Penrose scale as four worked instances of one mechanism; and the arrow of time as the one-way ratchet of the admissibility floor — confinement, the second law, and the quantum as one axis read at graded strengths. Every load-bearing step is anchored to a named, machine-verified check function in the APF theorem bank; the grade of each step is stated where the step is made; and everything the story does not claim is stated in one place. The Technical Supplement (deposited alongside and linked from this record) is self-contained for this paper: every definition, proof, and grade the story rests on, in one document, with a worked end-to-end instance and a reproducibility appendix pinning the theorem bank to a public repository and an archived release. About the series. Admissibility Physics is a structural realist reconstruction program built on a single commitment: any bounded region of the world can hold only finitely many distinctions. A principle of least enforcement cost then selects, among all the ways those distinctions might be arranged, the configurations a finite world can sustain. From this the content of physics is reconstructed rather than postulated: the Standard Model's gauge group and matter content, the Hilbert-space and Born-rule architecture of quantum mechanics, the geometry and field equations of general relativity, the four laws of thermodynamics, and the large-scale budget of cosmology emerge as different readings of one finite-capacity ledger. The unification is quantitative as well as conceptual: the framework's dimensionless constants appear not as free parameters but as counts read off that ledger — among them the dark-energy fraction ΩΛ = 42/61 and the weak mixing angle sin2θW = 3/13 — fixed, in the strongest cases, to within current measurement. The core derivation runs Papers 0–11; the extension papers carry the individual sectors. Each paper's main text and Technical Supplement is deposited separately; every quantitative claim traces to a named, executable check in the public theorem bank (over 3,800 bank-registered theorems, 48 quantitative predictions); and each result is carried at an explicit, graded level of confidence — from analytically forced to structurally grounded — with the measurements that would refute it named. Admissibility Physics is offered as a candidate, not a finished theory. If the program holds, the laws of physics could not have been otherwise: they are what a finite world permits. Website: admissibilityphysics.com. Engine and theorem bank: https://github.com/Ethan-Brooke/APF-Engine. Full series and latest deposits: Zenodo community admissibility_physics. The Engine — Admissibility Physics: An Executable Constraint Framework and Constants Map — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18529115. Paper 0 — What Physics Permits: A Constraint-First Framework for Physics — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439523 Paper 1 — The Enforceability of Distinction — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439200 Paper 2 — Finite Admissibility and the Failure of Global Description — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439274 Paper 3 — Entropy, Time, and Accumulated Cost — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439363 Paper 4 — Admissibility Constraints and Structural Saturation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439397 Paper 5 — Quantum Structure from Finite Enforceability — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439433 Paper 6 — Dynamics and Geometry as Optimal Admissible Reallocation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439445 Paper 7 — A Minimal Quantum of Action from Finite Admissibility — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18439513 Paper 8 — The Admissibility-Capacity Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19721384 Paper 9 — The Geometric Substrate as Cost Structure of Comparison Continuations — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20041675 Paper 10 — The Calculus of Finite Continuability — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20041680 Paper 11 — Forced Universality from Capacity-Bounded Admissibility — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684198 Paper 12 — The Gauge Sector of Admissibility Physics — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21212521 Paper 13 — The Minimal Admissibility Core — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18361446 Paper 14 — The Quantum Story — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21212188 Paper 16 — Markov Breakdown and the Hard Problems — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684207 Paper 18 — The Electroweak Sector as a Capacity Equilibrium — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684209 Paper 19 — Large-Angle CMB Suppression as a Finite-Continuability Constraint — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199218 Paper 20 — The Enforcement Crystal — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18531732 Paper 23 — Magnetically Dark Winding-Class Quantum Processors — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199220 Paper 24 — The Recruitment-Radius Extension — Foundations — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684211 Paper 25 — The Recruitment-Radius Extension: Applications — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199222 Paper 28 — Absolute Mass Scales from Electroweak Capacity Saturation — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684215 Paper 29 — Plaquette Representation Dominance and Confinement — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684218 Paper 30 — A Tube Mechanism for the Lattice Mass Gap — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684220 Paper 31 — Osterwalder–Schrader Structure of Lattice Yang–Mills — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684222 Paper 32 — Quark Anchors as APF Trace Masses — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199226 Paper 33 — Trace-to-Scheme Export Architecture — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684224 Paper 35 — The Dark Sector as a Two-Role Capacity Decomposition — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684228 Paper 36 — The Missing Floor — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199228 Paper 37 — Collapse as Realignment — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199231 Paper 38 — Unification as Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199233 Paper 39 — Coherent Phase Regimes in the APF Interface Engine — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199235 Paper 40 — The Thermodynamics of Finite Distinction (Between Symmetry and the Void) — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684235 Paper 41 — The Horizon as a Continuation Ledger — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684241 Paper 42 — The Weak Mixing Angle Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20684245 Paper 43 — The Neutrino Sector — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194191 Paper 44 — What a Finite Theory Owes the Continuum — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21195874 Paper 45 — What the Vacuum Can Keep — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194195 Paper 46 — The Strong CP Angle Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194197 Paper 47 — The Confinement Antecedent Is Not Forced — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21194199 Paper 48 — The Light-Bending Weight Is Not Free — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21199627 Technical Supplements cross-link to their main paper via isSupplementTo and to the engine via isDocumentedBy. Concept DOIs above resolve to the latest version.