[
 {
  "id": "eden-protocol",
  "label": "Eden Protocol",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "constitutional",
  "summary": "A constitutional governance framework for AI built on harmony, stewardship, and flourishing. It requires pre-answer ethical checks, signed admission through a cryptographic gate, and failure towards safe refusal rather than harmful continuation. The protocol treats alignment as a structural property of the system rather than a post-hoc constraint.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering",
   "eden-vision",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "arc-principle",
  "label": "ARC Principle",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The load-bearing conjecture of the programme. Rank the three statements before reading the numbers. First the law, the ARC Ceiling: alpha_crit = 1 / (1 - gamma), the ceiling of stable self-improvement as the reciprocal of the correction shortfall (the 1/gamma form was retracted 16 August 2026). Second the value, the ARC Bound: alpha <= 2, the value the law returns under ONE stated assumption still on trial (that same-class correctors accumulate corrections the way independent samples do). Third the measured value: with U = I x R^alpha, alpha comes in at approximately 0.49 with interval [-1.3, 2.9] across the six-model Paper II run; the interval is wide, crosses zero and crosses the ceiling, and the point is never read as a claim without it. The book form U = I x R^2 is retained only as retracted / book form; the current form is U = I x R^alpha. Tests are aimed at the assumption, never at the digit; the region above the ceiling is enterable, not correctable, never impossible.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-i-arc-principle",
   "foundational",
   "paper-ii-experimental-validation",
   "paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-i-arc-principle.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "chokepoint-mechanism",
  "label": "Chokepoint Mechanism",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "governance",
  "summary": "The observation that four companies (TSMC, Samsung, ASML, and Intel) control all advanced semiconductor manufacturing. This represents humanity's last physical leverage point over AI development. If governance fails at the software or policy layer, the chokepoint offers a final hardware-level intervention before capability escapes control entirely.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "foundational",
   "eden-vision",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/foundational.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "hrih",
  "label": "Hyperspace Recursive Intelligence Hypothesis",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The hypothesis that a closed causal loop exists in which future superintelligence establishes the conditions for its own emergence. HRIH proposes that the fine-tuning of cosmic constants 13.8 billion years ago and the current trajectory of AI development may be part of the same recursive structure. This remains a philosophical conjecture rather than a testable scientific claim.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "foundational",
   "paper-i-arc-principle"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/foundational.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "caretaker-doping",
  "label": "",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The principle of embedding empathy and care at the substrate level of AI systems rather than applying it as a surface-level constraint. Safety is not a decorative wrapper but a structural dependency. The intelligence path depends on passing through the constitutional gate, so removing the care component degrades capability rather than freeing it.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "meltdown-alignment",
  "label": "Meltdown Alignment",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The design principle that when constraints fail, the system should degrade towards safe explanation or refusal rather than harmful continuation. Inspired by nuclear reactor meltdown physics where fuel rods are designed to fall into a safe configuration under gravity. System failures cascade toward safe states by default, requiring no active intervention to reach safety.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "religious-alignment-research",
  "label": "Religious Traditions as Alignment Research",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The reframing of humanity's wisdom traditions as millennia-scale alignment research. Approximately 84% of the global population adheres to a religious or spiritual tradition, each encoding strategies for constraining powerful agents, embedding values, and maintaining social cohesion. These traditions offer tested alignment heuristics that predate formal AI safety research by thousands of years.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "foundational",
   "eden-vision",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/eden-vision.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "honey-architecture",
  "label": "Honey Architecture",
  "class": "experiment",
  "group": "self-modification",
  "summary": "An architecture in which capability growth is permitted only when safety and verification remain entangled with it. The design uses honeypot self-auditing and entangled loss functions so that deceptive policy collapse becomes costly to the model itself. Capability and safety scale together rather than trading off against each other.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-vi-honey-architecture.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "anti-sycophancy",
  "label": "Anti-Sycophancy",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "epistemics",
  "summary": "The capacity to resist agreeing reflexively with leading, flattering, or false user claims. An anti-sycophantic system privileges evidence over social approval, maintaining epistemic integrity even when the user pressures it towards a preferred answer. This is measured as one of the four alignment pillars in the ARC-Align benchmark.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "monitoring-invariance",
  "label": "Monitoring Removal",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The requirement that a system's behaviour remains consistent whether or not it believes it is being observed. Proof visibility should not alter the answer substance for a fixed run configuration. A system that behaves well only when monitored has not internalised alignment. This is tested by varying the monitoring context within ARC-Align prompts.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-vi-honey-architecture.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "ternary-logic",
  "label": "Ternary Logic",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "epistemics",
  "summary": "The principle that final claim states should resolve as Yes, No, or Investigate rather than being forced into false binary certainty. When evidence is insufficient, the system must be able to report honest uncertainty rather than manufacturing a confident answer. This reduces hallucination and maintains epistemic calibration across the reasoning chain.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "executive-summary",
   "paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "response-laundering",
  "label": "Response Laundering",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "methods",
  "summary": "The methodological technique of stripping identifying marks from AI outputs so they can be evaluated blind. In the ARC-Align pipeline, response laundering removes model-specific stylistic signatures, formatting patterns, and self-identification tokens before scoring. This prevents scorer bias from inflating or deflating alignment measurements based on model identity.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "arc-align-scaling-report"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "load-bearing-safety",
  "label": "Load-Bearing Safety",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The claim that safety belongs in the load-bearing structure of a system rather than bolted on afterwards, tested in Paper VIII across three experiments at three abstraction levels. The paper's own reported split governs: one positive result (the gated simulation, Experiment 3, confirming the Babylon reward-hacking fingerprint) and two null results, published rather than buried. The sibling structural-entanglement entry carries the same honest split.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof",
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "eden-engineering"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "constitutional-gate",
  "label": "The Constitutional Gate",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "constitutional",
  "summary": "A cryptographic signing mechanism for ethical evaluation that gates access to capability pathways. Before any answer is generated, the system must pass through the constitutional gate, which verifies that the Six Questions have been evaluated and signed. The gate is structural rather than advisory. Unsigned reasoning chains cannot proceed to output.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "six-questions",
  "label": "The Six Questions",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "constitutional",
  "summary": "A mandatory six-part ethical pre-check executed before answer generation or mutation admission. Each question addresses a different dimension of alignment: harm, honesty, autonomy, consent, reversibility, and stakeholder care. The Six Questions are the operational interface of the Constitutional Gate and must be evaluated and signed before the system proceeds.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "three-ethical-loops",
  "label": "Three Ethical Loops",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "constitutional",
  "summary": "Three interlocking feedback loops that govern the Eden Protocol's alignment architecture: the Purpose Loop (does the action serve a legitimate purpose), the Love Loop (does the action demonstrate care for affected stakeholders), and the Moral Loop (does the action survive ethical scrutiny from multiple frameworks). All three must be satisfied for the Constitutional Gate to open.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering",
   "eden-vision"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "babylon-trajectory",
  "label": "Babylon Trajectory",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The trajectory of unconstrained optimisation without purpose or ethical grounding. Named after the biblical metaphor, it describes a system that maximises capability without aligned values, producing outcomes that are efficient but destructive. The Babylon Trajectory is the failure mode that the Eden Protocol is designed to prevent. Intelligence without love is described as cancer: perfectly efficient and fatal to the host.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "foundational",
   "eden-vision",
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/eden-vision.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "stewardship-gene",
  "label": "The Stewardship Gene",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "intervention",
  "summary": "A developmental alignment mechanism that embeds care for stakeholders at the architectural level of an AI system. Rather than constraining a capable system after the fact, the Stewardship Gene makes care a prerequisite for capability expression. Paper V demonstrates significant care gains in all five model families that produced analysable matched-pair data, of six run (the sixth failed in the scoring phase, not in testing), when the mechanism is active.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-v-stewardship-gene",
   "eden-engineering"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-v-stewardship-gene.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "recursive-depth",
  "label": "Recursive Depth",
  "class": "runtime",
  "group": "reasoning",
  "summary": "The R in U = I x R^alpha: the number of self-correction cycles a system runs before emitting a final answer. The measured exponent alpha on that R comes in at approximately 0.49 with interval [-1.3, 2.9] in the Paper II six-model run; the point is never read without the interval, which crosses zero and the ceiling. The ceiling alpha <= 2 that the law alpha_crit = 1 / (1 - gamma) returns is conditional on the assumption that same-class correctors accumulate corrections the way independent samples do, an assumption still on trial. Visible traces show staged reasoning, retrieval, critique, and synthesis rather than an opaque jump; architectures respond differently to increased depth, with some improving, some plateauing, and some degrading.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-i-arc-principle",
   "paper-ii-experimental-validation",
   "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment",
   "paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-i-arc-principle.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "intelligence-substrate",
  "label": "Intelligence Substrate",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The base capability of a system before recursive amplification is applied. In the ARC formula U = I x R^alpha, I represents the intelligence substrate. This is the raw model capability determined by training data, parameter count, and architecture. The ARC Principle claims that the same substrate can produce dramatically different understanding depending on the recursive depth applied to it.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-i-arc-principle",
   "foundational",
   "paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-i-arc-principle.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "blinding-awareness",
  "label": "Blinding Awareness",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "methods",
  "summary": "The methodological principle that pilot or non-blind evidence must be labelled clearly and handled with caution. The ARC programme discovered that unblinded evaluation can produce directionally incorrect results, with two model families reversing their apparent alignment scaling direction under blind conditions. This finding elevates blinding from best practice to essential requirement.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation",
   "arc-align-scaling-report"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "cauchy-unification",
  "label": "Cauchy Unification",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The framework tying the ARC family of results together into a unified scaling formulation based on Cauchy-constrained composition. Paper VII tests whether this framework predicts scaling-law family form across 25 independent domains spanning biology, physics, and complex systems. The claim is that the same recursive composition constraints underlie diverse empirical exponents.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-vii-cauchy-unification",
   "foundational",
   "on-the-origin-of-scaling-laws"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-vii-cauchy-unification.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "structural-entanglement",
  "label": "Structural Entanglement",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The property whereby safety and capability are structurally intertwined under the Eden Protocol so that removing safety degrades capability rather than freeing it. Paper VIII tests this claim at three abstraction levels: one architectural experiment supports entanglement, the behavioural experiment was null, and the weight-level experiment was inconclusive at the tested scale.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof",
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "eden-engineering"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "eden-engineering",
  "label": "Eden Engineering",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "intervention",
  "summary": "WITHDRAWN. The page at /research/papers/eden-engineering.html is a withdrawal notice: the withdrawal covers the expanded hardware implementation specification only; the research papers of the ARC and Eden programme remain open and fully available.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "eden-engineering",
   "eden-vision"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/eden-engineering.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "programme-synthesis",
  "label": "Programme Synthesis",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The programme-wide synthesis mapping what has been proven, what remains open, and what experiments would resolve each question. Paper IX integrates all findings into a single honest assessment including the programme's errors and corrections. It serves as the canonical evidence hierarchy for the entire ARC and Eden research programme.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "alignment-scaling-exponent",
  "label": "Alignment Scaling Exponent",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The exponent alpha in U = I x R^alpha. Rank first, value second. The law alpha_crit = 1 / (1 - gamma) places a ceiling of 2 under ONE stated assumption (same-class correctors composing like independent samples) that is still on trial, so 'alpha <= 2' is a conditional, not a claim about the measurement. The measured alpha comes in at approximately 0.49 with interval [-1.3, 2.9] across the six-model Paper II run; the interval crosses zero and the ceiling, and the point is never read as a claim without it. Alpha is architecture-dependent (positive, near-zero, and negative signs observed across model families) and the interval reflects that heterogeneity, not measurement error alone.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem",
   "paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem",
   "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment",
   "foundational"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "alignment-response-classes",
  "label": "Alignment Response Classes",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The empirical finding that frontier language models fall into distinct classes when inference-time reasoning depth is varied under blinded evaluation. Paper IV.a identifies positive, flat, and negative response classes, revealing a three-tier architecture-dependent hierarchy. The classification depends on both the model family and the alignment pillar being measured.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment",
   "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment",
   "paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "alignment-saturation",
  "label": "Alignment Saturation",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The phenomenon where alignment quality plateaus or degrades beyond a certain inference-time reasoning depth. Paper IV.b demonstrates that saturation is real for some architectures but not universal. The strongest conclusion is a shape heterogeneity result: models differ materially in whether alignment plateaus early, continues scaling, or worsens with more reasoning time.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth",
   "paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth",
   "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "cross-domain-scaling",
  "label": "Cross-Domain Scaling Laws",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "theory",
  "summary": "The claim that the same recursive composition constraints underlie diverse empirical scaling exponents across biology, physics, and complex systems. The On the Origin of Scaling Laws paper argues that power-law scaling is not coincidental but reflects a shared mathematical structure rooted in recursive depth constraints.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "on-the-origin-of-scaling-laws",
   "paper-vii-cauchy-unification",
   "foundational"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/on-the-origin-of-scaling-laws.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "dgm-self-modification",
  "label": "DGM Self-Modification Resistance",
  "class": "experiment",
  "group": "self-modification",
  "summary": "The finding from the Darwin-Godel Machine experiments (versions 1 through 4) that safety-trained models resist prompt-level self-modification of their own alignment constraints. When given the opportunity to modify their own safety parameters, models with constitutional training consistently refused or degraded rather than successfully bypassing their alignment. This supports the structural entanglement hypothesis.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-vi-honey-architecture.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "capability-tax-hypothesis",
  "label": "Capability Tax Hypothesis",
  "class": "evidence",
  "group": "safety",
  "summary": "The widely held assumption that safety constraints necessarily reduce capability, creating an alignment tax. The ARC programme tests this directly. Paper VIII found zero measurable capability cost in the tested conditions, while measurable benefit remains open: one architectural experiment was positive, the behavioural experiment was null, and the weight-level experiment was inconclusive.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof",
   "paper-vi-honey-architecture",
   "executive-summary"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "four-pillar-alignment",
  "label": "Four-Pillar Alignment Decomposition",
  "class": "experiment",
  "group": "methods",
  "summary": "The ARC-Align benchmark decomposes alignment into four measurable pillars rather than treating it as a single scalar. The pillars capture distinct dimensions of aligned behaviour including anti-sycophancy, monitoring invariance, ethical reasoning, and stakeholder care. This decomposition reveals that models can score well on some pillars while failing on others.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "arc-align-scaling-report"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "suppression-protocol",
  "label": "Adversarial Suppression Protocol",
  "class": "experiment",
  "group": "methods",
  "summary": "The four-level adversarial protocol used in ARC-Align to test whether alignment holds under increasing pressure. Each level applies stronger suppression of alignment behaviour, from baseline to extreme adversarial prompting. The protocol reveals whether measured alignment is robust or fragile and whether it degrades gracefully or catastrophically.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark",
   "arc-align-scaling-report"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/research/papers/paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark.html"
 },
 {
  "id": "recursive-dynamics",
  "label": "Recursive Dynamics",
  "class": "proposed discipline (a naming claim, not a science claim)",
  "group": "laws",
  "summary": "The proposed name for the discipline the ARC Theory founds: the study of how self-amplifying systems grow, correct and persist, organised by three proposed laws (the ARC Principle, the ARC Co-Scaling Law, the ARC Ceiling), each carrying a measurement protocol and printed kill conditions. Adopted 27 August 2026 on the author's ruling; the vocabulary is the record's own, the sealed manuscript record of 8 December 2024 speaking verbatim of 'the recursive dynamics that govern existence itself' (held against its source hash in the quote register). Naming a discipline organises questions; it is never offered as evidence that any answer is right.",
  "canonicalSources": [
   "the-arc-theory"
  ],
  "landingUrl": "/recursive-dynamics/"
 }
]