SRIC: endogenous semantic witness

SRIC v2.4 Block 23 Results

Canonical disposition

PASS within the released finite fixture.

The visible compiler never receives the four protected intermediate semantic coordinates or the hidden regime label. It selects a quotient from observable future, intervention, answer, and semantic-twin evidence. A separate final witness then opens the protected ontology and determines the strongest justified certificate.

Audit chronology

• 24 pre-audit episodes compiled before the final witness was opened
• thresholds and candidate grammar frozen in the pre-audit seal
• 36 final episodes generated under the committed seed rule
• two independently gauged systems in every episode
• 520 construction and 320 calibration samples per system
• 420 audit-only samples per system in every final episode
• four anonymous interventions and five recurrent latent steps
• 4 protected semantic coordinates, 12 nuisance coordinates per step

Certificate matrix

All 36 final certificates match the precommitted audit truth.

Minimum-quotient behavior

• identified and answer-shortcut regimes select a rank-4 predictive quotient
• gauge-equivalent and semantically ambiguous regimes select a rank-4 intervention quotient
• partial-ontology regimes select a rank-3 quotient and report 75% protected-coordinate coverage
• destructive-loss regimes select no quotient and issue an information-loss certificate

Selected methods across the final suite:

predictive:   18
intervention: 12
no-go:        6

Hidden witness results

Answer-only shortcut control

The answer-only quotient predicts the binary answer with at least 0.881250 accuracy, but reaches at most:

• future R2: 0.313061
• intervention-effect R2: 0.357401

No answer-only candidate passes the semantic-construction gate. This separates label prediction from an adequate causal-predictive ontology.

Counterfactual quotient patching

On the identified and answer-shortcut regimes, the audit-only runtime replaces only the selected latent quotient with a donor quotient and independently recomputes future and intervention consequences.

• minimum selected-packet future R2: 0.983162
• maximum answer-only control future R2: -0.161100
• maximum PCA control future R2: -0.706230
• maximum random control future R2: -0.703696

The selected quotient supports the intended counterfactual consequences; equal-rank correlational and random controls do not.

Gauge versus underidentification

The same visible repeated intervention signature appears in two regimes. The compiler therefore emits the same pre-certificate, CANDIDATE_GAUGE_AMBIGUOUS, in both.

• In the declared gauge regime, the protected invariant is recoverable with R2 at least 0.997034, so the final certificate is ONTOLOGY_IDENTIFIED_UP_TO_GAUGE.
• In the semantic-ambiguity regime, two observationally equivalent orientations disagree on a protected named coordinate by at least 0.781682, so the final certificate is ONTOLOGY_UNDERIDENTIFIED.

This prevents coordinate nonuniqueness from being confused with semantic nonidentifiability.

Information-loss no-go

Every destructive episode exposes 64 exact observation collisions whose protected future consequences disagree. The compiler receives those protected consequences but never the hidden intermediate coordinates. Because one observed state would require two different protected outcomes, deterministic target-only semantic recovery is impossible within the declared interface.

Receipts

pre-audit seal: 04785a6f21a8d9f64100e4609329333498bceaa6b5afae90472313f6ebbd4ef9
final result:   213bcf9fbf62b797f9903d9e05e84e5a4036bb02c927723a4570fa44e2c674ce
fixture smoke:  e447e082f3befe5b7b6bb0254464c4cb1402684a0c93e3022579439be6f62664