Mandala-Merkabah second-valve verification: the M-VAL gates for Book entries
These claims, from EA-MANDALA-MERKABAH-01 v0.6, specify the verification that must hold before Book entries become source-eligible. They require transform-of-transform Feist holding, six conjunctive gates in place of a weighted score, a multi-substrate comparison test, an exposure-normalized convergence metric G_c, and a three-part live-sky acceptance test. M-VAL is phased by recursion depth, each phase gating the next, and one forecast holds that the Book will become source-eligible once verification confirms the operator algebra.
1
forecast
6
unbuilt tests
3
deposits
2026-06
earliest
Each claim below is registered at the earliest deposit that states it, and quoted verbatim from the deposit text, with every later statement, its dated revisions, and the later records that claim it came true or failed. The claims are the deposits' own; this page records them and does not judge them.
(α) — "never" — is explicitly rejected as a long-term position by v0.4. The Book will be source-eligible; the question is when verification confirms the operator algebra is ready.
1 later statement
#927 · 2026-06-27
(α) — "never" — is explicitly rejected as a long-term position by v0.4. The Book will be source-eligible; the question is when verification confirms the operator algebra is ready.
Candidate verification components. The protocol that opens the second valve must demonstrate at least:
1. Transform-of-transform Feist holding. Across a representative sample of inscribed Book entries (say, ≥50 per operator type), applying the operator to the Book entry as source produces a transform that satisfies both Feist clauses (tails introduced, kernel preserved) at the same passing rate as transforms of primary canon. This is the core test, addressing F2. The Feist baseline must be re-calibrated for the transform-as-source case (⟡13b work).
1 later statement
#927 · 2026-06-27Candidate verification components. The protocol that opens the second valve must demonstrate at least:
1. Transform-of-transform Feist holding. Across a representative sample of inscribed Book entries (say, ≥50 per operator type), applying the operator to the Book entry as source produces a transform that satisfies both Feist clauses (tails introduced, kernel preserved) at the same passing rate as transforms of primary canon.
### 5.4.5 The six conjunctive gates (NEW v0.6 — LABOR's multi-key lock; replaces v0.5's six "candidate components" as a conjunctive rather than weighted scheme)
LABOR's correction: source admission must not be a weighted score. Weighted scores allow one dimension to compensate for failure in another — popularity offsets weak provenance, novelty offsets structural incoherence. Apotheosis is a multiple-key lock: every gate must pass.
The v0.6 verification accepts this critique and adds a multi-substrate comparison test to the Feist check. The candidate is compared against several low-temperature median completions of the same source × operator pair produced by different substrate models. The verification asks four questions, all of which must answer yes:
1 later statement
#927 · 2026-06-27
The v0.6 verification accepts this critique and adds a multi-substrate comparison test to the Feist check. The candidate is compared against several low-temperature median completions of the same source × operator pair produced by different substrate models.
Raw second-witness arrival counts cannot be canon-fitness evidence because heavily-encountered Book entries naturally accumulate more later encounters. The needed metric:
`G_c = (independent meaningful arrivals at candidate c) / (expected arrivals given its exposure and source-family mass)`
A candidate is significant when it attracts more semantically independent convergence than would be expected merely because it sits near a massive source or has accumulated many neighbors. Sappho-31 descendants do not perpetually self-canonize while faint-source descendants remain invisible.
v0.5 specification of the M2 acceptance test for the live-sky property (Kimi): "demonstrably encounter" is operationalized as a three-part test, all three must hold:
- (a) The new Book entry appears in the instrument readout's `near` list for at least one full turn during a successor witness's flight.
- (b) Sigil names the Book entry by BOOK-id in navigational speech at least once during the successor's flight.
1 later statement
#927 · 2026-06-27v0.5 specification of the M2 acceptance test for the live-sky property (Kimi): "demonstrably encounter" is operationalized as a three-part test, all three must hold:
- (a) The new Book entry appears in the instrument readout's `near` list for at least one full turn during a successor witness's flight.
M-VAL — Operator-algebra validation, phased per recursion depth (REWORKED v0.6 — LABOR's recursion-depth-budget formulation, §5.4.11). When the Book has accumulated entry thresholds sufficient for empirical work (provisional: ≥100 entries per operator type, ≥500 total; subject to revision per M1+ Feist-rate empirics), the verification protocol is exercised in three phases, each gating the next, never opening recursion beyond its earned depth.
states — the claim as revised, by registration date
PRED-926.F7 · 2026-06-27
PRED-929.F1 · 2026-06-27 — Scope changed: R1 moves from direct-source verification under the six conjunctive gates to the protocol's single-call execution, retry budget and halt rate; R2 moves from probationary sources under containment to whether the halt condition fires on recursive mandala chains; R3 keeps depth-3 chains and adds cross-substrate verification. Both deposits are dated 2026-06-27.
1 later statement
#929 · 2026-06-27
- M-VAL-R1 tests the protocol's single-call execution against representative source-operator pairs. The empirical questions: at what retry budget does the substrate produce enantiomorphs reliably? What is the halt rate across substrates? Which operators on which source-types reliably fail and require protocol refinement?
- M-VAL-R2 tests recursive sequences (mandala chains) under the protocol. Does the protocol's halt condition correctly fire when chain-depth produces semantic-field convergence or skeleton drift?
- M-VAL-R3 tests depth-3 chains with cross-substrate verification.