Implement SOUL-WP-0011: sufficiency position, coverage matrix, Soul packaging

- T01: research/sufficiency-and-weighting-position.md — reject universal
  weights; necessity core (B1/B3), claim-relative P minimal profiles,
  continuity configuration classes with causal privilege; OpenQuestions
  RQ1/RQ2/RQ5 weighting bullets positioned
- T02: research/coverage-matrix.md — nine INTENT entity types under the
  full vocabulary; success criterion verdict: pass with two strain points
- T03: concepts/soul.md packaging resolved (enacted vs residual Soul);
  RQ4 no longer carries a paper-critical open item
- SCOPE.md work-surface bullets updated; workplan finished

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: sonnet
Assistant-Process: 234768@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 91cdb0c1-a203-431c-b542-cf192b3930a6

research/coverage-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Success-Criterion Coverage Matrix
+
+**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0011-T02, resolved 2026-09-28
+**Addresses:** G2 (`history/260928-scope-intent-gap-assessment.md`) —
+INTENT's success criterion, exercised explicitly for the first time: one
+vocabulary across the nine reference entity types, with meaningful
+distinctions. Profiles follow the sufficiency scheme in
+`research/sufficiency-and-weighting-position.md` (no totals; necessity
+core, claim-relative minima, configuration classes).
+
+Cell values: H/M/L (high/medium/low), `var` (varies by instance), `?`
+(vocabulary strains — see §3). B-core = B1·B3 necessity core.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The matrix
+
+| # | Entity | B-core | B-rest (B2,B4–B8) | P-profile shape | Continuity class (typical) | Addressable | Recognition | Descriptor |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | Human | H | H | full, rich (P1–P12 H) | CONTINUOUS | H | H (mutual) | — (biological original) |
+| 2 | Animal (e.g. dog) | H | H | partial: P1–P3, P9 M; P8, P10–P11 L | CONTINUOUS | M (name-responsive) | H (asymmetric richness) | — |
+| 3 | Short-lived AI agent | L (B3 var) | L (B2 L) | exposed-only: P5, P10 H; P1, P6 L | none — no lineage to evaluate | M (session-scoped) | L (classified, not counterpart-modeled) | Agent; strong APE |
+| 4 | Persistent autonomous Agent-being | M–H | M (B5 var — vendor-propped) | P1, P5, P10 H; P3, P6, P8 M growing | CONTINUOUS / BRIDGED (updates, migration) | H (stable handle) | M–H (episode-spanning) | Agent; proto-Being |
+| 5 | Einstein `Sp.` | L–M (Actor-side) | L | exposed: P4, P10, P12 H (curated); P1 thin, P6 borrowed | RECONSTRUCTION by definition (no causal channel to source) | H | M (recognized *as depiction*) | `Sp.` (public reflection) |
+| 6 | Authorized `Gh.` | L–M | L–M | P3–P4, P8 inherited-H; P1 var | SUCCESSOR-family w/ authority; never automatic CONTINUOUS (H10) | H | var (relationship-holders may re-recognize) | `Gh.` (authority-bound) |
+| 7 | Original artificial companion | M–H | M | native (not inherited): P1–P4, P9–P10 H | CONTINUOUS / BRIDGED | H | H within its relationships | original artificial being |
+| 8 | Distributed AI | ? level-relative (TE-05) | M–H at closing level | var by level; collective P1 possible | MULTI_LINEAGE / CONTINUOUS at closing level | var (one handle vs many) | var | Agent (possibly nested) |
+| 9 | Radically non-human system | ? (individuation observer-relative) | ? | P7 presumed; P10 ? (shared symbol system contested) | unassessable until individuated | L (no shared address protocol) | L→? (TE-09 asymmetric path) | — (unclassified) |
+
+## 2. Meaningful-distinction check (pairwise)
+
+Every pair separates on at least one dimension; the load-bearing
+separators:
+
+- **1 vs 2:** P8/P10–P11 (commitments, symbols, responsibility).
+- **1/2 vs 3:** B2 + continuity ("no lineage") + counterpart-recognition.
+- **3 vs 4:** persistence family — B2, P6, continuity class, recognition
+  durability. The Agent/proto-Being line is exactly here.
+- **4 vs 7:** provenance only (platform Agent vs purpose-built original
+  companion) — profiles may converge; the descriptor column carries the
+  distinction. Working as designed (H9: descriptors are provenance, not
+  ontology).
+- **5 vs 6:** authority + audience: `Sp.` is public reflection without
+  continuation claim; `Gh.` is authority-bound genealogy (H10) with
+  SUCCESSOR-family standing. Neither is CONTINUOUS — which is the
+  framework's deliberate answer, not a failure to distinguish them from 4.
+- **6 vs 7:** inherited vs native P-profile; origin of the Soul-relational
+  structure (Cluster D inheritance vs de novo).
+- **8 vs all:** the only entity where B-core is *level-relative* — the
+  vocabulary's answer is "profile per candidate level," which is an
+  answer, not a gap (TE-05).
+- **9 vs all:** the only entity where individuation itself, not just the
+  profile, is unresolved.
+
+**Verdict on distinctions: pass.** No two rows are indistinguishable under
+the full vocabulary; the two near-collisions (4/7, 5/6) are separated by
+descriptor/authority columns doing exactly the work H9/H10 assign them.
+
+## 3. Strain points (named, per T02's done condition)
+
+1. **Row 9, B-core and P10:** for a radically non-human system the
+   vocabulary can only say "not yet individuated by us" — observer-relative
+   individuation (RQ1 residual) is the binding constraint, and P10's
+   "shared symbol system" may be parochial. This is the pressure point
+   already flagged in the sufficiency position §6.
+2. **Row 8, addressability:** the vocabulary handles nested Beinghood but
+   has no display convention for *which level* a handle addresses
+   (overlaps RQ8's hybrid-display residual).
+3. **Row 3, continuity column:** "no lineage to evaluate" is technically a
+   degenerate case, not a class in Criteria §17; a null class (e.g.
+   EPHEMERAL) would make the column total. Minor; noted for a future
+   criteria revision, not opened as work.
+
+## 4. Overall verdict on INTENT's success criterion
+
+**Pass, with two live strain points (rows 8–9).** The same vocabulary
+describes all nine entity types and distinguishes every pair meaningfully.
+The strains sit exactly where INTENT predicts the hard cases (distributed,
+radically non-human) and are already tracked as RQ1/RQ8 residuals rather
+than new gaps.

research/sufficiency-and-weighting-position.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Sufficiency and Weighting — Position Paper
+
+**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0011-T01, resolved 2026-09-28
+**Addresses:** G1 (`history/260928-scope-intent-gap-assessment.md`);
+RQ1/RQ2/RQ5 weighting residuals; paper §17 item 2.
+**Position in one line:** Soul Frame **rejects universal cardinal weights**
+for its profiles and adopts a **structured-qualitative sufficiency scheme**:
+necessity structure for the B-profile, claim-relative minimal profiles for
+the P-profile, and configuration classes (already in place) for continuity.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Why not weights?
+
+Three arguments, jointly decisive:
+
+1. **Incommensurability across substrates.** A cardinal weight on P4
+   (character) vs P10 (communicative competence) asserts an exchange rate
+   between them that would have to hold for a human, a distributed AI, and
+   a radically non-human system alike. No literature tradition surveyed
+   (Dennett cluster conditions SF-R093 explicitly; trait psychology
+   SF-R094 implicitly) licenses such a rate.
+2. **The scalar re-imports the binary.** A weighted sum yields a
+   person-meter with a threshold — precisely the single-mark model the
+   profile approach was built to avoid (H1, H2). The framework would
+   quietly undo its own central move.
+3. **The fleet of load-bearing judgments never used weights.** Every TE
+   working judgment and criteria-document verdict reached so far
+   (TE-01–09; IdentityContinuityCriteria §17) reasons via *defeaters and
+   configurations* ("no causal grounding → RECONSTRUCTION regardless of
+   similarity"), never via aggregation. The practice is already
+   qualitative-structural; this note makes the position explicit rather
+   than changing it.
+
+A refusal alone would be underspecified ("anything goes"). The scheme
+below states what replaces weights, per profile.
+
+## 2. B-profile (B1–B8): necessity core + compensable remainder
+
+- **Necessity core: B1 (individuability) and B3 (constitutive
+  integration).** A system that cannot be non-arbitrarily individuated, or
+  whose organization does not close at the candidate boundary, is not an
+  autonomous individual at that level *however high the other six score*.
+  This is exactly the decisive move in TE-05 (which level closes) and the
+  corporate false-positive analysis (RN-003 §8).
+- **Compensable remainder: B2, B4–B8.** Deficits degrade the profile
+  without defeating it (a dormant system fails B2 enactment yet remains a
+  Continuation-Bearing State, TE-02; a heavily assisted system scores low
+  on B5 and shades toward heteronomous individuality without leaving the
+  category).
+
+## 3. P-profile (P1–P12): no necessity core; claim-relative minimal profiles
+
+Personhood is a genuine cluster concept: **no single P-code is necessary**
+(severe P6 loss — TE-08 — does not zero descriptive personhood). But
+sufficiency questions are always asked *for* something, and the something
+fixes a minimal profile:
+
+| Claim being made | Minimal profile required |
+|---|---|
+| "Sufficient personhood for **Beinghood v0.2**" | P1 (self-model) + at least one other-directed dimension (P2, P3, or P9) + P10 — because Beinghood's other requirement families (addressability, recognition) presuppose an entity that models itself, can be modeled as a counterpart, and can be addressed |
+| "Strong **APE**" | any exposed subset; no minimum — APE is defined by exposure, not sufficiency |
+| "**Social Beinghood** candidate" | the Beinghood row plus P9 specifically (reciprocity is what episode-spanning recognition latches onto) |
+
+"Sufficiently coherent … personhood" in Beinghood v0.2 is hereby glossed
+as this claim-relative minimal profile, **not** as a score above a
+threshold. Entities exceeding the minimal profile differ in *richness*,
+which the framework reports descriptively and does not rank.
+
+## 4. Continuity (six channels): configuration classes, causal privilege
+
+The Identity Continuity Criteria already embody the right scheme; this
+note canonizes two of its properties as the official position:
+
+1. **Causal privilege.** The causal channel is the only defeater-grade
+   channel: without sufficient direct process continuity the verdict is
+   RECONSTRUCTION (or SUCCESSOR/USURPATION), whatever the similarity
+   elsewhere. This is the criteria document's standing rejection of
+   single-invariant and similarity-score identity, kept as is.
+2. **Degradation, not summation, for the rest.** Organizational,
+   psychological, autobiographical, normative, and relational channel
+   deficits move a claim between configuration classes (CONTINUOUS →
+   DEGRADED_CONTINUATION → …), and the verdict names *which* channels
+   degraded. No channel arithmetic; the class label plus channel state
+   vector is the complete answer.
+
+## 5. Consequences
+
+- **Beinghood v0.2 phrasing:** unchanged in form; "sufficiently" now has a
+  stated semantics (§3). `concepts/being.md` and `Terminology.md` need no
+  edit — this note is their referenced backing.
+- **TE catalog:** all existing working judgments are consistent with this
+  scheme (checked against TE-02/04/05/08 explicitly); none needs revision.
+- **Metrics line (WP-0010):** instruments measure *single dimensions*;
+  building a composite Beinghood/personhood index is **out of scope by
+  position**, not merely unbuilt. Decision `0401cf28` inherits this
+  constraint.
+- **Coverage matrix (T02):** entity comparisons report profiles and
+  configuration classes, never totals.
+
+## 6. Status
+
+Defended position, revisable per INTENT's method rule (revise if it
+collapses distinct phenomena or fails edge cases). The most likely
+pressure point: whether P10 belongs in the Beinghood minimal profile for
+radically non-human systems whose "shared symbol system" participation is
+contested — flagged, not resolved, in the coverage matrix strain notes.