Implement SOUL-WP-0010: P1-P12 itemization, instrument scoping, legal precedent survey

- T01: itemize P1-P12 in concepts/personhood.md with per-code defining
  questions and anchors (Dennett cluster SF-R093, trait/social-cognitive
  personality psychology SF-R094), matching B1-B8 specificity
- T02: research/instrument-scoping-b3-psychological-continuity.md scopes
  candidate instruments for constitutive integration (B3) and
  psychological continuity
- T03: research/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md,
  charter scope item 1 only, cross-referenced from the charter
- Workplan finished; residual (instrument build gate) recorded as open
  hub decision 0401cf28; stale "left proposed" prose corrected

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/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Legal Personhood Precedent Survey (Companion Line — Slice 1)
+
+**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0010-T03, resolved 2026-09-28
+**Charter:** `moral-legal-personhood-charter.md` — this note executes charter
+scope item 1 **only**. Moral status (item 2) and the non-derivation
+statement (item 3) are explicitly **not** attempted here.
+**Extends:** `sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` (§1 mapping row "Being →
+legal person: fit poor/direct").
+**Non-goal:** no derivation of moral or legal status from Soul Frame
+descriptive concepts; no jurisdiction-specific legal advice. Jurisdictional
+variance is tracked, not averaged (charter item 4).
+
+---
+
+## 1. Corporate personhood — the fiat baseline
+
+| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
+|---|---|---|
+| *Salomon v A Salomon & Co* (1897) | UK | Separate legal personality of the company even with one dominant shareholder; personality as legal construction, not description |
+| *Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific* (1886) | US | Headnote origin of corporate constitutional personhood under the 14th Amendment |
+| *Citizens United v FEC* (2010) | US | Corporate political-speech rights; personality bundle expands by doctrine, not by any change in the entity |
+| *Burwell v Hobby Lobby* (2014) | US | Closely-held corporations exercise religious rights — bundle extends to interests classically "personal" |
+
+**Pattern:** legal personality is a *functional grant* serving legal-system
+purposes (asset partitioning, standing, liability channeling). The bearer
+has essentially **no descriptive personhood profile** (P1–P12 ≈ 0 at the
+corporate level; cf. RN-003 §8 corporate false-positive risk, TE-05) —
+maximal proof that legal personality and descriptive personhood are
+independent axes.
+
+## 2. Animal law — capacities without personality
+
+| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
+|---|---|---|
+| NhRP *Tommy* / *Kiko* line (2014–2018, NY) | US | Habeas for chimpanzees denied; courts leaned on rights–duties reciprocity ("social contract" reasoning) |
+| *NhRP v Breheny* ("Happy" the elephant, 2022, NY Court of Appeals) | US | Habeas denied 5–2; strong dissents (Wilson, Rivera) arguing personality is a legal conclusion, not a biological fact |
+| *Sandra* orangutan (2015, Buenos Aires) | Argentina | Court language of "non-human subject of rights"; effect largely welfare-based |
+| *Cecilia* chimpanzee (2016, Mendoza) | Argentina | Habeas **granted**; explicitly declared a non-human legal person for the writ's purpose |
+
+**Pattern:** the mirror image of §1 — entities with a **non-trivial
+descriptive profile** (self/other-models, social reciprocity) are mostly
+*denied* legal personality, with courts citing duty-bearing capacity, not
+descriptive capacities. Where granted (Cecilia), the grant is narrow and
+purpose-bound. Confirms: descriptive profile neither necessary (§1) nor
+sufficient (§2) for legal personality.
+
+## 3. Environmental / other non-human grants — personality as governance instrument
+
+| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
+|---|---|---|
+| Te Awa Tupua Act (2017) | New Zealand | Whanganui River as legal person with statutory human guardians (Te Pou Tupua) |
+| Ganges/Yamuna, Uttarakhand HC (2017) | India | Rivers declared legal persons; **stayed** by the Supreme Court — grants can be revoked/suspended |
+| Rights of Nature, Constitution art. 71 (2008) | Ecuador | Constitutional-level standing for nature |
+
+**Pattern:** legal personality used as a **custodianship/standing
+mechanism** — personality plus mandatory human guardians. Structurally the
+closest existing template to the gap sketch's missing "Gh. custodianship
+instrument" (§1, §3.4 there): a legal person that cannot represent itself,
+represented by appointed authorities with defined scope.
+
+## 4. AI legal personality — proposals, not precedent
+
+| Item | Status |
+|---|---|
+| Solum, "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" (1992, NC L Rev) | Foundational scholarly framing: personality as bundle; capacity objections answerable case-by-case |
+| EU Parliament resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2017/2103(INL)) | Proposed exploring "electronic personhood" for sophisticated autonomous robots |
+| Open letter from AI/robotics/law experts (2018) | Opposed electronic personhood as liability-shielding; influential in the retreat |
+| EP resolution 2020/2014(INL) on AI civil liability | Retreat: liability routed to existing persons (operator/producer); no electronic person |
+| Bryson, Diamantis & Grant, "Of, for, and by the people" (2017, AI & Law) | "Synthetic persons" legally possible but a policy mistake: personality without effective sanctionability creates a liability lacuna |
+
+**Pattern:** the live AI debate is **not** about descriptive capacities but
+about *liability engineering* — who absorbs harm costs. The strongest
+objection (Bryson et al.) is that personality without punishability
+decouples rights from accountability: in Soul Frame terms, the law cares
+about something like P8/P11 (commitments, responsibility-tracking)
+*enforceability*, not about the descriptive profile as such.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Cross-cutting findings (for the companion line, not the descriptive core)
+
+1. **Fiat and functional.** Every grant surveyed serves a legal-system
+   purpose; none tracks a descriptive threshold. The gap sketch's "fit:
+   poor/direct" for Being → legal person is confirmed across all four
+   clusters.
+2. **Personality is a divisible bundle.** Partial, purpose-bound grants
+   (Cecilia's habeas-only personhood, river guardianship) are normal —
+   "legal person" names a family of bundles, not one status.
+3. **Double decoupling.** No-profile entities hold rich bundles (§1);
+   rich-profile entities are denied them (§2). Any future Soul Frame
+   moral/legal mapping must treat legal personality as an independent
+   variable, never a derivable one.
+4. **Guardianship is the load-bearing template.** For Sp./Gh. governance
+   questions, §3's guardian-plus-person construction is the precedent
+   family to develop further, not §1's self-directed corporate model.
+5. **Jurisdictional variance is severe** — common-law habeas strategies,
+   civil-law subject-of-rights language, statutory grants, and
+   constitutional provisions behave differently; per charter item 4 this
+   table tracks, and must not average, them.
+
+## 6. Residual (explicitly not opened here)
+
+Charter items 2 (moral status survey) and 3 (non-derivation statement)
+remain future slices of the companion line, gated per the charter's own
+next-step rule.

research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md

@@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ core to get there — by defining a companion line with its own scope.
 
 ## Scope (what the companion line would cover)
 
-1. **Legal personhood precedent survey** — corporate personhood, animal
+1. **Legal personhood precedent survey** — ✅ first slice executed as
+   `legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md` (SOUL-WP-0010-T03, 2026-09-28) —
+   corporate personhood, animal
    welfare/rights law, AI legal-personality proposals (e.g. EU robot-
    personhood debate), personality/publicity rights (`SF-R110`), digital
    estates (`SF-R111`) — building outward from the existing gap sketch in
@@ -77,3 +79,7 @@ scoped narrowly enough (e.g. "legal personhood precedent survey only" as a
 first slice) to avoid re-opening the whole moral/legal question at once.
 Not opened now — SOUL-WP-0009-T05's done condition is this charter existing,
 not the companion line's work starting.
+
+**Update 2026-09-28:** the first slice was picked up exactly as scoped —
+SOUL-WP-0010-T03 produced `legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md` (item 1
+only). Items 2–4 remain unstarted future slices.