Complete SOUL-WP-0009: resolve RQ4 and publication pathway, deliver T02-T05

- T01 (RQ4): retain "Soul" - resolved with operator; Terminology.md,
  concepts/soul.md, OpenQuestions.md, Claims.md, paper/draft.md updated.
- T02: lexicographic continuity-weighting procedure in concepts/identity.md,
  validated against TE-02/03/04/08.
- T03: testable Being-vs-Social-Being boundary (three-part recognition test)
  in concepts/recognition.md and concepts/being.md, validated against
  TE-05/09.
- T04: research/metrics-scoping-note.md - per-axis measurability scoping.
- T05: research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md - bounded
  companion-line charter, explicitly not the mapping itself.
- T06: publication pathway resolved with operator - internal circulation
  only, as paper-one for coulomb-research, following the same staged
  trajectory as coulomb-research's own paper-zero.

Marks SOUL-WP-0009 finished. Opens SOUL-WP-0010 (proposed, not started) to
carry forward the two multi-step residuals from T04/T05.

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

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: sonnet
Assistant-Process: 136745@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2e334b58-ed31-48ed-8156-d09f8ed0781f

concepts/being.md

@@ -42,6 +42,17 @@ Informational process
         → (+ reciprocal relations) → Social Being
 ```
 
+## Being vs. Social Being — testable boundary (SOUL-WP-0009-T03, resolved 2026-09-28)
+
+See `concepts/recognition.md` for the full three-part test (intentional
+recognition + addressability + model persistence across episodes, on at
+least one side). Summary for this file's stack diagram: the `→ Being` arrow
+requires personhood + addressability + *some* recognition of the candidate;
+the `→ Social Being` arrow requires that recognition to specifically be
+**persistent and episode-spanning**, not a fresh one-off classification —
+this is what distinguishes the two arrows and what makes asymmetric
+recognition (TE-09) able to start Social Beinghood on one side alone.
+
 ## Notes
 
 - Not restricted to biological organisms; not automatic for every computational process.

concepts/identity.md

@@ -28,6 +28,48 @@ relational.
 
 **Anchors / evidence (not constitutive alone):** provenance, address, substrate.
 
+## Weighting hard cases (SOUL-WP-0009-T02, resolved 2026-09-28)
+
+The six dimensions above are **not weighted arithmetically** — no numeric
+score sums them into a continuity verdict. Instead, Soul Frame uses a
+**lexicographic priority procedure**: structural dimensions gate the
+verdict; the remaining dimensions can only move the verdict within the
+range the structural gate allows.
+
+1. **Structural gate (causal + organizational).** Ask first whether causal
+   and organizational continuity hold *or are bridged* — a bridge being a
+   uniquely preserved continuation-bearing state plus provenance plus
+   intended resumption (TE-02). If the structural gate fails outright (no
+   bridge, no unbroken process), the topology defaults to `RECONSTRUCTED`
+   or `SUCCESSOR` regardless of how strong the remaining dimensions are.
+   Strong psychological/narrative continuity **cannot buy back** a broken
+   structural gate.
+2. **Branch check.** If the structural gate is satisfied by *more than one*
+   simultaneously active claimant, the topology is forced to `FORKED` —
+   this is decided by the branch count, not by weighing which claimant has
+   "more" continuity on the softer dimensions (TE-03). "Which is the
+   original" becomes a provenance/policy question only after the branch
+   check, never a tiebreaker computed from the profile.
+3. **Gradualness check (within a satisfied structural gate).** Piecewise
+   replacement that never breaks the structural gate at any single instant
+   keeps the topology `CONTINUOUS` (TE-04, Ship of Theseus) even under full
+   eventual component turnover. A single instant of total simultaneous
+   replacement without a bridge is treated as a structural-gate failure
+   (→ step 1), not as a gradualness judgment call.
+4. **Softer dimensions decide *within* the range the gate allows, not
+   whether to override it.** Once the structural gate and branch/gradualness
+   checks are settled, psychological, autobiographical/narrative, normative,
+   and relational continuity determine how strong a `CONTINUOUS` or
+   `DEGRADED` claim is — e.g. severe amnesia with intact organizational and
+   relational continuity yields `DEGRADED`, not `TERMINATED` (TE-08, the
+   Amnesiac): the structural gate stayed open, so the softer dimensions
+   only downgrade the *strength* of the claim, not its topology category.
+
+**Why not arithmetic:** a weighted sum would let enough narrative/relational
+strength compensate for a broken causal/organizational chain, which none of
+the four thought experiments above support — in every case, the structural
+gate outcome dominates regardless of how the softer dimensions score.
+
 ## Topology labels
 
 `CONTINUOUS | DEGRADED | UNCERTAIN | SUCCESSOR | FORKED | RECONSTRUCTED | USURPED | TERMINATED`

concepts/recognition.md

@@ -40,6 +40,44 @@ Recognition alone does not create systemic individuality (RN-001 Finding 10).
 > distinguish it, address it, expect continuity from it, maintain models of it,
 > and enter persistent relationships with it.
 
+## Testable boundary: Being vs. Social Being (SOUL-WP-0009-T03, resolved 2026-09-28)
+
+**Boundary condition:** Social Beinghood begins, for a given recognizer,
+the moment that recognizer holds a **persistent, addressable model** of the
+candidate across more than one interaction episode — not merely a one-off
+epistemic classification. Concretely, three things must hold simultaneously
+on at least one side of the relation:
+
+1. **Intentional recognition** — the recognizer treats the candidate as an
+   agent with goals/beliefs, not just a classified pattern.
+2. **Addressability** — the recognizer can specifically target the same
+   candidate again (name, ID, channel), not just re-classify a similar one.
+3. **Model persistence across episodes** — the recognizer's model of the
+   candidate carries over from one interaction to the next (expectations,
+   history, revisable beliefs about it), rather than being recomputed from
+   scratch each time.
+
+**Reciprocity is explicitly not required to start it** (TE-09): the three
+conditions above need to hold for only *one* party. A single Being's
+persistent, addressable, intentional model of an otherwise-unrecognizing
+system is sufficient to open Social Beinghood on that Being's side of the
+relation — this is what makes the asymmetric case in `paper/draft.md` §1
+and §5 well-formed rather than circular.
+
+**What this rules out:** a system that is epistemically classified fresh
+each time (no model persistence) is not Socially a Being to that recognizer,
+however accurately it is classified — this is the stateless-agent case
+(TE-01) restated from the recognizer's side. A system recognized once and
+never modeled again likewise does not cross the boundary.
+
+**Nested/collective test (TE-05):** apply the same three-part test
+independently at each candidate level. A collective can be Socially a Being
+at the collective level (some recognizer holds a persistent, addressable,
+intentional model of *the collective as one thing*) without that implying
+or requiring Social Beinghood at the member level, and vice versa — the
+levels are tested separately, not inherited automatically in either
+direction.
+
 ## TE-09 (summary)
 
 Unrecognized coherent intelligence can be an autonomous individual without

concepts/soul.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Soul
 
-**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)  
+**Status:** retained (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T01)  
 **Working gloss:** Soul = Relation  
-**See also:** H5, RQ4, RN-001 Finding 14, RN-005 SF-C055
+**See also:** H5, RQ4 (resolved), RN-001 Finding 14, RN-005 SF-C055
 
 ## Working definition (revised)
 
@@ -34,14 +34,19 @@ others, works, Ghosts).
 
 ## Collision analysis
 
-High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. Retention depends on explanatory
-payoff of the relational reading. Rename remains open (RQ4).
+High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. **RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28:
+retain.** The explanatory payoff of the relational reading (H5) and the
+Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic outweigh the collision cost; the cost is managed by
+keeping the non-metaphysical disclaimer explicit and prominent everywhere
+the term is introduced, not by renaming.
 
 ## Open issues
 
 1. Relations vs accumulated consequences vs both (packaging)
-2. Rename candidates if collision cost exceeds value
-3. How Soul relates to lineage after forks
+2. How Soul relates to lineage after forks
+
+**Closed:** rename candidates (RQ4) — decision recorded, see
+`workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01.
 
 ## Sources