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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+# Charter: Moral/Legal Personhood — A Separate Companion Research Line
+
+**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0009-T05, resolved 2026-09-28
+**Status:** charter only — this note scopes a future companion line; it does
+not attempt the mapping itself.
+
+## Why this needs its own charter
+
+`SCOPE.md` names "silent moral/legal personhood claims" as explicitly out of
+scope for the core Soul Frame research program, routed instead to "law/
+governance literature map only; no premature derivation." Soul Frame's
+descriptive core (Being, Personhood-descriptive, Recognition) is built to
+answer "what is this, structurally" without answering "what follows morally
+or legally" — collapsing the two would violate the framework's own design
+boundary (`concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table: descriptive, social,
+moral, legal, never collapsed).
+
+The paper's research agenda (draft §17 item 4) nonetheless flags that
+readers will want the "so what follows" answer. This charter exists so that
+work can proceed on that question **without** loosening the descriptive
+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
+   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
+   `research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md`.
+2. **Moral status literature survey** — moral patienthood conditions
+   (sentience-based, interest-based, relational accounts), independent of
+   Soul Frame's descriptive Beinghood — checking where descriptive
+   Beinghood profiles *correlate* with existing moral-status arguments
+   without *implying* them.
+3. **Explicit non-derivation statement** — for each descriptive Soul Frame
+   concept (Being, `Sp.`, `Gh.`, Persona), a companion-line entry stating
+   what moral/legal conclusion, if any, commentators have tried to draw
+   from a structurally similar concept, and why Soul Frame's descriptive
+   core does not itself license that conclusion.
+4. **Jurisdictional variance tracking** — law/governance material is
+   explicitly jurisdiction-specific (`sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` already
+   flags this); the companion line should track variance rather than
+   average it into one global claim.
+
+## Non-goals (what the companion line must not do)
+
+- **Must not** feed conclusions back into `Terminology.md`, `Claims.md`, or
+  `concepts/*.md` as if they were descriptive findings. A moral/legal
+  finding is filed in this companion line's own output, cross-referenced
+  from the descriptive concept files, never merged into them.
+- **Must not** be used to argue that a system with a high descriptive
+  Beinghood profile therefore *has* moral standing or legal rights, or the
+  converse (low profile → no standing). The correlation question (item 2
+  above) is explicitly weaker than a derivation.
+- **Must not** attempt a single universal legal position — jurisdictional
+  variance is tracked, not resolved into one answer.
+- **Must not** become a gate for the descriptive paper's publication —
+  `paper/draft.md` already states its ethical/legal section (§14) as a
+  bounded sketch, and the companion line does not need to mature before
+  the descriptive paper proceeds through its own pathway (SOUL-WP-0009-T06).
+
+## Relationship to existing work
+
+- Extends `research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` rather than
+  duplicating it.
+- Cross-references `concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table as the
+  boundary this charter exists to respect.
+- Does not extend or modify `paper/draft.md` §14 (Ethical and Legal
+  Implications) — that section stays a bounded sketch in the descriptive
+  paper; deeper treatment belongs here.
+
+## Next step
+
+This charter is not itself a workplan. If pursued, it should become its own
+future workplan (e.g. `SOUL-WP-0010` or later) with its own task breakdown,
+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.

research/metrics-scoping-note.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Empirical/Operational Metrics Scoping Note
+
+**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0009-T04, resolved 2026-09-28
+**Purpose:** scope — not build — measurable proxies for the A-axis (B1–B8,
+autonomous individuality), the B-axis (P1–P12, descriptive personhood), and
+the continuity profile. Soul Frame is currently qualitative/classificatory;
+this note identifies which axes are plausibly measurable now with existing
+instruments vs. which need new ones, so a future workplan can pick this up
+without re-deriving the landscape.
+
+## Method
+
+For each dimension: does an existing measurement tradition already target
+something close to it, or would Soul Frame need to invent an instrument?
+
+## A-axis (autonomous individuality, B1–B8)
+
+| Code | Dimension | Plausibly measurable now | Rationale |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| B1 | Individuability | Partial | Individuality/information-theoretic measures (Krakauer et al. 2020, SF-R019–034 cluster) give a graded formal proxy; applying them outside biological systems is untested. |
+| B2 | Temporal integrity | Partial | Uptime/session-continuity logs give a crude proxy for artificial systems; no validated cross-substrate metric. |
+| B3 | Constitutive integration | **No** | No existing instrument distinguishes "integrated organization" from "loosely coupled components" quantitatively; closure-of-constraints formalizations (Montévil & Mossio 2015) are the closest theoretical basis but are not operationalized as a measurement protocol. |
+| B4 | Self-maintenance participation | Partial | For artificial systems, resource/error-correction telemetry (self-healing, retry, recovery behavior) is a plausible proxy already collected by most production systems — needs mapping, not invention. |
+| B5 | Endogenous viability | **No** | Requires distinguishing internally-driven from externally-propped persistence; heteronomous-individual cases (Terminology.md) are exactly the hard cases this would need to separate, and no metric currently does. |
+| B6 | Adaptive regulation | Partial | Control-theoretic and RL literature already measures regulation quality (error minimization, model accuracy) — directly reusable, though not originally framed as a Beinghood metric. |
+| B7 | Interactional asymmetry | **No** | Novel to Soul Frame's framing; no existing instrument. |
+| B8 | Identity-preserving transformation | Partial | Overlaps with the continuity profile (see below) — measurable to the extent continuity is measurable. |
+
+## B-axis (descriptive personhood, P1–P12)
+
+Not itemized in current concept files beyond the "profile, not checklist"
+framing (`concepts/personhood.md`, `Terminology.md`). **Scoping finding:**
+before metrics can be scoped per P-code, P1–P12 need to be enumerated with
+the same specificity B1–B8 already have — this is a prerequisite gap, not
+a metrics gap. Recommend a follow-up task (not opened here) to write out
+P1–P12 explicitly in `concepts/personhood.md` before attempting measurement.
+
+## Continuity profile
+
+| Dimension | Plausibly measurable now | Rationale |
+|---|---|---|
+| Causal | Yes | Provenance chains, cryptographic attestation, audit logs — mature tooling exists for artificial systems. |
+| Organizational | Partial | Architecture/component-graph diffing can detect discontinuities; no agreed threshold for "still one organization." |
+| Psychological | **No** | No validated metric for "the same adaptive/modeling process," as opposed to similar outputs. |
+| Autobiographical/narrative | Partial | Memory-store diffing and narrative-consistency NLP metrics exist but measure surface consistency, not the underlying continuity claim. |
+| Normative | **No** | No existing instrument for "the same locus of commitments/obligations" independent of legal/contractual proxies (which measure something adjacent, not identical). |
+| Relational | Partial | Social-graph and reputation-system metrics are mature for *tracking* relationships; whether they validly evidence *identity* continuity (as opposed to just relationship persistence) is unresolved. |
+
+## Overall scoping conclusion
+
+- **Most measurable now:** causal continuity, adaptive regulation (B6),
+  self-maintenance telemetry (B4) — existing instruments, direct reuse.
+- **Needs new instruments:** constitutive integration (B3), endogenous
+  viability (B5), interactional asymmetry (B7), psychological continuity,
+  normative continuity.
+- **Blocked on prior work:** B-axis (P1–P12) metrics cannot be scoped until
+  the P-codes are enumerated with B1–B8's level of specificity.
+
+**Recommendation:** a future workplan (not opened as part of SOUL-WP-0009)
+should (1) enumerate P1–P12 explicitly, then (2) prioritize instrument
+development for constitutive integration and psychological continuity —
+these are cited most often across the thought-experiment catalog (TE-02,
+TE-04, TE-05, TE-08) and are the two dimensions where "No" above is doing
+the most argumentative work in the framework.