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/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.