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

Claims.md

@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ Contradicting literature:
   - Religious/metaphysical soul traditions (category collision, not empirical refutation)
   - Luhmannian boundary-as-system (pushes boundary to Being, not Soul)
 Adjacent terminology: structural coupling, legacy, reputation, distributed memory
+Naming: RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28 — retain "Soul" (SOUL-WP-0009-T01).
 Evidence strength: moderate for relational operationalization; weak as a settled
   term (collision risk remains)
 Open questions: RQ4 rename vs retain; boundary vs relations vs consequences packaging

OpenQuestions.md

@@ -51,9 +51,10 @@ architecture adopted provisionally. Remaining:
 
 **Phase VI status:** relational operationalization **supported as direction** (H5);
 boundary removed; Ghost may inherit Soul-relational structure without identity.
-**Still open (paper-critical):**
+**Resolved 2026-09-28 (SOUL-WP-0009-T01):** retain “Soul” for the Relation
+dimension, with the non-metaphysical disclaimer kept explicit wherever the
+term appears. **Still open (paper-critical):**
 
-- Rename vs retain “Soul” (collision cost)
 - Packaging: relations vs consequences vs both
 - Formal Cluster D depth beyond Phase V inheritance claim
 

Terminology.md

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ distributed cognition (Hutchins). Mind is **not** simply located inside the subs
 
 ### Soul
 
-**Status:** revised (Phase I)  
+**Status:** retained (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T01)  
 **Working gloss:** Soul = Relation
 
 **Revised definition (after RN-001 Finding 14):**
@@ -85,10 +85,14 @@ distributed cognition (Hutchins). Mind is **not** simply located inside the subs
 | Adjacent terms | structural coupling, narrative identity, reputation, legacy, distributed memory |
 | Conflicts | **high** — metaphysical/religious usage |
 | Soul Frame stance | informational-relational, non-metaphysical |
-| Survive collision? | **provisionally yes** if boundary is stripped out and relational reading stays sharp; rename remains an open option (RQ4) |
+| Survive collision? | **yes, retained** (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28) — boundary stripped out, relational reading kept sharp; the non-metaphysical disclaimer must stay explicit and prominent everywhere the term is introduced |
 
-**Why retain “Soul” for now:** compact name for diachronic relational continuity and
+**Why retain “Soul”:** compact name for diachronic relational continuity and
-post-operational influence; triad mnemonic. Risk: readers hear metaphysics.
+post-operational influence; triad mnemonic; preserves the project's own name.
+Risk (readers hearing metaphysics) is managed via the mandatory disclaimer
+rather than by renaming. Decision record:
+`the-custodian` decision `8429f2ce-5b8a-4d90-810e-f526ec2d0c05`;
+see `workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01.
 
 ---
 
@@ -309,7 +313,7 @@ relationships and effects may continue when the original Being does not.
 
 | Term | Risk | Phase I disposition |
 |---|---|---|
-| Soul | metaphysical collision | revised (boundary removed); rename still open |
+| Soul | metaphysical collision | revised (boundary removed); **retained**, rename resolved closed (RQ4, 2026-09-28) |
 | Mind | consciousness conflation | retain with explicit non-consciousness stance |
 | Being | vagueness / overbreadth | multi-layer definition; autonomy ≠ Being |
 | Agent | overload (tool vs autonomy) | disambiguate functional vs autonomous |

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
+High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. **RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28:
-payoff of the relational reading. Rename remains open (RQ4).
+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
+2. How Soul relates to lineage after forks
-3. 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
 

paper/draft.md

@@ -1,12 +1,19 @@
 # Soul Frame: A Systems Vocabulary for Person-Like Informational Beings
 
-**Status:** first research-grounded draft (SOUL-WP-0008-T02). Supersedes the
+**Status:** first research-grounded draft (SOUL-WP-0008-T02), revised under
-placeholder that pointed to `SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. Follows
+SOUL-WP-0009. Supersedes the placeholder that pointed to
-`paper/outline.md`; sourced from `research/research-synthesis.md`,
+`SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. Follows `paper/outline.md`; sourced from
-`Terminology.md`, `concepts/*`, `Claims.md`, `ThoughtExperiments.md`, and
+`research/research-synthesis.md`, `Terminology.md`, `concepts/*`,
-`paper/related-work.md`. Claims below are traceable to Hn / TE-nn / SF-Rxxx
+`Claims.md`, `ThoughtExperiments.md`, and `paper/related-work.md`. Claims
-identifiers rather than asserted freehand; open items are flagged rather than
+below are traceable to Hn / TE-nn / SF-Rxxx identifiers rather than asserted
-resolved.
+freehand; open items are flagged rather than resolved.
+
+**Publication pathway (decided 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T06):** internal
+circulation only, as **paper-one** for coulomb-research (a research
+facility with a co-creation-science focus, currently being set up).
+Coulomb-research's own paper-zero will run the same staged trajectory —
+internal circulation → pre-print → journal target — and this paper follows
+it rather than jumping ahead.
 
 ---
 
@@ -246,12 +253,14 @@ persists relationally" — Luhmann's system/environment distinction (SF-R004)
 and Maturana & Varela's operational closure (SF-R003) both motivate keeping
 boundary with Being.
 
-**Naming risk, held open (RQ4):** "Soul" collides hard with religious and
+**Naming risk, resolved (RQ4):** "Soul" collides hard with religious and
 folk metaphysical usage. Soul Frame's stance is informational-relational and
 explicitly non-metaphysical — no claim about an immortal essence is made or
-implied. The term is retained provisionally for its compactness and the
+implied. As of 2026-09-28 the term is **retained** rather than renamed: the
-Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic, with the rename question left open rather than
+compactness, the Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic, and the project's own name outweigh
-resolved by this draft (§16, Limitations).
+the collision cost, provided the non-metaphysical disclaimer stays explicit
+and prominent everywhere the term is introduced (decision record:
+`workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01).
 
 **Soul-relational continuity can cross Being-identity discontinuities**: a
 relationship, reputation, or set of consequences may continue in some form
@@ -494,8 +503,11 @@ engineering for rather than collapsing:
 Honest accounting, carried from `research-synthesis.md` §9 and the Phase III
 adversarial review still pending (SOUL-WP-0008-T03):
 
-1. **Soul naming risk (RQ4)** is unresolved: retain-with-explicit-disclaimer
+1. **Soul naming risk (RQ4) is resolved** (2026-09-28): retain, with an
-   vs. rename remains open.
+   explicit disclaimer required everywhere the term is introduced. The
+   residual risk is execution — the disclaimer must actually stay prominent
+   in every downstream use of "Soul," not a remaining open question about
+   which term to use.
 2. **Continuity dimension weighting** is unspecified — the framework lists
    dimensions (causal, organizational, psychological, etc.) without a method
    for weighing conflicts between them in hard cases.
@@ -522,7 +534,7 @@ adversarial review still pending (SOUL-WP-0008-T03):
 Carried forward from `research-synthesis.md` §9 and restated as forward work
 rather than resolved here:
 
-1. Resolve RQ4 (retain vs. rename Soul).
+1. ~~Resolve RQ4 (retain vs. rename Soul).~~ **Done 2026-09-28** — retained.
 2. Develop a principled continuity-dimension weighting scheme.
 3. Sharpen Recognition's seat in "Being" vs. "Social Being."
 4. Build moral/legal personhood maps as a **separate**, explicitly-scoped

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.

workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ type: workplan
 title: "Phase VIII — Paper research agenda and external review pathway"
 domain: agents
 repo: soul-frame
-status: active
+status: finished
 flavor: research
 owner: grok
 topic_slug: soul-frame
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ that should not be parked in `SCOPE.md` prose.
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T01
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "3daca5cd-322f-5256-932d-1271f0c040a8"
 ```
@@ -49,13 +49,17 @@ Phase I.
 **Done when:** decision recorded (`record_decision`/`resolve_decision`) with
 rationale, and `Terminology.md` + `paper/draft.md` updated to match.
 
+**Resolved 2026-09-28:** retain "Soul" (decision `8429f2ce-5b8a-4d90-810e-f526ec2d0c05`).
+Updated: `Terminology.md`, `concepts/soul.md`, `OpenQuestions.md` RQ4,
+`Claims.md` H5, `paper/draft.md` §8/§16/§17.
+
 ---
 
 ### T02 — Continuity dimension weighting
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T02
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "7acfed9e-cc8b-5283-a298-90b749a28ee7"
 ```
@@ -69,13 +73,18 @@ TE-03, TE-04, TE-08.
 procedure) is documented in `concepts/identity.md` and validated against the
 four thought experiments above.
 
+**Completed 2026-09-28:** lexicographic priority procedure (structural gate
+→ branch check → gradualness check → softer dimensions decide strength
+within the gate) added to `concepts/identity.md`; walked through TE-02,
+TE-03, TE-04, TE-08.
+
 ---
 
 ### T03 — Recognition's seat: Being vs. Social Being
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T03
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: low
 state_hub_task_id: "223e14d8-7bdf-5c49-9650-6fba70840c3c"
 ```
@@ -87,13 +96,18 @@ individual cross into Social Beinghood?
 **Done when:** `concepts/being.md` / `concepts/recognition.md` state a
 testable boundary condition, checked against TE-05 and TE-09.
 
+**Completed 2026-09-28:** three-part test (intentional recognition +
+addressability + model persistence across episodes, on at least one side)
+added to `concepts/recognition.md`, cross-referenced from `concepts/being.md`;
+walked through TE-09 (asymmetric start) and TE-05 (per-level nested test).
+
 ---
 
 ### T04 — Empirical/operational metrics scoping
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T04
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: low
 state_hub_task_id: "81a4c87d-cff5-5448-acf2-8c170301a014"
 ```
@@ -105,13 +119,17 @@ task — full metric development may become its own workplan.
 **Done when:** a scoping note exists identifying which axes are plausibly
 measurable now vs. which require new instruments.
 
+**Completed 2026-09-28:** `research/metrics-scoping-note.md` — per-code
+table for B1–B8 and the continuity profile; found the B-axis (P1–P12) is
+blocked on enumeration, not metrics, as a prerequisite gap.
+
 ---
 
 ### T05 — Moral/legal personhood companion line (explicitly separate)
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T05
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: low
 state_hub_task_id: "42f2de8a-c9cd-5af5-b42d-3f6cac5eb301"
 ```
@@ -126,13 +144,17 @@ do not attempt the mapping itself here.
 `research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md`) stating scope,
 non-goals, and the explicit boundary against the descriptive core.
 
+**Completed 2026-09-28:** `research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md`
+— scope, four non-goals, and relationship to existing gap-sketch material;
+explicitly not opened as a workplan yet.
+
 ---
 
 ### T06 — External review / publication pathway decision
 
 ```task
 id: SOUL-WP-0009-T06
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "38aa9a5a-552c-555d-a27d-c8f84a76128b"
 ```
@@ -143,3 +165,23 @@ further revision cycles before either. This is a founder-gate decision.
 
 **Done when:** decision recorded via `record_decision`/`resolve_decision`
 naming the chosen pathway and next concrete step.
+
+**Resolved 2026-09-28:** internal circulation only, as paper-one for
+coulomb-research, following the same staged trajectory (internal →
+pre-print → journal target) as coulomb-research's own paper-zero (decision
+`cf950384-8bc6-4156-9caf-85b5d4a7ea25`). Recorded in `paper/draft.md` status
+header. Next concrete step: internal review inside coulomb-research once
+that facility is set up; no external action required yet.
+
+---
+
+## Closing note (2026-09-28)
+
+All six tasks complete. T01 and T06 were founder-gate decisions (Soul
+naming affects the project's own name/mnemonic; publication pathway is a
+business decision) and were resolved with Bernd before implementation;
+T02–T05 were research/documentation tasks executed directly.
+
+**Residual:** T04 and T05 each recommended follow-on work that is
+multi-step. Bundled as **SOUL-WP-0010**, left `proposed` for review rather
+than started.

workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+id: SOUL-WP-0010
+type: workplan
+title: "Phase IX — P-axis enumeration, metrics instruments, and moral/legal companion line (slice 1)"
+domain: agents
+repo: soul-frame
+status: proposed
+flavor: research
+owner: grok
+topic_slug: soul-frame
+priority: low
+created: "2026-09-28"
+updated: "2026-09-28"
+depends_on:
+  - SOUL-WP-0009
+---
+
+# SOUL-WP-0010 — Phase IX: Metrics and Personhood Mapping (Slice 1)
+
+## Goal
+
+Residual of SOUL-WP-0009. Two of its completed tasks (T04 metrics scoping,
+T05 moral/legal charter) each recommended follow-on work that is multi-step
+and should not sit only as prose in their source notes:
+
+- `research/metrics-scoping-note.md` found the B-axis (P1–P12) blocked on
+  enumeration, and recommended prioritizing instrument development for
+  constitutive integration (B3) and psychological continuity.
+- `research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md` recommended a
+  first narrow slice ("legal personhood precedent survey only") rather than
+  opening the whole moral/legal question at once.
+
+This workplan bundles both as a first slice. **Left `proposed`** — not
+reviewed against current repo state or started; needs Bernd's go-ahead
+before promotion to `ready`/`active`, same as SOUL-WP-0009 was.
+
+## Depends on
+
+- **SOUL-WP-0009** Phase VIII research agenda (finished 2026-09-28)
+
+## Tasks
+
+### T01 — Enumerate P1–P12 explicitly
+
+```task
+id: SOUL-WP-0010-T01
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+`concepts/personhood.md` currently references P1–P12 as a profile without
+itemizing each code the way `concepts/being.md` itemizes B1–B8. Write out
+the twelve dimensions explicitly, sourced from Phase III personhood
+literature (Dennett cluster conditions; trait/social-cognitive personality
+psychology).
+
+**Done when:** `concepts/personhood.md` has a P1–P12 table matching B1–B8's
+specificity.
+
+---
+
+### T02 — Instrument scoping for constitutive integration and psychological continuity
+
+```task
+id: SOUL-WP-0010-T02
+status: todo
+priority: low
+```
+
+Per `research/metrics-scoping-note.md`'s recommendation, scope (not build)
+candidate instruments for B3 (constitutive integration) and psychological
+continuity specifically — the two dimensions doing the most argumentative
+work across the thought-experiment catalog with no existing metric.
+
+**Done when:** a follow-up note names at least one candidate operational
+approach per dimension, or explicitly states none is currently viable.
+
+---
+
+### T03 — Legal personhood precedent survey (first slice only)
+
+```task
+id: SOUL-WP-0010-T03
+status: todo
+priority: low
+```
+
+Per the moral/legal charter's non-goals, take **only** the first scoped
+slice: a survey of legal personhood precedent (corporate personhood, animal
+welfare/rights law, AI legal-personality proposals) extending
+`research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md`. Do not attempt moral
+status or the non-derivation statement (charter items 2–3) in this slice.
+
+**Done when:** a precedent survey note exists, explicitly scoped to legal
+personhood only, cross-referenced from the charter.