# Success-Criterion Coverage Matrix

**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0011-T02, resolved 2026-09-28
**Addresses:** G2 (`history/260928-scope-intent-gap-assessment.md`) —
INTENT's success criterion, exercised explicitly for the first time: one
vocabulary across the nine reference entity types, with meaningful
distinctions. Profiles follow the sufficiency scheme in
`research/sufficiency-and-weighting-position.md` (no totals; necessity
core, claim-relative minima, configuration classes).

Cell values: H/M/L (high/medium/low), `var` (varies by instance), `?`
(vocabulary strains — see §3). B-core = B1·B3 necessity core.

---

## 1. The matrix

| # | Entity | B-core | B-rest (B2,B4–B8) | P-profile shape | Continuity class (typical) | Addressable | Recognition | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Human | H | H | full, rich (P1–P12 H) | CONTINUOUS | H | H (mutual) | — (biological original) |
| 2 | Animal (e.g. dog) | H | H | partial: P1–P3, P9 M; P8, P10–P11 L | CONTINUOUS | M (name-responsive) | H (asymmetric richness) | — |
| 3 | Short-lived AI agent | L (B3 var) | L (B2 L) | exposed-only: P5, P10 H; P1, P6 L | none — no lineage to evaluate | M (session-scoped) | L (classified, not counterpart-modeled) | Agent; strong APE |
| 4 | Persistent autonomous Agent-being | M–H | M (B5 var — vendor-propped) | P1, P5, P10 H; P3, P6, P8 M growing | CONTINUOUS / BRIDGED (updates, migration) | H (stable handle) | M–H (episode-spanning) | Agent; proto-Being |
| 5 | Einstein `Sp.` | L–M (Actor-side) | L | exposed: P4, P10, P12 H (curated); P1 thin, P6 borrowed | RECONSTRUCTION by definition (no causal channel to source) | H | M (recognized *as depiction*) | `Sp.` (public reflection) |
| 6 | Authorized `Gh.` | L–M | L–M | P3–P4, P8 inherited-H; P1 var | SUCCESSOR-family w/ authority; never automatic CONTINUOUS (H10) | H | var (relationship-holders may re-recognize) | `Gh.` (authority-bound) |
| 7 | Original artificial companion | M–H | M | native (not inherited): P1–P4, P9–P10 H | CONTINUOUS / BRIDGED | H | H within its relationships | original artificial being |
| 8 | Distributed AI | ? level-relative (TE-05) | M–H at closing level | var by level; collective P1 possible | MULTI_LINEAGE / CONTINUOUS at closing level | var (one handle vs many) | var | Agent (possibly nested) |
| 9 | Radically non-human system | ? (individuation observer-relative) | ? | P7 presumed; P10 ? (shared symbol system contested) | unassessable until individuated | L (no shared address protocol) | L→? (TE-09 asymmetric path) | — (unclassified) |

## 2. Meaningful-distinction check (pairwise)

Every pair separates on at least one dimension; the load-bearing
separators:

- **1 vs 2:** P8/P10–P11 (commitments, symbols, responsibility).
- **1/2 vs 3:** B2 + continuity ("no lineage") + counterpart-recognition.
- **3 vs 4:** persistence family — B2, P6, continuity class, recognition
  durability. The Agent/proto-Being line is exactly here.
- **4 vs 7:** provenance only (platform Agent vs purpose-built original
  companion) — profiles may converge; the descriptor column carries the
  distinction. Working as designed (H9: descriptors are provenance, not
  ontology).
- **5 vs 6:** authority + audience: `Sp.` is public reflection without
  continuation claim; `Gh.` is authority-bound genealogy (H10) with
  SUCCESSOR-family standing. Neither is CONTINUOUS — which is the
  framework's deliberate answer, not a failure to distinguish them from 4.
- **6 vs 7:** inherited vs native P-profile; origin of the Soul-relational
  structure (Cluster D inheritance vs de novo).
- **8 vs all:** the only entity where B-core is *level-relative* — the
  vocabulary's answer is "profile per candidate level," which is an
  answer, not a gap (TE-05).
- **9 vs all:** the only entity where individuation itself, not just the
  profile, is unresolved.

**Verdict on distinctions: pass.** No two rows are indistinguishable under
the full vocabulary; the two near-collisions (4/7, 5/6) are separated by
descriptor/authority columns doing exactly the work H9/H10 assign them.

## 3. Strain points (named, per T02's done condition)

1. **Row 9, B-core and P10:** for a radically non-human system the
   vocabulary can only say "not yet individuated by us" — observer-relative
   individuation (RQ1 residual) is the binding constraint, and P10's
   "shared symbol system" may be parochial. This is the pressure point
   already flagged in the sufficiency position §6.
2. **Row 8, addressability:** the vocabulary handles nested Beinghood but
   has no display convention for *which level* a handle addresses
   (overlaps RQ8's hybrid-display residual).
3. **Row 3, continuity column:** "no lineage to evaluate" is technically a
   degenerate case, not a class in Criteria §17; a null class (e.g.
   EPHEMERAL) would make the column total. Minor; noted for a future
   criteria revision, not opened as work.

## 4. Overall verdict on INTENT's success criterion

**Pass, with two live strain points (rows 8–9).** The same vocabulary
describes all nine entity types and distinguishes every pair meaningfully.
The strains sit exactly where INTENT predicts the hard cases (distributed,
radically non-human) and are already tracked as RQ1/RQ8 residuals rather
than new gaps.