Separates full coupling, parametric-only, structure-without-resource, resource-without-structure, hard-stop, expanded-cap, and order-sensitivity regimes for causal attribution.
Research documentation: this page interprets a cited research source and defines evidence requirements. It does not claim a released Teleodynamic AI implementation.
Minimum causal matrix
| Regime | Enabled dynamics | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Full coupling | Inner updates, structural actions, resource transition, and noop | Does the complete proposal produce the declared trajectory? |
| Parametric only | Inner updates with fixed structure | What benefit comes from ordinary adaptation? |
| Structure without resource | Structural actions with a fixed or external budget | Is the behavior ordinary architecture or rule search? |
| Resource without structure | Ledger and parameter updates with no structural actions | Does the resource merely schedule computation? |
| Hard-stop control | An external cap terminates structural work | Can a conventional guard reproduce the claimed halt signature? |
| Expanded-cap control | Full coupling with materially relaxed caps | Does noop still dominate before external guards bind? |
| Comparator control | Explicit lower-is-better and intentionally inverted selection tests | Does the implementation resolve the v1 objective-direction ambiguity correctly? |
Sensitivity axes
Repeat across seeds, sample ordering, initial resource, reward scale, structural cost, decay, observation noise, candidate-generator breadth, and device class. Report distributions, failed runs, and external-stop proportions rather than only the best run.
Attribution metrics
Compare task score, calibration, structural complexity, resource trajectory, transition rate, noop streak, selection margin, variance, beneficiary health, and the proportion of runs stopped by each reason code.
Attribution rule
Ablation evidence can support a mechanism only when compared runs share the same data, implementation revision, evaluation protocol, and non-target configuration. No single ablation establishes the entire paradigm.
Scope
This starter page defines the questions, boundaries, evidence, and failure modes that should be recorded before a capability is presented as supported.
Engineering considerations
- Identify the source, version, target environment, and owner.
- Separate observed values from estimates and externally reported values.
- Record trade-offs, unsupported cases, and fallback behavior.
- Link performance statements to a compatible benchmark methodology.
Verification questions
- What exact artifact, revision, backend, and environment were reviewed?
- Which assumptions could change the result?
- Which data should be retained so another engineer can reproduce the conclusion?