Whitepaper — Public Brief
Patent Pending — Oct 2025
ΔE 4.2
Precision Horizon
Epistemic coherence regulation at decision boundaries.
ΔE 4.2 addresses the structural problem of epistemic coherence at decision
boundaries. In long-horizon adaptive systems, coherence is not a property of
individual beliefs but of the structural relationship between accumulated evidence,
admissible interpretation regimes, and internal time. Precision Horizon
formalizes the point at which further evidence accumulation no longer expands
the admissible interpretation space but instead forces regime commitment.
Evidence volume is not coherence. The horizon is a structural boundary, not a
scalar threshold.
Core Idea
Precision Horizon is not a confidence threshold.
It is a regime contraction boundary in which further evidence
no longer expands the admissible interpretation space but instead forces
irreversible structural commitment. The boundary is reached when admissible
regime expansion saturates — beyond that point, interpretation space
contracts and commitment can no longer be deferred.
Volume is not coherence. More data does not guarantee regime
stability. Structural alignment between evidence, interpretation regime,
and internal time determines admissibility. An architecture that conflates
evidence volume with coherence will commit prematurely or defer indefinitely —
neither of which preserves long-horizon structural viability.
The horizon mechanism does not solve for truth.
It regulates regime viability under bounded structural resources.
Commitment irreversibility is time-asymmetric. Internal time
scaling affects when the horizon is reached. The decision boundary is not
statically positioned — it is dynamically located in internal time,
shifting as structural load accumulates and the remaining viability budget
contracts. A system operating under high structural load reaches its
commitment boundary earlier in internal time than one operating under
low load, even given identical evidence volumes.
Structural Definition
The precision horizon is reached when dR/dτ > dC/dτ —
the rate of regime contraction exceeds the rate of coherence gain. Beyond this point,
commitment is no longer a choice — it is an irreversible structural consequence.
01
Coherence Metric
A structural measure of interpretation-regime alignment, defined
operationally and independent of belief confidence scores or
probabilistic calibration. Coherence is not a posterior probability.
It is a structural predicate on the relationship between accumulated
evidence and the admissible regime space. High evidence volume
with low structural alignment produces low coherence.
02
Precision Gate
An admissibility predicate enforcing structural coherence as a
precondition for commitment. The gate operates on structural predicates, not probabilistic thresholds.
It does not assess belief certainty. It enforces whether the structural
conditions under which commitment would occur are admissible for long-horizon
integrity. Commitment is blocked when structural coherence falls
below the admissibility threshold — regardless of evidence volume.
03
Horizon Monitor
Tracks two independent rates: the rate of coherence accumulation
and the rate of admissible regime contraction. When contraction
velocity exceeds coherence gain, the monitor detects an approaching
structural phase transition — not a threshold crossing.
This is a qualitative change in the dynamics of the interpretation
space, not a quantitative signal breach. The monitor signals
commitment boundary approach as a regime-level event.
Structural Consequence
Beyond the precision horizon, commitment becomes irreversible.
The boundary is not exposed as a gradient signal and cannot be optimized against.
Architectures that fail to regulate this boundary do not produce
bounded commitment — they either fix prematurely under insufficient
coherence, or accumulate indefinite structural debt through deferral.
ΔE 4.2 regulates the boundary itself.
It does not optimize commitment decisions. It enforces the structural
conditions under which commitment may or may not occur.
ΔE Architecture Lineage
ΔE v3.2
Structural Coherence Regulator
Foundational coherence measurement architecture. Multi-factor weighted aggregation with adaptive inertia μ and Bayesian shrinkage. Established the core regulatory pattern.
ΔE 4.0.3
Adaptive Horizon
Dual-loop architecture with dynamic Coherence-Coupler η. Introduced adaptive jerk-guard and CVaR-bounded risk regulation. Coherence-Coupler replaces static blending.
ΔE 4.2
Precision Horizon
Epistemic coherence regulation at decision boundaries. Regime contraction boundary detection under bounded structural resources.
ΔE 4.7.3
Dual-Core Thermostat
Coherence-regulated control with dual operating cores and frequency-based regime switching. Thermostat governs structural adhesion between cores.
ΔE 4.7.3b
Calibrated Variant
Parametric branch of 4.7.3. Reduced actuation gain, increased structural inertia. Same architecture — distinct operating envelope.
Version identifiers denote architectural layers, not sequential improvements.
Versions correspond to distinct structural operating regimes rather than performance increments.
Each variant addresses a distinct structural operating condition within the same coherence-regulation lineage.
Long-Horizon Adaptive Systems
Epistemic Regime Control
Irreversible Decision Architectures
Structural Coherence Regulation
Autonomous Agent Design
Figure 1 — Coherence Accumulation vs. Evidence Volume
1
Evidence Accumulation
Volume increases monotonically
→
2
Coherence Metric
Structural alignment evaluated
→
3
Regime Expansion / Contraction
Admissible space dynamics
→
4
Horizon Detection
Phase transition signal
Evidence volume and coherence are independent variables.
Saturation of regime expansion is not implied by data volume.
These are interacting dynamics, not sequential pipeline stages.
Coherence rate and contraction rate co-evolve.
Figure 2 — Precision Horizon Boundary Topology
Before Horizon
Admissible regime space is expanding or stable.
Coherence gain rate exceeds contraction rate.
Commitment deferral is structurally admissible.
Precision Gate: open.
Beyond Horizon
Admissible regime space is contracting irreversibly.
Contraction velocity exceeds coherence gain.
Commitment deferral under contraction conditions accelerates structural debt accumulation.
Precision Gate: enforced.
The boundary is not a point. It is a structural phase transition
in the dynamics of the admissible interpretation space.
Figure 3 — Regime Contraction Under Internal Time Depletion
τ
Internal Time
Bounded structural budget. Not wall-clock duration. Depletes with structural load accumulation. Governs when horizon is reached.
C(τ)
Coherence Rate
Rate of structural alignment gain over internal time. Decoupled from evidence volume. Determines admissible regime expansion capacity.
R(τ)
Contraction Rate
Rate of admissible regime space contraction. When R(τ) > C(τ), the precision horizon is reached and commitment becomes structurally forced.
C(τ) and R(τ) are independent dynamical processes.
Regime contraction is driven by accumulated structural load under bounded τ.
Horizon position is dynamically located in internal time —
not fixed. High structural load advances the horizon.
Research Inquiries →
Public Brief · Whitepaper · 2025
Part of PETRONUS —
Navigational Cybernetics 2.5
ΔE 4.2 is a structural component within the PETRONUS coherence-regulated
adaptive control architecture. It operates within a broader framework governing
admissibility, structural load, and regime viability across long horizons.
Internal implementation details, including coherence metric formalization
and τ-update logic, are reserved under pending patent protection.