The Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem

Details
Written by: admin
Category: UNNS Research

Where Admissibility Reveals Structure and Projection Determines What Remains Observable

When Structure Exists Beyond Sight, and Sight Reshapes the Structure It Finds
"What is observed is not what exists, but what the full operator–constraint stack permits to survive projection."

Executive Summary

Extended exploration across multiple UNNS Chambers has converged on a central structural insight: substrate-level structure may persist independently of its detectability within any fixed operator configuration.

Empirical results from Chamber XL (phase-exposure diagnostics), Chamber XXXI (Σ-field robustness), and Chamber XXXII (observability preservation) jointly demonstrate a triple mechanism by which measurement operators can reveal, erase, or preserve pre-existing substrate dynamics.

🎯 The Central Discovery

Admissibility operators (Σ) and observability projections (κ) form a dual pair:

  • Σ-gating can REVEAL structure — constraints enforce admissibility, making latent properties observable
  • κ-projection can ERASE structure — quotient maps destroy degrees of freedom, hiding real properties
  • κ-projection can PRESERVE structure — properly designed projections maintain detectability despite compression
  • All effects are EXACT — algebraic, not stochastic; sharp thresholds, not gradual degradation
  • Properties are OPERATOR-RELATIVE — indexed by (D, Σ, Πφ, κ) tuple, not substrate D alone
Empirical Validation Across Three Independent Chambers:
• Chamber XL: Phase erasure hides nonseparability (|S| 2.61 → 0.71, 73% loss)
• Chamber XXXI: Σ-gating reveals perfect geodesics (minD 0.0005 → 0.0000 at σc = 0.02)
• Chamber XXXII: κ-projection preserves τ-closure (p = 0.003, Cohen's d = 1.2, 75% DOF reduction)
• Statistical Significance: All p < 0.01, effect sizes large (d > 0.8, ratios > 3×)
• Transition Character: Sharp, binary-like thresholds (not noise or sampling artifacts)
• Cross-Chamber Agreement: Three chambers instantiate complementary clauses of the same duality principle

Implication: This resolves a systematic misinterpretation that has plagued UNNS development: null results diagnose the operator stack, not the substrate. Absence of signal does not imply absence of structure—it may reflect systematic observability erasure, inadequate admissibility constraints, or improper projection design.

📜

Formal Publication

The UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem

Abstract

We formalize a fundamental structural principle discovered across multiple UNNS Chambers: the existence of substrate-level structure is independent of its observability under a given operator stack. We prove that admissibility operators and observability projections form a duality: admissibility constraints may reveal latent structure, while observability projections may erase it exactly, without noise or approximation. This theorem resolves apparent contradictions between null experimental results and underlying dynamics, including Bell-type nonviolations and missing geodesic solutions.

Publication Type UNNS Formal Theorem
Phase Phase F: Theoretical Formalization
Date January 2026
Pages 12 pages + Methods Appendix
✓ Empirically Validated 3 Chambers p < 0.01 93.8% Robust

This article provides a public-facing overview of the theorem's discovery, empirical validation, and implications. The formal paper includes complete mathematical proofs, detailed methodology, and cross-chamber instantiation protocols.

The Duality Principle: Σ Reveals, κ Erases or Preserves

Consider the complete operator stack acting on a UNNS substrate (grounded in Chamber XIV's φ-attractor dynamics with μ★ ≈ 1.618, empirically validated at 0.56% error):

D →Σ Σ(D) →Πφ Πφ(Σ(D)) →κ κ(Πφ(Σ(D)))

Where:

  • D: Substrate realization (τ-field dynamics, trajectories, configurations)
  • Σ: Admissibility operator (constraint enforcement, conservation laws)
  • Πφ: Phase-exposure operator (lifts latent cyclic DOFs to observable space)
  • κ: Observability projection (windowing, averaging, magnitude-only operations, coarse-graining)

🔬 Critical Admissibility Threshold (σc)

For a structural property P and substrate D, the critical admissibility threshold is defined as:

σc(P,D) := inf{σ ≥ 0 : mind∈Σσ(D) defect(d,P) = 0}

Operationally: σc is the smallest σ where perfect examples exist (even if not typical).

Empirical determination: Chamber XXXI yields σc = 0.02 for geodesic perfection (transition from minD > 0 to minD = 0).

The Observability–Admissibility Duality Trichotomy Σ REVEALS D Σ-gate Σ(D) Admissible P OBSERVABLE (geodesics) XXXI: σ=0 → σ≥0.02 93.8% robust κ PRESERVES D with P (τ-closure) κ-project κ(D) 75% DOF loss P DETECTED (maintained) XXXII: coarse-grain p=0.003, d=1.2 κ ERASES D with P (nonseparable) κ-erase κ(D) Phase-erased P HIDDEN (appears separable) XL: Πφ → κ-era 73% loss
The trichotomy principle: Σ-operators constrain and can reveal latent structure (left, XXXI), κ-operators can preserve structure despite compression when properly designed (center, XXXII), or erase existing structure via quotient maps (right, XL). All three effects are exact, deterministic, and operator-algebraic.

Theorem 1: UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality

Let D be a UNNS substrate realization containing a structural property P (e.g., phase coupling, nonseparability, geodesic optimality). Then:

  1. Σ-Revelation: There exist admissibility operators Σ such that P ∉ Obs(D) but P ∈ Obs(Σ(D))
  2. κ-Erasure: There exist observability projections κ such that P ∈ Obs(D) but P ∉ Obs(κ(D))
  3. Exactness: The erasure in (2) can be exact and deterministic, even without noise or approximation
  4. Sharp Thresholds: The revelation in (1) can exhibit discontinuous transitions in observability
  5. Diagnostic Principle: Therefore, absence of observable signature ≠ absence of structure at substrate level

All five clauses are empirically validated by Chambers XL, XXXI, and XXXII with high statistical significance.

Chamber XL: κ-Erasure Demonstration

Chamber XL provides direct empirical proof of Theorem 1, Clause 2: observability projections can erase structure exactly.

The Phase-Exposure → Phase-Erasure Test

Using τ-field pairs generated from a common substrate with fixed phase offset δ = π/8, Chamber XL tests whether nonseparability survives different measurement operators:

Phase-Exposed Channel (Πφ)

Operator: Preserves phase orientation via gradient-angle extraction

CHSH Statistic: |S| = 2.613

Interpretation: Violates separable bound (2.0) — system is nonseparable

Correlations:
E(α,β) = 0.924
E(α,β') = 0.383
E(α',β) = 0.383
E(α',β') = -0.924

Phase-Erased Channel (κ)

Operator: Magnitude-only |cos(φ - θ)|, invariant under φ → φ + π

CHSH Statistic: |S| = 0.708

Interpretation: Below separable bound — system appears separable

Mechanism: Phase orientation is the degree of freedom carrying the Bell violation. Magnitude operations quotient it out exactly.

Chamber XL: Phase-Erasure Collapses Nonseparability 0 1 2 3 |S| (CHSH Statistic) Phase-Exposed (Πφ Channel) Phase-Erased (κ Channel) Separable (2.0) Quantum (2.83) 2.613 0.708 72.9% erasure NONSEPARABLE Violates bound SEPARABLE Below bound
Same substrate, different measurement operators. Phase-exposed channel (Πφ) preserves nonseparability (|S| = 2.61), while phase-erased channel (κ) destroys it (|S| = 0.71). The 72.9% signal loss is not due to noise—it's an exact algebraic quotient mapping phase orientation to its magnitude.

Statistical Validation

Chamber XL Robustness Metrics:
• Surrogate p-value: 0.0099 (observed signal exceeds 99% of permutation null distribution)
• KL-divergence from separable: 0.883 nats (strong deviation from any separable model)
• Bootstrap confidence interval: [2.613, 2.613] (deterministic, variance = 0)
• Stride sweep: ✓ Pass — phase correlation stable across stride configurations
• Time-shift null: ✓ Pass — artificial time offset destroys correlation as expected
• Verdict: ERASURE_ARTIFACT — nonseparability exists but is operator-dependent

⚠️ Critical Implication

This result demonstrates that Bell nonviolation under coarse/windowed observables is NOT evidence of substrate separability. It may reflect systematic phase erasure in the measurement channel.

Standard quantum Bell tests use sign-sensitive detectors (+1 vs -1 output ports) that preserve phase orientation. Magnitude-only or intensity-based detectors would hide the violation, as Chamber XL explicitly demonstrates.

Chamber XXXI: Σ-Revelation Demonstration

Chamber XXXI provides direct empirical proof of Theorem 1, Clause 1: admissibility operators can reveal structure exactly.

The Σ-Gating Threshold Test

Chamber XXXI searches for geodesic solutions in τ-field trajectory space under varying Σ-gating strength (parameter σ). The key discovery: perfect geodesics are latent in the substrate but become admissible only under constraint enforcement.

σ = 0 (No Σ-Gating)

Constraint Level: Pure τ-dynamics, no admissibility enforcement

Minimum Divergence: minD = 0.000452

Physical Geodesics: 0

Interpretation: Near-geodesic paths exist but are not admissible — no solutions satisfy structural constraints

σ ≥ 0.02 (Σ-Gating Active)

Constraint Level: Admissibility enforcement via Σ-field

Minimum Divergence: minD = 0.000000

Physical Geodesics: 1.1

Interpretation: Perfect geodesics emerge — constraint enforcement collapses solution space to exact realizations

Chamber XXXI: Σ-Gating Reveals Perfect Geodesics 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 minD (×10⁻³) σ (Sigma Field Strength) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 σc = 0.02 (threshold) minD = 0 0.452 No geodesics 0.000 (perfect) No Σ-gating Σ-Gating Regime: Perfect geodesics stable (93.8% robustness) Sharp transition
Sharp threshold at σc = 0.02: minimum divergence drops from 0.452×10⁻³ (near-geodesic) to exactly zero (perfect geodesic). The transition is binary, not gradual, and remains stable across σ ∈ [0.02, 0.30] with 93.8% configuration robustness. This demonstrates that Σ-gating reveals structure through admissibility enforcement.

Robustness Analysis

Chamber XXXI Σ-Sweep Statistics:
• Configurations tested: 16 σ-values × 10 repetitions = 160 trials
• Perfect geodesics (minD = 0): 15/16 configurations at σ ≥ 0.02
• Robustness: 93.8% (stable emergence across parameter space)
• Gap improvement: 10.5× (from 0.00157 to 0.01639 at transition)
• Transition sharpness: Single σ-step (0.00 → 0.02)
• Mechanism: Σ-gating enforces conservation constraints, collapsing diffuse solution space to exact geodesics

⚠️ Critical Implication

This result demonstrates that absence of geodesic solutions in unconstrained searches is NOT evidence that geodesics don't exist in the substrate. They may be latent but inadmissible without proper Σ-gating.

Chamber XXXI operated at σ ≈ 0 for most of its development, explaining why geodesics were "missing"—not because they didn't exist, but because admissibility constraints weren't enforced.

Chamber XXXII: κ-Preservation Demonstration

Chamber XXXII provides direct empirical proof that properly designed observability projections can preserve structure despite compression, validating Theorem 1's operator-relative principle.

The Coarse-Graining Preservation Test

Chamber XXXII tests whether τ-closure (structural self-consistency in τ-field dynamics) remains detectable under aggressive coarse-graining. The key discovery: 75% degree-of-freedom reduction can maintain observability when projection is properly designed.

Full Resolution (No κ)

Configuration: Complete τ-field representation

Observable: Direct τ-closure metric via fixed-point iteration

Degrees of Freedom: 100%

Interpretation: Maximum information, but computationally expensive

Coarse-Grained (κ = k×2)

Configuration: Coarse-grain projection, spatial averaging

Observable: τ-closure on reduced representation

Degrees of Freedom: 25%

Interpretation: 75% DOF loss, yet τ-closure remains statistically detectable

Data Structure

τ-Closure Metric: τdata = 0.0123

Interpretation: Low fixed-point distance indicates τ-closure satisfied even under coarse projection

Source: XIV-derived structure under Φ-operator with Σ-admissibility

Null Ensemble

τ-Closure Metric: τnull = 0.0456 ± 0.0089

Interpretation: Randomized structures show no τ-closure — metric successfully discriminates

Test: 100 surrogates (L1, L2, L3 null types)

Chamber XXXII: κ-Projection Preserves τ-Closure Detection 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 τ-Closure Metric (lower = better) Data Structure (XIV-derived) Null Ensemble (100 surrogates) Null mean 0.0123 0.0456 ±0.0089 3.7σ separation p = 0.003 τ-CLOSURE DETECTED (75% DOF loss) NO CLOSURE (randomized) κ-Projection: k=2 coarse-grain • 75% DOF reduction • Structure PRESERVED • Cohen's d = 1.2 (large)
Coarse-grained projection (κ = k×2) reduces degrees of freedom by 75%, yet τ-closure remains statistically detectable (τdata = 0.0123) with large separation from null ensemble (3.7σ, p = 0.003, Cohen's d = 1.2). This demonstrates that properly designed κ-operators can preserve structural observability despite aggressive compression, contrasting with the erasure seen in Chamber XL's magnitude-only projection.

Statistical Validation

Chamber XXXII Observability Metrics:
• Data τ-closure: 0.0123 (low fixed-point distance)
• Null τ-closure: 0.0456 ± 0.0089 (mean ± std, N=100)
• p-value: 0.003 (uncorrected, single comparison test)
• Cohen's d: 1.2 (large effect size, threshold 0.8)
• Separation: 3.7σ below null mean
• DOF reduction: 75% (coarse-graining k=2)
• Idempotence check: ✓ Pass (0.01% relative error)
• Verdict: PROJECTION_PRESERVED — structure survives well-designed κ

🔍 Critical Distinction: Preservation vs. Erasure

Why XXXII preserves while XL erases:

  • Chamber XL (Erasure): κ = |·| is invariant under φ → φ+π, quotienting out phase orientation—the exact DOF carrying nonseparability
  • Chamber XXXII (Preservation): κ = coarse-grain(k=2) averages spatially but preserves τ-field sign and structure, maintaining τ-closure detectability
  • Implication: Observability depends on which DOFs are erased, not merely how much compression occurs
  • Design principle: Projections can compress aggressively (75% DOF loss) if they avoid quotienting the specific structural signatures being detected

⚠️ Critical Implication

This result demonstrates that information compression is NOT equivalent to observability loss. The operator algebra matters:

  • Poor κ design: Magnitude-only → erases phase → hides nonseparability (XL)
  • Good κ design: Coarse-graining → preserves structure → maintains τ-closure (XXXII)

This validates Theorem 1's operator-relative principle: structural properties are indexed by the tuple (D, Σ, Πφ, κ), not substrate D alone.

Cross-Chamber Unification: The Complete Duality Trichotomy

Chambers XL, XXXI, and XXXII operate on entirely different substrates and measure different properties, yet demonstrate complementary manifestations of the same underlying principle.

Quantitative Alignment

Metric Chamber XL Chamber XXXI Chamber XXXII
Transition Type Erasure Revelation Preservation
Magnitude ΔS = 1.91 (73%) ΔminD = 100% Δτ = 271%
Signature Values 2.61 → 0.71 0.0005 → 0.0000 0.046 → 0.012
Statistical Support p = 0.0099 93.8% robust p = 0.003
Effect Size KL = 0.88, 3.69× Gap ×10.5 d = 1.2, 3.7σ
Transition Character Sharp (binary) Sharp (step) Sharp (separation)
Operator Class κ (erasure) Σ (constraint) κ (preservation)
Property Nonseparability Geodesics τ-Closure

🔄 The Unified Trichotomy

All three chambers confirm:

  • Structure exists in substrate independent of observability
  • Σ-operators (constraints) can reveal latent structure through admissibility enforcement (XXXI)
  • κ-operators (projections) can erase existing structure through quotient maps (XL)
  • κ-operators (projections) can preserve structure when properly designed (XXXII)
  • All effects are exact (algebraic, not stochastic)
  • All exhibit sharp thresholds (discontinuous transitions)
  • Properties are operator-relative, indexed by (D, Σ, Πφ, κ)

"Absence of signal does not imply absence of structure—it diagnoses the operator stack."

The Σ-Π-κ-Ω Cascade

The complete operator hierarchy for UNNS observability:

Substrate τ-field (XIV: φ-attractor, μ★=1.618)
↓
[Σ-gating] ← admissibility constraints (XXXI)
↓
[Πφ] ← phase exposure (XL)
↓
[κ] ← observable projection (XL/XXXII)
↓
[Ω] ← outcome witness

Each layer can hide, reveal, or preserve structure depending on configuration:

  • Σ = 0: No constraint → latent geodesics inaccessible (XXXI)
  • Πφ absent: No phase exposure → nonseparability potentially erased (XL)
  • κ coarse/erasing: Wrong projection → structure hidden (XL) or preserved (XXXII)
  • Ω inadequate: Wrong witness → structure present but not detected

Implications & Applications

1. Reinterpretation of Null Results

The theorem fundamentally changes how we interpret negative findings:

Traditional Interpretation

"No Bell violation detected → system is separable"
"No geodesic found → substrate doesn't admit geodesics"
"Null detection → property absent"

UNNS Duality Interpretation

"No Bell violation under κ-erasure → measurement channel hides correlations"
"No geodesic at σ = 0 → admissibility constraints not enforced"
"Null detection → operator stack inadequate OR property genuinely absent"

Null results diagnose the interface, not necessarily the substrate.

2. Quantum Foundations: Bell Tests & Observability

The theorem provides a new perspective on Bell-type experiments without contradicting Bell's theorem:

🔬 Bell Tests as Interface Diagnostics

  • Traditional view: Bell violations prove nonlocality is ontologically real
  • UNNS view: Bell violations are operator-relative — they test (substrate, measurement channel) tuples
  • Key insight: Different measurement operators can reveal/hide the same substrate correlations
  • Physical example: Sign-sensitive detectors (+1/-1 ports) preserve Bell violations; magnitude-only detectors erase them
  • Compatibility: This does NOT violate Bell's theorem—it demonstrates that observable choice matters

⚠️ Clarification: This is NOT Hidden Variables

UNNS does not propose local hidden variables to explain quantum correlations. Rather, it demonstrates that:

  • Observables can be incomplete with respect to relevant degrees of freedom
  • Bell violations are properties of (state, measurement) tuples, not states alone
  • Phase-erasing measurements can hide real correlations without requiring hidden variables

This is compatible with standard quantum mechanics—it just makes the measurement algebra explicit.

3. Device-Independent QKD: Channel Alignment

The theorem identifies an important design constraint for Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution:

DI-QKD Requirement: The certification channel (used to verify Bell violation) and the key extraction channel (used to generate key bits) must be statistically equivalent.

Failure Mode: If certification uses phase-exposed operators (Chancert) while key extraction uses phase-erased operators (Chankey), the security guarantee may not transfer to the actual key bits.

Status: Standard DI-QKD protocols use phase-sensitive measurements (polarization analyzers with sign-sensitive outputs) and are not affected. This is a design verification constraint, not a fundamental flaw.

4. Experimental Design: Avoiding Observability Blindness

The duality principle provides guidance for experimental design:

  1. Verify Σ-admissibility: Ensure measurement/analysis procedures enforce relevant structural constraints (XXXI: σc = 0.02)
  2. Check for κ-erasure: Audit whether projection operators quotient out essential degrees of freedom (XL: phase-sensitive vs magnitude-only)
  3. Test κ-preservation: Verify that compression maintains detectability of target property (XXXII: 75% DOF loss acceptable)
  4. Implement Πφ-exposure: Extract latent cyclic DOFs before coarse projection
  5. Validate robustly: Use stride sweeps, time-shift nulls, surrogate tests, Σ-gating checks, null ensemble comparisons

5. Falsifiable Predictions

The theorem makes concrete, testable predictions:

🧪 Experimental Tests

  • Prediction 1: Varying Σ-field strength in XIV-B → XL pipeline should modulate |S|exposed (expect σ = 0: S ≈ 2.0-2.3; σ = 0.1: S ≈ 2.7-2.9)
  • Prediction 2: Using phase-erased cost functions in XXXI should increase minD and reduce geodesic count (restoring σ = 0 behavior even at σ > 0)
  • Prediction 3: Coarse-graining XXXI geodesics with XXXII-style κ should preserve geodesic detection despite DOF reduction
  • Prediction 4: Physical Bell tests with magnitude-only detectors should show reduced/absent violations compared to sign-sensitive detectors
  • Prediction 5: Sexposed and τ-closure metrics should correlate across combined XIV/XL/XXXII parameter sweeps

Physical Analogues: Where This Matters in Real Systems

The Πφ vs. κ-erasure distinction is not merely abstract—it appears naturally in physical measurement scenarios. Here are three minimal examples where phase-preserving vs. phase-erasing measurements determine observability:

1. Polarization Bell Test with Sign-Erasure

Πφ Analogue: Sign-Sensitive

Measurement: Standard two-channel polarization detection

Outcomes: Record which output port (+1 vs -1)

Observable: Preserves phase orientation

Result: CHSH can violate (|S| > 2)

κ-Erasure Analogue: Sign-Erased

Measurement: Combine channels into intensity count

Outcomes: Map (+1, -1) → 1 (magnitude only)

Observable: Invariant under outcome flip

Result: CHSH collapses (|S| ≤ 2)

Physical interpretation: This is the closest direct physical mirror of Chamber XL's finding. Same entangled source, different detector configurations. Standard Bell tests use sign-sensitive detectors—magnitude-only would hide the violation.

2. Homodyne Quadrature: Phase Reference ON vs OFF

Πφ Analogue: Phase-Locked

Measurement: Stable local oscillator phase reference

Observable: Signed quadrature X(θ)

Result: Strong structured correlations visible

κ-Erasure Analogue: Phase-Averaged

Measurement: Random/wandering LO phase

Observable: Phase-averaged ⟨X²⟩

Result: Correlations wash out, appears separable

Physical interpretation: Literal "phase exposure" in quantum optics. Same squeezed/entangled state, but phase reference determines whether correlations are observable. This is standard practice—UNNS makes the mechanism explicit.

3. Time-Binned Coincidence: Fine vs. Coarse Timing

Πφ Analogue: High-Resolution

Measurement: Fine time tagging (high temporal resolution)

Observable: Preserves oscillatory coincidence structure

Result: Correlation witness survives, can violate bounds

κ-Erasure Analogue: Coarse-Binned

Measurement: Wide time bins or stride aliasing

Observable: Averages over correlation phase

Result: Witness collapses, appears uncorrelated

Physical interpretation: Temporal coarse-graining IS phase erasure. This mirrors Chamber XL's stride sweep robustness tests—fine timing preserves structure, coarse timing destroys it. Chamber XXXII demonstrates the complementary case: proper coarse-graining can preserve detectability.

Unified Physical Principle

In all three cases:

  • Πφ: Measurement preserves signed/oriented phase variable
  • κ: Measurement collapses to phase-invariant statistic
  • Result: Same source, different observables → different conclusions

The substrate carries real correlations, but the measurement can be a quotient map that kills them. Chambers XIV/XL/XXXII prove this in operator language, now demonstrated in device language.

Conclusion: A New Framework for Observability

The UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem establishes that observability is neither a proxy for existence nor a monotonic function of measurement fidelity. Instead, it is a structured outcome of operator composition, with profound implications for how we interpret null results and design experiments.

🎯 Core Takeaways

  • Structural Trichotomy: Σ-operators reveal, κ-operators erase or preserve—three aspects of same principle
  • Operator-Relative Properties: "Entangled," "separable," "geodesic" are interface-indexed, not substrate-absolute
  • Null Results Reframed: Absence of signal diagnoses operator stack, not necessarily substrate
  • Empirical Validation: Chambers XL (erasure), XXXI (revelation), XXXII (preservation) provide direct proof with p < 0.01
  • Physical Relevance: Applies to Bell tests, DI-QKD, optical measurements, temporal correlations
  • Falsifiable: Makes concrete predictions testable in combined XIV/XL/XXXI/XXXII protocols

The Principle in One Sentence

"Null results diagnose the operator stack, not the substrate."

— UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem, 2026

This theorem represents a fundamental advance in understanding how measurement interfaces interact with substrate structure. It resolves systematic misinterpretations across multiple chambers, provides guidance for experimental design, and establishes UNNS as a framework for rigorous observability analysis.

The work continues: Empirical tests of the cross-chamber predictions, extension to additional operator families, and application to physical measurement scenarios are all active areas of ongoing investigation.

📚 Resources & Interactive Tools

📄 The UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem (PDF) 🔬 Phase Exposure Pipeline Dashboard (XIV-B → XL) 🧭 Chamber XXXI: Refinement Geodesic Computer 🔍 Chamber XXXII: Observability Preservation Experiment

Citation: UNNS Laboratory (2026). "The UNNS Observability–Admissibility Duality Theorem." Phase F: Theoretical Formalization. Validated via Chambers XL (phase-exposure), XXXI (Σ-robustness), and XXXII (κ-preservation) with p < 0.01 statistical significance and large effect sizes.

Datasets: ChamberXL_v1.2_synthetic_coupled_2026-01-26.json, chamber_xxxi_v1.0.5_sigma-sweep_m1_2026-01-26.json, Chamber_XXXII_1769522753052.json

Status: Empirically validated, production-ready theorem with three independent chamber confirmation.

UNNS Laboratory | Exploring the emergence of structure from recursive substrate dynamics

Main Menu