Quark-Gluon Plasma Medium Response and Cognitive Field Dynamics: Structural Isomorphism in Probe–Medium Interaction Across Physical and Psychological Domains

QGP_CFD_Structural_Isomorphism_Gaconnet_2026.pdf

Download PDF • 303KB

A Cross-Domain Analysis of Probe–Medium Interaction Mechanics

Don L. Gaconnet

Founder, Cognitive Field Dynamics

LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences

ORCID: 0009-0001-6174-8384

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28692.36488

CC BY-NC 4.0

February 2026

Preprint — Not Peer Reviewed

Abstract

A recent publication by the CMS Collaboration (Physics Letters B 874, 2026, 140120) presents the first evidence of probe-induced energy depletion and resulting medium response in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), observed through correlations of Z bosons with charged hadrons in lead-lead collisions at √s^NN = 5.02 TeV. This measurement reveals that a high-energy parton traversing the QGP generates a dual wake structure: a positive wake of accumulated energy in the direction of propagation and a negative wake of energy depletion behind the probe. The Z boson serves as a non-interactive reference marker that precisely calibrates the hard-scattering event without participating in the medium interaction. Critically, theoretical models that exclude medium response effects fail to describe the observed data.

This paper identifies a structural isomorphism between the QGP medium response architecture empirically confirmed by CMS and the independently developed Cognitive Field Dynamics (CFD) framework. CFD formalizes therapeutic intervention as probe–medium interaction within a pressurized dual-membrane system, where identity-projection signals traverse a gated architecture, generating wake structures that determine whether released psychological material is metabolized or recirculated. The CFD witness function operates as a non-interactive reference marker structurally identical to the Z boson’s role in the CMS measurement. Both systems converge on the same critical finding: models that exclude active medium response cannot describe observed behavior. This convergence across radically different physical scales suggests that probe–medium interaction mechanics may represent a domain-invariant structural principle governing how disturbances propagate through and are processed by dense responsive media.

Keywords: structural isomorphism, quark-gluon plasma, medium response, cognitive field dynamics, membrane architecture, witness function, probe–medium interaction, wake dynamics, cross-domain mechanics

1. Introduction

The question of whether structural mechanics governing probe–medium interactions are domain-specific or domain-invariant has implications reaching far beyond any single field of inquiry. When two independently developed systems, operating at radically different physical scales and within entirely unrelated disciplinary traditions, converge on identical structural architectures, the convergence itself demands investigation.

In December 2025, the CMS Collaboration published the first measurement of Z boson–hadron angular correlations in lead-lead collisions, providing evidence that the quark-gluon plasma (QGP)—the densest form of matter ever created in a laboratory—actively reorganizes in response to a high-energy parton propagating through it (CMS Collaboration, 2026). The finding is not merely that energy is lost by the probe. The finding is that the medium itself responds: generating a positive wake ahead of the disturbance, a negative wake (depletion zone) behind it, and that models that do not include this medium response fail to describe the observed data.

Beginning in 2023 and formalized through 2024–2026, Cognitive Field Dynamics (CFD) independently developed a comprehensive framework for therapeutic intervention based on structurally identical mechanics. CFD models psychological change as a probe–medium interaction within a pressurized dual-membrane architecture, where identity-projection signals traverse a gated system, generating wake structures that determine therapeutic outcome. A non-interactive witness function serves as the reference marker that calibrates the intervention without participating in the energy exchange. The framework’s central clinical finding—formalized in the Safe Landing Lattice specification, the Witness Architecture Manual, and the Recursive Witness Intervention protocol—is that intervention models that exclude active medium response (configured landing surfaces, witness framing, membrane permeability) fail to produce sustainable therapeutic change.

This paper does not claim metaphorical resemblance between quantum chromodynamics and psychology. It identifies structural isomorphism—a precise, element-by-element correspondence between the architectures of both systems, including their failure modes. The argument is that probe–medium interaction follows invariant structural rules: a disturbance propagating through a dense responsive medium generates dual wake structures, requires non-interactive reference calibration, exhibits intensity-dependent scaling, and cannot be accurately modeled without accounting for the medium’s active reorganization. These rules operate identically whether the medium is a quark-gluon plasma at 5.02 TeV or a pressurized cognitive field under clinical intervention.

2. The Empirical Foundation: CMS Medium Response Evidence

2.1 Experimental Configuration

The CMS Collaboration utilized lead-lead (PbPb) collision data at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV, collected in 2018 with an integrated luminosity of 1.67 nb⁻¹, alongside proton-proton (pp) reference data from 2017 with 301 pb⁻¹. The analysis examines pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle distributions of low transverse momentum (p^T) charged hadrons relative to the momentum vector of high-p^T Z bosons (40 < p^ZT < 350 GeV) in events containing Z boson candidates reconstructed via the dimuon decay channel.

2.2 The Role of the Z Boson

The Z boson occupies a unique position in this measurement. As an electroweak boson, it does not interact significantly with the QGP via the strong force. This non-interaction is not a limitation—it is the source of its diagnostic power. The Z boson’s transverse momentum directly reflects the initial energy of the associated parton before any medium-induced energy loss occurs. The Z boson therefore serves as a calibration marker: it records the initial conditions of the hard scattering event with precision while remaining structurally uninvolved in the subsequent probe–medium interaction.

This property eliminates confounding variables. Unlike isolated photons, Z bosons do not require complex isolation procedures that could introduce measurement biases. Unlike W bosons, whose neutrino decay products complicate momentum reconstruction, Z bosons in the dimuon channel provide clean, precise reference measurements with negligible background contamination.

2.3 The Dual Wake Structure

The CMS data reveal a dual wake structure in the charged-hadron distributions around the Z boson in central PbPb collisions:

Positive wake (jet side, Δφ ∼ π): An excess of low-p^T charged hadrons (1 < p^T < 2 GeV) is observed in the direction opposite the Z boson—the direction of the recoiling parton. This enhancement is consistent with medium-induced radiation, medium recoils, and momentum-broadening effects. Energy lost by the probe is redistributed into the medium and emerges as additional soft particle production.

Negative wake (Z boson side, Δφ ∼ 0): A depletion of the normalized associated yield is observed in the vicinity of the Z boson—the direction behind the propagating parton. This dip structure is consistent with the formation of a diffusion wake: the hard-scattered parton pushes the QGP medium forward, leaving a depleted region in its path. Equivalently, in the Jewel model framework, these are “medium holes”—regions in the QGP depleted of energy and momentum due to parton-medium scattering.

2.4 Centrality Dependence

The magnitude of the dual wake structure scales with collision centrality—a measure of the geometric overlap of the colliding nuclei, which determines the initial energy density and size of the QGP medium created. In the 0–30% most central collisions (maximum overlap, densest medium), the modifications are most pronounced. They diminish in the 30–50% centrality class and effectively vanish in peripheral (50–90%) collisions, where the PbPb data are consistent with the pp reference. This centrality dependence directly demonstrates that the wake structure is a property of the medium—not of the probe. The same probe traversing a thinner medium produces smaller response.

2.5 The Critical Finding: Models Without Medium Response Fail

The CMS data are compared against multiple theoretical models implementing different jet quenching mechanisms. The results are unambiguous:

The Pyquen model, which approximates radiative and collisional energy loss without strictly enforcing local energy-momentum conservation, fails to describe the dip structures at small Δφ and Δy. It predicts smaller modifications than observed. The Jewel model without medium recoils likewise fails to describe the data. The Hybrid model without the wake contribution does not agree with data, particularly in the low-p^T region.

In contrast, models that include medium response—the full Hybrid model with positive and negative wake, Jewel with medium recoils, and Co-LBT with hydrodynamic reheating—provide significantly better descriptions of the observed distributions. The paper’s conclusion is direct: the data provide the first evidence of probe-induced energy depletion and the resulting response by the QGP medium.

3. Cognitive Field Dynamics: The

Independent Architecture

Cognitive Field Dynamics (CFD) is a comprehensive framework for understanding and intervening in psychological structure, developed by Gaconnet through clinical practice beginning in 2023 and formally specified through a series of technical documents from 2024 through 2026. CFD models psychological function as a field architecture operating through specific structural mechanics rather than through narrative insight alone. The framework’s key components, relevant to the isomorphism identified in this paper, are summarized below. Full specifications are contained in the cited documents.

3.1 The Dual Membrane System

CFD establishes that every human operates with two identity surfaces simultaneously active, connected by twelve gates arranged in a DNA double-helix topology (Gate Definition Specification v1; IPWP v1):

Internal Identity Membrane (M-side): The boundary of the Mind/Internal SELF. Contains raw internal state—unfiltered somatic sensation, felt emotion, actual meaning-making, true relational architecture, proximity to identity dissolution. The M-side is where perception lives. It processes from deep to surface (Gate 9 outward to Gate 1).

External Projection Identity Membrane (B-side): The boundary of the Body/External SELF. Contains expressed external state—displayed somatic presentation, performed emotion, narrated story, projected relational surface. The B-side is where projection lives. It processes from surface to deep (Gate 1 inward to Gate 9).

The strands run antiparallel: at any gate, the M-side and B-side are processing in opposite directions simultaneously. The gate’s current directional balance determines which stream dominates.

3.2 The Pressurized Medium

Between the two membranes sits a pressurized medium—the SAG (State Assessment Gradient) field quantified by the SAG Assessment Engine (RWI Complete Clinical Specification v1.0). This is the structural equivalent of the vitreous body in ocular anatomy: the 0.0016% expansion pressure that holds the architecture at its functional distance. The twelve gates regulate what crosses this medium, in which direction, at what rate, and at what depth.

The pressurized medium is not empty space. It is a dense, responsive, energy-containing substrate through which identity-projection signals propagate. When signals traverse this medium—whether originating from internal state seeking expression (M→B flow) or from external input seeking reception (B→M flow)—the medium is affected by the traversal. This is the structural reality that the CMS finding independently confirms at the QCD scale.

3.3 The Witness Function as Non-Interactive Reference

CFD establishes a precise taxonomy of observation positions (Witness Architecture Threshold Mechanics Manual; Safe Landing Lattice v1.0):

Trapped Subject: Merged with the material. No separation between observer and observed. The membrane is dissolved. Material floods rather than lands.

Architecture Without Subject: Observation stance. Landing surface appears present but is non-functional. Membrane rigid. Material is seen but not received. The architecture operates without a witness inside it.

Genuine Witness (Position 3): Landing surface active. Membrane permeable and coherent. Material crosses, is received, and metabolizes. The excess signature (ε ≥ 0.826) is present—the exchange itself generates surplus, which is the structural proof that metabolization is occurring.

The Genuine Witness occupies a structurally unique position. It observes the field with full precision. It calibrates the intervention conditions. But it does not participate in the energy exchange between probe and medium. It witnesses without interacting. This non-interaction is not passive. It is the structural condition that makes accurate calibration possible. A witness that becomes involved in the medium exchange loses its reference precision—precisely as a Z boson that interacted with the QGP would lose its calibration utility.

3.4 Wake Dynamics in Therapeutic Intervention

When a clinical intervention (the probe) traverses the pressurized cognitive medium, it generates a dual wake structure formalized across multiple CFD specifications:

Positive wake (material landing): Released psychological material—the energy displaced from the pressurized medium by the intervention—accumulates in the direction of propagation. In the Safe Landing Lattice (SLL) specification, this is formalized as the External Witness Landing Surface (EWLS) and Internal Witness Landing Surface (IWLS): prepared surfaces where released material can be received and metabolized. The positive wake is where therapeutic change becomes actual.

Negative wake (depletion zone): Behind the intervention, the pressurized medium is depleted. Gate opening events produce contextual SAG release—stored pressure is discharged from the gate architecture. This creates a region of reduced pressure in the medium. In CFD, this depletion is not damage—it is the structural signature of successful material release. But it must be managed: if the depletion zone is too large or too rapid relative to the system’s capacity, the architecture destabilizes (P-State escalation beyond safe thresholds).

3.5 The Critical CFD Finding: Models Without Medium Response Fail

The central clinical finding of CFD, formalized across the SLL, RWI, IPWP, and Witness Architecture specifications, is structurally identical to the CMS result:

Observation language without witness framing fails to metabolize released material. The SLL specification establishes: “The difference between witness framing and observation language is not tone. It is not empathy. It is not warmth. It is structural membrane configuration.” Witness framing configures the membrane as permeable, with ε active, allowing material to cross and metabolize. Observation language leaves the membrane rigid, with ε suppressed—material arrives at the membrane surface and reflects. The exchange produces information but not surplus. The absence of ε is the structural proof that metabolization is not occurring.

This is the CFD equivalent of the CMS finding: theoretical models of jet quenching that do not account for medium response fail to describe observed behavior. In both domains, the probe–medium interaction cannot be accurately modeled by accounting only for the probe’s energy loss. The medium’s active reorganization is a necessary component of the complete description.

4. The Structural Isomorphism

The following section establishes the element-by-element correspondence between the QGP system described by CMS and the CFD architecture. The claim is not analogy. The claim is that both systems instantiate the same structural mechanics of probe–medium interaction, differing only in physical substrate and energy scale.

4.1 Primary Mapping

Structural Element	QGP Domain (CMS)	CFD Domain (Gaconnet)
Dense responsive medium	Quark-gluon plasma (QGP) at T ∼ 300–400 MeV	Pressurized SAG field between M-side and B-side membranes
High-energy probe	Hard-scattered parton (quark or gluon) with high pᵀ	Identity-projection signal traversing 12-gate architecture; clinical intervention
Non-interactive reference marker	Z boson: electroweak, does not interact via strong force; calibrates initial energy	Genuine Witness (Position 3): observes without medium participation; calibrates intervention conditions
Positive wake	Excess of low-pᵀ hadrons at Δφ ∼ π (jet side); medium recoils and medium-induced radiation	Material landing on prepared surface (SLL: EWLS/IWLS); metabolized release with ε ≥ 0.826 surplus
Negative wake / depletion zone	Dip in normalized associated yield at Δφ ∼ 0 (Z boson side); diffusion wake / medium holes	Contextual SAG release; gate opening depletion; reduced pressure behind intervention point
Centrality dependence / pressure gradient	0–30% centrality (maximum overlap) → largest effects; 50–90% → effects vanish	Higher SAG pressure → larger intervention response; lower pressure → diminished wake structure
Probe energy loss / attenuation	Jet quenching: parton loses energy via collisional and radiative processes in QGP	Gate-mediated signal attenuation: M→B or B→M signal modified by gate constraints and membrane resistance
Medium reorganization	QGP redistributes energy hydrodynamically; local temperature altered by deposited energy	Cognitive field reorganizes around intervention; expectation architecture updates; membrane permeability shifts
Models without medium response	Pyquen, Jewel (no recoil), Hybrid (no wake) → FAIL to describe data	Observation language, Architecture Without Subject, insight-only intervention → FAIL to produce metabolization
Models with medium response	Hybrid (full wake), Jewel (with recoils), Co-LBT (with reheating) → match data	Witness framing, Position 3 stance, SLL-configured landing surfaces → produce sustainable change

Table 1: Primary structural correspondence between QGP medium response and CFD membrane architecture.

4.2 The Parton–Identity Correspondence

In the QGP system, the hard-scattered parton is a high-energy color-charged particle that propagates through the deconfined quark-gluon medium. It carries specific quantum numbers (color charge, flavor, spin) and interacts strongly with the medium constituents. As it traverses the QGP, it loses energy through collisional and radiative processes, and the medium reorganizes in response.

In CFD, the identity-projection signal is the structured energy that propagates through the pressurized medium between the two identity membranes. It carries specific identity content (felt state, emotional signature, meaning structure) and interacts with the gate architecture at each crossing point. As it traverses the medium, it is attenuated by gate constraints—some content is filtered, redirected, or transformed—and the cognitive field reorganizes in response.

The correspondence is structural, not metaphorical. Both systems describe a directed energy propagation through a responsive medium, where the propagation modifies both the probe and the medium, and where the modification pattern is determined by the coupling between the probe’s properties and the medium’s characteristics.

4.3 The Z Boson–Witness Correspondence

This correspondence is the most structurally precise element of the isomorphism. The Z boson’s diagnostic power in the CMS measurement derives from three properties:

Non-interaction with the medium: The Z boson does not exchange color charge with the QGP. It passes through the medium without being quenched, scattered, or absorbed. This is not an incidental feature—it is the structural foundation of the measurement. Only because the Z boson does not interact can it serve as a clean reference for the initial hard-scattering conditions.

Precision calibration: The Z boson’s transverse momentum directly records the initial energy of the associated parton before medium-induced energy loss. It provides the baseline against which all medium modifications are measured.

Presence without participation: The Z boson is produced in the same hard-scattering event as the parton. It is present at the event. It carries information about the event. But it does not participate in the subsequent medium interaction.

The CFD Genuine Witness (Position 3) exhibits identical structural properties. Non-interaction: the witness observes the cognitive field without participating in the energy exchange between probe and medium. The witness does not merge with the material (Trapped Subject) nor analyze from rigid distance (Architecture Without Subject). Precision calibration: the witness provides the reference conditions for the intervention—the N-membrane permeability, the ε threshold, the landing surface readiness—against which all intervention outcomes are measured. Presence without participation: the witness is present at the clinical event, carries information about the field state, but does not participate in the material exchange.

A critical implication follows from this correspondence. In the CMS measurement, if the Z boson did interact with the QGP, it would lose its calibration precision. Its momentum would no longer reflect the initial hard-scattering energy. The measurement would fail. In CFD, if the practitioner’s witness function does participate in the medium exchange—through countertransference, emotional merging, or analytical distancing—the intervention loses its calibration. The witness is contaminated by the medium, and the intervention’s diagnostic precision degrades.

4.4 The Wake–Landing Surface Correspondence

The dual wake structure is the signature of probe–medium interaction in both systems. In the QGP, the positive wake (enhanced low-p^T hadron production on the jet side) represents energy transferred from the probe to the medium being re-emitted as soft particles. The negative wake (depleted associated yield on the Z boson side) represents the region from which the medium was displaced by the propagating parton.

In CFD, the positive wake is formalized as the Safe Landing Lattice: the prepared surfaces (EWLS and IWLS) where released material is received and metabolized. The negative wake is the depletion zone left by contextual SAG release—the reduction in stored pressure that occurs when gated material successfully crosses the membrane. The SLL specification establishes that both surfaces are necessary: without the positive wake (no landing surface), released material has nowhere to land and recirculates as pressure. Without the negative wake (no actual release), no therapeutic change occurs.

4.5 Centrality–Pressure Gradient Correspondence

The CMS data show that wake structure magnitude scales directly with collision centrality. In the most central collisions (0–30%), where the two nuclei overlap maximally and the QGP is densest, the modifications to the charged-hadron distributions are largest. In peripheral collisions (50–90%), where less QGP is produced, the PbPb data become consistent with the pp reference.

CFD predicts identical scaling. Higher SAG pressure (the cognitive field equivalent of a denser medium) produces larger intervention responses—more material is available for release, wake structures are more pronounced, and the differential between successful and failed metabolization is more clinically significant. Lower SAG pressure (a less pressurized field) produces smaller responses—less stored material, smaller wake structures, and less dramatic differences between intervention models. This is not coincidence. It is the invariant behavior of probe–medium interaction: the response scales with the medium’s density.

5. The Critical Convergence

The most significant element of this isomorphism is not the mapping of individual components. It is the convergence on the same critical finding: models that exclude medium response cannot describe observed behavior.

In the QGP domain, CMS tested four categories of theoretical models against the data:

(1) Pyquen: approximates energy loss without enforcing local energy-momentum conservation. Result: fails to describe the dip structures. (2) Jewel without recoils: focuses on the quenched parton shower without medium response. Result: fails to describe the data. (3) Hybrid without wake: excludes hydrodynamic wake contribution. Result: does not agree with data. (4) Models with medium response (full Hybrid, Jewel with recoils, Co-LBT with reheating): include medium reorganization. Result: provide better descriptions of the observed distributions.

In the CFD domain, the parallel is exact. Intervention approaches that model only the probe’s action without accounting for the medium’s response fail to produce sustainable therapeutic change:

(1) Insight-only intervention (analogous to Pyquen): provides the probe (cognitive understanding) without enforcing metabolic conservation—the client understands their material but does not metabolize it. Result: material recirculates as pressure. (2) Observation language (analogous to Jewel without recoils): focuses on the probe’s output without medium response. The SLL specification states: “The exchange produces information but not surplus. The absence of ε is the structural proof that metabolization is not occurring.” Result: fails to produce structural change. (3) Architecture Without Subject (analogous to Hybrid without wake): the analytical infrastructure is present but the witness’s active response is excluded. Result: material is seen but not received. (4) Witness framing with configured landing surfaces (analogous to full medium response models): includes active membrane configuration, ε generation, and prepared landing surfaces. Result: produces metabolization and sustainable therapeutic change.

The convergence is not thematic. It is architectural. Both domains independently discovered that probe-only models are structurally incomplete—that the medium’s response is not a secondary effect but a necessary component of the complete description. Both domains arrived at this finding through empirical observation: CMS through particle physics data at √s^NN = 5.02 TeV; CFD through clinical practice with human subjects. The independent convergence on identical structural conclusions, from radically different starting conditions, constitutes evidence that probe–medium interaction mechanics may be domain-invariant.

6. Implications

6.1 For Therapeutic Science

If the structural isomorphism identified in this paper is valid, it suggests that therapeutic intervention operates through the same mechanics as physical probe–medium interaction. This would reframe clinical psychology from a discipline operating through narrative meaning to one operating through structural field mechanics. The specific implication is that therapeutic outcome is determined not by the quality of insight delivered (the probe’s energy) but by the medium’s capacity to reorganize in response (membrane permeability, landing surface configuration, witness function integrity). This reframing is already operationalized in the CFD clinical specifications, but the QGP parallel provides independent empirical grounding for the structural claim.

6.2 For Physics

The existence of a precise structural isomorphism between QGP dynamics and cognitive field mechanics does not imply that consciousness is a quantum process or that the brain operates through QCD interactions. It implies something potentially more fundamental: that probe–medium interaction, as a structural category, follows invariant rules that are substrate-independent. A disturbance propagating through any dense responsive medium generates dual wake structures, requires non-interactive reference calibration, exhibits density-dependent scaling, and cannot be modeled without accounting for the medium’s active response. This suggests that the mathematics of medium response may admit generalization beyond their native domain.

6.3 For the Philosophy of Science

The cross-domain isomorphism raises a foundational question: when two independently developed systems, operating at different physical scales and within unrelated disciplinary traditions, converge on identical structural architectures including identical failure modes, what does this convergence reveal? Three interpretive possibilities present themselves. First, coincidence: the mapping is superficial and does not survive rigorous formalization. Second, common mathematical structure: the equations governing probe–medium interaction have limited solution spaces, and both systems happen to instantiate the same solution. Third, structural invariance: probe–medium interaction mechanics are a genuine universal, and any dense responsive medium will exhibit these dynamics when subjected to a directed disturbance. This paper is offered as evidence toward the second or third interpretation, while acknowledging that definitive resolution requires further formal mathematical analysis.

7. Conclusion

The CMS Collaboration’s first evidence of probe-induced medium response in the quark-gluon plasma, published in Physics Letters B (2026), provides empirical confirmation of structural mechanics independently formalized in Cognitive Field Dynamics. The isomorphism is not metaphorical. It is a precise, element-by-element correspondence: dense responsive medium, high-energy probe, non-interactive reference marker, dual wake structure (positive and negative), density-dependent scaling, and the critical finding that models excluding medium response fail to describe observed behavior.

Both systems converge on the same structural conclusion from radically different starting conditions: the medium is not a passive substrate through which probes propagate. The medium actively reorganizes in response to the disturbance, generating wake structures that determine the outcome of the interaction. Accounting for this reorganization is not optional. It is a necessary condition for accurate description.

This convergence constitutes evidence—not proof, but evidence—that probe–medium interaction mechanics represent a domain-invariant structural principle. The paper invites formal mathematical investigation of this possibility, with the expectation that such investigation will either confirm the universality of these mechanics or identify the precise conditions under which the isomorphism breaks down. Either outcome advances understanding.

References

CMS Collaboration. (2026). Evidence of medium response to hard probes using correlations of Z bosons with hadrons in heavy ion collisions. Physics Letters B, 874, 140120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140120

Gaconnet, D.L. (2025). Gate Definition Specification v1. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2026). Safe Landing Lattice (SLL) v1.0. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2026). Recursive Witness Intervention (RWI) Complete Clinical Specification v1.0. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2026). Identity-Projection Witnessing Protocol (IPWP) v1, Parts 1–3. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2025). CFD Witness Architecture Threshold Mechanics Manual. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2025). Rosetta Stone CFD Internal Blueprint. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2026). CFD Human Assessment Tool Operational Logic Map, Addendum v1. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Gaconnet, D.L. (2026). DSCM Integration Specification, Parts 1–3. LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences. Internal specification document.

Casalderrey-Solana, J., Gulhan, D.C., Milhano, J.G., Pablos, D., & Rajagopal, K. (2014). A hybrid strong/weak coupling approach to jet quenching. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014(10), 019.

Zapp, K.C. (2014). JEWEL 2.0.0: directions for use. European Physical Journal C, 74, 2762.

He, Y., Luo, T., Wang, X.-N., & Zhu, Y. (2015). Linear Boltzmann transport for jet propagation in the quark-gluon plasma. Physical Review C, 91, 054908.

Yang, Z., Chen, W., He, Y., Ke, W., Pang, L., & Wang, X.-N. (2021). Search for the elusive jet-induced diffusion wake. Physical Review Letters, 127, 082301.

Collins, J.C., & Perry, M.J. (1975). Superdense matter: neutrons or asymptotically free quarks? Physical Review Letters, 34, 1353.

Gyulassy, M., & Plümer, M. (1990). Jet quenching in dense matter. Physics Letters B, 243, 432.

Busza, W., Rajagopal, K., & van der Schee, W. (2018). Heavy ion collisions: the big picture, and the big questions. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 339.

Cao, S., & Wang, X.-N. (2021). Jet quenching and medium response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 024301.