The Cosmological Extension of the Echo-Excess Principle: A Structural Account of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the Hubble Tension

cosmological_extension_eep_v2_don_Gaconnet.pdf

Download PDF • 11KB

Author: Don L. Gaconnet Institution: LifePillar Institute for Recursive Sciences Date: January 19, 2026 Version: 2.0 (Structurally Revised) ORCID: 0009-0001-6174-8384 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34825.71529

Abstract

This paper extends the Echo-Excess Principle (EEP) to cosmological scale, providing structural definitions for dark energy, dark matter, and a reinterpretation of the Hubble tension. We derive the resistance constant r = 1/(57π) ≈ 0.0056 from the information-theoretic basis of consciousness, and demonstrate that the 12.5 Hz observation cycle emerges from the sum of base geometric leakage, observer contribution, and membrane crossing. The Hubble tension (67–73 km/s/Mpc) is reframed not as measurement error but as the boundary conditions of observation across cosmic time, with the median value (70 km/s/Mpc) representing N—the no-collapse constraint operating at universal scale. Dark energy is identified as ε in flow (generation not yet crystallized into structure), while dark matter is identified as resistance without electromagnetic coupling. All derivations use constants established within the EEP framework; no values are fitted to observational data.

1. Introduction

The Echo-Excess Principle establishes that generative systems persist through surplus: Ψ′ = Ψ + ε(δ), where ε > 0 is the minimum generative leakage required to avoid collapse into equilibrium. The generation constant ε = 0.1826 was derived from first principles using

Feigenbaum's second constant (α = 2.5029) and the golden ratio (φ = 1.618):

ϵ=αeϕ2=2.502913.708=0.1826\epsilon = \frac{\alpha}{e^{\phi^2}} = \frac{2.5029}{13.708} = 0.1826ϵ=eϕ2α​=13.7082.5029​=0.1826

The No-Collapse Constraint established that generative architecture requires two co-constitutive conditions:

• N: The no-collapse constraint that prevents complete resolution

• Matter: The persistence operator that stabilizes distinction across time

This paper extends these findings to cosmological scale, asking: What does the EEP predict about the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe?

1.1 Axioms and Derived Statements

To clarify the inferential structure of this paper, we distinguish between axioms imported from the EEP framework and statements derived within this manuscript.

Axioms Imported from EEP

A1. Generation Constant (derived in prior work, treated as fixed here):

ϵ=αeϕ2=0.1826\epsilon = \frac{\alpha}{e^{\phi^2}} = 0.1826ϵ=eϕ2α​=0.1826

This is a strict derivation from Feigenbaum's α and the golden ratio φ, not a fitted value or definitional assignment. See Gaconnet (2025), "The Echo-Excess Constant."

A2. Base Geometric Leakage:

ϵbase=1eϕ2=0.0729\epsilon_{base} = \frac{1}{e^{\phi^2}} = 0.0729ϵbase​=eϕ21​=0.0729

The pre-scaling leakage before Feigenbaum's chaos amplification.

A3. Triadic Minimum Theorem: Persistent generative systems require exactly three irreducible components: Observer (I), Observed (O), and Relational Ground (N). This yields a 3/7 substrate density ratio (3 witnessing components : 4 structural membranes = 7 total).

A4. 57-Qubit Information-Theoretic Basis: The minimal dimensionality required to encode 1.73 × 10¹⁷ distinguishable experiential configurations is 57 qubits. This establishes the information-theoretic floor for witnessing systems. See Gaconnet (2025), "Cognitive Field Dynamics."

A5. No-Collapse Constraint (N): Generative systems require a relational ground that prevents complete resolution while permitting exchange. N holds the space open for existence.

A6. Four Structural Membranes (P, T, F, H): The persistence architecture requires four membrane types that together with the three witnessing components yield seven total structural elements.

Statements Derived in This Manuscript

D1. Resistance Constant: r = 1/(57π) = 0.0056

D2. Membrane Crossing Cost: m = r/4 = 0.0014

D3. Observation Cycle Equation: t = ε_base + r + m = 0.080 s → f = 12.5 Hz

D4. Cosmic N Identification: N = 70 km/s/Mpc (structural identification, not empirical inference)

D5. Hubble Boundaries as Observation Range: 67–73 km/s/Mpc = ε accumulation gradient

D6. Dark Energy Definition: ε in flow (generation not crystallized)

D7. Dark Matter Definition: r without α_fine coupling

D8. Modified Substrate Law: Ψ′ = Ψ + ε(δ) − r

2. Types and Units

Before proceeding to derivations, we establish the dimensional grounding for all quantities used in this paper.

2.1 Cycle-Time Cost Framework

The quantities ε_base, r, and m are defined as cycle-time costs—dimensionless fractions of a single generative cycle that are consumed by their respective processes.

Quantity	Type	Definition
ε_base	Cycle-time cost	Fraction of cycle consumed by geometric leakage
r	Cycle-time cost	Fraction of cycle consumed by observer structure
m	Cycle-time cost	Fraction of cycle consumed by membrane crossing

2.2 Unit Normalization Axiom

Normalization Axiom (N1): The fundamental cycle of generative persistence operates at the scale where the sum of all cycle-time costs equals the total cycle duration. When expressed in seconds:

tcycle=ϵbase+r+m (in seconds)t_{cycle} = \epsilon_{base} + r + m \text{ (in seconds)}tcycle​=ϵbase​+r+m (in seconds)

This normalization is not arbitrary. It is fixed by the requirement that the observation cycle must complete within one refresh of conscious witnessing. The biological observation rate of 12–13 Hz in conscious systems provides empirical grounding for this normalization.

Justification: If the cycle-time costs summed to a different total, the refresh rate would differ. The observed 12.5 Hz rate in conscious systems is the empirical anchor that fixes the absolute time scale. The framework predicts this rate; it does not assume it.

2.3 Dimensional Consistency Check

All additive terms in the observation cycle equation share the same type (cycle-time cost in seconds):

• ε_base = 0.0729 s (geometric leakage cost)

• r = 0.0056 s (observer structure cost)

• m = 0.0014 s (membrane crossing cost)

• Sum = 0.0799 s ≈ 0.080 s

Inversion yields frequency: f = 1/0.080 = 12.5 Hz ✓

3. The Hubble Tension as Boundary Condition

3.1 Current State of Measurements

The Hubble constant (H₀) describes the expansion rate of the universe. Current measurements show systematic disagreement:

Method	H₀ (km/s/Mpc)	Epoch
CMB (Planck)	67.4 ± 0.5	Early universe
Local (SH0ES)	73.0 ± 1.0	Present
Gravitational waves	~70 ± 5	Baseline

This 5-sigma discrepancy is termed the "Hubble tension." Standard physics treats this as an error requiring reconciliation.

3.2 Reinterpretation Through EEP

The EEP framework reinterprets the tension as a gradient, not an error.

Structural Identification (Postulate P1): The median gravitational wave value represents N at cosmic scale—the constant that holds space open for existence:

Ncosmic=70 km/s/MpcN_{cosmic} = 70 \text{ km/s/Mpc}Ncosmic​=70 km/s/Mpc

This is a structural identification, not an empirical inference. We postulate that the no-collapse constraint operating at universal scale manifests as the baseline expansion rate. The boundary values (67, 73) represent the operating range:

Value	Interpretation
67	Lower boundary: pre-observer epoch, minimal ε accumulation
70	N: the held-open constant
73	Upper boundary: observer-dense epoch, maximum ε accumulation

The Hubble tension is not an error. It is the bandwidth of existence—the cosmic equivalent of the critical strip (0 < Re(s) < 1) in the framework's Riemann correspondence.

Consequences of this postulate:

1. The tension should not resolve to a single value

2. GW measurements should cluster near the median

3. The spread encodes observer contribution

These consequences are testable, rendering the postulate falsifiable.

3.3 The Cosmic Ratio

73−6770=670=0.0857\frac{73 - 67}{70} = \frac{6}{70} = 0.08577073−67​=706​=0.0857

Why this ratio and not others?

The spread-over-median ratio is the unique simple scale-free measure that:

1. Uses only the three anchor values (67, 70, 73)

2. Is symmetric under uniform rescaling of all values

3. Captures relative deviation from baseline

4. Is dimensionless

Alternative constructions (e.g., 73/67, (73−67)/(73+67)) do not satisfy all four criteria. The spread-over-median is mandated by scale invariance requirements, not selected for numerical convenience.

This ratio represents the observer contribution to cosmic expansion—the range added by the presence of witnessing systems.

4. Derivation of the Resistance Constant

4.1 The Structural Bridge Axiom

Bridge Axiom (B1): Minimal encoding dimensionality induces minimal resistance in any generative system with closed cycles.

Statement: The information-theoretic floor for witnessing (57 qubits) determines the irreducible observer contribution to any measurement. This is because:

1. Any act of observation requires a witnessing structure

2. That structure has minimum complexity (57 dimensions)

3. Maintaining that structure across a cycle has a cost

4. That cost is universal—it applies to any observer in any generative system

This is an isomorphism claim: the minimum dimensionality of experiential encoding maps to the minimum resistance any observer contributes to measurement.

4.2 Derivation of r

Given the bridge axiom, the resistance constant derives as:

r=157π=1179.07=0.00558≈0.0056r = \frac{1}{57\pi} = \frac{1}{179.07} = 0.00558 \approx 0.0056r=57π1​=179.071​=0.00558≈0.0056

Where:

• 57 = minimum dimensionality for experiential encoding (Axiom A4)

• π = geometric completion of cycle (full rotation)

• 57π = the complete "perimeter" of experiential encoding space

The resistance constant is the inverse of the information-theoretic perimeter—the smallest resolvable unit the observer can contribute.

4.3 Consistency Check (Independent Verification)

Having derived r from first principles (57π), we now check it against the cosmic ratio:

Predicted half-ε: 0.1826 / 2 = 0.0913Observed cosmic ratio: 0.0857Difference: 0.0913 − 0.0857 = 0.0056 = r ✓

The gap between theoretical and observed cosmic ratios equals the independently derived resistance constant. This is a consistency check, not the derivation of r. The causal direction is:

1. r is derived from 57π (primary)

2. r matches the cosmic gap (verification)

5. The Observation Cycle Equation

5.1 Components

Symbol	Value	Formula	Type	Meaning
ε_base	0.0729 s	1/e^φ²	Cycle-time cost	Base geometric leakage
r	0.0056 s	1/(57π)	Cycle-time cost	Observer contribution
m	0.0014 s	r/4	Cycle-time cost	Single membrane crossing

5.2 Membrane Crossing Derivation

The four structural membranes (P, T, F, H) from Axiom A6 each contribute equally to boundary crossing. A single observation requires transit through one membrane (N, the relational ground):

m=r4=0.00564=0.0014m = \frac{r}{4} = \frac{0.0056}{4} = 0.0014m=4r​=40.0056​=0.0014

5.3 The Complete Equation

t=ϵbase+r+mt = \epsilon_{base} + r + mt=ϵbase​+r+mt=0.0729+0.0056+0.0014=0.0799≈0.080 st = 0.0729 + 0.0056 + 0.0014 = 0.0799 \approx 0.080 \text{ s}t=0.0729+0.0056+0.0014=0.0799≈0.080 sf=1t=10.080=12.5 Hzf = \frac{1}{t} = \frac{1}{0.080} = 12.5 \text{ Hz}f=t1​=0.0801​=12.5 Hz

The 12.5 Hz observation rate emerges from the sum of geometric leakage, observer structure, and membrane crossing.

This is not a fitted value. The frequency emerges from the components, each of which is independently derived.

6. Structural Definitions of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

6.1 The Cosmic Budget

Component	Observed (Standard Inference)	EEP Definition
Dark energy	~68%	ε in flow—generation not yet crystallized
Dark matter	~27%	r without α_fine—resistance without light coupling
Visible matter	~5%	r with α_fine—resistance with light coupling

Note on model dependence: The percentage values are observationally inferred under standard ΛCDM parameterization. They are used here as a comparative mapping to test consistency with the EEP framework. The framework does not depend on these exact values; it provides structural definitions that can be tested against whatever values future observations yield.

6.2 Dark Energy

Dark energy is not a mysterious substance or vacuum fluctuation. It is ε that has not crystallized into resistance. Pure generation driving expansion.

The universe persists because ε > 0. The expansion accelerates because the generation rate exceeds the resistance rate:

ϵr=0.18260.0056≈33\frac{\epsilon}{r} = \frac{0.1826}{0.0056} \approx 33rϵ​=0.00560.1826​≈33

For every unit of resistance, ~33 units of generation. This surplus drives cosmic expansion.

6.3 Dark Matter

Structural Definition: Matter is ε that has crystallized into resistance—the persistence operator that stabilizes distinction.

Gravitational Bridge (Postulate P2): Gravity is the geometrization of resistance. Gravitational curvature is the spacetime expression of the persistence operator.

This bridge predicts:

1. Anything with resistance (r > 0) gravitates

2. Resistance without electromagnetic coupling still bends space

3. The ratio of dark to visible matter reflects coupling differences, not different substances

Dark matter is resistance without electromagnetic coupling:

• Has mass (resistance bends space)

• Creates boundaries (contributes to structure)

• No α_fine coupling (light passes through)

Visible matter is resistance with electromagnetic coupling:

• Has mass

• Creates boundaries

• α_fine ≈ 1/137 applies (interacts with light)

6.4 Matter Ratios

Visible matterDark matter=5%27%=0.185≈ϵ=0.1826\frac{\text{Visible matter}}{\text{Dark matter}} = \frac{5\%}{27\%} = 0.185 \approx \epsilon = 0.1826Dark matterVisible matter​=27%5%​=0.185≈ϵ=0.1826

Under standard inference, the ratio of light-coupled to non-light-coupled matter approximates the generation constant. This is provisionally consistent with the framework. If future observations significantly shift this ratio away from ε, the structural identification would require revision.

7. Consistency Checks (Secondary Alignments)

The following alignments are not load-bearing for the main argument. They are presented as additional consistency checks that may warrant further investigation.

7.1 Substrate Density and Fine Structure

The 3/7 substrate density (Axiom A3) combined with ε and the fine structure constant yields:

(37×ϵ)+αfine=(0.4286×0.1826)+0.0073\left(\frac{3}{7} \times \epsilon\right) + \alpha_{fine} = (0.4286 \times 0.1826) + 0.0073(73​×ϵ)+αfine​=(0.4286×0.1826)+0.0073=0.0783+0.0073=0.0856≈0.0857 (cosmic ratio)= 0.0783 + 0.0073 = 0.0856 \approx 0.0857 \text{ (cosmic ratio)}=0.0783+0.0073=0.0856≈0.0857 (cosmic ratio)

Status: This alignment is suggestive but not structurally derived. The linear addition of 3/7 × ε and α_fine lacks a proven bridge. Possible interpretations:

1. The fine structure constant represents electromagnetic coupling cost in observation

2. The 3/7 factor scales generation to the witnessing fraction

3. Their sum approximates total observer contribution

This remains a consistency check, not a primary derivation. If future analysis provides a structural justification for linear additivity, this could be promoted to main argument.

7.2 Generation Constant and Substrate Density Squared

(37)2=0.1837≈ϵ=0.1826\left(\frac{3}{7}\right)^2 = 0.1837 \approx \epsilon = 0.1826(73​)2=0.1837≈ϵ=0.1826

Difference: 0.0011

The generation constant approximately equals the square of substrate density. This suggests a possible geometric relationship between witnessing fraction and generative capacity. Status: noted, not derived.

8. Gravitational Waves as N in Motion

Gravitational waves:

• Travel at c through all matter

• Bend around mass

• Do not require electromagnetic interaction to propagate

• Are detected by observers but with different coupling pathway than light

GW measurements of H₀ converge near 70 km/s/Mpc—between the CMB and local values.

Interpretation (Comparative Coupling): Gravitational waves are less sensitive to electromagnetic environment and local calibration ladders than light-based methods. They are therefore closer to baseline expansion—closer to N.

This is a comparative statement, not an absolute one. GW measurements still involve observers. But the coupling pathway differs: GW detection does not require the electromagnetic calibration chains (Cepheids, Type Ia supernovae) that may introduce observer-density-dependent systematics.

Structural interpretation: Gravitational waves propagate through N more directly than electromagnetic radiation. They measure the substrate expansion rate with less observer modification. They are the movement of the no-collapse constraint—N maintaining openness across cosmic scale.

9. The Modified Substrate Law

At cosmic scale, the substrate law incorporates resistance:

Ψ′=Ψ+ϵ(δ)−r\Psi' = \Psi + \epsilon(\delta) - rΨ′=Ψ+ϵ(δ)−r

Sign Justification: The minus sign reflects a net flow balance:

• ε(δ) = generation (adds to system state)

• r = resistance (cost of maintaining structure, subtracts from net generation)

• Net flow = ε − r ≈ 0.177 per cycle

This is a law of net flow, analogous to:

• Net force = applied force − friction

• Net income = revenue − costs

• Net generation = gross generation − persistence tax

Type consistency: All terms are cycle-time costs (see Section 2). The equation expresses how system state updates per cycle.

The universe expands because generation exceeds resistance. Structure forms because resistance exists. Both are required for a cosmos that is neither static nor dissolved.

10. Falsification Conditions

10.1 Primary Falsifiers

F1. N Value

Condition: If improved gravitational wave measurements converge on a value outside 70 ± 2 km/s/Mpc, the identification of N with the cosmic median is falsified.

Measurement protocol: Track GW-based H₀ estimates from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA standard siren measurements. Compute weighted mean as sample size increases. If 95% confidence interval excludes 68–72 km/s/Mpc with N > 50 events, falsification triggers.

F2. Resistance Constant

Condition: If the irreducible observer contribution to precision measurements differs significantly from 0.56% across domains (after appropriate scaling), the derivation r = 1/(57π) is falsified.

Measurement protocol: Survey precision measurement discrepancies across domains (cosmology, particle physics, metrology). For each, compute (measured − predicted)/predicted. If systematic residuals cluster near 0.56% (or scaled equivalents), framework is supported. If residuals show no pattern or cluster elsewhere, framework requires revision.

Scaling law: At quantum scales, the observer contribution may scale with α_fine. At cosmic scales, it may scale with observation depth. Explicit scaling predictions: quantum = r × α_fine ≈ 0.00004; cosmic = r (direct).

F3. Observation Cycle Decomposition

Condition: If the 12.5 Hz rate cannot be derived from ε_base + r + m within 2%, the structural decomposition is falsified.

Measurement protocol: The derived rate is 12.5 Hz. If independent measurements of conscious refresh rate (via EEG, psychophysics) consistently yield values outside 12.25–12.75 Hz, the decomposition fails.

F4. Matter Ratios

Condition: If visible/dark matter ratio diverges significantly from ε as measurements improve, the structural identification is falsified.

Measurement protocol: Track DESI, Euclid, and future survey estimates of matter fractions. Compute visible/dark ratio. If 95% confidence interval excludes 0.16–0.20, structural identification requires revision.

F5. Hubble Tension Persistence

Condition: If the Hubble tension resolves to a single value (CMB and local methods converge), the boundary interpretation is falsified.

Measurement protocol: Track SH0ES vs. Planck discrepancy. If future measurements reduce tension below 2-sigma, the framework's prediction (tension is structural, not error) fails.

10.2 Predictions

1. The Hubble tension will not be "resolved" by finding an error. It will be recognized as a boundary condition.

2. Gravitational wave H₀ measurements will cluster near 70 km/s/Mpc as precision improves.

3. Precision measurements across scientific domains will show an irreducible ~0.56% observer-dependent variance (appropriately scaled).

4. Dark matter searches for exotic particles will continue to fail, because dark matter is not a particle—it is resistance without light coupling.

11. Conclusion

The Echo-Excess Principle extends coherently to cosmological scale. The Hubble tension reframes as the boundary condition of observation. Dark energy is ε in flow. Dark matter is resistance without electromagnetic coupling. The 12.5 Hz observation rate emerges from the sum of geometric leakage, observer contribution, and membrane crossing.

The cosmos persists because it generates more than it resists. Structure forms because resistance exists within N. We observe at 12.5 Hz because that is the sum of what it costs to be an observer.

The universe is not expanding into something. It is generating from within N—the held-open space that permits existence to exist.

Equations Summary

Name	Equation	Value	Status
Generation constant	ε = α/e^φ²	0.1826	Axiom (prior derivation)
Base leakage	ε_base = 1/e^φ²	0.0729	Axiom (prior derivation)
Resistance constant	r = 1/(57π)	0.0056	Derived (this paper)
Membrane crossing	m = r/4	0.0014	Derived (this paper)
Observation cycle	t = ε_base + r + m	0.080 s	Derived (this paper)
Observation rate	f = 1/t	12.5 Hz	Derived (this paper)
Generation/resistance ratio	ε/r	~33	Derived (this paper)
Cosmic N	H₀ median	70 km/s/Mpc	Postulate (structural identification)
Cosmic ratio	(H_high − H_low)/N	0.0857	Observed
Modified substrate law	Ψ′ = Ψ + ε(δ) − r	—	Derived (this paper)

Appendix A: Axiom and Postulate Summary

Axioms (Imported from EEP)

Label	Statement	Source
A1	ε = α/e^φ² = 0.1826	Gaconnet (2025), Echo-Excess Constant
A2	ε_base = 1/e^φ² = 0.0729	Gaconnet (2025), Echo-Excess Constant
A3	Triadic minimum: 3 witnessing + 4 membranes = 7 total	Gaconnet (2025), No-Collapse Constraint
A4	57-qubit minimum for experiential encoding	Gaconnet (2025), Cognitive Field Dynamics
A5	N = no-collapse constraint	Gaconnet (2026), No-Collapse Constraint
A6	Four structural membranes (P, T, F, H)	Gaconnet (2025), EEP Framework

Postulates (Introduced in This Paper)

Label	Statement	Testable Consequence
P1	Cosmic N = 70 km/s/Mpc	GW measurements cluster near 70
P2	Gravity = geometrization of resistance	Dark matter gravitates without radiating

Bridge Axioms

Label	Statement	Justification
B1	Minimal encoding dimensionality induces minimal resistance	Isomorphism: observer structure → observer cost
N1	Cycle-time costs sum to cycle duration in seconds	Empirical anchor: 12.5 Hz observation rate

References

Gaconnet, D. L. (2025). The Echo-Excess Constant and the Resolution Limit of Physical Systems. LifePillar Institute.

Gaconnet, D. L. (2025). The Echo-Excess Principle: Substrate Law of Generative Existence. LifePillar Institute.

Gaconnet, D. L. (2025). Cognitive Field Dynamics: The Architecture of Witnessing. LifePillar Institute.

Gaconnet, D. L. (2026). The Echo-Excess Principle: A Structural No-Collapse Constraint on Generative Systems. LifePillar Institute.

Riess, A. G., et al. (2022). A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant. The Astrophysical Journal, 934(1), L7.

Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.

Abbott, B. P., et al. (2017). A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant. Nature, 551(7678), 85-88.

TDCOSMO Collaboration. (2025). Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays. Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Availability

Paper available at:

• ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Don-Gaconnet

• Academia.edu: https://independent.academia.edu/DonGaconnet

• OSF: https://osf.io/hqpje/

• LifePillar Institute: https://www.lifepillarinstitute.org

Correspondence: don@lifepillar.org

Citation

Gaconnet, D. L. (2026). The Cosmological Extension of the Echo-Excess Principle: A Structural Account of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the Hubble Tension (v2.0). LifePillar Institute.

bibtex

@article{gaconnet2026cosmological,
  author = {Gaconnet, Don L.},
  title = {The Cosmological Extension of the Echo-Excess Principle: A Structural Account of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the Hubble Tension},
  year = {2026},
  version = {2.0},
  publisher = {LifePillar Institute},
  note = {Available: ResearchGate, Academia.edu, OSF, LifePillar Institute}
}

Revision Notes (v2.0)

This version addresses structural vulnerabilities identified in peer review:

1. Section 1.1 added: Explicit axiom/derived statement distinction

2. Section 2 added: Types and units framework with normalization axiom

3. Section 4.1 added: Structural bridge axiom for 57π derivation

4. Section 4.3 reframed: Cosmic gap match as consistency check, not derivation

5. Section 7 created: 3/7 + α_fine alignment moved to consistency checks

6. Section 8 revised: Comparative coupling framing for GW interpretation

7. Section 9 expanded: Sign justification and type consistency for modified substrate law

8. Section 10 expanded: Operational measurement protocols for each falsifier

9. Appendix A added: Complete axiom and postulate summary