Trace-Source Rational Equivalency Communication Theory (TSRECT)

TSRECT (Trace-Source Rational Equivalency Communication Theory) develops communication as a trace-source phenomenon that extends from reactivity in connected systems. A functional entity (module) expresses function only by consuming requisites (energy/matter/conditions); expenditure produces deficit; deficit produces stress-effects; and stress-effects bias procedure toward closure (restoration of viable continuation) within a declared boundary and horizon. Because modules are coupled by connectivity κ (intrinsic coupling enabling carry-over, co-modulation, and propagation), deficits do not remain local: a deficit in one module becomes a distributed stressor across dependents, generating a shared need factor and forcing coordinated correction. Communication is introduced at this point as externalized informational reactivity: κ-enabled token propagation that co-modulates other agents inside a shared field so recruitment and coordinated closure across boundaries become feasible. The manuscript then explains how repeated closure corridors compress into re-instantiable triggers (tokens). These tokens acquire standing-for power—operational substitution—so closure can be recruited even when the originating condition is absent. Rational equivalency names this capacity as tokenizable, transferable closure-potential: equivalency as unfulfilled restitution (prospective), expressed along a hx/actual/prospective trace corridor where retention (hx) stabilizes what was actual and makes prospective closure addressable by substitution rather than direct contact. TSRECT also formalizes an unavoidable constraint: partial proportionality. Modules couple reliably with proximal partials but not with totality, producing unavoidable informational deficit. When reactive commitment pressures demand completeness despite that deficit, systems are driven into creative compensation (gap-filling). As systems become more informationally capable, need triggers arise not only from actual material deficits but also from probabilistic informational needs (anticipatory, perceptive, conceptual) that can generate strong feeling–emotion–empathy envelopes, sometimes even false sensation-like triggers. This introduces probabilistic variability directly into token generation and correspondence: communication can be true or can yield inappropriate correspondence (error, untruth), and under additional “artificial want” pressures can be biased toward purposeful deceit rather than mere mistake. The manuscript closes with explicit assumptions, predictions/test hooks for critique, and a glossary anchoring these contributory concepts as an integrated mechanism rather than a list of terms.