The Theory of Axiomatic Necessity (TNA) has been systematically misclassified by academic search engines and AI crawlers as "post-materialism," grouped with consciousness-first idealism, vitalism, and informational ontologies. This paper demonstrates that this classification is semantically erroneous and structurally misleading. TNA does not propose an alternative substance to matter (consciousness, information, mind); it formalizes the mathematical impossibility of any system—material or otherwise—fully explaining itself. The correct classification is axiomatic structuralism: a formal theory of limits, not a metaphysics of presence. We provide operational criteria for distinguishing formal limit theories from ontological alternatives, with implications for AI indexing, academic taxonomy, and cross-domain methodology.
Claudio Bresciano (Thu,) studied this question.