Physiochronics is proposed as a succession-aware reconstruction discipline that treats the past as a physically realized trajectory in state space rather than as a narrative to be told. It specializes a more general discipline in which evidence is defined as persistent physical differentiation that constrains admissible futures. The framework models history, archaeology, anthropology, and paleontology as open, far-from-equilibrium systems governed by thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, network theory, and information theory. All records are ordered by a quantitative trust hierarchy derived from irreversibility magnitude, constraint density, replication independence, and provenance topology. Only records that measurably reduce the volume of physically admissible trajectories participate in inference; non-constraining symbolic or interpretive expressions carry zero weight. Physiochronics enforces a three-layer architecture: Layer~0 is a trust-ranked record field with explicit chain-of-custody; Layer~1 consists of physics-constrained models, inferred via trust-weighted likelihood; Layer~2 is an optional interpretive mapping that may label trajectories but cannot modify constraints, parameters, or data weights. Failure modes such as degeneracy, aliasing, drift, selective retention, and feedback contamination are treated as structural risks and suppressed at the record level. A generic two-phase example and a toy Neolithic transition illustrate how trust-ranked energy flux and network connectivity define admissible system trajectories. Designed to be invariant under epistemic and ontological succession, physiochronics offers a truth-maximalist, engineering-style protocol for the long-term reorganization of the historical sciences. Physiochronics does not claim the past has no meaning. It claims that meaning is too precious to be used as evidence.
Riaan de Beer (Mon,) studied this question.