This methodological addendum to the axiodynamic research program addresses the underdetermination of low-coherence telotopic states. It argues that a low scalar value of telotopic negentropy does not, by itself, characterize the dynamic condition of a system. The paper proposes a bi-regime typology distinguishing sustained adaptive tension from coherence collapse, using an intensity-weighted separator once axial coherence alone becomes insufficient. It further reformulates post-decisional regret as residual counterfactual angular tension, introduces an angular prediction-error term within the existing cos² formalism of the corpus, and examines the conditions under which telotopic regime transitions could become admissible for catastrophe-theoretic modeling. The central methodological claim is conservative: the currently published model supports a functional latch/ratchet interpretation of the memotional inertia threshold, not a demonstrated fold or cusp catastrophe. A catastrophe-theoretic reading would require a closed feedback loop between inertia, contextual salience, and endogroup/exogroup coupling, together with a formally established saddle-node structure. The addendum includes synthetic proof-of-concept figures clarifying the distinction between a definitional bi-regime separator, latch/ratchet consolidation, and canonical cusp hysteresis. These figures are illustrative only and do not constitute empirical validation. This work is positioned as a transversal methodological extension outside the versioned v5.x sequence of the axiodynamic corpus. It introduces no revision to the nine-axiom hard core, no alteration to the Fc ⊗ Fi orthogonal operator, and no modification of the ontological grounding established in the Prolegomena.
Alan Kleden (Tue,) studied this question.