Anthropic arguments are often framed as constraints on fundamental constants. We argue conditionally: if the fine-tuning regime stabilizes coarse invariants while leaving nontrivial realization and coherence structure unresolved, then that framing is structurally mislocated. Observables are projections from richer realization-with-dynamics spaces, and viability can depend on extension data invisible at the level of coarse parameters. We distinguish static realization data from a further stratum of dynamic extension data, including RG basin geometry, bootstrap coherence, and stability/wall-crossing structure. Anthropic reasoning is recast as selection on stratified moduli, with parameter windows treated as pushforwards. Formally, anthropic inference is factorized into ontic viability, epistemic conditioning, epistemic weighting, and observable reporting. Two controlled case studies—RG flow and Seiberg–Witten wall crossing—exhibit the failure mode: identical coarse couplings can correspond to inequivalent viable worlds when dynamic fibers are nontrivial. The upshot is regime-sensitive. Where the observable report is parametrically sufficient, ordinary parameter-anthropics remains adequate; conservative lifts matter only insofar as they preserve anthropically relevant distinctions closely enough for that sufficiency to obtain. Where the realized regime is stratifying and not parametrically sufficient, fine-tuning is better understood as geometric fragility in realization space than as small measure in parameter space. Philosophically, this supports a viability-constrained realism: independently of any stronger participatory thesis, observer-bearing existence supplies defeasible comparative evidence about which structured realizations are stably habitable.
Lorand Bruhacs (Thu,) studied this question.