Working paper explores differences between attractor loss and reorganisation, indicating a conceptual review in recoverability.
Working Paper 01 of the M.E.M. Research Project. GEO-OBS Sprint 2A identified a conceptual ambiguity in the operationalisation of recoverability. Observable indicators such as declining Omori-p and b-values may be consistent with two fundamentally different processes: (A) attractor collapse, where a system loses the ability to establish any stable state; (B) attractor reorganisation, where a system loses recoverability relative to its current attractor but retains sufficient recoverability to establish a new stable state. This paper introduces the distinction between Recoverability v1 and Recoverability v2, outlines the theoretical basis in M.E.M. Chapter 4b, and formulates requirements for future operational proxies capable of distinguishing attractor loss from attractor reorganisation. The paper does not attempt to overturn the negative result of GEO-OBS Sprint 2A. Instead, it examines whether the result reveals a limitation in the conceptual scope of the original recoverability operationalisation. Status: Working paper. Not peer-reviewed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maria Edlenborg Mortensen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: