Under frozen criteria and in artificial environments, some relation combinations pass an existence gate, a task-synergy gate, and a limited set of control gates; offering identity opportunities to historically selected targets can raise retention rates on some seeds. This supports a coverage-and-opportunity diagnosis in specific models. It does not support blind discovery, full strong generalization, reflexive organization, phenomenal consciousness, or physical non-propagation. The paper also gives a sufficient condition for boundedness in an analytic model family, a convergence result for fixed structure, and counterexamples showing that positive task synergy implies neither state non-additivity nor topological specificity. v0.3 adds a post hoc structural decomposition of the archived synergy (Section 5.6): 423 of the 431 strong records (98.1%) are same-target pairs whose raw-weight effects are exactly additive and whose synergy is a threshold-crossing sum; the 8 records with genuine cross-identity interaction are about two orders of magnitude weaker. Scripts and per-record output are in case_study.zip. Unpublished discussion draft; not peer reviewed. Sections other than 5.6 are translated from the Chinese v0.2 draft.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi Bei (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: