The Calibration Barrier in Consciousness Science: A Formal Research Strategy for the Hard Problem

The hard problem asks why physical processes are accompanied by experience. This paper develops a calibration audit for a prior evidential question: whether observations identify a psychophysical correspondence. Reference-relative hypotheses are separated from conventional relabellings. Finite reconstruction results characterize bridge ambiguity, and joint channel transformations show why accurate report prediction can leave it unresolved. Many-to-one bridges are treated through exact and approximate aggregation. Confidence sets propagate sampling error, dependence within independent blocks, episode selection, and noisy physical-state recognition. An exact synthetic benchmark separates approximately 90 percent report accuracy from bridge identification. A comparative benchmark adds weak predictive separation, correlated reports, selection, and channel misspecification across 12000 further replicates. In its weak combined-failure setting at the largest sample size, a plug-in likelihood comparison selects the wrong bridge in all 500 replicates; a correctly bounded audit retains both candidates. That protection has a cost: conservative bounds also leave some valid weak-signal cases unresolved. All procedures can select the wrong bridge under systematically inverted reference labels. The audit is an application of established identification and robust-inference principles, with usefulness demonstrated conditionally in synthetic models. A proposed motion protocol distinguishes reference consistency, operational accuracy, and intrinsic phenomenal identity. No human validation is claimed. Calibration can constrain psychophysical laws; it cannot choose between observationally equivalent metaphysical interpretations or explain why experience exists.