The Locus of Qualia

What would it mean to specify the taste of mint mathematically? This paper proposes a contextual binding event as the explanatory unit for qualitative specificity: an organized occurrence in which sensory differentiation, bodily state, temporal history, attention, and other relevant constraints jointly determine a particular experiential character. The proposal extends the Semantic Binding Principle and its distinctions among identity, support, constitution, and realization. It does not follow deductively from that semantic framework. The qualitative event, its hypothesized constitutive organization, its physical realization, and the observations used to investigate it remain separately typed. Mint provides a worked domain: weak and strong mint, peppermint and spearmint, fresh and dried preparations, decay-associated qualities, and evolving aftertaste. These form candidate regions and trajectories in a context-indexed experiential atlas, not predetermined coordinates in a universal Euclidean space. Typed dimensional distinction, statistical independence, geometric orthogonality, and causal selectivity are distinguished. Experiential-content coordinates are also separated from the Ableman Consciousness Ontology's binding-regime axes, Semantic Manifold Competence's operational capacities, and the epistemic properties of a research account. A source-integrated architecture assigns different responsibilities to Locus, Global Term Key, Dynatology, Semantic Manifold Topology, Semantic Binding Quality, and the GMB/crystallization lineage as governance of the research account. Dynatology contributes explicit reachability; SMT contributes declared continuity auditing rather than an assumed geometry of experience; SBQ supplies candidate criteria for model integrity rather than a consciousness score. A new path-realization requirement shows why individually realizable projected transitions may form an unrealizable sequence when a chart identifies states with different continuations. A finite-path lifting criterion and a worked counterexample make this issue testable. The contribution is a falsifiable research architecture, not an empirical demonstration of phenomenal constitution. Proposed studies compare typed, contextual, history-sensitive binding models with strong alternatives on held-out observations, interventions, and sequences. Limited mathematical results and two executable synthetic fixtures establish only properties of stipulated models. The strongest hypothesis remains that qualitative specificity is constituted by a particular realized binding organization; prediction, operational competence, governance admission, and causal correspondence do not individually establish that hypothesis.