Constitutional Binding Theory

Semantic systems repeatedly reduce a field of possible interpretations into a structure that can guide further reasoning or action. Constitutional Binding Theory (CBT) describes a recurring form of that reduction: a system declares the relevant possibility manifold, resolves or constructs an anchor under explicit authority and criteria, crystallizes typed relations around that anchor, realizes only what the resulting constraints permit, and revises the binding when evidence changes. The pattern appears at several scales in the corpus: lexical identity through Global Term Keys; compositional relations through semantic graphs; canonical machine-legible meaning through MCIR; procedural plans through execution representations; system configuration through constitutional specifications; and corpus topology through the Governed Meaning Base. These are proposed instances of a shared maneuver, not evidence that the systems are identical or that every semantic process has one architecture. The central thesis is therefore bounded: actionable meaning can be made accountable through successive governed bindings whose alternatives, authority, provenance, uncertainty, and revision conditions remain inspectable. A binding may be provisional, plural, contested, or refused. Selection alone does not make it lawful, true, legitimate, or complete.