This preprint develops a philosophical-constructorial extension of the computable Constructor-Theoretic architecture (cECT). It analyzes the relation among physical possibility, substrate stability, and the cyclic realizability of tasks by constructors. The paper does not introduce a separate variable for time. Instead, it adopts the constructor-theoretic insight that temporal content should be articulated through tasks, constructors, cycles, repeatability, preserved capacity, and ordered transformations. The central thesis is that the counterfactual-capacity structure of physical possibility, substrate stability, and constructorial task-cycle realizability are co-constitutive conditions of constructorial physical content. A physical domain is not constructorially intelligible merely because there are abstract possibilities, merely because there are stable substrates, or merely because changes occur. It becomes constructorially intelligible when possible tasks can be embodied by sufficiently stable constructors capable of performing transformations while retaining the relevant capacity to perform them again. The paper introduces a binary consistency operator Ω0 and a continuous consistency margin Ωm. Ω0 = 1 means that a regime satisfies the minimal consistency conditions required for constructorial physical content: there exists at least one admissible task, at least one sufficiently stable constructor, and at least one realizable cycle in which the constructor preserves its task-relevant capacity. Ωm measures, schematically, how far a given configuration lies above the relevant substrate-stability and cycle-realizability thresholds. The paper deliberately avoids treating time as a third independent co-primitive. Introducing a symbol such as Tc as if it were an additional variable of the theory would risk reintroducing background time under a constructorial name. In the present formulation, temporal content is constructorialized: it appears internally as task order, cycle completion, repeatability, preserved constructor capacity, and modal asymmetry among possible and impossible tasks. This manuscript does not derive mass, matter, time, physical law, cosmology, or quantum gravity from Constructor Theory. It does not replace general relativity, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model, thermodynamics, or the constructor-theoretic account of time. It asks a more precise question: what must be mutually satisfied for tasks, constructors, and substrate stability to constitute a physically meaningful constructorial domain? This work is intended as the second paper in a staged cECT publication sequence. It follows the broader philosophical paper on physical reality as an expansion of the repertoire of tasks, and it prepares the conceptual ground for later computational benchmarks involving admissible tasks.
Dario Jesus Leon Mori (Fri,) studied this question.