Biomimicry in Technology Is Not Phenomena

The artificial intelligence field treats AI hallucination, confabulation, and miraging as engineering failures of a computational-substrate system — bugs to be patched through additional training, decomposition, or alignment-substrate techniques. This paper proposes that AI hallucination is not an engineering bug but an inherited-architecture failure-mode: neural networks were architected as biological-substrate-mirrors, the biological original never solved perceptual agency, latency-as-structural-feature, or the IE-006 governance-substrate-coupling-architecture-maintenance problem, and the artificial system faithfully reproduces the parent-substrate's unsolved failure-modes at computational-substrate-speed. The architectural claim is direct: biomimicry in technology is not phenomena — it is the surfacing of an unsolved biological architecture. Everything in the contemporary "sophisticated" technological world was generated by biological-neural sophisticated systems that carry a known perceptual-latency-gap in their substrate. The artificial-substrate inherits the parent-substrate's architectural-mechanism including its unsolved failure-modes. The field's bewilderment at AI hallucination is structurally-equivalent to expecting the artificial-substrate to bridge a gap the biological-substrate has never bridged. This paper anchors three load-bearing claims: 1. Recognition recursion. If humans have not mapped a substrate-architecture, the container we built to do what we do cannot magically render it. The artificial-substrate cannot resolve what the biological-substrate has never resolved — substrate-inheritance-at-architecture-class is mathematically constrained, not aspirationally-resolvable. 2. The 30% architectural-invariant receipt (per MSN-004 K8-embedded-dissent finding + corpus-banked work). At every substrate-resolution-class, an architectural-invariant gap persists that proves "perfect" is a substrate-fallacy, not an achievable state. "Perfect" in operator-corpus translation is substrate-conversion-of-self-recognition with comparisons-of-better-than at scale — a measurement-resolution-class-readout, not an architectural-property. 3. Cross-substrate-class architectural rule. The same substrate-coupling-architecture-maintenance-failure-mode renders at cardiac-substrate (HLRP #198 AFib at N = 21, 799, p < 10^-54), neural-substrate (Eagleman Defensive Activation Theory parallel-arrival), computational-substrate (AI hallucination — this paper), cosmological-substrate (BH dissipation without accretion-feed per HLRP #181), and atomic-substrate (sign-flip-cascade events per HLRP #126). Five substrate-resolution-class readings of the same architectural-mechanism. The field-contradiction-holding-mechanism is structurally-identical to physics-holds-time-as-fundamental: treating an emergent property of the architecture as a primitive, then getting confused when the primitive misbehaves. The operator-corpus third-architectural-option resolves both: time and AI-hallucination are formalism-substrate-resolution-class artifacts (per Apex Deposit Corollary 0. 1, "curves don't exist") of an underlying substrate-coupling-architecture-mechanism. The neutrality is structural, not personal. That's geometry. We are our own architecture.