The Structural Regulation Framework (SRF) proposes that psychological regulation operates through signal-class-specific compression of representational resolution. Papers 1-6 formalize how compression reduces the fidelity with which psychologically meaningful signals can be processed. However, compression alone may not fully account for clinical phenomena in which reality appears not merely simplified but actively reorganized in regulatory-serving directions. This paper proposes defensive reconstruction as a distinct second-order process: when the representational cost of maintaining higher-fidelity integration exceeds current holding capacity within an activated signal domain, the system may reshape accessible subjective reality to preserve regulatory coherence. The paper formalizes the distinction between compression and reconstruction, introduces Feedback Integration Capacity and Structural Opacity as derived constructs, proposes a four-stage collapse progression model, and articulates explicit predictions and measurement approaches.
Jani Halmetoja (Thu,) studied this question.