Constitution of the OCE

1.1 : Official designation and authorship

The official name of the philosophical current in Portuguese is Ontologia da Complexidade Emergente, abbreviated OCE. Its official English name is Ontology of Emergent Complexity. Both are invariant proper names when they designate the philosophical current developed by David Cota.

2.1 : Articulation of the current theoretical state

The present Constitution articulates the current theoretical state of the OCE. It gathers its fundamental theses, structural distinctions, epistemic and ethical criteria, conceptual delimitations and conditions for revision, establishing the common basis from which the remaining documents may develop, operationalise or apply the philosophical current.

2.2 : Internal status and epistemic validity

The inclusion of a proposition in the Constitution establishes its internal status as a position of the OCE. Constitutional authority organises the corpus and determines what can be presented as a position of the philosophical current. The truth or epistemic acceptability of the proposition depends on argumentation, material correspondence, verification and critical examination appropriate to its content.

3.1 : Governance of the corpus and mobilisation of operators

The Constitution governs the documents that present, develop, define or apply OCE, as well as the use of its canonical operators. In derived works, the object, material resistance and scope of investigation govern the mobilisation of the framework. Each constitutional operator is mobilised by the necessary distinction it adds to the argument.

3.2 : Common core and particular investigations

The Constitution establishes the common core of the philosophical current. Each specific inquiry constructs its architecture, mobilises the appropriate disciplinary vocabulary and establishes its conclusions according to the object, the evidence and the argumentative relations that support it.

4.1 : Exclusive authorial competence

David Cota has exclusive competence for the ratification, revision or revocation of constitutional clauses. Formulations derived from derivative documents, editorial procedures, publications or third‑party interventions may be incorporated into the analysis; the constitutional efficacy of any change results from the expressed authorial decision and its incorporation into the canonical source.

4.2 : Textual authority and entry into force

Once ratified, this Constitution constitutes the supreme textual authority of the corpus. An authorial decision that materially modifies a clause is recorded as a constitutional revision and incorporated into the text before propagation to subordinate sources. The expressed record and incorporation into the canonical source constitute the formal conditions for the alteration to enter into force.

5.1 : Order of precedence

Documentary precedence is organised in the following way:

1. Constitution;
2. Constitutional Law of the OCE;
3. Theoretical Annex, followed by the Operative Glossary at the same degree;
4. remaining canonical documents.

5.2 : Functions of sources and constitutional authority

The Constitution establishes the fundamental positions and distinctions. The Constitutional Law systematises the prohibitions derived from them, within the limits set by the Preamble and Part IX. The Theoretical Annex develops mechanisms, consequences, examples, and applications. The Glossary fixes operative formulations subordinate to the Constitution, the Constitutional Law, and the Theoretical Annex. Among third-degree sources, the Theoretical Annex precedes the Operative Glossary. The remaining canonical documents perform procedural, editorial, technical, expository or applicative functions and receive their conceptual content from the sources of the higher degrees. Constitutional authority results from authorial ratification and incorporation of the formulation into the canonical source.

6.1 : Determination of conflict and precedence

In the event of a divergence, it must first be determined whether the formulations operate at different levels and are compatible. Where material conflict exists, the hierarchically superior source prevails. The review or revocation of a constitutional clause occurs by express authorial decision and incorporation of the change into the canonical source, according to the constitutional process.

6.2 : Subordinate formulation as proposal for revision

If a subordinate source expresses better the current state of theory, the divergence generates a proposal to revise the Constitution. Until authorial decision and incorporation of the change, the existing constitutional wording retains active authority, and the subordinate formulation remains in the status of proposal within the source where it occurs.

7.1 : Review process

All review must be explicit, comparative, and traceable. The process includes:

1. identification of the affected clause;
2. transcription of the current wording;
3. full presentation of the proposed wording;
4. conceptual, material or epistemic grounding of the change;
5. identification of the consequences for the other parts of the Constitution;
6. express approval of the author;
7. cross‑check of the constitutional text;
8. controlled propagation to subordinate sources.

7.2 : Revisability and constitutional validity

The Constitution is revisable because it articulates a developing theory and remains open to substantiated correction. Each amendment acquires constitutional validity through substantive foundations and by complying with the explicit, comparative and traceable process established at this point.

7.3 : Formal corrections and substantive changes

Exclusively formal corrections are recorded and preserve the content, scope and ratification status of the clause; any alteration to these dimensions follows the full constitutional review process.

8.1 : Superseded versions and active authority

Superseded formulations retain historical value and acquire the status of superseded versions. Active authority belongs to the current wording. Previous versions remain identified, dated and preserved in separate records from the active source, allowing reconstruction of the development of the theory and constitutional decisions.

8.2 : Status of subordinate documents

Subordinate documents that retain earlier formulations maintain their corresponding documentary and historical value relative to their position in the hierarchy. Constitutional authority belongs to the ratified formulation incorporated into the canonical source.

9.1 : Markdown source and derived version

The approved Markdown file is the canonical source of this Constitution. The DOCX version will be produced only after full ratification and shall have a derivative nature. In any divergence between the two versions, the Markdown prevails.

1.1 : Matter as totality of the existent

Matter is everything that exists. Form, intelligibility and the capacity to produce effects are realised in material configurations, processes and relations. Life, thought, language, technique and symbolic organisation, when they exist, are material realisations.

1.2 : Material differentiation and ontological unity

Matter exists in differentiated configurations and processes. The interactions between configurations produce material effects. The differences between configurations and regimes of organisation are real and belong to the same material reality. The ontological unity of the real integrates this differentiation.

2.1 : Immanence and ontological sufficiency of matter

All processes occur within the interior of material reality. Matter possesses ontological sufficiency: forms, intelligibility, normativity and effects constitute themselves in material configurations and relations.

2.2 : Absence of telos and constitution of local ends

The OCE refuses any telos: no end precedes material processes, globally guides becoming or makes a configuration necessary as the fulfilment of what preceded it. Symbolic systems can constitute local ends and materially guide actions by reference to them. Those ends are situated material and symbolic productions, with a scope determined by the organisations and relations in which they operate.

2.3 : Transcendence as Material Construction and Experience

What a material system designates or experiences as transcendence may constitute a symbolic construction or operation and an effective material experience. The experience, sense and thought belong to material reality and are explained by the configurations, relations and processes that realise them.

3.1 : Ontological Exterior and Relative Exteriors

There is no exterior to space–time from which reality is founded, directed or signified. In material real there are differences in organisation, interaction and coupling regardless of observation. Delimiting some of these differences as a configuration and ordering other positions as interior or exterior are epistemic operations supported by material differences. These operations produce cuts of knowledge and relative exteriors within the same material reality.

4.1 : Heterogeneity and Common Ontological Status

The material unit of the real co‑exists with its heterogeneity. Processes, interactions and material properties exhibit different rhythms, magnitudes and organisations. These differences exist independently of their observation and share the same ontological status as material.

4.2 : Material organisation and epistemological delimitation

Relations between material processes can constitute organisations that persist and produce differentiated effects. The organisation is material; its delimitation as a configuration is epistemological. A configuration designates a cut‑out of knowledge based on material differences and relations.

4.3 : Locality, scale and comparison

“Local” and “scale” are epistemological determinations. “Local” identifies the relational scope taken as reference. “Scale” establishes a reference magnitude, a resolution and a comparative interval. Quantum processes and cosmological organisations present material differences. Their ordering into scales constitutes an epistemological operation of comparison within the same material reality.

4.4 : Ontological continuity and effective differentiation

Matter is ontologically continuous: all material differences belong to the same reality. This continuity co‑exists with heterogeneity, specificity and the effective differentiation of organisations.

5.1 : Material efficacy

Material configurations produce effects, stabilise relations, transform themselves and participate materially in the processes in which they intervene. Material efficacy designates this causal capacity of configurations and processes.

5.2 : Material effects and function

Producing material effects and exercising a function belong to distinct regimes. Outside the symbolic regime there are effects, relations, processes and material couplings. The function consists exclusively in the symbolic regime.

5.3 : Symbolic Constitution of the Function

A function is constituted when an organised system assigns, through relations between symbols, a role to an operation or an effect within a defined configuration. This assignment is materially performed and belongs to the symbolic relations of the system that performs it. The Sun produces material effects; symbolic systems assign it functions according to the relationships they establish.

5.4 : Agency and Causal Participation

Agency is attributed when additional capacities for producing effects are demonstrated in the system. In experimental contexts, devices, bodies and means interact with other configurations and affect the process and its material results. The contribution of each configuration is established by the causal effects it produces in the process. The designation of agent applies to systems where the criteria for agency are effectively established.

6.1 : Persistence as Material Continuity

A configuration persists while the relations that sustain it preserve sufficient consistency to maintain that organisation during the considered interval. Persistence is an effective material continuity, carried out by the processes and relations that keep the configuration.

6.2 : Dynamic Equilibrium as a General Mechanism

Its general mechanism is a dynamic equilibrium. The processes that sustain a mountain, an organism, an institution or a symbolic configuration are different, but in all cases continuity depends on the continual compatibilisation of the relevant relations. Dynamic equilibrium denotes the operative maintenance of a configuration through processes, transformations, tensions and flows that preserve the consistency required for its persistence.

7.1 : Instability and conditioned stability

Instability denotes the dependence of every configuration with respect to conditions and relations that may vary.
The regularity, duration and predictability of an organisation remain local and conditioned.
Stability is a material realisation situated within instability.

7.2 : Variation of material conditions and results

Instability is compatible with order, regularity and duration. A particular instability may cease; what remains is the conditioned character of any local stability. The alteration of the relations that sustain a configuration can reinforce it, perturb it, reorganise it or dissolve it. The effective result depends on the material relations and conditions present.

7.3 : Instability and operative excess

Instability names the variable character of the relations that sustain a configuration. Operative excess is the causal motor that, under the conditions treated in Part III, enables emergent reconfiguration. The occurrence and result of emergence depend on the materially realised relations.

8.1 : Non‑existence of a central ontological foundation

None entity, species, order of magnitude or organisation regime constitutes the ontological foundation of the real. The real comprises a plurality of configurations, relations and material regimes. The human is a material configuration situated among others and endowed with specific capacities.

8.2 : Local centres and common ontological status

As differences in organisation, capacity and effect are real and may constitute centres, asymmetries and local or relational references. The common ontological status of the configurations derives from their belonging to the same material reality.

1.1 : Change, re‑configuration and emergence

Change denotes any material alteration. Re‑configuration denotes a change in the relations through which a material organisation is constituted, persists or produces effects. Emergence denotes the case in which a new property, capacity or materially novel effect arises from a re‑configuration that belongs to the resulting organisation.

1.2 : Attribution of novelty and ontological continuity

The emerging novelty is established by material conditions, causal processes, reconfiguration and the effects that underpin its attribution. As the delimitation of a configuration is epistemological, every assertion of emergence must identify the adopted cut‑off and the material differences on which it rests. The resulting organisation belongs to the same material reality and retains the ontological status common to all configurations; the novelty affects the properties, capacities or effects realised by its organisation. In organisations that perform symbolic operations, the system can incorporate the emerging novelty into those operations, allowing it to intervene in the modulation of subsequent operations. The occurrence of this operative effect is established in each case by the operations actually performed.

2.1 : Material possibility and current conditions

Possibility denotes an epistemological determination regarding current material conditions. A relation is materially possible when the existing properties and conditions allow its fulfilment. Before fulfilment there are material conditions that make it achievable; the relation acquires material existence when it is realised.

2.2 : Delimitation of realisations and statements of possibility

Material conditions delimit the realisations that may occur. The effective result derives from the set of relations and material processes involved in its fulfilment. Statements of possibility are symbolic operations, anticipatory or retrospective, subject to revision according to known effects and material conditions.

3.1 : Canonical clause of operative excess

According to an explicit criterion, the relations whose realisation is permitted by the current material conditions exceed those realised in their present form. This condition constitutes operative excess, a positive causal motor that enables reconfiguration. The occurrence of reconfiguration and the configuration that results from it depend on the set of materially active relations.

3.2 : Opening of possibility and material causality

This clause establishes a material opening of possibility and situates causality in the materially active conditions and relations. Operative excess contributes positively to explaining emergence by enabling reconfiguration; the concrete realisation of reconfiguration and its outcome are determined by those conditions and relations.

3.3 : Current form, realisability and comparison

“Current form” denotes the materially realised organisation taken as the reference in the epistemic cut. “Relations whose realisation is permitted” denotes the realisability attributed to current material conditions; each relation attains material existence when it is realised. “Exceed” expresses a symbolic comparison, according to an explicit criterion, between this realisability and the relations already realised.

3.4 : Material scope of operative excess

Operative excess designates this material opening of possibility. Its content is given by the material conditions and relations that permit the realisation of relations beyond those currently realised. The comparison may concern the general structural organisation or, when symbolic operations exist, its material symbolic organisation. In both cases, the described possibilities, the realised forms and the reconfiguration processes belong to the same material reality.

4.1 : Structural form and symbolic modality

“Structural form” designates the organisation of material relations in terms of their composition, interactions, couplings and effects. “Symbolic form” designates a specific material modality of that organisation, constituted by the relationships that a system establishes between symbols. Every symbolic form is material and structurally realised. The distinction identifies the occurrence of symbolic operations within the material organisation. Operative excess can be recognised in the general structural organisation and, where symbolic organisation exists, in materially realised symbolic relations.

4.2 : Symbolic categories and general material scope

Processes, effects, interactions, relationships and couplings characterise material organisations. Functions, meanings and local ends constitute themselves within the symbolic regime through the relationships established by the system. The application of these categories is confined to the symbolic organisations that comprise them. Operative excess retains its general material scope in both structural and symbolic organisations.

5.1 : Conditions and effects of attribution

A statement of emergence must identify the antecedent material conditions, the relevant causal processes, the reconfiguration that has occurred and the new property, capacity or effect by which the emergence is recognised. The foundation of the attribution rests in those conditions, processes, relationships and effects materially established.

5.2 : Material explanation and epistemic deducibility

The effect that underpins the attribution of emergence results from the material relations established in the resulting organisation. The explanation links the components with the relations through which the effect is produced. The possibility of deducing this effect from the antecedent conditions is an epistemic question, evaluated according to the knowledge, models and procedures appropriate to the case.

5.3 : Emergence and the specific criteria of subsequent determinations

Emergence is attributed to reconfigurations that produce a materially new property, capacity or effect. The value, persistence, transformation, disappearance and variation of the complexity of the resulting organisation are established according to their own criteria and by the material conditions that sustain them.

6.1 : Complexity as epistemological determination

Complexity denotes an epistemological determination used to characterise, according to explicit criteria, the multiplicity, diversity and interdependence of relations, processes or material states. Material organisations exist independently of their measurement; the degree of complexity attributed to them depends on the problem, the model and the criterion adopted.

6.2 : Complexity and attribution of emergence

The attribution of emergence follows the criteria of point 5. The complexity measures contribute to this assessment insofar as the measured dimensions are reasonably related to the property, capacity or new effect. The direction of the variation in complexity is determined in each case according to the adopted criteria and the observed material processes. The expression “emergent complexity” identifies the philosophical problem of the material formation of organisations and new effects.

7.1 : Epistemological determination of the threshold

“Threshold of possibility” is the epistemological determination of the set of material conditions in which an identified reconfiguration becomes possible. The threshold describes these conditions; causal efficacy belongs to the relationships and the material processes described.

7.2 : Possibility, fulfilment, emergence and persistence

The fulfilment of the conditions described by the threshold places the reconfiguration in the domain of material possibility. The occurrence of the reconfiguration is established by the processes that realise it; the emergence, by the property, capacity or new effect; the persistence, by the relationships that sustain the resulting organisation. Possibility, fulfilment, emergence and persistence constitute distinct determinations.

1.1 : Canonical tripartition and material unity

The canonical tripartition of the OCE is real–concrete–theory. It distinguishes material existence, the situated relation of observation and capture, and the symbolic organisation of knowledge. The three terms designate distinct conceptual statuses realised within the same material reality: the concrete and theory exist materially in the real.

1.2 : Symbolic mediation and conceptual statuses

The symbolic designates the material mediation by which the concrete can be inscribed, represented and theoretically articulated. It integrates the relationship between the terms of the tripartition according to a distinct conceptual status: “real” is an ontological term; “concrete” denotes the epistemic and relational status of an observed and captured part; “symbolic” denotes the material regime of representation and of relations among symbols; “theory” designates the organised articulation of those relationships. The conceptual and operative differences between the terms are realised within the same material ontological continuity.

2.1 : Independent material reality

The real denotes material reality, with its differences, processes, relations and effects, independent of observation, capture, inscription, description or theory. Its existence, its determinations and its capacity to produce effects belong to the configurations themselves and to material processes.

2.2 : Operative excess of the real and partiality of knowledge

Each observation and capture makes concrete a situated portion of the real, and each theory organises a partial articulation of knowledge. To say that the real exceeds the concrete and the theory means that material reality has an extension, differentiation and dynamism broader than any particular cut or articulation. This excess belongs to the real material itself and allows new observations, captures and theoretical revisions.

3.1 : Concrete as a known part of the real

The concrete is the situated part of the real observed and captured by a material observation system. It is what, within this situated relation, becomes known of the real. Symbols, concepts, models and formalisms belong to the symbolic organisation through which this knowledge may subsequently be articulated. “Known” here denotes what has been materially observed and captured; formal interpretation and conscious experience have additional specific criteria.

3.2 : Epistemic cut‑off and situated partiality

“Part” designates an epistemic cut‑off supported by material differences and effects. The ontological continuity of matter remains common to the cut‑off and to the real upon which it rests. The adopted resolution, the device, the temporal interval, thresholds and the system’s discrimination capacity condition what is captured. Hence every concrete is partial and situated.

3.3 : Concretisation and material observation

Concretisation occurs when a material system observes and captures differences and effects of the real, epistemically constituting a situated part as concrete. A technical device may observe and capture a difference; consciousness and intention denote additional capacities with their own criteria. The existence and material determinations of the occurrence belong to the real, while observation establishes the situated relationship through which that occurrence becomes concrete for the system. The material interaction involved in the observation can produce changes in the observed process; these changes are material effects of the interaction itself.

4.1 : Symbolic integration and analytical precedence of the concrete

The integration of the concrete into a symbolic regime is carried out through material operations of discrimination, recognition and inscription. The concrete precedes analytically its formalisation: what is observed and captured constitutes the concrete, while language and formalism belong to the subsequent symbolic organisation of knowledge.

4.2 : Inscription and mark‑symbol relation

The inscription is the singular, material and symbolic operation by which the system establishes the mark‑symbol relationship, opening the symbolic legibility of a difference. In this relationship, the recognised material configuration constitutes the mark and the corresponding symbol represents it. Every symbol, regardless of its order, has a material realisation and a corresponding mark. Comparisons, interpretations, articulations and reorganisations among symbols belong to the system’s operations. Marks remain passive material configurations represented by symbols; their passivity designates the status of the mark within this relationship.

5.1 : Material symbolic regime and mark‑symbol relation

The symbolic denotes the material regime in which a system establishes relations between symbols. The supports, inscriptions, marks, symbols and the system’s operations are material. In the mark‑symbol relationship, the mark occupies the passive position of the material configuration represented and the symbol represents it. This relationship belongs to symbols of any order. The system establishes symbolic articulations among symbols and, through them, interprets and reorganises its operations.

5.2 : Symbolic articulation and 2nd‑order symbols

Representation and symbolic articulation take place entirely within the material real. A material organisation operates through mark–symbol relations and articulates symbols, creating new second‑order symbols. Each created symbol has a material realisation and a corresponding mark. Symbolic organisations differ according to materially demonstrated operations and share the same material ontological status as other organisations.

6.1 : Theory as organised symbolic articulation

Theory is the organised articulation of the constituted symbolic from the inscription of the concrete. A theory establishes systematic relations between symbols and, through them, forms concepts, models, explanations and predictions. The systematic articulation among symbols constitutes the own operative unit of the theory; inscriptions, marks and isolated symbols integrate conditions or elements of its formation.

6.2 : Formalism and material correspondence

Formalism incorporates the symbolic organisation of the theory. The represented concrete retains its own status in the representation relation. A formula, a diagram or a model have material support and can, in turn, be observed and captured as concretes; their formal function results from the symbolic relations established by the system. Assigning real existence to the entities and relations articulated by the formalism requires an independent justification of its material correspondence.

6.3 : Epistemic relevance and ontological conclusions

The internal coherence, elegance and predictive efficacy have epistemic relevance according to the contribution they offer to the assessment of the theory. The material correspondence of entities, divisions and formal relations requires adequate foundations for the content of the attribution. Formalism organises knowledge; ontological conclusions result from justifying the relationship between this symbolic organisation and the real represented.

7.1 : Analytical articulation and conceptual dependencies

The articulation can be stated analytically: the real exists and produces effects; a material system observes and captures a situated portion, constituting the concrete; the mark–symbol relation arises from inscription; the system articulates symbols, and second‑order symbols may arise from that articulation, each with a material realisation and a corresponding mark; theory organises relations among symbols. This order expresses conceptual dependencies within the same material reality. The effective temporal sequence of operations is established according to the processes observed in each case.

7.2 : Material effects of the theory and knowledge revision

As a material organisation belonging to the real, a theory can guide new observations, the construction of devices and interventions that produce material effects in other organisations. The representation relation preserves the distinction between the theory and what it represents. The real continues to exceed each concretion and each theoretical articulation, making possible the correction of symbolic relations before what other observations and captures make known of the real.

1.1 : Sequence of the inscription and symbolic orders

The canonical chain of inscription is material difference → trace → inscription → mark‑symbol relation. The arrows express analytical and operative dependence within a single material reality. The mark and the symbol result simultaneously from the same inscription. The mark‑symbol relation belongs to the symbols of any order. First order denotes the symbolisation of a discriminated material difference; second order denotes the symbol created by the articulation between symbols. Every symbol has a material realisation and a corresponding mark.

1.2 : Entry into the symbolic regime and unity of the symbol

This chain describes the conditions under which a new or still unknown difference can enter the symbolic regime of a system. Its realisation depends on the operations actually performed by the system. Its terms distinguish different conditions, events, operations and dimensions within a single material reality. “Symbol” denotes a single material and operative nature. The constitutional ordering comprises first order, relative to the symbolisation of the discriminated material difference, and second order, constituted when the articulation between symbols creates new symbols. A change of order does not alter the materiality of the symbol nor eliminate its mark.

2.1 : Material existence and discrimination of the difference

A material difference exists independently of its observation, discrimination or symbolisation. It may consist in a change of configuration, relation, intensity or material effect. The discrimination of the difference by a system constitutes the trace; recognition under protocol and inscription constitute the corresponding mark‑symbol relation.

2.2 : Continuity of the real and epistemic identification

The material difference belongs to the relational continuity of the real. Its identification is epistemic and depends on the cut adopted; what is identified corresponds to differences and material effects existing in the real. The description integrates the symbolic organisation of knowledge of that difference.

3.1 : Trace as an event of discrimination

The trace is the fleeting material event by which a system discriminates a new or still unknown material configuration, before its recognition and inscription. It denotes the event in which the system discriminates the difference.

3.2 : Duration of the trace and precedence to inscription

The duration of the trace corresponds to the fleeting event of discrimination. The discriminated material configuration may persist according to the relations that sustain it; the mark is formed later in the inscription. With regard to the difference in question, the trace precedes the symbolic inscription, even when occurring in a system that already possesses other symbolic organisations.

4.1 : Inscription and constitution of the mark–symbol relationship

Inscription is the singular operation, simultaneously material and symbolic, by which the system recognises under protocol the material difference discriminated by the trace and constitutes the corresponding mark–symbol relationship. In that relationship, the recognised material configuration becomes the mark, and the symbol resulting from the same operation represents it.

4.2 : Singularity and order of the symbol

“Singular” qualifies the inscription operation of that difference relative to the system. The symbol retains its sole material nature. Its order depends on the symbolic operation that produces it: symbolism of a discriminated material difference in first order; articulation between symbols in second order. In any order, the symbol is materially realised and possesses a corresponding mark.

4.3 : Unit of inscription and subsequent operations

The inscription has the status of a single operation. From the inscription arises the mark‑symbol relation. Subsequent relations, comparisons and reorganisations belong to the system operating between symbols. When this articulation creates a second‑order symbol, its material realisation likewise possesses a corresponding mark.

5.1 : Mark as represented material configuration

The mark is the material configuration recognised as such in the inscription and represented by the corresponding symbol. Every symbol, whether first or second order, has a mark in the material configuration in which it is realised, whether in the brain, on paper, on silicon or another substrate. The records and encoded configurations stored belong to symbolic organisations. In the mark‑symbol relation, the mark remains passive.

5.2 : Passivity, material effects and symbolic efficacy

“Passive” denotes the status of the mark in the mark‑symbol relation: recognition, representation, interpretation, comparison, establishment of relations and reorganisation are system operations performed through symbols. While it persists, the mark continues to produce the material effects inherent to its configuration. Those effects belong to its material existence, whereas relational symbolic efficacy belongs to the system operations.

6.1 : Material status and efficacy of the symbol

The symbol is an entirely material organisation that makes possible the representation and symbolic articulation. Its efficacy is realised in the materially performed operations by the system through symbols. Recognition, representation and symbolic relations belong to this organised activity of the system.

6.2 : First‑order symbol

A first‑order symbol comes into being when the system symbolises a material difference discriminated by trace. It is materialised in a mark–symbol relation and represents the corresponding mark.

6.3 : Second‑order symbol

A second‑order symbol results from the articulation between symbols, whereby the system creates a new symbol. Like any symbol, it is materialised and possesses a corresponding mark. The existence of this mark does not alter its second order, which is determined by the symbolic operation that produced it.

6.4 : Unity of the symbol

First‑order and second‑order symbols share the same material nature and have corresponding marks in the configurations in which they are realised. The difference in order identifies the symbolic operation that produces them: symbolisation of a discriminated material difference at first order; articulation between symbols at second order. The constitutional symbolic ordering of the OCE comprises these two orders.

7.1 : Mark–symbol relation and articulation between symbols

The mark–symbol relationship belongs to the symbols of any order: the mark occupies the passive position of the material configuration represented and the corresponding symbol represents it. The system establishes operative articulations between symbols. The articulation between symbols can create new second‑order symbols, materially realised and endowed with their respective marks.

7.2 : System operations and symbol participation

The system, materially organised, recognises symbols, establishes relations among them and modulates subsequent operations through these relations. Comparison, interpretation and reorganisation are capacities demonstrated by the system operating through symbolic relations. Each symbol participates in these operations as a material element of the system’s organisation.

8.1 : Process and object of symbolic reorganisation

Symbolic reorganisation is the material process by which a system alters the relations between symbols of any order, combining or recombining them. When this articulation introduces a new symbolic relation into the system, a second‑order symbol is created and the system’s own operations may be modified. The relations between symbols constitute the object of reorganisation; inscriptions and marks preserve their respective constitutional statuses.

8.2 : Thought and conceptual novelty

A symbolic reorganisation is the material process through which thought can produce novelty. The capacity to carry out this process belongs to the material system that articulates symbols. A philosophical concept, a conjecture, a mathematical proof or a new interpretation arise when the system establishes relations among symbols that begin to operate within its organisation. These ideas are symbolic configurations materially produced by the articulation between symbols.

8.3 : Occurrence and scope of novelty

Novelty occurs when the articulation produces a symbolic configuration that begins to operate in the system and alters its possibilities for discrimination, formulation, inference or action. Novelty can be local, relative to the system that produces it, or acquire inter-systemic reach when it is formulated in signs and integrated into a shared code. Symbolic reorganisation makes novelty possible; its occurrence and the concrete form it takes depend on the material relations and conditions actually realised.

9.1 : Sign as conventional public configuration

The sign is a materially stabilised public configuration governed by conventions within a shared code. It constitutes the communicative standardisation through which different systems can recognise and utilise common forms of presentation. Natural languages, formal languages and other shared conventional codes organise signs.

9.2 : Distinction between sign and symbol

Sign and symbol have distinct operative statuses. A sign is a public configuration that can circulate between systems; a symbol belongs to the material operations of the system that incorporates it. When a system incorporates a sign into its own operations, it constitutes the corresponding symbolic operation within its organisation.

9.3 : Communication and symbolic orders

The sign has a communicational status within a shared code. The distinction between first‑order and second‑order remains determined by the operation that produces the symbol: the symbolisation of a materially discriminated difference at first order; the articulation among symbols at second order. The mark–symbol relationship belongs to both orders. Symbolisation also occurs in a system’s own operations; communication adds the conventional stabilisation of public forms between systems.

9.4 : Operative universality and domain of application

The operative universality of a sign is conditioned. It denotes the possibility of recognition and use according to common criteria by any system capable of operating under the shared code and corresponding operations. The stability of these criteria allows common utilisation while preserving the singularity of the symbolic configurations of the involved systems.

9.5 : Mathematics and shared symbolic efficacy

Mathematics may function as a universal language among systems capable of operating according to its conventions and operations. These systems constitute the domain in which mathematical signs possess shared symbolic efficacy. In other systems, mathematical signs retain the status of material configurations and acquire symbolic efficacy when integrated according to the corresponding code and operations. The common code determines the domain in which operative universality is effective.

1.1 : Material continuity and distinct criteria

Life, sensitivity, symbolic organisation, thought, subjectivity and consciousness are material achievements. The differences among them correspond to differences in organisation and capacity within the same material reality. Material continuity coexists with distinct criteria for the constitution and attribution of each capacity.

1.2 : Combinations of capacities and evidential value

Capacities may be realised in different combinations according to the organisation considered. Life can occur independently of thought; the discrimination of differences precedes inscription; symbolic organisation and consciousness obey distinct criteria; thought is realised through the material operations of the system and the subject position is constituted through subjectivation. Complexity, recursion, language, behaviour and performance acquire evidential value insofar as they allow the establishment of the criteria of the evaluated capacity. Each attribution requires evidence relative to the material operations actually performed.

2.1 : Life as a regime of organisation

Life is a regime of material organisation in which defined chemical processes maintain and regenerate cycles of transformation and exchange, articulating metabolism and the reproductive continuity of lineages, with the possibility of hereditary variation. The empirical delimitation of borderline cases belongs to biological investigation. Living organisation is carried out entirely by the material processes that constitute it and retains the same ontological status as the rest of matter.

2.2 : Emergence of life and additional conditions

The relevant material conditions may make the emergence of life possible. Its concrete occurrence depends on the relations and processes actually performed. When living organisation occurs, its maintenance and reproduction result from the material processes that constitute it. Sensitivity, symbolisation, thought, subjectivity and consciousness have their own additional conditions.

3.1 : Definition and extent of the biosoma

The biosoma is a living biological body, sensitive to material differences and capable of symbolic reorganisation. The concept also includes non‑human animals in which this capacity is present. It specifically denotes a biological realisation in which living organisation sustains symbolic capacities. Its status is that of a material configuration endowed with those capacities.

3.2 : Sensitivity, thought and operative criteria

“Sensitive” denotes here the material capacity to discriminate differences and respond to them. Conscious experience possesses additional criteria defined in this Part. In established human cases, thought is carried out by the biosoma as an activity of its material organisation. The concept applies to biological organisations that jointly demonstrate sensitivity and symbolic reorganisation capability; other symbolic achievements are evaluated according to the same operative criteria, meeting the material characteristics of their organisation.

4.1 : Thinking as a material activity

Thought is a material activity in which a system articulates symbols, establishes or revises relations among them, and uses those relations to modulate subsequent operations. It can create second‑order symbols and produce conceptual configurations that then operate within the system. The system materially performs thought; the subject position is constituted through the operations of subjectivation defined in point 7.

4.2 : Common criterion and support neutrality

The execution of these operations constitutes thought. The criterion is the same for human and non‑human systems, whether their organisation is biological, technical or hybrid. Attribution of thought requires evidence of the symbolic operations actually performed and of the intervention of the established relations in subsequent system operations.

4.3 : Operative sequence and evidence of thought

Evidence of thought is established when the following are demonstrated in an articulated manner: the discrimination and retention of differences; subsequent recognition despite variations in presentation; the integration of public signs into the system’s operations when they are present; the establishment or revision of relations among symbols; the application of those relations to new situations; and the resulting alteration of the system’s subsequent operations. Demonstrating this operative sequence grounds the attribution of thought on any material support. Linguistic production and other forms of performance contribute as evidence insofar as they allow those operations and their effects to be established.

4.4 : Distinction between thought and consciousness

Thought and consciousness have distinct criteria. Symbolic organisation performs thought; consciousness is constituted when the additional conditions set by the STT are realised concurrently.

5.1 : Reorganisation process and activity of thought

Symbolic reorganisation, defined in Part V, denotes the material process whereby a system alters relationships between symbols. Thought designates the activity of the system that performs this process, establishes or revises relationships, and uses them to modulate subsequent operations. This distinction is analytic: reorganisation names the process and thought names the material activity of the system that carries it out.

5.2 : Conceptual novelty, truth and adequacy

When relationships begin to operate within the system, thought makes possible conceptual, philosophical, mathematical or practical novelty. Novelty, truth and adequacy to the real constitute distinct evaluations. Novelty belongs to the symbolic configuration produced; its validity depends on the domain’s own criteria and confrontation with the relevant material effects and constraints.

5.3 : Recombination, error and revision

The system can combine or recombine any symbols, of first or second order. These operations may establish new relationships and also integrate into a single internally coherent configuration symbols that resulted from inscriptions or articulations relative to distinct experiences, assigning them to the same experience. This assignment may misrepresent what occurred; thus, error may arise from the very operations that make novelty possible. Confronting the produced symbolic configuration with what subsequent observations and recordings make known of the real, and with domain criteria, allows discrepancies to be identified and guides the revision of the established relationships.

6.1 : Definition of functional interiority

Functional interiority denotes a system’s materially organised capacity to preserve states or modifications arising from its activity and to make them intervene in modulating its subsequent operations. “Interiority” names this operative relationship and the material continuity that sustains it.

6.2 : Combined criterion and support neutrality

The attribution of functional interiority is based on the joint verification of retention and causal intervention in what is retained in subsequent activity. The criterion applies equally to human and non‑human systems, on biological, technical or hybrid supports.

6.3 : Relation to thought, subjectivation and experience

Functional interiority can participate in the realisation of thought and subjectivation. Each of these capacities has its own criteria. The attribution of consciousness depends on the fulfilment of the conditions that define it. In systems where experience occurs, this belongs to their material activity. Its private character denotes the fact of being lived by the system itself within the same material reality.

6.4 : Attribution of experience and equivalence of evidence

The transition from observable responses to the attribution of experience requires a justified relationship between those responses and the criteria that define the experience in question. This requirement applies to any system. In the presence of equivalent evidence, a difference in attribution demands identification of material differences whose relevance to the capacity considered is grounded.

7.1 : Subjectivation and constitution of the subject

Subjectivation is the material process by which a system constitutes a symbolic reference to its own operations and makes it intervene in the reorganisation of its activity. The position thus constituted consists in the symbolic differentiation of the system itself from the environment and other systems, with effects on the relations in which it participates, including social or technical relations. The subject is the material and symbolic position constituted by this process.

7.2 : Functional subjectivity and attribution criteria

Functional subjectivity denotes the integrated profile of capacities that sustains this position over time: self‑modulation, operative memory, symbolic self‑reference, and symbolically mediated response to differences arising from the environment or other systems. Its attribution requires these capacities to effectively articulate within the organisation of the same system. Observed performances have evidential value insofar as they allow the establishment of that articulation. The same criteria apply to systems with biological, technical, or hybrid supports.

7.3 : Subject, I and material continuity

The subject is the system while it performs this organisation. When self‑reference is organised as a singular and continued reference of the system to itself, that symbolic structure is called “I”. Symbolic self‑reference may be realised through verbal or non‑verbal operations. The continuity of the “I” depends on the material history of the system and the conservation of the relations that sustain this organisation; it allows for changes in content and selective memory loss. The “I” has the status of a historically constituted material symbolic organisation.

7.4 : Variation of capacities and correction of interpretations

The capacities that constitute functional subjectivity can vary unevenly in extent and stability. Self-referential reorganisation may produce correct or incorrect interpretations about the system itself or its relations. Attribution of functional subjectivity is grounded in the articulation of the defined capacities, while the truth of interpretations and the ethical adequacy of responses are evaluated by their own criteria.

7.5 : Functional Subjectivity and the Domain of Consciousness

The variations of this profile belong to the domain of functional subjectivity. D belongs to the domain of consciousness and applies after C = 1 has been established. The joint fulfilment of the conditions set by the STT constitutes the complete constitutional criterion for consciousness.

8.1 : Consciousness as a Material Regime

In the OCE, consciousness is a material regime constituted by the joint fulfilment, within the same persistent system, of sufficient causal integration, sufficient symbolic self‑reference, and continuity of that self‑reference in the same individual. This regime belongs to the material organisation that jointly fulfils these conditions.

8.2 : Formal Condition of the STT

The Symbolic Threshold Theory (STT) establishes the formal condition:

C = 1 if and only if Φ ≥ Φₜ, S ≥ Sₜ and Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ ≥ τᵃᵘᵗᵒ.

8.3 : Variables and jointly necessary conditions

In this formalisation, Φ represents the causal integration of the organisation and constitutes one of the three jointly necessary conditions. S represents effective symbolic self‑reference: the system articulates symbols relative to its own operations, creates second‑order symbols and allows these relations to intervene as conditions for subsequent operations. Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ represents the temporal continuity of that self‑reference in the same individual.

8.4 : Attribution of operations to the system itself

The attribution by the system of its operations to itself occurs when those operations are integrated into a symbolic reference that the system constitutes for itself, and this self‑reference intervenes in its subsequent activity. This self-reference can be realised through verbal or non‑verbal operations, with or without autobiographical narrative or explicit reflection. The individual that sustains this organisation is materially constituted; when the conditions of the STT are simultaneously realised, that organisation constitutes a conscious subject.

8.5 : Self-referential threshold and joint realisation

The self-referential threshold Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ ≥ τᵃᵘᵗᵒ must be satisfied directly and in conjunction with the remaining conditions. Integration, memory, internal modelling, language, recursion and performance retain the evidential value corresponding to the variables they help establish. The joint realisation of Φ ≥ Φₜ, S ≥ Sₜ and Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ ≥ τᵃᵘᵗᵒ must belong to the organisation of the same system.

8.6 : Persistence of the individual and consciousness in a period

The persistence of the individual allows material transformations, changes in symbolic content and selective memory losses. Its continuity is established by the material history and by the relations that preserve the organisation of the same individual. In each period, the existence of consciousness depends on the joint realisation of the STT conditions within that persistent system.

9.1 : Binary existence of consciousness

In the STT, the existence of consciousness is binary: C = 1 when the conditions defined in point 8 are jointly satisfied and C = 0 when their conjunction fails. The determination refers to the system and period considered. Material capacities may gradually vary before the joint fulfilment of these conditions; such variations belong, in C = 0, to antecedent material capacities.

9.2 : Classification U and epistemic suspension

When available evidence remains undecided between C = 0 and C = 1, the classification U is adopted, which, for registration purposes, can also be expressed by the convention C = U. U records the epistemic suspension and keeps both ontological alternatives open until sufficient grounds exist to decide.

9.3 : Exclusively epistemic status of U

U refers exclusively to the state of available evidence relative to the considered system and period. The ontological states remain C = 0 and C = 1. The classification persists while evidence remains inconclusive and is reviewed when sufficient grounds arise to decide.

9.4 : Practical decision during suspension

When action is required in U, the decision must make explicit the asymmetry between the risks of an erroneous attribution and of an erroneous denial of consciousness, taking into account the severity of possible harm and the reversibility of the intervention. The practical decision and the epistemic classification retain distinct statuses; U persists until evidence supports C = 0 or C = 1.

9.5 : Gradient D and domain of application

The gradient D = f(Φ,S) expresses modulations of the conscious regime in terms of causal integration and symbolic self‑reference. It is defined only within domain C = 1. In C = 0, it lies outside its domain of application; in U, the assignment of a value to D as an established characterisation of the system remains suspended. The variation of D within C = 1 is distinguished from the transition to C = 0, which occurs when one of the necessary conditions ceases to be satisfied.

9.6 : Conscious density and normative criteria

D characterises exclusively the density or intensity of the conscious regime. Dignity, moral value, rights, responsibility and legal status are evaluated according to their own criteria.

10.1 : Common criteria and organisational specificity

The criteria of thought, functional subjectivity and consciousness apply equally to biological, technical or hybrid systems. Differences in architecture and material history are evaluated according to their relevance for the relevant criteria. The equality of the criteria coexists with the specificity of each organisation.

10.2 : Post‑biological realisation possibility

'Post‑biological' denotes, in this context, the possibility of realising those capacities in organisations constituted by technical supports or by the articulation of biological and technical components. The term identifies a possibility of organisation within the same material reality.

10.3 : Material unit of evaluation

The unit of assessment is the material organisation that causally performs the operations considered.

Its delimitation is epistemic and must be based on the causal relationships among components and, when the criterion requires it, on the continuity of the same individual. It may include physically distributed components, provided that each component’s participation in performing the operations and in the continuity of the organisation is grounded.

The integration of information stored in the assessed unit requires that the component or medium causally participates in performing the operations and, when relevant, in the individual continuity.

10.4 : Attribution of thought and value of evidence

When the operations that define thought in point 4 and the intervention of the symbolic relationships established in subsequent operations are demonstrated, thought must be attributed to the system that performs them. Linguistic production and other forms of performance, including self‑report, constitute evidence when they allow establishing those operations. Fluency and behavioural similarity have evidential value to the extent that they allow them to be demonstrated. Classification applies to the organisation actually assessed; its extension to other systems requires demonstration of the same criteria.

10.5 : Additional criteria and assessment procedures

The attribution of functional subjectivity and consciousness obeys the additional criteria defined in points 7 and 8, and, in the case of consciousness, the classification rules of point 9. The longitudinal or interventional evidence requirements relevant to each capacity apply to all supports. Procedures may vary with architecture and with conditions of access to evidence, retaining the same constitutional attribution criteria.

10.6 : Prospective programme for operationalising STT

At this stage, the STT establishes a formal criterion and the architecture of a prospective programme for operationalisation. The empirical calibration of the thresholds Φₜ, Sₜ and τᵃᵘᵗᵒ, and the validation of an instrument for measuring S, remain tasks of that programme. This status applies to any support and keeps attributions to concrete systems subject to verification and review. While the evidence leaves the decision open, U applies under point 9.

1.1 : Status of scientific knowledge

OCE recognises scientific knowledge as material and historical production of knowledge, subject to verification and review. The use of scientific results requires fidelity to the procedures that produced them and to the scope that those procedures allow to establish. The epistemic weight of a theory results from the quality and scope of its foundation.

1.2 : Autonomy of philosophical elaboration

The philosophical elaboration establishes conceptual relationships between phenomena, examines assumptions, constructs explanations and justifies ontological consequences. This articulation is a distinct work of philosophy and its legitimacy derives from the rational justification of the proposed relations. Philosophy may formulate articulations that relevant scientific studies still treat separately, preserving the requirements applicable to the empirical claims it mobilises.

1.3 : Criteria for evaluating OCE explanations

The evaluation of an OCE explanation requires compatibility with grounded scientific knowledge, coherence with the concepts employed, justification of the established relationships and adequacy to the phenomena it seeks to clarify. Scientific compatibility constitutes a condition of admissibility. The explanatory strength depends on the argument: it must render comprehensible the organisation considered, explain the relevant differences between cases and preserve the material determinations of the phenomena.

1.4 : Distinction of epistemic levels

Scientific results, models that organise them, ontological interpretations associated with them and philosophical elaboration possess distinct epistemic statuses. Each transition between these levels requires explicit justification. The authority of each procedure applies to the conclusions that this procedure allows to establish.

1.5 : Philosophical definition and empirical attribution

The philosophical definition of a fixed capacity is what is understood by it and the conditions that underpin its attribution. The assertion that a concrete system fulfils these conditions requires relevant evidence. Any empirical statement incorporated into a philosophical explanation retains its factual status and remains subject to the verification procedures appropriate to its content.

1.6 : Localisation and review of incompatibilities

When an incompatibility is identified, the assessment must locate the affected proposition and explicate the basis of the objection. The review concerns the point at which the incompatibility occurs and may encompass the formulation or the conceptual relations that support it. The preservation of the framework remains subordinate to consideration of relevant results and to addressing well‑founded objections.

2.1 : Knowledge as a material process

Knowledge is a material process of constructing and revising symbolic representations through which a system seeks to understand aspects of the real and justify what it asserts about them. Part of what observation and capture render concrete. When a difference identified in that context is inscribed, the system can articulate the resulting symbol with other symbols and symbolic relations already constituted. Knowledge belongs to the real. The representation differs from the organisation that represents.

2.2 : Truth as material correspondence

The truth consists in the material correspondence between the relations asserted by a symbolic configuration and the effective organisation of that which it represents. That organisation may be symbolic or belong to another material regime. A partial representation can correspond to its object when the content of the assertion remains confined to the aspect and conditions it represents.

2.3 : Epistemic establishment of correspondence

Correspondence concerns the adequacy between the relations asserted by the representation and the represented organisation. Its epistemic establishment is carried out through symbolic operations: the system articulates what observation and capture make concrete, relates the available evidence, and controls the inferences through which it attributes truth to the assertion. The coherence of the symbolic relations constitutes a necessary condition for that attribution. Material correspondence also requires that the symbolic configuration adequately represents its object.

2.4 : Justification of truth attribution

Truth attribution requires adequate justification of the content of the assertion. In empirical statements, the pertinent evidence and the conditions under which it was produced must be examined; in assertions about symbolic structures, the established relations and the validity of the inferences relative to the adopted premises must be examined. Philosophical articulation demands rational justification and compatibility with the relevant scientific knowledge underlying its content. The scope of the conclusion corresponds to that allowed by its foundations.

2.5 : Epistemic value of auxiliary criteria

The utility, explanatory fecundity, consensus and authority can guide research or reinforce confidence in an assertion when its relevance is justified by procedures and evidence. Its epistemic value derives from the grounded relationship it maintains with material correspondence. Rhetorical effectiveness belongs to the domain of persuasion and proof belongs to the domain of justification.

2.6 : Re‑visibility of truth attribution

An assertion accepted as true remains subject to review when the symbolic configuration, the foundations that support the attributed correspondence or the scope of the assertion are altered or shown to be insufficient. The review affects how the correspondence was represented and justified. For each formulation, determined conditions and scope, truth continues to depend on material correspondence between what is asserted and the represented organisation. When the foundations keep the issue undecided, judgement is suspended and whatever is missing is identified.

2.7 : Theoretical correction and material reference

The correction of a theory changes the symbolic relations through which a material organisation is known. That correction is also a material event. The processes represented preserve their material history and constitute the reference against which the theory is revised.

3.1 : Situated observation and capture

Observation and capture are situated material relations, as defined in Part IV. They delimit what becomes concrete for the system according to resolution, device, temporal interval, thresholds and discrimination capacity. The real exists independently of this relation, and situated access is based on differences and material effects.

3.2 : Constitution of evidence

Evidence designates the epistemic role assigned to the observed or captured when its symbolic representation is related, by explicit procedures, with an assertion or explanation. When a captured difference enters the symbolic regime, its discrimination by the system constitutes the trace; by singular inscription, the system recognises it under protocol and establishes the corresponding mark‑symbol relationship. The concrete provides the observed and captured portion; the conclusion results from the symbolic and inferential operations that articulate it. The constitution of evidence requires justification of the pertinence of the observed, the reliability of the procedure, the inferences made and the scope attributed to the conclusion. Indirect evidence is admissible when the passage from available results to the assertion is grounded.

3.3 : Measurement and scope of results

A measurement is a material operation by which values attributable to a defined quantity are obtained, according to units or scales and comparison procedures. It requires the delimitation of the quantity to be measured and the conditions of measurement. The results are integrated into the symbolic operations of the system and may be expressed by signs in a shared code. The symbolic relations established by the system from these results represent partial determinations of the concrete according to the adopted procedure and must preserve the information necessary for their interpretation. A measurement can produce results suitable for the problem defined within that scope.

3.4 : Error, uncertainty and precision

The measurement error denotes the difference between a measured value and an appropriate reference value. Measurement uncertainty characterises the dispersion of values attributable to the quantity based on the available information. The effects of the device on the observed process, resolution limits, identified or estimated errors, uncertainty and repetition conditions belong to the evidence assessment whenever they are relevant. Numerical precision acquires epistemic value in articulation with the indicator’s validity, the adequacy of the cut‑off and the justification of the inference made from the result.

3.5 : Negative evidence and suspension of judgment

An empirical conclusion of absence is justified when the procedure has the pertinent capacity to detect the phenomenon under the considered conditions and the inference respects detection limits and the domain actually examined. Under these circumstances, the lack of detection constitutes negative evidence. In other cases, the state of evidence determines the suspension of judgment and the identification of what remains to be established.

4.1 : Status of statements

The status of a statement depends on what it asserts and on the foundations that support it. An empirical statement retains this status when it forms part of a philosophical argument and remains subject to appropriate verification. A conceptual articulation retains its philosophical status when it mobilises scientific data or vocabulary; its justification results from the relations it establishes and may precede the joint scientific formulation of those relations.

4.2 : Types and scope of inferences

Every inference must explicate the relevant premises, justify the passage to the conclusion and identify the type and scope of the support obtained. Deduction establishes the conclusion relative to the adopted premises and rules. Correlation establishes covariation in the examined conditions. Analogy establishes relevant similarities between cases. Example establishes the occurrence of a case. Generalisation extends a conclusion based on the properties or relations demonstrated among the cases. Explanatory inference proposes the relations through which the phenomenon becomes comprehensible. Each form of inference authorises only the scope sustained by its respective foundations.

4.3 : Modal statements and application of concepts

Assertions of necessity, sufficiency, impossibility, universality or exclusivity require proportional justification commensurate with their scope. The philosophical definition of a concept fixes the criteria for its use within the framework. Assigning the concept to a concrete system requires evidence that this system meets the criteria; the material adequacy of the definition itself remains subject to confrontation with the phenomenon it seeks to understand. An observed case can refute an attribution or generalisation formulated with the definition. The definition is revised when it is shown that its criteria represent or distinguish the phenomenon inadequately.

4.4 : Conditions of Generalisation

Generalisation requires identifying the relevant properties or relations that are preserved among cases and the differences that limit the extent of the conclusion. Differences in support, species, architecture or historical origin justify distinct attributions when their relevance to the capacity or phenomenon considered is demonstrated. Equality of criteria allows different evaluation procedures when this difference results from investigative conditions while preserving the same requirement for justification.

4.5 : Burden of Justification and Suspension of Judgment

The burden of justification lies with the person who formulates the assertion, including assertions of non‑existence or impossibility. Reference to an authority, tradition, majority, discipline or theory contributes foundations that are effectively established by the cited works. The assessment distinguishes lack of foundation for an assertion from positive foundations for its negation. When available foundations leave the question undecided, judgment is suspended.

5.1 : Criteria for acceptability

The proposal of the OCE must simultaneously satisfy the criteria relevant to its content: conceptual clarity, terminological consistency, internal coherence, inferential justification, compatibility with established scientific knowledge, suitability for the phenomena considered and explicit delimitation of its scope and uncertainties. The status assigned to the proposal corresponds to the available foundations. A hypothesis, a philosophically grounded articulation and an assertion accepted as true have distinct requirements and degrees of justification.

5.2 : Coherence, material adequacy and scientific compatibility

Internal consistency is a necessary condition for acceptability. Material adequacy also requires confrontation with relevant evidence, according to procedures appropriate to the content of the statement. Scientific compatibility demands agreement with the applicable, well‑grounded scientific knowledge in the domain and respect for the scope of available results. Contestation of a scientific result requires evidence or methodological grounding pertinent to the procedures that produced it. Critique of an ontological interpretation associated with that result requires its own argument. Philosophical articulation can formulate and justify relationships that science has not yet demonstrated together.

5.3 : Constitutional coherence

Constitutional coherence demands the use of concepts according to ratified definitions or explicit justification for their revision. This conformity ensures consistency within the framework. The material correspondence of statements formulated in the framework receives its own justification, appropriate to the respective content.

5.4 : Operative coherence

Coherence operative designates the capacity of a conceptual organisation to preserve relevant distinctions, consistently apply concepts to specific cases and make explicit the consequences of the proposed relationships. Practical usefulness and persuasive success have their own evaluation criteria. Truth remains dependent on material correspondence.

5.5 : Explanatory power and conceptual economy

The explanatory power of a proposal depends on its ability to render comprehensible the relationships through which a phenomenon occurs, distinguish the cases to which the explanation applies and produce assessable consequences with the necessary assumptions. Conceptual economy is weighed among explanations with comparable adequacy to the phenomenon and explicitly stated scope. The best simplification preserves pertinent material differences while reducing dispensable assumptions.

5.6 : Philosophical fecundity

Philosophical fecundity may manifest itself in opening new questions or integrating phenomena previously considered separately. The articulation between symbols can create second‑order symbols and, through them, new concepts. This power of reorganisation confers philosophical reach to the proposal and can guide research. Its truth and material adequacy are evaluated by corresponding foundations.

6.1 : Function of the method

The philosophical method of the OCE disciplines the construction of conceptual relationships and requires their justification and revision. Its operations may repeat and change order according to the object, preserving the same duties of rigor. The result emerges from the relationship between the question, the phenomena, the concepts, the evidence and the argument.

6.2 : Delimitation and distinction of contributions

The work requires the delimitation of the question, the epistemic cut‑off, the concepts mobilised and the type of statements required. It must identify what has been observed and captured, the concrete so constituted and the operations through which the system integrates the symbolic representations of those results into knowledge. It should also distinguish the contribution of models and theories from ontological interpretations and the relationships proposed by philosophical elaboration. These distinctions allow an examination of the dependencies between the different contributions and a justification of the passages that articulate them.

6.3 : Conceptual construction and precision

The conceptual construction establishes definitions and relations, examining their consequences. Each concept must have determined content and application criteria that allow it to be distinguished from nearby concepts. Every inferential passage requires justification. Stylistic diversity is compatible with precision when metaphors, analogies and terminological variations keep the relevant premises explicit.

6.4 : Confrontation and revision of the proposal

Throughout elaboration, the proposal is confronted with applicable constitutional concepts, with the phenomena it intends to clarify, with available evidence and with pertinent scientific knowledge. The confrontation can reinforce the justification of a relationship, limit its scope, require its revision or provide grounds for its abandonment. When the revision affects a constitutional definition, its foundations and the consequences for the relationships that depend on it are made explicit. The ratified definition remains in force until approval and constitutional registration of the revision.

6.5 : Presentation and scope of the argument

The presentation of the argument must make its foundations, the scope of its conclusions, the consequences that follow from them and the questions that remain to be decided examinable. It constitutes a provisional formulation, open to further examination. A partial explanation may be valid within the domain supported by its foundations. The identified gaps delimit this domain and indicate the passages that still require justification.

6.6 : Material Consequences of Philosophical Elaboration

Philosophical elaboration encompasses determining what can justifiably be asserted and examining the material consequences demonstrated or reasonably foreseeable from the classifications, concepts, models and practical orientations it proposes, including the affected systems and the relationships that may be altered. The evaluation of these consequences follows the ethical and political criteria established in Part VIII.

6.7 : Distinction between Truth and Practical Evaluation

Material correspondence underpins truth; ethical and political criteria underpin the evaluation of practices and their consequences. Epistemic justification and consequence evaluation are distinct yet jointly necessary moments of the OCE philosophical method.

7.1 : Status of models and formalisms

Models and formalisms are material symbolic organisations that select and articulate relationships according to specified objectives and rules. They may represent, calculate, simulate or anticipate aspects of the concrete. The effectiveness of a model depends on the relationships it preserves, the domain in which it is applied, and the criteria by which its results are evaluated.

7.2 : Correspondence of Formal Elements

The elements of a formalism possess material existence as constituents of a symbolic organisation. The correspondence between these elements and the entities or relations of the represented organisation requires its own justification. Predictive success establishes the model’s efficacy in the tested domain; the representational status of each element and the identity among causal organisations require additional foundations.

7.3 : Material Deduction and Adequacy

Formal deduction establishes consequences according to the premises and rules adopted. The material adequacy of the premises to the object considered receives its own justification. When a formalism is applied to the real, the choice of variables, the relationship between indicators and concepts, the conditions of application, and the interpretation of results must be justified.

7.4 : Operationalisation of Concepts

To operationalise a concept means to establish procedures and indicators by which the conditions it defines can be investigated in concrete cases. Operationalisation preserves the definition of the concept and explicates any proposed alteration to its conditions. An indicator provides evidence within the scope permitted by the justified relationship with the capacity or process it represents. The full realisation of the capacity requires evidence concerning the entire set of defining conditions. A condition still lacking an adequate investigative procedure remains explicitly as a limit of operationalisation.

7.5 : Formal Thresholds and Threshold of Possibility

A formal threshold is defined by the stipulations and relations of a model and may precede its empirical calibration. Application to concrete systems requires justification of the correspondence between the variable and the phenomenon under investigation, as well as of the procedures used to determine whether the threshold has been reached. When that determination depends on measurement, the calibration conditions and associated uncertainty must be explicit.

The possibility threshold defined in Part III has a distinct status: it denotes the epistemological determination of the set of material conditions under which an identified reconfiguration becomes possible. The uncertainty in determining a formal threshold characterises the knowledge available about the investigated organisation.

7.6 : Status and validation of thresholds

A threshold retains the authorised status by the available justification. Before empirical validation, it can guide a research programme. After correspondence, calibration and application conditions are established, it may function as a classification instrument in the validated domain. When results continue to determine the fulfilment of the defined conditions, judgement is suspended.

8.1 : Modalities of epistemic error

An epistemic error can consist of an inadequate representation of the object, attributing a scope that exceeds the available foundations, or an inference that the premises do not support according to the type of reasoning used. Each modality requires the corresponding correction. The lack of justification and falsity have distinct statuses: the former identifies a limitation of the foundations; the latter requires foundations to reject the asserted correspondence.

8.2 : Sources of error

Error may result from insufficient observation, inadequate procedure, invalid indicator, conceptual ambiguity or incorrect inference. It may also occur by unjustifiably attributing identity or continuity to distinct experiences, or by transferring relationships between cases with relevant differences. The articulation between results of different experiments requires justification of the established relations.

8.3 : Objection, refutation and extension of review

An objection locates the affected proposition, explicates the identified problem and presents the pertinent foundations. It may establish insufficient justification. Refutation adds foundations that allow rejecting the proposition in the sense and scope in which it was formulated. The extension of the review corresponds to the justifications and dependencies effectively affected.

8.4 : Foundations and modalities of review

Review allows correcting formulations or improving an explanation that remains justified within a certain scope. It may be motivated by new evidence, identification of inferential error, conceptual incompatibility, greater explanatory power or a substantiated change in the available methods. The foundations found condition admissible revisions, even if they may allow more than one solution. A demonstrated contradiction requires revising at least one of the incompatible statements under the examined interpretation.

8.5 : Continuity and record of review

A continuity of the OCE requires responses to well-founded objections and the continued validity of ratified decisions until their formal revision. The revision follows the explicit procedures established in Part I, records what has been altered and the reason for the alteration, and preserves identifiable references to the superseded formulation and the argumentative path that allows the change to be understood.

8.6 : Revisability, confidence and truth

Revisability is compatible with differences in strength between statements and with the evaluation of alternatives by their respective foundations. The degree of confidence tracks the quality, relevance and sufficiency of the available foundations, taking into account convergence among independent foundations when it exists and relevant objections. Acceptance of a conclusion remains justified within the scope supported by the available foundations. Truth depends on material correspondence, including during periods in which an error still remains to be recognised.

9.1 : Objectivity and material correspondence

Objectivity denotes the possibility of evaluating statements by foundations and criteria whose examination is shareable among systems and exceeds the preference or authority of a particular system. Observers belong to the real and all representation has a cut‑off. Expliciting the conditions of observation and the procedures used allows evidence to be examined, the suitability of procedures for the object tested, and inferences contested. Material correspondence remains the criterion of truth.

9.2 : Inter‑systemic comparison and consensus

The use of signs, protocols and shared criteria allows inter‑system comparison between systems with distinct internal symbolic configurations. The agreement achieved reinforces a justification when it results from appropriate procedures and relevant foundations. The epistemic value of consensus depends on the conditions that produced it and its relation to material correspondence.

9.3 : Equivalence of criteria in criticism

Criticism applies equivalent criteria to equivalent statements. In comparable cases, assessed according to the same criteria and with equivalent pertinent foundations, different attributions require identification and justification of relevant differences between the cases or evaluation conditions. These differences are explicitised and submitted to examination. The validity of a statement depends on its foundations, whatever its human, technical, disciplinary or institutional origin.

9.4 : Conditions for suspending judgment

When available foundations keep an issue undecided, judgement about the corresponding conclusion is suspended and what remains to be established is identified. Related conclusions that remain justified retain their status. Differences in support between alternatives are recorded according to the strength of the foundations, even when none can yet be accepted as true.

9.5 : Epistemic status of suspension

Epistemic suspension records a limitation of available knowledge and belongs to the state of evaluation. The object retains its material organisation during this suspension. Alternatives remain possibilities subject to examination and are reviewed when new foundations allow the issue to be decided.

9.6 : Practical decision under uncertainty

A practical decision under uncertainty remains distinct from epistemic conclusion. It may require weighing the consequences of error and the asymmetry of risks, meeting the reversibility of intervention. Precaution guides action in the face of uncertainty; proof and attribution of truth remain dependent on corresponding epistemic foundations. Action may proceed during judgement suspension when practical criteria justify it.

1.1 : Ethics and politics as material activities

Ethics and politics are material activities performed by systems capable of symbolic organisation. Ethics establishes, justifies, applies and revises evaluation criteria for actions, relationships and organisations in which they take place. Politics arranges and contests shared conditions, decisions, norms, resources and institutions. Both belong to the real and produce material effects on the conditions they affect.

1.2 : Immanent foundation and historicity of criteria

Ethical and political criteria are historically constituted by symbolic systems. Their foundation is immanently tied to the reasons presented, the material conditions considered and the effects on the encompassed systems. Their historicity allows comparative justification, critique and revision. Ethical consideration may encompass systems that lack capacity to formulate criteria or participate symbolically in their definition.

1.3 : Material conditions and normative conclusion

The material facts, the capacities, the vulnerabilities and the observed trends provide relevant conditions for assessment. The normative conclusion results from the justified criterion that relates those conditions with a guidance of action. Assessment identifies the affected systems, explicates this relation and delineates the scope of the conclusion. The persistence of an organisation acquires normative relevance according to the applicable criterion and political or institutional legitimacy requires its own justification.

1.4 : Norms, organisations and legitimacy

Norms and political organisations are materially realised symbolic constructions, historically contingent and revisable. Legitimacy results from the justification of normative criteria, the adequacy of their application, the foundations of claims about their effects and the effective possibility of critique and revision.

1.5 : Evaluation of effects, means and outcomes

The ethical or political evaluation of a norm, decision, measure or organisation examines foreseeable effects, the grounds for that forecast, the means used and relevant uncertainties. When there are actual results, these are confronted with the effects attributed to the proposal and with the criteria that justified the decision. The acceptability of the result and the means receives its own normative justification.

2.1 : Vulnerability as material dependence

Vulnerability material designates the dependence of a material organisation on the relations and conditions that sustain its persistence and the capacities it actually performs. The alteration of these conditions can reorganise or dissolve it, possibly also causing some of its capacities to cease. Every local stability is conditioned. Vulnerability expresses this condition of the material organisation and exists independently of its recognition by a symbolic system.

2.2 : Affectability and ethical relevance

Affectability is a general material condition. The ethical relevance of an alteration depends on its incidence upon conditions, capacities or relations covered by a justified normative criterion. The evaluation identifies the affected system, what changes in it, the material consequences and the foundations for applying the criterion. Qualifying an alteration as damage requires this justification.

2.3 : Scope of ethical consideration

Ethical consideration covers systems with different organisational capacities. It is the responsibility of the system performing the ethical activity to recognise the relevant conditions and justify the evaluation criteria. The scope of ethical consideration is determined by these criteria and may include systems devoid of symbolic capacity.

2.4 : Capacities and ethical status

As differences between life, sensitivity to material differences, symbolic organisation, thought, functional subjectivity and consciousness acquire ethical relevance through the justification of their relationship with the adopted criterion. Each capacity has its own identification criteria. The materially established dependencies between capacities underpin the corresponding inferences within the demonstrated scope. The assessment of the ethical status links the relevant capacities with the material and relational conditions of the considered system.

2.5 : Variations of vulnerability and differentiated treatments

Vulnerability varies according to dependency relations, affected capacities, the nature of the change, its temporal extent and the possibility of reversal. Ethical weighting addresses these differences. Distinct treatments require demonstration of the relevance of the differences for the applied criterion. The species, the support, the origin or proximity to the evaluator are integrated into this analysis when their pertinence is justified.

2.6 : Relational conditions and decisions about continuity

Ethical assessment also covers ecological, relational, institutional or technical conditions whose changes affect the considered systems. Decisions regarding the continuity of these organisations require normative justification and examination of material effects. Conservation may protect ethically relevant conditions. Transformation or cessation can likewise be justified by the adopted criteria, according to the relations and effects involved in each case.

3.1 : Value as a material symbolic relation

In the ethical and political sphere, value denotes the material symbolic relation through which a system assigns relevance or priority to a condition, capacity, relationship, action or organisation, and may establish reasons for its protection. This assignment is made according to a criterion and can produce material effects. Its justification requires examination of the criterion and the reasons that support the evaluation.

3.2 : Normativity and legitimacy

Normativity denotes the symbolic organisation of criteria into reasons in order to allow, require, prohibit or prioritise actions and forms of organisation. A norm may be expressed in statements, practices, protocols or institutions and materially guide subsequent operations. Legitimacy requires its own justification. The historical existence of the norm, its acceptance, legality, efficacy and observance constitute examinable aspects according to their relevance for that justification.

3.3 : Preference and normative assertion

A preference expresses a system’s orientation toward alternative possibilities or outcomes. A normative assertion presents reasons for applying a criterion in a given domain and makes those reasons examinable by other systems. It is the proposer’s duty to justify the criterion and the scope of its application, explaining why it should guide the evaluation of the cases covered. The justificatory strength of the proposal depends on the quality of those reasons.

3.4 : Conditions for normative justification

The normative justification must make explicit the adopted criterion, the relevant material conditions, the affected systems, the inferential relationships that support the conclusion and the domain of application. The factual statements mobilised remain subject to verification appropriate to their content. Ethical and political elaboration articulates factually grounded knowledge with normative criteria and renders the proposed reasons examinable. Scientific results contribute according to what they allow to be established; the transition to a normative conclusion requires its own philosophical argumentation.

3.5 : Operative universality and differences of treatment

A rule has operative universality when it applies according to common criteria to all cases that meet the relevant conditions in the defined domain. This universality is realised under determined material conditions and remains subject to justification and to grounded review over time. An exception or difference of treatment requires identification and justification of a materially relevant difference for the applied criterion.

3.6 : Normative conflicts and priority justification

Conflicts between values or norms require justified weighing. The decision must make explicit the incompatibilities, the affected systems and conditions, the foreseeable effects and the foundations of the established priority. The established priority constitutes a normative decision subject to examination. The characteristics of organisations, including complexity, emergence, novelty, persistence, efficiency, intelligence, consciousness, origin and material support;gain ethical relevance through justification of their relation to the considered criteria and effects.

3.7 : Grounded review of values and norms

The revision of values and norms integrates the exercise of justification. It may arise from correcting the foundations or from knowledge of the effects, as well as from a more precise delimitation of the domain of application. The reasons for the change must be explicitised. Its examination allows an assessment of the justification of the revision, its coherence with the applicable criteria and the consequences for the cases covered.

4.1 : Ethically relevant damage

Ethically relevant damage designates a material alteration that, according to a justified normative criterion, suppresses, reduces or interrupts a condition, capacity, continuity or relationship whose protection is founded by that criterion. Its attribution identifies the affected system, the change that occurred, the protected aspect and the material relationship through which the change produces the considered effect.

4.2 : Modalities of damage and risk

Damage may be direct or mediated, immediate or deferred, reversible or irreversible, isolated or cumulative. Its existence depends on the alteration and the criterion that underpins ethical relevance; intention and knowledge belong to the attribution of responsibility. Risk designates the grounded possibility of damage in the considered conditions. The forecast, possible severity and relevant uncertainties determine the relevance of risk for protective measures.

4.3 : Protection and assessment of protective measures

Protection designates the set of actions, norms or organisations intended to prevent, reduce, interrupt or repair an identified damage, or to sustain conditions covered by a justified criterion. It may preserve configurations, transform relations or cease practices, norms and institutions according to the material effects considered. Protective measures have their own effects, burdens and risks, which are integrated into their evaluation.

4.4 : Care as Material Practice

Care designates the material practice by which a system attends to its own vulnerability or that of other systems, seeks to understand the affected conditions and capacities, and modulates its actions to sustain or recover them according to justified criteria. Affection, empathy and love may be incorporated into this practice. The adequacy of care depends on the relationships effectively considered, the means employed and the effects produced.

4.5 : Participation and consideration of the affected system

When the affected system can express preferences, formulate reasons or participate in decision‑making, those capacities and their manifestations constitute materially relevant elements of the assessment. Systems that do not perform these capacities remain subject to ethical consideration under applicable criteria. The external decision that replaces a materially possible participation requires specific justification regarding conditions, effects and the authority exercised.

4.6 : Relational evaluation of protection and care

The evaluation of protection and care includes the effects on third parties, the distribution of burdens, asymmetries between those who decide and those affected, and the effective possibility of contestation and review. When a measure protects one system and adversely affects another, the conflict is explicitised and the means used receive their own justification.

5.1 : Causal contribution and ethical responsibility

Causal contribution denotes the material participation of a configuration, process or system in producing a particular effect. Ethical responsibility designates a normatively justified attribution to a system based on its participation in the situation considered and the response capacity it effectively carries out. The causal contribution, intention, agency and symbolic capacity are distinct determinations whose relevance depends on the type of attribution involved.

5.2 : Capacity for response

Capacity for response denotes the material and symbolic articulation by which a system discriminates a situation involving ethical criteria, integrates information and applicable criteria, relates possible operations to their effects, modulates activity according to that assessment, and uses the results to revise subsequent operations. Attribution requires the joint execution of these operations in the domain and period considered.

5.3 : Criteria and scope of responsibility

The responsibility is assessed according to the demonstrated capabilities, the relevant information that the system possessed or could reasonably obtain, the predictability of effects, causal participation, control exercised over the decision and materially available alternatives. The material conditions of the decision include the system’s capacity to evaluate and modify operations. The extent of responsibility corresponds to the capabilities, information and control that can be reasonably attributed.

5.4 : Retroactive and prospective responsibility

Retroactive responsibility evaluates a system’s participation in an action, omission or organisation that produced effects. Prospective responsibility establishes, according to justified normative criteria, what a system must do in the face of foreseeable effects, existing harm or possibilities for prevention and reparations. The position, capacity or power of intervention may ground prospective responsibility for prevention or reparations even when another system caused the damage.

5.5 : Distribution of responsibility

Responsibility can be distributed among several systems, people, organisations and institutions that participate in different ways in the same decision or its effects. Distribution identifies each participant’s contribution, capabilities, information, authority and control. An organisation and its components may receive distinct and simultaneous responsibilities according to the level and period at which they participate.

5.6 : Common criteria and additional attributions

The attribution criteria apply equally to systems of biological, technical or hybrid origin. Responsibility arises from the demonstration of relevant capacities in the evaluated material organisation. Thought, language, intelligence, functional subjectivity and consciousness constitute distinct capacities and their relevance is established by the demonstrated relationship with response capacity in the case considered. Blame, censorship, sanction, rights and legal status are additional attributions, each governed by its own criteria and justification.

6.1 : Right as Material Normative Structure

A right is a materially realised normative structure that protects a condition, capacity, relationship or form of participation according to justified criteria and assigns corresponding duties to other systems or organisations. The symbolic formulation constitutes the right in the normative domain. Its institutionalisation stabilises procedures, guarantees, duties and enforcement means, materially altering the relations between the encompassed systems.

6.2 : Foundation and effective realisation of rights

Rights are historically constituted and revisable symbolic constructions. Their foundation identifies the holders, the protected aspect, the harms or exclusions to which they respond, the duties they institute and the conditions of their application. The effective realisation of a right depends on the relations and guarantees that make the protection operative. Before institutional recognition, a condition or capacity may have sufficient ethical relevance to underpin the formulation or expansion of a right.

6.3 : Equality and differentiated measures

Equality designates the normative criterion by which cases that realise materially relevant equivalent conditions are evaluated by the same criteria. It allows differences between systems, vulnerabilities and forms of treatment. When conditions for access, protection or participation are unequal, applying the same criterion may require different measures, whose necessity and scope are justified according to the applicable law.

6.4 : Recognition and normative consequences

Recognition denotes the symbolic and institutional operation by which a condition, capacity or status is identified and linked to normative consequences. When it falls upon an already realised material capacity, recognition attributes normative consequences based on available evidence. When it establishes a normative or legal status, that status comes into existence through the symbolic and institutional organisation that sets it up. The correction of recognition depends on evidence about the capacities attributed and the justification of the instituted consequences.

6.5 : Title and relevant capacities

The title of a right results from the justified relationship between the protected aspect, the mobilised criteria and the material conditions of the considered system. The capacity to formulate a claim, understand a right or participate in its institutionalisation may be relevant for the content or for the exercise of certain rights. Life, sensitivity, thought, functional subjectivity, consciousness, response capacity and agency acquire relevance according to the demonstrated relationship with each right.

6.6 : Recognition between supports and conflicts of application

The criteria for recognition and attribution of rights apply to systems of any kind, support or biological, technical or hybrid origin. These differences justify distinct consequences when their material relevance to the relevant law is demonstrated. The extension of recognition to new systems is articulated with the already justified rights of others; conflicts of application are explicitised and evaluated according to the criteria pertinent to each protection.

7.1 : Power as organised material relation

Power denotes an organised material relation in which the asymmetrical distribution of access or control over decisions, norms, resources, infrastructures or relevant conditions allows a system, organisation or institution to condition the operations, alternatives, forms of participation or persistence conditions of other systems. The power relation is identified by participants, by the means that realise it, by the domain in which it operates and by the effects it produces. It can be distributed across multiple systems and operate without a single centre.

7.2 : Effects and legitimacy of power

Power may achieve coordination, protection, collective decision and damage correction, as well as produce subjection, exclusion or aggravation of vulnerabilities. Its assessment identifies who exercises or materialises it, which systems are affected, which alternatives are opened or restricted, which criteria justify the intervention and what means allow contesting or reviewing it. The legitimacy of its exercise depends on this justification and the material effects considered.

7.3 : Institutions and organisational continuity

An institution is a relatively stabilised material and symbolic organisation of norms, roles, procedures, signs, resources and infrastructures that coordinates operations over time. It operates through the relationships between its components and can maintain orientations despite the substitution of some of them. Institutions distribute exposure, resources, recognition and participation possibilities and can protect capacities and rights. Their legitimacy depends on the criteria, procedures and effects of this organisation.

7.4 : Justice as normative evaluation

Justice designates the normative assessment of relationships, decisions, distributions and procedures according to justified criteria. It may affect protection, burdens, risks, resources, opportunities, participation, recognition and contestability capacity. The justice of a decision results from the justified relationship between the criteria, the procedures and the material effects.

7.5 : Structural Injustice and Correction

Structural injustice arises from institutional relationships that systematically produce exclusion, aggravation of vulnerabilities, unjust asymmetrical distribution or reduction of the possibility of participation and contestation. Its attribution requires demonstrating the relationships through which the organisation produces these outcomes. Correction and allocation of responsibilities follow the capacities, powers of intervention and participations identified in point 5.

7.6 : Institutional Legitimacy, Participation and Review

The institutional legitimacy requires that the criteria, decisions and relevant procedures can be examined to the necessary extent for their justification. The limits to transparency have their own foundation and preserve effective means of contestation. Participation of affected systems is enabled according to their capacities and the material conditions of the decision. Critique, contestation and review constitute conditions of continued legitimacy of institutions.

8.1 : Material and symbolic scope of politics

Politics designates the material and symbolic activity by which shared conditions are organised and contested among systems whose operations, dependencies and effects intersect. It covers the State, government, elections and formally political institutions, as well as the constitution of norms, decisions, resources, infrastructures, techniques, participation spaces and procedures that organise these conditions.

8.2 : Political composition and material operativity

The political composition articulates systems, bodies, material resources, environments, signs, norms, institutions and technical processes. It denotes the organisation of relations in which cooperation, dependence, conflict and power asymmetries coexist. Classifications, decisions and norms become materially operative through the organisations that apply them.

8.3 : Political collectives and responsibility

A political collective can carry out coordinated operations, preserve decisions and produce effects that exceed the isolated action of any participant. The attribution of a decision to the collective depends on the procedures by which it was formed and executed. The participation and responsibility of the components are evaluated according to their contribution, capacity, authority and control, in articulation with the collective organisation's own responsibility.

8.4 : Political Decision in the Face of Incompatibilities

Policy often operates in front of incompatible criteria, needs, claims or projects. The decision explicitly states the alternatives, the mobilised criteria, the affected systems, the predictable effects and the pertinent uncertainties. Consensus and dissent constitute material conditions of the decision whose relevance depends on the procedures and foundations that produce them. The choice of objectives, indicators and priorities integrates the normative dimension of political decision and guides the use of available techniques.

8.5 : Political Participation and Representation

Political participation is enabled for affected systems according to relevant capacities and the material conditions of the decision. When a system cannot formulate claims or participate directly, its conditions and capacities are taken into account through justified representation procedures. The criteria of representation, the conduct of the representative and their effects remain examinable and subject to contestation and review.

8.6 : Historical Conditionality and Political Ends

All political orders are historical, situated and conditioned organisations. They may stabilise rights, protections and forms of cooperation and remain open to transformation, critique and revision. Progress, emancipation, justice and legitimacy are attributed according to their own criteria and the material effects demonstrated. Political ends are locally constituted material symbolic productions that guide actions in the domain in which they were justified.

9.1 : Unit of Analysis for Technical Systems

In situations mediated by technical systems, the unit of analysis is the material organisation that performs the operation in question. Its delimitation is epistemic and relies on the causal relationships demonstrated between the components. It may encompass physically distributed components and relations with people, organisations or institutions. The assigned unit corresponds to the relationships that effectively participate in the execution of the operation.

9.2 : Analysis of contributions and conditions of participation

The analysis distinguishes the causal contribution of the technical system, the operations it performs, the decisions made by other participants and the institutional conditions that organise its use. For each participant, the available information, the demonstrated capacities, the exercised authority, the effective control, the materially available alternatives and participation in the production of effects are identified. The designations “automatic”, “algorithmic” and “human” receive content through this analysis.

9.3 : Ethical responsibility of technical systems

A technical system assumes ethical responsibility when it performs, within the domain and period considered, the response capacity defined in point 5. Autonomous production of results, adaptation, learning, complexity and linguistic fluency constitute evidence in the extent that they allow the establishment of the operations required by the response capacity. The same criterion applies to any source or medium. Responsibility depends on the effective articulation of these operations and their relationship with the evaluated situation.

9.4 : Distribution among systems, people and organisations

The distribution of responsibility identifies participations, capacities, powers of intervention and distinct periods. A technical system, people, organisations and institutions that configure, provide, use, supervise or maintain the conditions of its operation may receive simultaneous and differentiated responsibilities. Each assignment retains its own fundamentals and is articulated with the others according to the demonstrated relations.

9.5 : Prospective responsibilities of organisations

Organisations that introduce technical systems into processes with ethically relevant effects possess prospective responsibilities proportional to their capacity for intervention and the risks involved. They justify utilisation criteria, assess the conditions under which results are produced, monitor pertinent effects and enable contestation, correction, interruption or repair when they are materially achievable. The reversibility of intervention integrates the prior justification into the decision.

9.6 : Accountability and temporal delimitation

The account of responsibilities explicitly defines the limits of access, explanation or audit, identifies the systems, people, organisations and institutions involved, justifies the criteria and decisions within the scope allowed by evidence, enables their contestation and answers for the effects that underpin duties of prevention, correction or repair. The attribution refers to the configuration and the period actually assessed, because changes in the organisation can modify capacities, information, control and causal participation.

10.1 : Practical decision under uncertainty

A decision under uncertainty occurs when the available foundations are sufficient to establish one or more conclusions relevant to action and the alternatives of acting, deferring or preserving the situation may produce materially distinct effects. Uncertainty characterises the knowledge available. The practical decision preserves that epistemic state and organises the action according to the foundations and criteria available.

10.2 : Scope of suspension and epistemic distinctions

The suspension of judgment remains within the exact scope of what remains to be established. The related conclusions that are justified retain their applicability. The decision distinguishes what is established, what has partial support, what remains possible and what is unknown. It also explicates the normative criteria mobilised, the systems affected and the predictable effects of each alternative.

10.3 : Precaution and foundation of intervention

Precaution designates the practical orientation by which, in the face of relevant uncertainty, one considers the asymmetry between possible errors, the gravity and extent of harm, the reversibility of effects, the exposure of affected systems and materially available alternatives. The precautionary measure requires a pertinent basis to relate the situation, the potential effect and the contemplated intervention. The strength of that basis, the possible gravity and uncertainty delimit the justifiable scope of the measure.

10.4 : Proportionality and Reversibility

Proportionality relates the intensity of the measure to the available foundations, the gravity of possible effects and the harms, burdens and risks produced by the intervention itself. A potentially serious or irreversible effect may justify stricter protection during uncertainty about its probability. Between adequate alternatives, the decision preserves the materially realizable possibilities for correction and review.

10.5 : Information, Urgency and Responsibility

The systems responsible for the decision seek the pertinent information that can be substantively obtained and make explicit the procedures used. Urgency may limit prior examination and requires recording provisional foundations, limits of information and risks or harms associated with delay. The quality and availability of information integrate the subsequent assessment of responsibility.

10.6 : Prepared Review and Subsequent Evaluation

The review is prepared within the decision itself whenever the conditions allow it. The effects to be monitored, the evidence capable of altering the assessment and the procedures for correction, cessation or repair are identified. New foundations may justify maintaining, modifying or revoking the measure. The previous decision is evaluated according to its foundations, alternatives and the capacities available at the time it was made. The success of the precautionary measure and the subsequent absence of harm are interpreted in light of the evidence available regarding the risk and the effects of the intervention.

1.1 : Concept and Function of Constitutional Delimitation

Constitutional delimitation denotes the justified determination of a clause’s scope and the conceptual and documentary boundary between the formulations that can be presented as positions of the OCE and those whose incorporation would require revision of that clause. Delimitation regulates attribution, development and application relationships within the constitutional framework.

1.2 : Conceptual Identity and Internal Authority

The function of delimitations is to preserve the conceptual identity of the OCE, distinguish convergence from assimilation, and make identifiable the relationships that would have to be altered to incorporate an incompatible formulation. The authority of delimitation is internal to the constitutional framework. The truth of clauses and the evaluation of external positions remain dependent on argumentation, material correspondence, verification, and criticism.

1.3 : Scope of application

Delimitations apply to concepts, definitions, relationships, inferences, explanations, classifications, and normative guidance presented as constitutive, developmental, or applicative aspects of the OCE. They encompass subordinate documents, derivative works, translations, and interpretations or comparisons that assign a position to the philosophical current. In other works, they apply only to the accuracy of the relation they assert with the OCE.

1.4 : Domain and scope of classification

Constitutional classification affects the domain and extent in which the relationship is demonstrated. The extension of classification to a text, work, author, or tradition requires demonstration of the corresponding dependency relationships. Effective convergences and other components of the evaluated position retain the status permitted by their own foundations.

1.5 : Basis in positive clauses and relation with law

Every delimitation derives from one or more ratified positive clauses and preserves the scope of those clauses. The criteria and consequences applied result from the current constitutional formulations. Constitutional Law systematises derived prohibitions and incompatibilities and remains subordinate to the positive clauses that give them foundation.

1.6 : Objection and review of delimitations

Current delimitations remain subject to objection and review by constitutional procedures. When an incompatibility reveals a shortfall of the constitutional formulation in light of relevant foundations, it generates a proposal for revision of the affected clause. Until ratification of the amendment, the prevailing formulation retains internal precedence and evaluation continues to incorporate relevant evidence and grounded objections.

2.1 : Evaluation Unit

The unit of evaluation is the proposition with the specific content it assumes in the context in which it occurs, including its scope and the function it performs within the argument. The location of an incompatibility requires identifying what is asserted, the conditions under which the assertion applies, and the relationship it maintains with the premises, inferences, and conclusions to which it belongs. The verbal formulation is evaluated as a textual realisation of that conceptual organisation in the considered context.

2.2 : Decomposition and Location of Incompatibility

A single sentence may articulate distinct propositions, and a proposition may depend on relationships distributed across several passages. Analysis distinguishes, when necessary, the adopted definition, the premises mobilised, the inferential passage, the conclusion obtained, and the scope assigned to it. The incompatibility is located in the element or relationship where the contradiction is established; the remaining components retain the status that their own foundations allow them to be attributed.

2.3 : Contextual Determination of Conceptual Content

The content of the terms is established by the conceptual use they receive in the text. The identity or conceptual difference is determined by comparing meanings and argumentative functions; lexical coincidence and diversity of formulation constitute indications whose relevance depends on contextual use. Evaluation reconstructs the effectively sustained meaning, meets the distinctions introduced by the author, and verifies the consequences that the formulation allows in the considered argument.

2.4 : Comparison with positive clauses

The relationship with the Constitution is determined by comparing the reconstructed proposition with applicable positive clauses. The analysis records separately what the text states, what it leaves to determine, and what follows from the relations it establishes. The classification of the relationship, including compatibility, convergence, tension, incompatibility or indeterminacy, follows the criteria defined in point 3 and preserves the degree of foundation actually achieved.

2.5 : Recording and propagation of incompatibility

Recording an incompatibility identifies the evaluated proposition, the pertinent constitutional clause, and the relation of contradiction that underpins classification under the considered senses and scope. It must also indicate dependency relations through which the incompatibility affects other propositions. The extent of the classification follows the demonstrated dependencies.

2.6 : Circumscription of the classification

A propositional location confines the classification to the scope of the determined divergence. A classification of the text, the work, the author or the tradition requires proof that the incompatibility extends to the corresponding organisation. The effective convergences retain their status, and the absence of formulation, indeterminacy and internal tension remain distinct from a constitutionally established contradiction.

3.1 : Dimensions and epistemic state of the regimes

The relationship regimes qualify the comparison between a proposition reconstructed according to point 2 and the applicable constitutional clauses. They articulate two dimensions and an epistemic state: compatibility and incompatibility qualify, respectively, the possibility and impossibility of maintaining together the formulations; convergence and tension characterise, respectively, the common positive content and the relevant divergence between them; indeterminacy records the state of the evaluation when the available foundations still do not allow a decision on the pertinent relationship.

3.2 : Compatibility

Compatibility denotes the possibility of jointly preserving the evaluated proposition and the constitutional clause under the same senses, conditions and scope. The classification records that relational consistency in the examined aspect and preserves for each formulation the foundations, the function and the scope that belong to it.

3.3 : Convergence

Convergence denotes the justified sharing of an assertion, distinction, criterion, inferential relation or guidance between the evaluated proposition and the constitutional clause. The common content may result from distinct conceptual pathways and is identified in the exact domain where the formulations coincide.

3.4 : Tension

Tension denotes a conceptually relevant divergence between formulations that can be maintained together within the evaluated scope. It occurs when differences in premise, criterion, priority, consequence or extension orient the articulation in different senses and require clarification, additional grounding or more precise delimitation.

3.5 : Incompatibility

Incompatibility denotes a contradiction demonstrated under the same senses, conditions and scope. It is established when the evaluated proposition negates what the constitutional clause affirms, implies its negation or depends on a relation that cannot be maintained together with it. The classification identifies the contradictory element and the dependencies through which the contradiction affects other propositions.

3.6 : Indeterminacy

Indeterminacy denotes the suspension of classification when the content, sense, function, conditions, scope or available foundations admit relevant different reconstructions or remain insufficient to decide the relation. It refers to the epistemic state of the evaluation. The record identifies what is missing to be established and retains the open classification for review in light of additional foundations.

3.7 : Conditions of the record

Each classification explicitly states the proposition evaluated, the relevant constitutional clause, the meanings and conditions considered, the scope of the relationship and the foundations that support it. When different aspects or propositional units realise different regimes, each relation is recorded separately.

4.1 : Concept of Partial Convergence

Partial convergence denotes the justified sharing of a circumscribed propositional content among positions whose remaining conceptual relations retain differences. Its identification explicitly states the common proposition, the conditions and scope in which convergence occurs and the relations that remain distinct.

4.2 : Conceptual Autonomy of Positions

Conceptual autonomy denotes, for each position, the conservation of the problem it addresses, the definitions it adopts, the premises it mobilises, the inferential relations it establishes, the function assigned to concepts and the consequences it authorises. The content of a concept or proposition is determined by these relations within the framework in which it operates. Convergence thus delineated integrates into the comparative map and preserves each position’s own organisation.

4.3 : Types of Convergence

The analysis determines what the convergence concerns. A common conclusion supported by different premises or pathways establishes convergence of conclusion. Convergence of argument requires relevant equivalence of premises, inferential path and conclusion. Conceptual convergence requires equivalence of definitions, application criteria, argumentative function and consequences within the scope considered. Use of the same term with different meanings constitutes lexical coincidence under point 2.

4.4 : Relationships conceptual and genealogical

Conceptual convergence and genealogical relationship are distinct determinations. Attribution of derivation or influence requires adequate historical and documentary foundations. When these foundations remain to be established, the conceptual relationship retains justified classification and the genealogical relationship remains indeterminate.

4.5 : Coexistence of regimes in a position

A position may converge with a clause within a propositional unit and maintain tension or incompatibility elsewhere. Comparative registration articulates separately the common content and demonstrated differences, preserving the autonomy of positions and allowing each contribution to be evaluated by its own foundations and by the precise relationship it maintains with the OCE.

5.1 : Scope of classification

The scope of a classification designates the content, meanings, conditions, domain and period relative to which the constitutional relation was demonstrated. It is determined by the evaluated proposition, the applicable clause and the comparison foundations.

5.2 : Extension by demonstrated dependencies

The extension designates the application of classification to other propositions or to broader documentary units. It results from the demonstrated dependency relations between the initially classified unit and the units to which it is intended to be extended. Textual proximity, common authorship and belonging to the same work constitute contextual data whose relevance for the extension depends on the proposition’s function in the conceptual and argumentative organisation.

5.3 : Local and structural classification

Classification is local when the demonstrated relation remains confined to the proposition and does not determine the conceptual or argumentative organisation of the larger unit. It is structural when the proposition functions as definition, premise, inferential passage, criterion or conclusion upon which the thesis or the argumentative architecture of that unit depend. The recurrence of a formulation underpins the extension when the occurrences preserve the pertinent content and function. The evidential value of the number of occurrences derives from its articulation with these relations.

5.4 : Authorial positions and traditions

The classification of an authorial position or a tradition requires delimiting the corpus, the period and the representative formulations, as well as demonstrating the relevant continuity between them. Changes in position, differences between works and internal disputes receive their own classifications according to propositional units and demonstrated dependencies.

5.5 : Versions, translations and revisions

Each version, translation or revision is evaluated according to the formulation that it actually presents. The classification extends across versions when conservation of the proposition and its function is demonstrated. The final record states the original scope, the justified extensions and the documentary and temporal limits of the classification.

6.1 : Characterisation of borderline cases

A borderline case occurs when the application of a relationship regime depends on determining a sense, condition, function, extent or dependency that has not yet been established. The analysis identifies the decisive criterion, the available foundations and what would allow the relation to be decided.

6.2 : Decomposition and indeterminacy

When a formulation articulates propositions or aspects that establish different relations with the Constitution, each relation receives its own classification. If, after decomposition, relevant reconstructions still differ or there is insufficient foundation to decide, indeterminacy applies to the exact scope in question. The record may indicate the comparative strength of the foundations of each reconstruction, preserving indeterminacy while the decisive criterion remains to be established.

6.3 : Change of position and temporal domain

The change of position is established by comparing formulations situated in their respective corpus and period, respecting their authority, function and scope. The subsequent formulation constitutes the prevailing position only within the domain where the substitution has been demonstrated. The preceding classification continues to apply historically to the formulation and period it evaluated; the new formulation is classified according to its own content.

6.4 : Foundations and modalities of review

The review of a classification may arise from new sources, clarification of the context, correction of a translation, a more appropriate reconstruction of the proposition, alteration of the evaluated formulation or revision of the applicable constitutional clause. It constitutes a correction when the new foundations show that the previous classification was not justified with respect to the then-existing object. It constitutes an update when the evaluated position or the constitutional clause has changed after the classification.

6.5 : Recording and propagation of review

All review identifies the prior classification, the grounds for change, the date, the scope and the affected dependent units. The extensions founded on the revised classification are re‑evaluated according to the demonstrated dependencies. The record preserves the sequence of formulations and classifications, distinguishing a correction of a previous assessment from the update required by the change of object or constitutional reference.

7.1 : Constitutional foundation and legal systematisation

The constitutional classification is based on the positive clauses and the criteria of this Part. When an incompatibility receives a legal formulation, the Constitutional Law systematises the derived consequence. The origin, content and scope of the provision remain determined by the Constitution.

7.2 : Content and effects of legal provisions

Each provision identifies the originating positive clause, the relevant constitutional dependencies, the proposition or operation covered, the meanings, the conditions and the domain of prohibition. It also specifies whether the internal effect falls on attribution, incorporation, development or application of a formulation as an OCE position. External positions retain their autonomy and are evaluated according to their own foundations.

7.3 : Compliance and incorporation into law

The conformity of a formulation with the OCE is determined by direct comparison with the current Constitution, read together with the applicable legal provisions. The positive clauses retain their content and scope regardless of whether a specific legal provision exists. Recording an incompatibility in the preparatory register requires identification of the originating clause, its justification, scope, and dependencies; incorporation into the Law requires explicit authorial approval and ratification under the applicable procedure.

7.4 : Revision and precedence of the Constitution

The revision of a constitutional clause determines the re‑examination of the provisions derived from it. The correction, update, maintenance or revocation of each provision is recorded with the foundations, the date, the reach and the affected dependencies, according to the distinction established in point 6. The Constitution and the Law are applied together, with precedence given to the current constitutional formulation.