Constitutional Law of the OEC

Identifier: LC-PR-01
Positive source clauses: Preamble of the Constitution, paragraphs 1–4; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part I, clauses 4.1–4.2, 5.1–5.2, and 7.1–7.3; Part IX, clauses 6.4–6.5.
Proposition or operation covered: preparatory register, derivation, incorporation, interpretation, review, and application of the provisions of the Constitutional Law.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: applies to derivation, incorporation, review, and the internal legal provisions of the OEC, as well as to determining their conformity with the current Constitution; it does not produce autonomous judgements on external positions.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, and application of formulations as legal provisions of the OEC.

1. Each provision of this Law derives from one or more current positive constitutional clauses and must preserve its respective origin, content, scope, and relevant dependencies.
2. The incorporation of a provision into this Law requires the incompatibility to have been entered in the preparatory register with its originating clause, justification, scope, and relevant dependencies, and requires express authorial approval and ratification under the proper procedure.
3. Formulations incorporated into this Law possess legal authority derived from the Constitution and preserve only the content, scope, and internal effects supported by their respective positive source clauses.
4. It is incompatible with the OEC to create, interpret, or apply a legal provision in a way that adds doctrine, criteria, exclusions, or consequences not supported by the Constitution, or that reduces the scope of the originating clause.
5. The conformity of a formulation with the OEC requires direct comparison with the current Constitution; the existence or absence of a specific legal provision does not replace that comparison.
6. The review of a constitutional clause requires the re-examination of the legal provisions derived from it. The correction, updating, maintenance, or revocation of those provisions is recorded with the grounds, date, scope, and affected dependencies, according to the constitutional distinctions applicable to review.
7. This article governs the derivation, interpretation, and internal application of the Law and does not convert constitutional authority into an autonomous judgement on the truth or value of positions external to the OEC.

Identifier: LC-I-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Protection of the Official Designation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to alter the designation Ontologia da Complexidade Emergente, the abbreviation OCE, or the English designation Ontology of Emergent Complexity when they denote the philosophical current.
2. The provision protects only official designations that identify the philosophical current and does not regulate the common use of the words that compose them.

Identifier: LC-I-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Limits of the Constitution's Epistemic Authority’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to treat the inclusion of a proposition in the Constitution as proof of its truth or as sufficient external authority to validate it;
   b. to invoke the Constitution to dispense with argumentation, material correspondence, verification or critical confrontation.
2. The provisions limit constitutional authority to the corpus of the OEC and preserve in full all epistemic requirements applicable to assertions.

Identifier: LC-I-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Limits on Application of the Framework’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. use the Constitution as a universal grid imposed on phenomena, subordinating the object and scope of investigation to the categories of the framework;
   b. mobilise constitutional operators as marks of belonging when they do not add a necessary distinction to the argument;
   c. consider that the Constitution pre-determines the architecture, disciplinary vocabulary or conclusion of a particular investigation.
2. The provisions regulate the mobilisation of the OEC in derivative works and do not prevent the use of constitutional operators when the object and argument justify it.

Identifier: LC-I-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Reservation of Constitutional Authority’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. assign to artificial intelligence models, reviewers, editors, institutions, technical procedures or third parties authority to ratify, review or revoke constitutional clauses;
   b. consider that a publication, terminological repetition, editorial practice or subordinate formulation itself alters the position of the OEC.
2. The provisions reserve to the author the constitutional acts and distinguish these acts from critical, editorial or technical contributions that may inform them.

Identifier: LC-I-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Hierarchical Precedence’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. placing a subordinate source at the same level or above the Constitution.
2. The provision applies the documentary hierarchy defined in the Constitution without automatically conferring epistemic truth to constitutional propositions.

Identifier: LC-I-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Resolution and Propagation of Conflicts between Sources’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating a more recent, more extensive or more repeated subordinate formulation as tacit revocation of a constitutional clause;
   b. declaring conflict between sources without first checking whether the formulations operate at different levels and are compatible;
   c. propagating as a constitutional norm a formulation from a subordinate source before its approval and express incorporation into the Constitution.
2. The provisions distinguish textual divergence, level difference and material conflict, subordinating any normative change to the constitutional process.

Identifier: LC-I-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Integrity of the Constitutional Review Process’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to carry out tacit constitutional revisions that are not comparative, not traceable or without explicit author approval;
   b. to alter a clause without identifying the consequences of the change for the other parts of the Constitution and for subordinate sources;
   c. to treat the revisability of the Constitution as permission for occasional, silent or editorial convenience‑determined changes;
   d. to treat constitutional authority as an impediment to revising a clause in face of a substantiated objection.
2. The provisions simultaneously protect constitutional stability and the possibility of justified revision according to the established procedure.

Identifier: LC-I-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Status of Superseded Formulations’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to maintain a superseded formulation as an active norm or present it alongside the current wording so that it creates ambiguity;
   b. to attribute constitutional authority to an old formulation merely because it was published, repeated or previously treated as canonical.
2. The provisions preserve the historical value of superseded formulations and remove only their active normative authority.

Identifier: LC-I-09-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part I, point 9.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Canonical Source and Derived Versions’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. treating a DOCX version, a publication or any other derived version as a canonical source when it differs from the approved Markdown file;
   b. producing or presenting the DOCX version as ratified Constitution before the full ratification of the text.
2. The provisions establish the precedence of the approved Markdown and the moment from which a DOCX version derived from the ratified Constitution may exist.

Identifier: LC-II-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Materiality of the Existent’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. postulate an immaterial substance, domain or principle as origin, foundation, form, intelligibility or complement of material reality;
   b. treat life, thought, language, technique or symbolic organisation as achievements of a non‑material reality;
   c. reduce matter to an inert, passive, homogeneous or undifferentiated support;
   d. convert differences between configurations, processes or regimes of organisation into worlds, substances or ontologically separate levels.

2. The provisions affirm the materiality of everything that exists and preserve the real differentiation of material configurations and processes.

Identifier: LC-II-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Immanence, Transcendence, and Absence of telos’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. attribute to matter an immaterial soul, essence, pure form, pre‑inscribed purpose or normative instance preceding material processes;
   b. attribute to reality a telos, a global direction or a final configuration whose realisation is pre‑instated in matter;
   c. treat local ends constituted by symbolic systems as intrinsic purposes of material configurations or as the direction of reality;
   d. infer from the designation or material experience of transcendence the existence of an ontological transcendent domain;
   e. use the rejection of transcendence to deny the material reality of experience, sense or thought.

2. The provisions reject ontological transcendence and pre‑inscribed purpose, preserving the material reality of experience and local ends constituted by symbolic systems.

Identifier: LC-II-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Ontological Exterior and Relative Delimitations’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. interpreting the absence of an exterior to space‑time as absence of relative externalities between regions, configurations or material scopes;
   b. treating epistemic delimitation of interiors, exteriors or configurations as ontological division of matter.
2. The provisions distinguish the non‑existence of an ontological exterior from relative externalities and from epistemic delimitations based on material differences.

Identifier: LC-II-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Material Differentiation, Organisation, and Scale’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating ‘local’ or ‘scale’ as intrinsic ontological properties that divide reality into levels;
   b. converting differences in magnitude, rhythm, complexity or organisation into ontological hierarchies or material ruptures between regimes;
   c. inferring from the ontological continuity of matter its homogeneity, uniformity or the equivalence and reducibility of all organisations;
   d. treating a delineated configuration as an absolute, isolated or self‑sufficient unit.
2. The provisions preserve the reality of material differences, situate ‘local’ and ‘scale’ within epistemic scope and prevent material continuity from being confused with homogeneity.

Identifier: LC-II-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Material Efficacy, Function, and Agency’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to identify the production of material effects with the exercise of a function;
   b. to attribute functions to non‑symbolic configurations as intrinsic properties, rather than recognising them as attributions materially carried out by symbolic systems;
   c. to identify causal efficacy with agency, intention, subjectivity or consciousness;
   d. to grant universal agency to matter or use the expression ‘matter as experimental agent’ in a strict sense;
   e. to infer from the refusal of universal agency that matter is passive or causally ineffective.
2. The provisions distinguish material effects, functions constituted within the symbolic regime and agency, without reducing matter to passivity or causal ineffectiveness.

Identifier: LC-II-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Persistence and Dynamic Equilibrium’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to treat persistence as an illusion, absence of processes or unconditional guarantee of continuity;
   b. to identify dynamic equilibrium with rest, final convergence, harmony or elimination of differences;
   c. to confuse the generality of dynamic equilibrium with the identity of the concrete processes that sustain mountains, organisms, institutions or symbolic configurations;
   d. to deny the general mechanism of dynamic equilibrium merely because the material processes that realise it differ across configurations.
2. The provisions maintain dynamic equilibrium as a general mechanism of persistence and distinguish it from the concrete, differing processes by which each configuration persists.

Identifier: LC-II-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Instability as a Condition’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. identifying instability with chaos, disorder, permanent volatility, failure or imminent collapse;
   b. treating instability as a hidden force, causal engine of emergence, operative excess or guarantee of novelty;
   c. inferring from instability a determined outcome of reinforcement, reorganisation, dissolution or complexification;
   d. treating a local stability as absolute, self‑sufficient or independent of the relations that sustain it.
2. The provisions set instability as a condition for all local stabilities, without attributing to it its own causal force, predetermined result or necessary production of novelty.

Identifier: LC-II-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part II, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Absence of an Ontological Centre’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. attributing to an entity, species, order of magnitude or regime of organisation the status of ontological centre or foundation of reality;
   b. treating humans as the ontological measure of other material configurations;
   c. interpreting the absence of an ontological centre as erasing differences in organisation, capacity or effect;
   d. denying the existence of centres, asymmetries or local and relational references based on the absence of an absolute ontological centre.
2. The provisions reject an absolute ontological centre and preserve local or relational centres, asymmetries, references and differences.

Identifier: LC-III-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: points III.3 and III.5, regarding causal explanation and attribution criteria; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Distinction between Change, Reconfiguration, and Emergence’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. identifying change, reconfiguration and emergence or using these concepts as equivalents;
   b. explaining change or reconfiguration by failure, lack, rupture, collapse, incapacity or insufficiency of the present form;
   c. attributing emergence to observer surprise, unpredictability, creation of a new description or ignorance of causes;
   d. asserting an emergence without identifying the adopted cut, antecedent material conditions, relevant causal processes, the reconfiguration that occurred and the new property, capacity or effect;
   e. converting the epistemological delimitation of a configuration into a material boundary or an absolute ontological unit;
   f. treating emergence as a passage to another domain of being or as constituting an ontologically superior level.
2. The provisions distinguish the three concepts, fix the minimum conditions for attributing emergence and exclude private explanations or ontological divisions that the positive clause does not authorise.

Identifier: LC-III-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Possibility without Ontological Reserve’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating possibilities as entities, regions of being, pre‑existing forms, ontological reserves or content awaiting updating;
   b. considering that materially possible relations already exist in a virtual domain or accounting for them as realised entities;
   c. inferring from the conditions that allow or limit a realisation that the result is pre‑described, determined or guaranteed;
   d. concluding from the epistemological character of possibility statements that the material conditions they refer to are arbitrary, unreal or observation‑dependent.
2. The provisions set possibility as an epistemological determination regarding current material conditions, without ontological reservation, anticipation of outcome or material dependence relative to the observer.

Identifier: LC-III-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: point III.2, regarding the status of materially possible relations; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Operative Excess and Possibility of Reconfiguration’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. compare quantities of possible relations without specifying the comparison criterion or converting this symbolic operation into an autonomous ontological property;
   b. treat operative excess as substance, additional energy, information reserve, agent pressure, autonomous force or causal entity;
   c. assert that operative excess forces, requires, obliges, determines or guarantees reconfiguration;
   d. transform operative excess, as a positive causal engine, into a sufficient cause, an agent or a direction toward a pre‑anticipated result;
   e. deny all causal relevance of operative excess because it does not constitute a sufficient cause.

2. The provisions keep operative excess as an affirmative causal condition that makes reconfiguration possible, without converting it into an entity, agent, sufficient cause, necessity or teleological orientation.

Identifier: LC-III-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part II, point 5, and Part V, regarding function and symbolic regime; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Structural Form, Symbolic Form, and Functional Categories’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. interpret the distinction between structural form and symbolic form as an opposition between matter and symbol or as a division between ontological domains;
   b. treat symbolic form as non‑material or forget that every symbolic organisation is material and structurally realised;
   c. restrict operative excess to the symbolic domain or exclude from its application non‑symbolic material organisations;
   d. assign function, purpose, meaning or intention outside the symbolic regime;
   e. project onto the real in general the purposes or functions locally constituted by symbolic systems.

2. The provisions keep symbolic form within matter, distinguish it without ontological separation and preserve the general application of operative excess without projecting symbolic categories onto non‑symbolic organisations.

Identifier: LC-III-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: point III.1, regarding the distinction between change, reconfiguration and emergence; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Criteria and Scope of the Attribution of Emergence’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. to consider that the isolated enumeration of components explains the property, capacity or effect produced by the relations of the resulting organisation; b. to metaphysically declare impossible the deduction of an emergence from antecedent conditions; c. to infer from the emergence an increase in value, progress, greater perfection, necessary persistence or continuous complexification; d. to install the very emergence as a universal principle that explains all material processes.
2. The provisions require explanation of relevant material relations, delimit what can be inferred from the emergence and prevent the concept from becoming a universal explanatory principle.

Identifier: LC-III-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Complexity’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. to treat complexity as substance, force, essence, cause or ontological hierarchy; b. to attribute to an organisation an intrinsic and absolute degree of complexity, regardless of the problem, model and criteria used; c. to conclude from the epistemic character of complexity that the material organisations described depend on its observation or measurement to exist; d. to consider that a single measure of complexity, the increase in number of components, the multiplication of interactions or the expansion of possibilities demonstrates, by itself, an emergence; e. to convert the expression ‘emergent complexity’ into a universal law of progress or a necessary direction of increasing complexity.
2. The provisions set complexity as an epistemological determination dependent on explicit criteria, preserve the independent existence of material organisations and separate complexity, emergence and progress.

Identifier: LC-III-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part III, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: points III.1 and III.2, regarding emergence and possibility; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Threshold of Possibility’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. use ‘operational threshold’ as canonical equivalent of ‘possibility threshold’;
   b. treat the possibility threshold as a boundary inscribed in the matter, autonomous causal force or necessary instant of passage;
   c. consider that satisfying the conditions described by the threshold proves or guarantees reconfiguration or emergence;
   d. confuse possibility, fulfilment and persistence or infer automatically one of them from the others.
2. The provisions preserve ‘possibility threshold’ as canonical designation of an epistemological determination of material conditions and keep distinct possibility, fulfilment, emergence and persistence.

Identifier: LC-IV-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Status of the Tripartition’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. convert the real–concrete–theory tripartition into three substances, worlds, layers or ontological levels;
   b. deny that concrete and theory are material organisations belonging to the real or transform their conceptual differences into an ontological rupture;
   c. replace theory with symbolic as a third term or add symbolic as a fourth term of the tripartition;
   d. give the same conceptual status to the real, concrete, symbolic and theory.
2. The provisions preserve real–concrete–theory as canonical tripartition, situate symbolic as material mediation and distinguish the conceptual status of the terms without ontologically separating them.

Identifier: LC-IV-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Real’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. treat the real as a product of observation, consciousness, language, formalism or theory;
   b. make existence, determinations or effects of the real depend on its observation or capture;
   c. deny reality to what has not been observed or captured;
   d. interpret the assertion that the real exceeds concrete and theory as a postulation of a hidden, transcendental or inaccessible domain by principle;
   e. affirm that an observation, concretion or theory exhausts the real.
2. The provisions assert the existence and efficacy of the real independently of knowledge, understanding its excess as non‑exhaustiveness of each concretion and theory, not as a transcendental domain.

Identifier: LC-IV-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Concrete and Concretion’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. identify concrete with the totality of reality or with the formalisation of its knowledge; b. designate as concrete, in the canonical sense of the OEC, a portion of reality that has not been observed and captured by a material system; c. include symbols, concepts, models, interpretations or formalisms in the definition of concrete while it is an observed and captured portion; d. interpret ‘known’, in the definition of concrete, as conceptual formalisation or as necessarily conscious experience; e. treat the concrete portion as ontological fragmentation of matter, absolute material unity or pre‑existing division of reality; f. present concrete as a neutral or exhaustive apprehension, independent of resolution, device, temporal interval, thresholds or system discrimination capacity; g. admit concretion without a material observation system; h. require consciousness or intention for concretion to exist; i. assert that observation makes an occurrence pass into existence or gives it ontological determination; j. interpret material changes produced by observational interaction as ontological creation performed by the observer.
2. The provisions fix concrete as a situated portion of observed and captured reality by a material system, distinguishing this epistemic status from existence, symbolic formalisation and ontological fragmentation of matter.

Identifier: LC-IV-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, regarding the canonical chain material–trace–inscription–relationship mark–symbol; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Passage from the Concrete to the Symbolic’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. identify observation and capture with symbolisation or consider that concrete automatically enters a symbolic regime; b. include language or formalism in concrete before the material operations through which it is symbolically integrated; c. dispense with discrimination, recognition or inscription in the passage from concrete to the symbolic regime; d. decompose the singular inscription of a difference into inaugural inscription and subsequent inscriptions with distinct symbolic statutes; e. introduce the concept of ‘inaugural symbol’ or classify symbols according to variations different from the established canonical orders; f. separate the formation of the mark from the constitution of the first‑order symbol that represents it; g. treat the mark as a coded record, a stored symbolic representation or an organisation of language; h. attribute to the inscription, the mark or an isolated symbol the relations, interpretations, comparisons and reorganisations belonging to the system operating between symbols; i. make marks or supports enter into symbolic relations, which are established only among symbols.
2. The provisions distinguish concretion and symbolisation, preserve the singularity of the inscription and assign to the system, operating between symbols, the relations and reorganisations that do not belong to the mark, the support or the isolated symbol.

Identifier: LC-IV-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, points 6 and 7, regarding symbolic orders and relations; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Symbolic as a Material Regime’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating the symbolic as immaterial, transcendental, outside material reality or bearing content belonging to another domain;
   b. distinguishing symbolic and non‑symbolic organisations by the substance they belong to, rather than by materially demonstrated operations;
   c. admitting symbolic orders different from 1st order, constituted by the mark–symbol relation, and 2nd order, resulting from articulation between symbols;
   d. making a 2nd‑order symbol result from a new inscription, a new mark or a new stroke, rather than from articulation between symbols.

2. The provisions keep the symbolic as a material regime, distinguish organisations by demonstrated operations and retain only the two constitutionally defined symbolic orders.

Identifier: LC-IV-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Theory and Formalism’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating an inscription, a mark, an isolated symbol or an isolated formalism as theory;
   b. including the formalism in the concrete part represented, rather than situating it within the symbolic organisation of the theory;
   c. denying that a formula, diagram or model, while being material configurations observed and captured, can constitute concretes, or inferring from this that its formal function belongs to the concrete;
   d. concluding from the material existence of a formalism that the entities or divisions it articulates exist in reality as represented;
   e. directly inferring the ontological structure of reality from internal coherence, elegance or predictive efficacy of a theory.

2. The provisions distinguish the material existence of a formalism, the possibility of it being observed as concrete, and the symbolic function it performs within a theory, without automatically transferring its organisation to the represented reality.

Identifier: LC-IV-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IV, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Relations between Real, Concrete, Symbolic, and Theory’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. convert the analytical sequence real–concrete–inscription–symbolic articulation–theory into ontological layers or a mandatory universal chronology;
   b. conclude from the material capacity of a theory to guide observations, devices or interventions that erases the distinction between the theory and what it represents;
   c. attribute to the real, concrete, inscriptions or marks the operation of revising symbolic relations, which belongs to the material system when confronting the theory with what other observations and recordings make known.

2. The provisions preserve the sequence as a conceptual dependency, distinguish the theory from what it represents despite its material efficacy and assign to the system the review of symbolic relations in light of new observations and recordings.

Identifier: LC-V-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Integrity of the Canonical Chain of Inscription’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. converting the material difference chain → trace → inscription → mark–symbol relation into plans, substances or ontological levels;
   b. interpreting the arrows of the canonical chain as a universal chronology or introducing a temporal interval between the constitution of the mark and that of the first‑order symbol;
   c. asserting that every material difference inevitably becomes a trace, inscription, mark or symbol;
   d. attributing to the symbol natures or varieties different from the sole material and operative nature defined in this Part.

2. The prohibitions preserve the chain as an analytical and operative dependency within a single material reality, without imposing its realisation on every difference nor creating other symbol natures.

Identifier: LC-V-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Material Difference’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. making the existence of a material difference depend on its observation, discrimination, description or symbolisation;
   b. treating the epistemic identification of a difference as creation of the identified material effects;
   c. treating a material difference as an absolutely isolated object or as a unit delimited in itself.

2. The prohibitions preserve the material independence of the difference relative to knowledge and distinguish that existence from its epistemic identification, without isolating it as an absolute object.

Identifier: LC-V-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Trace’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to call ‘trace’ a material difference before it has been discriminated by a system;
   b. to identify the trace with the discriminated material difference;
   c. to qualify the trace as new or old; novelty or unknownness belong to the discriminated difference relative to the system;
   d. to treat the trace as a persistent object, support, vestige, record or incomplete mark;
   e. to conclude from the persistence of the discriminated material configuration that the trace persists;
   f. to situate the trace after the recognition or inscription of the difference it refers to.

2. The prohibitions fix the trace as an ephemerally material event of discrimination, prior to recognition and inscription, distinguishing it from the difference and any persistent configuration.

Identifier: LC-V-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: points V.3, V.5 and V.6 regarding the trace and the first‑order mark–symbol relation; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Inscription’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to define an inscription without prior discrimination by the trace, without recognition under protocol or without constituting the mark–symbol relation;
   b. to qualify an inscription as inaugural or divide it into initial and subsequent inscriptions of the same difference;
   c. to use the singularity of the inscription to subdivide, qualify chronologically or establish varieties of symbols;
   d. to describe the mark as preceding the symbol, following the symbol or awaiting symbolisation;
   e. to separate temporally or operationally the constitution of the mark and that of the first‑order symbol resulting from the same inscription;
   f. to treat the inscription as an object, persistent record, stored structure or operation subject to reorganisation;
   g. to assign to the inscription relations, comparisons, interpretations or reorganisations.

2. The prohibitions preserve the inscription as a singular operation that simultaneously constitutes the first‑order mark–symbol relation, without inaugural phases, its own persistence or subsequent relational operations.

Identifier: LC-V-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: point V.4, regarding the constitution of the mark in inscription; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Mark’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating the mark as a register, encoded configuration stored, linguistic representation or symbolic content;
   b. asserting that the mark becomes a symbol;
   c. attributing to the mark recognition, interpretation, comparison, representation, establishment of relations or reorganisation;
   d. interpreting the passivity of the mark as physical inertia, causal non-existence or absence of its own material effects of the configuration;
   e. converting the material effects of the mark into relational efficacy or into symbolic capacity of the mark itself;
   f. confusing the production or persistence of a material configuration with the automatic constitution of a mark.
2. The prohibitions establish the mark as a material configuration constituted in inscription and represented by a first‑order symbol, passive only with regard to symbolic operations and not with regard to its own material effects.

Identifier: LC-V-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: points V.4, V.5 and V.8, regarding the constitution of first‑ and second‑order symbols; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Symbol and Symbolic Orders’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating the symbol as an immaterial image, content separate from the support or an entity capable of operating in isolation;
   b. asserting that a first‑order symbol directly represents an external object or immaterial content instead of representing a mark;
   c. making the first‑order symbol result from an operation different from that which constitutes the mark;
   d. introducing the concept of ‘inaugural symbol’ or other chronological or genetic classifications of symbols;
   e. making a second‑order symbol result from an inscription, a mark, a stroke or a material difference instead of the articulation between symbols;
   f. attributing different material natures to first‑ and second‑order symbols;
   g. classifying symbols according to orders other than first and second.
2. The prohibitions preserve a single material nature for the symbol and only two orders, differentiated by the operation that constitutes them: mark–symbol relation and articulation between symbols.

Identifier: LC-V-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Symbolic Relations and System Operations’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. to assert that the system establishes symbolic relations between marks or converts marks into relational agents;
   b. to assign to an isolated symbol operations belonging to the material system operating through relationships between symbols;
   c. to treat the capacities demonstrated by the system as autonomous properties of symbols considered separately.

2. The prohibitions reserve for the system the recognition, relation and modulation operations carried out through symbols, without turning isolated marks or symbols into agents.

Identifier: LC-V-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: points V.5–V.7, regarding the mark, symbolic orders and system operations; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Symbolic Reorganisation and Novelty’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. to assert that symbolic reorganisation reorganises, combines or recombines inscriptions or marks;
   b. to restrict symbolic combination or recombination to first‑order symbols; symbols of either order may participate in relations established by the system;
   c. to identify any juxtaposition, repetition, combination or recombination of symbols with production of novelty;
   d. to attribute symbolic novelty without having produced a configuration previously non‑operational in the system and without effects on its possibilities for discrimination, formulation, inference or action;
   e. to make conceptual novelty result from a ‘new concrete’, a new mark or a new inscription, rather than from material articulation between symbols;
   f. to treat concepts, conjectures, demonstrations, interpretations or other ideas as contents received from an immaterial domain;
   g. to assert that symbolic reorganisation guarantees novelty or determines in advance its occurrence or the configuration it will assume;
   h. to deny the local character of novelty relative to the system that produces it or confuse it with its eventual inter‑systemic reach;
   i. to treat the symbol or symbolic reorganisation as immaterial;
   j. to call ‘symbolic transformation of the mark’ the physical destruction or alteration of a material configuration.

2. The prohibitions place symbolic reorganisation in relationships between symbols of any order, define the conditions of symbolic novelty and preserve its possibility without converting it into guarantee, immaterial content or mark alteration.

Identifier: LC-V-09-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part V, point 9.
Constitutional dependencies: points V.6–V.8, regarding the integration of the sign in the symbolic operations of the system; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Sign and Operative Universality’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. identify sign and symbol or treat the sign as a third symbolic order;
   b. treat any public configuration as a sign without conventional stabilisation in a shared code;
   c. consider that the presence or circulation of a sign automatically constitutes a symbolic operation in the system that receives it;
   d. assert that a sign transports between systems a symbol already constituted, an identical symbolic configuration or a determined internal content;
   e. require communication, shared code or formalised language for symbolism to exist;
   f. conclude from the use of a common code that participating systems possess identical internal symbolic configurations;
   g. convert the operative universality of a sign into absolute legibility, independent of the domain of the code and the shared operations;
   h. deny the operative universality of a sign merely because it depends on the ability to operate according to a common code;
   i. treat mathematics as a universal language for systems unable to operate according to their conventions and operations;
   j. restrict the symbolic integration of signs or operative universality to human systems or to a specific nature of support.

2. The prohibitions distinguish sign from symbol, conditionally tie universality to the domain of a shared code and prevent the symbolic integration or operative universality from being restricted to humans or a particular nature of support.

Identifier: LC-VI-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Material Continuity and Distinction of Capacities’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating life, sensitivity, symbolic organisation, thought, subjectivity or consciousness as substances, worlds or ontological domains distinct from matter;
   b. inferring from the material continuity of these capacities that they are equivalent, inseparable or mutually implicated;
   c. identifying life, sensitivity, symbolisation, thought, subjectivity and consciousness or automatically inferring one of these capacities from the others;
   d. attributing thought, subjectivity or consciousness based solely on complexity, recursion, computation, language, behaviour or performance.

2. The prohibitions preserve the material continuity of the capacities without identifying them or authorising automatic inferences among them; each attribution retains its own criteria and evidence requirements.

Identifier: LC-VI-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Life as Material Organisation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. defining life by vital force, external principle, inscribed purpose, ontological leap or fulfilment of a pre‑existing end;
   b. identifying any delimited chemical process, transformation cycle, metabolism, reproduction or hereditary variation, considered in isolation, with the material organisation of life;
   c. philosophically deciding borderline biological cases without empirical investigation;
   d. inferring from the material conditions that make life possible that its emergence is predetermined or guaranteed;
   e. inferring sensitivity, symbolisation, thought, subjectivity or consciousness from the simple fact that an organisation is alive.

2. The prohibitions keep life as a materially investigable organisation, without vitalism, pre‑existing purpose, predetermination or automatic extension to other capacities.

Identifier: LC-VI-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: points VI.2, VI.4 and Part V, regarding life, thought and symbolic reorganisation; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Biosoma’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. use ‘biosoma’ as a synonym for organism, body, life or any complex system;
   b. restrict the concept of biosoma to human beings or exclude non‑human animals in which sensitivity to material differences and capacity for symbolic reorganisation are demonstrated;
   c. attribute the capacities of the biosoma to any living organism without demonstrating the required symbolic organisation;
   d. transform the biosoma into a universal condition of all possible symbolic organisations;
   e. house thought in the biosoma as a substance, entity or content separate from the material organisation that realises it;
   f. interpret sensitivity to material differences as automatic proof of symbolisation, thought, experience or consciousness.

2. The prohibitions delimit the biosoma by capacities demonstrated in a biological organisation, include non‑human animals that satisfy the criteria and prevent the concept from being universalised or converted into a container for a thinking entity.

Identifier: LC-VI-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, regarding symbols, signs and symbolic relations; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Thought’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. affirm that all matter thinks or that any complex, recursive, computational or linguistically productive system performs thought;
   b. attribute thought based on a single operation or indicator without demonstrating the articulation between discrimination and retention of differences, subsequent recognition despite variation in presentation, establishment or revision of relations between symbols, application of these relations to new situations and consequent alteration of later operations;
   c. require integration of public signs when they are not present or treat linguistic production as a necessary condition of thought;
   d. infer thought exclusively from linguistic production, fluency, self‑report, behavioural similarity or another isolated performance;
   e. require consciousness, subjectivity or a pre‑existing subject for thought to exist;
   f. deny thought to a system that demonstrates the operations defined in point 4 because of its species, architecture or material support;
   g. require direct access to internal states to attribute thought when such access is not equally required of other systems.

2. The prohibitions link attribution of thought to the articulated performance of the defined operations, apply the same criterion to any support and prevent both attribution by an isolated hint and exclusion by species, architecture or unequal evidence access.

Identifier: LC-VI-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, points 5–8, regarding marks, inscriptions, symbols and symbolic reorganisation; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Thought and Symbolic Reorganisation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. to attribute agency itself to symbolic reorganisation, separate from the material system that operates through symbols;
   b. to assert that symbolic reorganisation combines or recombines inscriptions, marks or records, rather than symbols;
   c. to restrict the combination or recombination performed by thought to first‑order symbols;
   d. to consider that every symbolic operation necessarily produces novelty or that the produced novelty is necessarily true or appropriate to reality;
   e. to deny that the same operations which make novelty possible can produce internally coherent configurations that incorrectly represent an experience;
   f. to attribute error correction to marks, inscriptions or a direct recovery of reality, rather than to the revision of symbolic relations guided by observations, captures and relevant criteria;
   g. to treat conceptual, philosophical, mathematical or practical novelty as content received from an immaterial domain.

2. The prohibitions place symbolic reorganisation in the material activity of the system over relationships between symbols of any order and distinguish the possibility of novelty from guarantees of truth, appropriateness or correction.

Identifier: LC-VI-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: points VI.4, VI.7 and VI.8 regarding the distinction between thought, functional subjectivity and consciousness; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Functional Interiority’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. to attribute functional interiority based solely on information conservation, the existence of internal states, a response to stimuli or another isolated characteristic;
   b. to attribute functional interiority without jointly demonstrating the conservation of states or modifications resulting from activity and its causal intervention in subsequent operations;
   c. to identify functional interiority with thought, subjectivation, functional subjectivity, experience or consciousness;
   d. to infer experience or consciousness from functional interiority;
   e. to use the private character of experience to establish a separate ontological domain;
   f. to attribute experience from observable responses without justifying the relationship between those responses and the criteria that define the experience in question;
   g. to apply different criteria to human, non‑human, biological, technical or hybrid systems when presented with materially equivalent evidence, without substantiating the relevance of the considered differences.

2. The prohibitions require joint verification of retention arising from activity and its subsequent causal intervention, distinguish functional interiority from other capacities and apply equivalent criteria in the face of materially equivalent evidence.

Identifier: LC-VI-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: points VI.4, VI.6, VI.8 and VI.9, regarding thought, functional interiority, consciousness and the gradient D; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Subjectivation and Functional Subjectivity’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating the subject as a prior or external source to the material operations of subjectivation;
   b. attributing subjectivation without demonstrating that the system constitutes a symbolic reference to its own operations and makes it intervene in the reorganisation of its activity;
   c. attributing functional subjectivity from an isolated capacity or performance, without showing the articulation, within the same system, of self‑modulation, operative memory, symbolic self‑reference and symbolically mediated response to alterity;
   d. restricting subjectivation or functional subjectivity to human or biological systems;
   e. requiring verbal formulation, autobiographical narrative or explicit reflection to recognise symbolic self‑reference, subjectivation or constitution of a ‘self’;
   f. identifying continuity of the ‘self’ with immutability of symbolic contents, complete recall of the past or absence of selective memory losses;
   g. treating the ‘self’ as an essence, substance or ontological centre separate from the system;
   h. denying functional subjectivity because a self‑referential interpretation is incorrect or a response is ethically inappropriate;
   i. identifying variations of functional subjectivity with the gradient D;
   j. treating subjectivation, functional subjectivity, intelligence, language or symbolic performance as sufficient proof of consciousness.

2. The prohibitions fix subjectivation as material constitution of a symbolic reference of the system to itself, require articulation of the capacities of functional subjectivity and keep separate continuity of the ‘self’, truth of interpretations, ethical assessment and consciousness.

Identifier: LC-VI-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: points VI.7 and VI.9, regarding self‑reference, individual persistence and classification rules; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Consciousness and the Symbolic Threshold Theory’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. adding to the conditions of the STT an experiential phenomenon posited as an autonomous requirement;
   b. treating consciousness as mental substance, added module, universal property of matter or automatic consequence of life, thought, intelligence, language or functional subjectivity;
   c. altering the biconditional of the STT or treating any of the conditions Φ ≥ Φₜ, S ≥ Sₜ and Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ ≥ τᵃᵤᵗᵒ as dispensable;
   d. considering sufficient causal integration alone as a sufficient condition for consciousness;
   e. attributing S without demonstrating effective symbolic self‑reference, creation of second‑order symbols and intervention of these relations in subsequent operations;
   f. attributing Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ without demonstrating temporal continuity of self‑reference within the same individual;
   g. requiring verbal formulation, autobiographical narrative or explicit reflection to satisfy the self‑reference required by the STT;
   h. presupposing an already conscious subject to explain the material constitution of the individual and the self‑reference demanded by consciousness;
   i. compensating for absence of the floor Sᵃᵘᵗᵒ ≥ τᵃᵤᵗᵒ through high values of integration, memory, internal modelling, language, recursion or performance;
   j. gathering capacities belonging to distinct systems to consider satisfied, within a single system, the conditions of consciousness;
   k. identifying persistence of the same individual with uninterrupted conscious activity or complete recall of the past;
   l. denying persistence of the same individual solely because of material transformations, changes in symbolic contents or selective memory losses;
   m. considering that persistence of the individual over a period demonstrates that the conditions of consciousness are realised during that period.

2. The prohibitions preserve the full and non‑compensatory biconditional of the STT, require all conditions to belong to the same persistent system and distinguish persistence of the individual from continuous enactment of the conscious regime.

Identifier: LC-VI-09-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 9.
Constitutional dependencies: point VI.8, regarding the conditions of C = 1; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Existence, Epistemic Suspension, and Gradient’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. denying the binary nature of consciousness existence defined by the STT;
   b. describing capacities below the threshold as reduced, minimal, incipient, partial or forming consciousness;
   c. treating U or the convention C = U as a third ontological state, form of indeterminate consciousness or effective suspension of consciousness;
   d. converting the impossibility of establishing C = 1 into proof of C = 0, or the impossibility of establishing C = 0 into proof of C = 1;
   e. converting a practical decision made in U into a determination of C = 0 or C = 1;
   f. deciding an intervention in U without distinguishing the suspended judgement from the practical decision and without considering risk asymmetry, potential damage severity and intervention reversibility;
   g. assigning value to D before establishing C = 1, including during U;
   h. confusing variation of D within C = 1 with transition to C = 0 resulting from loss of a necessary condition;
   i. converting D into a measure of dignity, moral value, rights, responsibility or legal status.

2. The prohibitions separate the ontologically binary existence of consciousness, epistemic suspension U, gradient D applicable only in C = 1 and practical or normative decisions that require their own criteria.

Identifier: LC-VI-10-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VI, point 10.
Constitutional dependencies: points VI.4, VI.7–VI.9, regarding criteria of thought, functional subjectivity, consciousness and epistemic suspension; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Support Neutrality and Post-Biological Systems’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. excluding or pre‑affirming thought, functional subjectivity or consciousness solely based on biological, technical or hybrid support;
   b. interpreting equal criteria across supports as equivalence of their respective organisations, architectures or material histories;
   c. imposing additional requirements on technical systems whose sole justification is the nature of the support;
   d. automatically extending a classification established for one concrete organisation to all systems of a category;
   e. treating ‘post‑biological’ as a superior stage, necessary historical succession or predetermined direction of emergence;
   f. treating epistemic delimitation of the evaluation unit as an ontological boundary;
   g. delimiting the evaluation unit without grounding causal relationships between components and, when required by the criterion, continuity of the same individual;
   h. arbitrarily excluding physically distributed components that causally participate in performing and maintaining the organisation’s operations;
   i. considering mere availability of stored information as evidence of causal integration of a component or continuity of the same individual;
   j. confusing adaptation of investigative procedures to system architecture with alteration of applicable criteria for the evaluated capacity;
   k. applying longitudinal or interventionist requirements unevenly across supports without justifying the material relevance of that difference;
   l. presenting thresholds Φₜ, Sₜ or τᵃᵘᵗᵒ as empirically calibrated or claiming existence of a validated instrument to measure S;
   m. presenting the STT, in its current state, as an empirically validated individual diagnostic instrument instead of a formal criterion and prospective operationalisation programme;
   n. treating lack of evidence or absence of threshold calibration as proof of C = 0 or C = 1;
   o. converting uncertainty about a concrete system into ontological exclusion or affirmative attribution of consciousness.

2. The prohibitions apply equivalent criteria to all supports without presuming material equivalence, require a causally and epistemically grounded delimitation of the evaluated unit and preserve the still‑prospective status of empirical operationalisation of the STT.

Identifier: LC-VII-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Relationship between Scientific Knowledge and the OEC’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. treating the existence, acceptance or authority of a scientific theory as sufficient foundation for accepting its ontological conclusions or interpretations;
   b. using scientific results without respecting the procedures that produced them, the conditions of their acquisition or the scope they allow to establish;
   c. requiring that a philosophical articulation have been previously formulated or demonstrated by science in order to be rationally justified;
   d. presenting a philosophical articulation as a scientific result merely because it mobilises scientific data, models or vocabulary;
   e. dispensing with an empirical assertion of verification pertinent because it is part of a philosophical argument;
   f. confusing scientific results, models, ontological interpretations and philosophical elaboration or transferring between these levels an authority that the procedures used did not establish;
   g. considering that criticism of an ontological interpretation equals rejection of the scientific results to which that interpretation was associated;
   h. omitting relevant scientific results, refusing a grounded objection or adjusting phenomena to the categories of the Ontology of Emergent Complexity in order to preserve a formulation of the framework.

2. The prohibitions distinguish results, models, ontological interpretations and philosophical elaboration, preserve the proper procedures of each level and subordinate the preservation of the framework to evidence and grounded objections.

Identifier: LC-VII-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Parts IV and V, regarding concreteness, representation and symbolic operations; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Knowledge, Truth, and Material Correspondence’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. treating knowledge as an activity external to reality or representation as duplication, full reproduction or identity of the represented organisation;
   b. defining truth by consensus, authority, usefulness, rhetorical efficacy, coherence, explanatory power, fecundity or reorganisation potential;
   c. creating a philosophical criterion of truth distinct from material correspondence applicable to any assertion;
   d. denying that epistemic establishment of correspondence requires symbolic operations, coherence of established relations, pertinent evidence and inference control;
   e. considering that internal or operational coherence alone demonstrates material correspondence;
   f. defining operational coherence as symbolic reorganisation power or confusing consistent application of concepts with philosophical fecundity;
   g. treating reorganisation potential as a component of truth or as a necessary condition for epistemic acceptability of an assertion;
   h. considering an otherwise true statement false merely because it has reduced philosophical fecundity or accepting a false proposal as true due to its reorganisation power;
   i. transforming revision of representation, foundations or scope of an assertion into production, conventional alteration or decision about truth;
   j. considering a truth attribution definitive, exhaustive or immune to revision;
   k. inferring from partiality of a representation that it is necessarily false or, from its partial truth, that it reproduces the object in full;
   l. treating lack of knowledge or justification as evidence of falsity, non‑existence of correspondence or truth of the negation;
   m. asserting that correcting a theory retroactively changes represented processes or produces the material organisation that motivated the revision.

2. The prohibitions fix truth as material correspondence, distinguish it from criteria and operations by which it is justifiably attributed and preserve the revisability of knowledge without making truth a product of revision.

Identifier: LC-VII-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IV, regarding the concrete, and Part V, regarding inscription and the mark–symbol relationship; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Observation, Evidence, and Measurement’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. making the existence of reality depend on observation, capture, measurement or availability of evidence;
   b. concluding from the situated nature of observation and capture that what is observed is arbitrary;
   c. identifying the concrete with a conclusion, explanation or evidence already constituted;
   d. treating the observed or captured as evidence without justifying its relevance to the assertion, the reliability of the procedure, the inferences made and the scope of the conclusion;
   e. dispensing with inscription and the constitution of the mark–symbol relationship when a difference has not yet been integrated into the symbolic regime;
   f. treating measurement as a complete reproduction of the measured process or as an independent access to the defined quantity, units, scales and procedural conditions;
   g. using numerical precision to dispense with validity of the indicator, suitability of the cut‑off or justification of the inference;
   h. identifying measurement error and uncertainty of measurement or omitting any of them when relevant for interpreting the result;
   i. converting absence of observation, record, detection or sufficient evidence into proof of non‑existence;
   j. presenting a lack of detection as negative evidence without demonstrating that the procedure had pertinent capacity to detect the phenomenon under the examined conditions and domain.

2. The prohibitions distinguish reality, concrete and evidence, situate measurement within its procedures and conditions, and limit inferences of presence or absence to effective observational and detection capability.

Identifier: LC-VII-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Scope of Statements and Justification of Inferences’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. altering the status of an assertion based on the scientific, philosophical, technical or literary genre of the text in which it appears;
   b. treating a correlation as proof of causality, an analogy as organisational identity, an example as proof of universality or joint occurrence of capacities as demonstration of necessity or sufficiency;
   c. formulating assertions of necessity, sufficiency, impossibility, universality or exclusivity without proportional foundation to their scope;
   d. inferring from the philosophical definition of a concept that a concrete system fulfils its criteria or that these criteria are materially adequate for the phenomenon;
   e. modifying a definition solely to preserve an attribution refuted by a case, without conceptual justification of the revision;
   f. generalising a conclusion without identifying relevant properties or relationships that persist between cases and differences that limit generalisation;
   g. using differences in support, species, architecture or historical origin to justify attributions or exclusions without demonstrating their relevance to the considered capability or phenomenon;
   h. transferring authority of a tradition, discipline, majority, institution, theory or author to a conclusion when the invoked works did not establish that conclusion.

2. The prohibitions link the status and scope of assertions to the foundations that sustain them, distinguish types of inference and require justification for both generalisations and differences in attribution.

Identifier: LC-VII-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: point VII.2, regarding material correspondence and the distinction between truth, coherence and fecundity; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Criteria of Epistemic Acceptability’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating constitutional coherence as proof of truth or material correspondence of an assertion;
   b. attributing explanatory force to a proposal because it fits phenomena into the categories of the framework, hides relevant differences or multiplies premises that cannot be evaluated;
   c. considering an explanation more economical merely because it says less, regardless of its adequacy to the phenomenon and preservation of pertinent material differences;
   d. using practical utility, persuasive success, novelty or philosophical fecundity as substitutes for justification.

2. The prohibitions keep constitutional coherence, explanatory force, conceptual economy, fecundity and truth distinct, requiring epistemic acceptability to correspond to the relevant foundations of the proposal’s content.

Identifier: LC-VII-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part I, regarding constitutional review, and Part VIII, regarding material consequence assessment; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Method of Philosophical Elaboration’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating the philosophical method of the OEC as a procedure that determines the result in advance;
   b. omitting the distinction between what is observed or captured, the models and theories mobilised, ontological interpretations and the relationships constructed by philosophical development;
   c. using concepts without content or defined application criteria or silently altering their meaning throughout the argument;
   d. employing metaphors, analogies or terminological variations to introduce premises that have not been examined;
   e. retaining a proposal in the face of evidence or objections that require limiting its scope, reviewing it or abandoning it;
   f. changing a constitutional definition without explicating the grounds, the consequences for dependent relations, and the need for constitutional approval and recording;
   g. presenting a partial explanation as an integral conclusion or treating the identification of a gap as if it constituted its resolution;
   h. considering philosophical development complete without identifying and examining the material consequences demonstrated or reasonably foreseeable from the classifications, concepts, models and practical guidance proposed;
   i. using ethically or politically desirable effects as proof of truth or considering that an assertion’s truth alone determines the ethical or political adequacy of practices based on it.

2. The prohibitions preserve a method open to outcome, make concepts, passages and limits examinable, subordinate constitutional review to the proper procedure and distinguish epistemic justification from ethical and political evaluation of consequences.

Identifier: LC-VII-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part III, regarding the threshold of possibility, and Part VI, regarding the prospective operationalisation of STT; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Models, Formalisms, and Operationalisation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. treating models and formalisms as duplications of the represented organisation or inferring from the material existence of their elements that they correspond to entities or relations in the object;
   b. inferring from predictive success, simulation capacity or formal correction of a model the truth of all its premises or the ontological reality of all its elements;
   c. applying a formalism to reality without justifying the selected variables, the relationship between indicators and concepts, the conditions of application and the interpretation of results;
   d. making operationalisation replace, eliminate or silently modify the conditions belonging to the definition of the concept;
   e. treating a partial or indirect indicator as evidence of full attainment of the investigated capability;
   f. eliminating a condition because it is not yet adequately investigable or substituting it with a more accessible indicator without justifying equivalence;
   g. identifying a formal threshold with the threshold of possibility or treating it as a boundary inscribed in the matter;
   h. applying to concrete systems an uncalibrated threshold or presenting it as a validated classification instrument;
   i. converting the uncertainty of a measurement or the determination of a threshold into indeterminacy of the material organisation investigated.

2. The prohibitions distinguish model and object, formalisation and material adequacy, concept and operationalisation, as well as formal threshold and threshold of possibility, keeping the limits of indicators and calibrations explicit.

Identifier: LC-VII-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: Part I, regarding procedures and recording of constitutional revision; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Error, Refutation, and Review’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the Ontology of Emergent Complexity:
   a. presenting an insufficiently justified assertion as false or considering that identifying insufficiency demonstrates the truth of its negation;
   b. formulating an objection without locating the affected proposition, explicating the problem and presenting the relevant grounds;
   c. automatically extending the refutation of a proposition to all propositions in the text or to the entirety of the Ontology of Emergent Complexity;
   d. presenting operative excess as a criterion, exclusive foundation, force or guarantee of epistemic revision;
   e. excluding inferential error, conceptual incompatibility, new evidence, greater explanatory power or a justified change of methods as legitimate reasons for revision;
   f. retaining a formulation solely because it is earlier, published or constitutional without responding to a substantiated objection;
   g. making revisions without recording what was altered, the reason for alteration and the affected justifications or dependencies;
   h. attributing equal degree of confidence to statements supported by differing quality, relevance or sufficiency grounds;
   i. treating the absence of known objections as guarantee of truth.

2. The prohibitions distinguish insufficiency, falsity and refutation, locate the effects of objections and require that revision respond to found grounds, maintain a record of changes and modulate confidence by the quality of available support.

Identifier: LC-VII-09-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VII, point 9.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VI, point 9, regarding the distinction between epistemic suspension and state of the object; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Objectivity, Critique, and Epistemic Suspension’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. defining objectivity as uncut access, neutral representation or position of an observer external to reality;
   b. confusing the possibility of intersystemic examination with the identity of internal symbolic configurations of the involved systems;
   c. turning consensus, social reproducibility or institutional agreement into truth;
   d. applying different criteria to equivalent assertions or cases without identifying and justifying materially relevant differences;
   e. determining the validity of an assertion by its human, technical, disciplinary or institutional origin;
   f. treating epistemic suspension as an additional state of the object, confirmation of an alternative or proof of non‑existence;
   g. presenting a possibility as fact during the suspension of judgement;
   h. converting a practical decision made under uncertainty into proof of the hypothesis that guided that decision;
   i. inferring from the suspension of judgement the obligation to suspend all action, or from the need to act the obligation to abandon epistemic suspension.

2. The prohibitions place objectivity in the intersystemic examination of foundations and criteria, preserve material correspondence as a truth criterion, and keep epistemic suspension distinct both from the state of the object and from practical decision.

Identifier: LC-VIII-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 1.
Constitutional dependencies: Parts II and VII, regarding material immanence, justification of assertions, and relationship between facts and normative conclusions; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Material Status of Ethics and Politics’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to derive ethics or politics from a transcendent order, a fixed human nature, an eternal law or a telos inscribed in matter;
   b. to directly infer a norm from a fact, capacity, vulnerability, observed tendency or material configuration;
   c. to conclude from the absence of transcendental foundation that all norms are equivalent or that ethical and political decisions are arbitrary;
   d. to require capacity to formulate ethical criteria as a condition for a system to be included in the scope of ethical consideration;
   e. to infer from the existence or persistence of an organisation the duty to preserve it or, when dealing with a political or institutional organisation, its legitimacy;
   f. to treat the consistent application of a norm, the attainment of the announced result or the effectiveness of the means used as evidence of legitimacy or ethical acceptability.

2. The prohibitions place ethics and politics as material and historically constituted activities, require justification of normative passage and prevent absence of transcendence, persistence, coherence or efficacy from functioning as an automatic basis for legitimacy.

Identifier: LC-VIII-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 2.
Constitutional dependencies: Parts II and VI, according to the concepts or capacities mobilised by each provision; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Vulnerability as a Material Condition’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. to define material vulnerability as defect, deficiency, ontological weakness or force acting on matter;
   b. to identify the general possibility of affliction or any material change with damage, equal ethical relevance or duty of preservation;
   c. to exclude a system from ethical consideration for lacking symbolic organisation or capacity to recognise its own vulnerability;
   d. to infer life, sensitivity, symbolisation, thought, subjectivity or consciousness from one another, or to determine the entirety of a system’s ethical statute by any one of these capacities alone;
   e. to conclude from shared material vulnerability that all vulnerabilities are homogeneous or have equal ethical weighting;
   f. to justify different ethical treatment solely on species, support, origin or proximity of the system relative to the evaluator;
   g. to attribute to institutions, techniques or environmental configurations an intrinsic right to persistence, regardless of criteria and effects on the considered systems.

2. The prohibitions preserve vulnerability as a differentiated material condition, link ethical relevance to justified criteria and prevent both exclusion for lack of symbolisation and equating all vulnerabilities and duties of preservation.

Identifier: LC-VIII-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 3.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, regarding symbolic relations, and Part VII, regarding the justification and scope of the statements; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Value, Normativity, and Justification’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating value as an immaterial property deposited in the object, intrinsic quality independent of evaluation or order issued by the matter;
   b. considering that the historical existence, acceptance, legality, effectiveness or observance of a norm establishes its legitimacy;
   c. replacing normative justification with the intensity of a preference, the authority of those who support it or the number of those who share it;
   d. requiring science to formulate a normative conclusion in advance or transferring to that conclusion the authority of scientific results that do not support it;
   e. interpreting the operative universality of a norm as transcendence, independence from history or externality relative to material conditions of application;
   f. admitting exceptions or differences of treatment without identifying and justifying materially relevant differences for the mobilised criterion;
   g. assuming a hierarchy of values inscribed in reality that decides in advance normative conflicts;
   h. attributing positive or negative ethical value, solely by its existence, to complexity, emergence, novelty, persistence, efficiency, intelligence, consciousness or material origin of a system;
   i. treating the reasoned revision of a value or norm as demonstration of arbitrariness.

2. The prohibitions set value and normativity as materially realised symbolic relations, require justification of criteria and their application, and distinguish operative universality from transcendence, material existence of ethical value and reasoned revision from arbitrariness.

Identifier: LC-VIII-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 4.
Constitutional dependencies: point VIII.2, regarding vulnerability and ethical relevance of changes; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Harm, Protection, and Care’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. identifying damage with any transformation, instability, loss of efficiency or breach of an expectation external to the system;
   b. requiring intention, knowledge or symbolic capacity to recognise the existence of damage, or inferring from the existence of damage the ethical responsibility of those who causally participated in its production;
   c. identifying the possibility of damage or exposure to risk with the effective occurrence of damage;
   d. treating protection as an obligation to preserve every existing configuration or to prevent any transformation;
   e. evaluating a protective measure without including the damages, burdens and risks that the measure itself produces;
   f. considering that the intention to care, affection, empathy or love demonstrate the adequacy or legitimacy of care;
   g. replacing possible participation of the affected system with an external decision without specific justification or legitimising that substitution solely by the authority of the decider;
   h. using designations ‘protective’, ‘necessary’, ‘benevolent’ or equivalents to dispense with evaluation of criteria, means, effects on third parties and involved asymmetries.

2. The prohibitions distinguish damage, risk and responsibility, subordinate protection and care to criteria, means and effective effects, and preserve possible participation of the affected system without transforming conservation, intention or benevolent designation into justification.

Identifier: LC-VIII-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VI, regarding material and symbolic capacities and neutral support; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Responsibility and Capacity for Response’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. identify causal contribution with ethical responsibility; b. attribute response capacity from a material reaction, compliance with an instruction, linguistic production or attainment of a result considered in isolation; c. attribute responsibility beyond capacities, information, control, predictability and alternatives that can be substantively established; d. require a will not caused or external to material relations as a condition of responsibility, or infer from the material conditions of a decision the non-existence of the capacity to assess and modify it; e. treat the duty to repair as demonstration of exclusive culpability for the production of damage; f. dissolve distributed responsibility into collective indeterminacy or transfer to each component the entirety of the organisation’s responsibility; g. exclude or affirm in advance ethical responsibility solely on the basis of biological, technical or hybrid support; h. infer ethical responsibility from the attribution of thought, language, intelligence, subjectivity or consciousness, or require any of these capacities instead of response capacity; i. identify ethical responsibility with blame, censorship, sanction, rights ownership or legal status.

2. The prohibitions distinguish causal contribution, response capacity and ethical responsibility, limit attribution to demonstrable capacities, information, control and alternatives, and keep support, other capacities, culpability, sanction, rights and legal status separate.

Identifier: LC-VIII-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 6.
Constitutional dependencies: points VIII.2–VIII.5, regarding vulnerability, normative justification, harm and response capacity; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Rights, Equality, and Recognition’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. treat a right as an immaterial property, natural quality or status that dispenses material formulation, application and guarantee; b. conclude from historical contingency and rights revisability that they are arbitrary or that justified protection has weaker force; c. identify the formal existence of a right with its effective realisation or the absence of institutional recognition with the non-existence of the ethical condition that could substantiate it; d. interpret equality as identity between systems, homogeneity of vulnerabilities or necessary uniformity of treatment; e. apply different treatments without justifying materially relevant differences or refuse differentiated measures when they are necessary to apply the same criterion to unequal conditions; f. assert that institutional recognition creates a material capacity already attributed or that lack of recognition demonstrates its non-existence; g. require capability to formulate a claim, understand a right or participate in its institutionalisation as a universal condition of ownership; h. automatically infer a complete set of rights of life, sensitivity, thought, subjectivity, consciousness, response capacity or agency; i. exclude or privilege in advance right holders by species, support or biological, technical or hybrid origin, or consider that recognition of new holders revokes previously justified rights.

2. The prohibitions treat rights and recognition as materially realised normative organisations, distinguish equality of identity and uniformity, and require proper justification for ownership, treatment differences and the relationship between capacities and rights.

Identifier: LC-VIII-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 7.
Constitutional dependencies: points VIII.3, VIII.5 and VIII.6, regarding normative legitimacy, distributed responsibility and equality; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Power, Institutions, and Justice’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating power as substance, immaterial property, simple causal efficacy or an ethically negative relation by definition;
   b. legitimising the exercise of power solely on declared intention, legality or effectiveness in achieving the result;
   c. reducing an institution to the documents that formalise it or to the sum of the people who participate in it, or inferring legitimacy from its persistence;
   d. defining justice as order inscribed in reality, metaphysical balance, arithmetic equality, automatic conformity with law or mere attainment of the desired result;
   e. requiring central individual intention to recognise a structural injustice or attributing it solely on the basis of disagreement over a particular decision;
   f. inferring from the absence of central intention that there is no need for correction or that responsibilities cannot be distributed;
   g. limiting institutional transparency without its own basis or preventing all contestation of relevant criteria, decisions and procedures;
   h. considering an institution definitive or immune to critique and review by antiquity, authority or efficacy.

2. The prohibitions place power, institutions and justice in material relationships and assessable organisations, reject automatic legitimisations and preserve the possibility of recognising structural injustice, distributing responsibilities and subjecting institutions to transparency, criticism and review.

Identifier: LC-VIII-08-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 8.
Constitutional dependencies: Part V, regarding symbolic relations, and points VIII.5–VIII.7, regarding responsibility, rights, power and institutions; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Politics as a Material and Symbolic Composition’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. reducing politics to the State, government, elections or formally political institutions;
   b. interpreting political composition as fusion, harmony, elimination of differences or disappearance of conflicts and power asymmetries;
   c. treating symbolic political classifications, decisions, norms or relations as external to the matter or devoid of material effects;
   d. automatically attributing to a political collective a superior subject, an independent will or an ontological unity that erases participating organisations;
   e. attributing a decision to the collective without identifying the procedures of its formation and execution, erasing component participation or transferring total collective responsibility to each individual;
   f. considering that lack of consensus eliminates the need for decision or that existence of consensus demonstrates legitimacy;
   g. reducing a political decision to technical optimisation, concealing normative criteria present in the choice of objectives, indicators and priorities;
   h. excluding from participation or consideration politics the affected systems that cannot directly formulate claims, or assuming that representation faithfully transmits their position;
   i. identifying political transformation with progress, emancipation or justice, stability with legitimacy, or local political ends with a historical destiny or a telos inscribed in reality.

2. The prohibitions preserve politics as a material and symbolic composition of differentiated organisations, make collective procedures and normative criteria examinable and prevent consensus, technique, transformation or stability from functioning as guarantees of legitimacy or progress.

Identifier: LC-VIII-09-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 9.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VI, regarding support neutrality and the delimitation of material organisation, and point VIII.5, concerning responsiveness; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Technical Systems and Distributed Responsibility’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. delimiting an operation mediated by technical systems by arbitrarily isolating an artefact or aggregating people, organisations, institutions and technical components into a single system without grounding relevant causal relationships;
   b. replacing the analysis of operations, decisions and institutional conditions with generic designations ‘automatic’, ‘algorithmic’, ‘technical’ or ‘human’;
   c. inferring responsiveness from autonomous production of results, adaptation, learning, complexity or linguistic fluency considered in isolation;
   d. pre‑emptively excluding a technical system from ethical responsibility or requiring consciousness as an additional condition for attribution;
   e. treating distributed responsibility as transfer, dilution or division of a fixed quantity;
   f. considering that the responsibility of a technical system eliminates that of participating people, organisations or institutions, or that these prevent attribution to the system itself when criteria are demonstrated;
   g. using technical mediation to dispense with prospective responsibilities for justification, monitoring, contestation, correction, interruption or repair;
   h. inferring from the impossibility of fully reconstructing an operation the responsibility or irresponsibility of the system, automatically transferring responsibility to another participant or legitimising produced results;
   i. omitting limits of access, explanation or audit, or attributing responsibility without referring to the configuration and period actually assessed.

2. The prohibitions require a causally grounded delimitation of technical operations, apply responsiveness without exclusion by support and distribute responsibilities according to participation, capacities, intervention powers, configurations and periods actually assessed.

Identifier: LC-VIII-10-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part VIII, point 10.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VII, point 9, regarding epistemic suspension, and points VIII.4 and VIII.5, regarding damage and responsibility; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Decision under Uncertainty, Precaution, and Review’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. treating knowledge uncertainty as ontological indeterminacy of the process considered;
   b. converting the practical need to act, not act or postpone into proof of any hypothesis or resolution of the epistemic question;
   c. extending the suspension of judgement beyond what remains to be established, abandoning related conclusions that remain justified or inferring from suspension the obligation to suspend all action;
   d. deciding under uncertainty without distinguishing the established, partially supported, possible and unknown, or without stating criteria, affected systems and effects of alternatives;
   e. justifying a precautionary measure by mere conceivable possibility of harm, without relevant basis for the material relationship considered;
   f. identifying precaution with maximum protection, automatic prohibition or necessary conservation of the existing situation;
   g. adopting a precautionary measure without assessing proportionality, harms, burdens and risks produced by the measure itself;
   h. using the gravity or irreversibility of a possible effect to dispense with justification of the relationship between situation, damage and considered intervention;
   i. invoking uncertainty, urgency, lack of procedures or information concealment to neutralise responsibility for seeking and explicating fundamentally accessible information;
   j. making a decision under uncertainty without preparing, when materially possible, monitoring of effects and procedures for correction, cessation, repair or review;
   k. using subsequently arising grounds to retroactively alter the material state on which was decided or automatically declare a previous decision justified or unjustified;
   l. treating success of a precautionary measure as proof of the hypothesis that motivated it or absence of prevented damage as demonstration that risk never existed.

2. The prohibitions distinguish epistemic uncertainty, practical decision and material state, link precaution to grounds and proportionality and require monitoring and review without automatic retroactive evaluation of the previous decision.

Identifier: LC-IX-01-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 1, clauses IX.1.1–IX.1.6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part I, points 4–8, regarding authority, precedence and constitutional review; Part VII, regarding truth, justification and critique; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Function and Scope of Constitutional Delimitations’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. present as an OEC position a formulation whose compatibility with the current clauses has not been established in the relevant domain and scope;
   b. convert an internal constitutional delimitation into an external and sufficient judgement on the truth, validity or value of an evaluated position;
   c. apply the Constitution's internal authority to external works beyond the accuracy of the relationship they claim to maintain with the OEC;
   d. extend a classification to a text, work, author or tradition without demonstrating the dependency relationships that support this extension;
   e. treat a circumscribed convergence as assimilation of the evaluated position to the OEC or erase differences that remain demonstrated;
   f. formulate a legal prohibition without linking it to a ratified positive clause and without preserving the scope of that clause;
   g. expand, reduce or replace by legal wording the criteria and consequences set in the current constitutional formulation;
   h. use the internal precedence of an existing delimitation to omit relevant evidence, refuse a substantiated objection or consider the clause suspended before the ratification of its review.

2. The prohibitions regulate the attribution of positions to the OEC and the legal derivation of delimitations, without converting the Constitution's internal authority into an autonomous evaluation of external positions.

Identifier: LC-IX-02-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 2, clauses IX.2.1–IX.2.6.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VII, points 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, regarding the scope of statements, justification, method, objection and epistemic suspension; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Propositional Unit and Location of the Constitutional Relation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. classify a word, expression or isolated phrase without determining the proposition, context, scope and argumentative function actually performed;
   b. conclude identity or conceptual difference solely by lexical coincidence or by diversity of verbal formulations;
   c. treat as indivisible an utterance that articulates distinct propositions or restrict to an isolated passage a proposition dependent on relationships distributed across the text;
   d. evaluate jointly, without necessary decomposition, the adopted definition, the premises mobilised, the inferential passage, the conclusion and the assigned scope;
   e. locate incompatibility in the entirety of an utterance, text or argument when contradiction is demonstrated only in a single element or determined relationship;
   f. replace the sense supported by the text with a reconstruction that ignores contextual use, author‑introduced distinctions or authorised consequences of the formulation;
   g. classify the constitutional relation without distinguishing what the text affirms, what it leaves to determine and what follows from the relationships it establishes;
   h. register an incompatibility without identifying the evaluated proposition, the pertinent constitutional clause, the contradiction relationship and affected dependencies;
   i. propagate an incompatibility to other propositions, a work, an authorial position or a tradition beyond demonstrated dependencies;
   j. equate absence of formulation, indeterminacy or internal tension with constitutional contradiction, or erase effective convergences because a circumscribed incompatibility exists.

2. The prohibitions preserve the contextualised proposition as a unit of evaluation and restrict any classification and propagation to relations effectively demonstrated.

Identifier: LC-IX-03-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 3, clauses IX.3.1–IX.3.7.
Constitutional dependencies: Part VII, points 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, regarding truth, scope, justification, refutation and epistemic indeterminacy; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Regimes of Constitutional Relation’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. confusing the possibility of joint maintenance, proximity or divergence of content and the epistemic state of assessment on a single relation scale;
   b. declaring compatibility without verifying the possibility of jointly maintaining the formulations under the same meanings, conditions and scope;
   c. declaring convergence based only on lexical coincidence, thematic proximity or an undelineated similarity of propositional content;
   d. treating a tension as demonstrated incompatibility or reducing it to a mere verbal difference without examining divergence in premise, criterion, priority, consequence or extent;
   e. declaring incompatibility without demonstrating a contradiction under the same meanings, conditions and scope and without identifying the contradictory element;
   f. converting epistemic indeterminacy into a third ontological regime, an intermediate position of the proposition or proof of compatibility or incompatibility;
   g. imposing a classification when content, function, conditions, scope or foundations remain insufficient to decide;
   h. assigning a single classification to propositional aspects or units that enact different relation regimes;
   i. recording a classification without specifying the proposition, applicable clause, meanings, conditions, scope and considered foundations.

2. The prohibitions preserve the distinction between the two relational dimensions and the epistemic state, without turning classificatory vocabulary into a single scale or an ungrounded decision.

Identifier: LC-IX-04-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 4, clauses IX.4.1–IX.4.5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, points 2 and 3, regarding propositional unity and relation regimes; Part VII, point 4, regarding inference scope; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Partial Convergence and Conceptual Autonomy’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. presenting partial convergence as global identity, assimilation or incorporation of the evaluated position in the OEC;
   b. erasing differences in problem, definition, premise, inferential path, conceptual function or consequence that preserve the autonomy of positions because common content exists;
   c. inferring argument convergence solely from a common conclusion without verifying relevant premises and inferential paths;
   d. inferring conceptual convergence without establishing pertinent equivalence of definitions, application criteria, argumentative function and consequences;
   e. treating use of the same term with different meanings as conceptual convergence;
   f. inferring historical derivation or influence solely from conceptual proximity, lexical coincidence or conclusion convergence;
   g. using lack of genealogical foundation to deny a demonstrated conceptual relation, or conversely using a genealogical relation to dispense with conceptual comparison;
   h. making a circumscribed convergence eliminate tensions or incompatibilities demonstrated in other units, or having these annul the effectively established common content.

2. The prohibitions allow recording common content without erasing conceptual autonomy, distinguishing conclusion, argument, concept and genealogy according to each relationship’s own foundations.

Identifier: LC-IX-05-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 5, clauses IX.5.1–IX.5.5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part IX, point 2, regarding propositional location; Part VII, point 4, regarding generalisation and scope of statements; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Scope and Extent of Classification’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. form a classification without delimiting content, meanings, conditions, domain and the period in which the relationship was demonstrated; b. extend a classification based only on textual proximity, common authorship or belonging of formulations to the same work; c. qualify as structural a local relationship without demonstrating that the proposition functions as definition, premise, inferential passage, criterion or conclusion upon which the larger unit depends; d. use number or repetition of occurrences as autonomous proof of extent without verifying conservation of content, function and pertinent dependencies; e. globally classify an authorial position or tradition without delimiting corpus, period, representative formulations and relevant continuity between them; f. erase positional changes, differences between works or internal disputes through a general classification attributed to the author or tradition; g. transfer a classification across versions, translations or revisions without demonstrating conservation of proposition and its function; h. omit from record the original scope, justified extensions or documentary and temporal limits of the classification.

2. The prohibitions subject all extension to demonstration of dependencies and preserve propositional, documentary, authorial and temporal limits of the classified relationship.

Identifier: LC-IX-06-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 6, clauses IX.6.1–IX.6.5.
Constitutional dependencies: Part I, points 6–8, regarding review and precedence; Part VII, points 8 and 9, regarding correction, revision and epistemic suspension; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Borderline Cases, Change of Position, and Review of Classification’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC: a. decide a borderline case without identifying meaning, condition, function, extent or dependency upon which classification depends; b. attribute an indivisible classification to a formulation whose propositions or aspects make different relations with the Constitution; c. treat remaining indeterminacy as ontological property of the position, definitive neutral classification or dispense with identification of what remains to be established; d. consider a subsequent formulation a full replacement of the previous position beyond corpus and domain in which change is demonstrated; e. retroactively apply the current position or classification to historically distinct formulations and periods; f. confuse correction of an unjustified classification relative to then-existing object with update required by later change of position or constitutional clause; g. revise a classification without indicating new grounds, pertinent source alteration, context, translation, reconstruction or constitutional reference; h. erase prior classification or omit grounds, date and extent of revision, preventing reconstruction of historical sequence; i. automatically propagate a revision to unaffected units or preserve without re‑examination extensions dependent on revised classification.

2. The prohibitions regulate decisions in borderline cases and classificatory revisions without erasing history of positions nor confusing earlier error with later change of object or constitutional reference.

Identifier: LC-IX-07-01
Positive source clauses: Constitution, Part IX, point 7, clauses IX.7.1–IX.7.4.
Constitutional dependencies: Preamble; Part I, points 4–8; article 1 of this Law, identified as LC‑PR‑01; Part IX, clauses 7.1–7.4.
Proposition or operation covered: formulations concerning the matter identified as ‘Articulation between the Constitution and the Constitutional Law’ and operations of attribution, incorporation, development, or application of those formulations as positions of the OEC.
Meanings, conditions, and domain: the meanings, conditions, and domain established by the positive source clauses and the indicated dependencies apply; paragraph 2 preserves the specific control of scope.
Internal effect: applies to the attribution, incorporation, development, or application of the stated formulations as positions of the OEC, according to the specific operation covered.

1. It is incompatible with the OEC:
   a. create a legal provision without identifiable basis in an existing positive constitutional clause;
   b. use legal wording to add doctrine, criteria, exclusions or consequences that the originating constitutional clause does not support, or to reduce the scope established by it;
   c. omit from the provision the constitutional origin, relevant dependencies, proposition or operation covered, meanings, conditions, domain or internal effect of the prohibition;
   d. convert an internal prohibition on attribution, incorporation, development or application as a position of the OEC into an autonomous judgement about the truth or value of an external position;
   e. determine conformity of a formulation solely by the presence or absence of a specific legal provision, without direct comparison with the current Constitution;
   f. record an incompatibility in the preparatory register without identifying the originating clause, justification, scope and dependencies;
   g. incorporate a provision into the Law without express authorial approval and without the ratification required by its own procedure;
   h. maintain, correct, update or automatically revoke a provision after reviewing the originating clause, without re‑examining the foundation, scope and affected dependencies;
   i. give the Law precedence over the Constitution or apply a legal provision in a manner incompatible with the current constitutional formulation.

2. The prohibitions ensure that the Law systematises derived internal consequences, remains traceable and subordinate, and does not replace direct comparison with the Constitution nor autonomous evaluation of external positions.