Reconcile UCF with the living paper; add scoped definitions and a worked example

[raelovejoy]

Current scope

UCF–living-paper reconciliation, coordinated with Root Sequence draft PR #6. Latest UCF branch commit: 9a459640f4d0683ddbbe0c6f6a335b9def48fc0e. The model/code candidate remains the unchanged content from c4d7b236828a59139c0d5204b1faaed13154682a; the follow-up adds recovery verification and a link to the completed paper reconciliation.

Status: proposed v1.1, AI-assisted, author review pending. Not a reviewed release or validated universal theory. Both linked PRs remain drafts; neither main branch is changed.

Changes

• Proposed model v1.1 with four analytical layers separated from four optional state labels.
• Functional fit, relational consequences, and normative judgment kept distinct; verbal definitions are not validated measurements.
• All earlier glossary terms retained, with domain, interpretive, speculative, and evidential boundaries made explicit.
• Time essay distinguishes invertibility, T-symmetry, retrodiction, and experience. Foundations index no longer certifies the whole directory as a complete empirical base.
• Ten scoped claims, evidence rules, primary-source review log, and a UCF–paper definition map.
• Runnable synthetic booking example and implementation tests.
• Corrected navigation and contribution rules; project-level citation metadata without a fabricated DOI, release version, or paper-author approval.

Preservation

Model v1 is unchanged. Exact Git-blob snapshots preserve the previous overview, glossary, time essay, documentation/foundations indices, and contribution guide under docs/archive/. Their historical relative links are not rewritten; the archive index points readers to the original revision where necessary. No private documents, personal data, or unpublished story passages were imported.

Recovery checks

See the dated verification record.

• Reran all eight unittest tests from source matching the two saved Python Git blob hashes; all passed.
• Reran 24 distinct capacity/duration fixtures with three allocation rules each, plus the base case. Six additional CLI/edge-case checks passed.
• Checked the six exact archive blob IDs; verified nine companion-paper changed file hashes and 40 relative links in those files.
• Parsed CFF YAML and checked required root fields; no official schema or GitHub citation-render validation.
• Rechecked primary sources at the documented limited coverage. No full literature audit or replication of those studies.

The interrupted progress statement about a 700-case / 561-match comparison is not reproducible from the recovered code and is excluded from the evidence record. No added-value comparison against a competent review method was run.

In the base synthetic fixture, allocation rules change who receives service while each leaves 90 requested service minutes unfinished. This is not observed waiting time, harm, or evidence of a preferred allocation rule. Four contrasting definition cases were considered editorially, not by independent reviewers.

Remaining work

Issue #1 stays open. Full foundations, glossary bibliography, domain, publication, and related-framework audits remain unfinished. The identical predictive-processing/distributed-cognition files need source recovery, not invented replacement prose. Comparative validation and any participant study need separate protocols and execution.

No merge, deployment, automatic update process, participant recruitment, or story-canon change is included. These branches and PRs are public GitHub drafts, not local-only or private workspaces.