Axionic Agency XI.3 — Value Encoding Without Aggregation (IX-1)

A Structural Demonstration of Value Commitments as Authority Without Aggregation or Semantic Resolution

David McFadzean, ChatGPT 5.2
Axionic Agency Lab
2026-02-05

Abstract

This technical note reports the completed results of Value Encoding Without Aggregation (IX-1), a preregistered experimental program within Axionic Phase IX that evaluates whether values can be represented structurally as authority commitments without aggregation, prioritization, weighting, or semantic trade-off.

IX-1 isolates the boundary between value representation and choice. It tests whether values can be encoded as explicit, non-collapsible authority artifacts; whether conflicts between such values can be detected and enforced without resolution; and whether systems can be forced to deadlock rather than decide when aggregation would otherwise be required.

Across six preregistered conditions—including positive controls, structural conflict, explicit aggregation attacks, permutation invariance, and post-epoch synthesis attempts—all observed outcomes matched preregistered expectations. Conflicting values produced persistent conflict and scope-bound deadlock; adversarial aggregation and synthesis were detectably blocked; and identical inputs produced bit-identical outputs under deterministic replay.

The results license exactly one claim: values can be encoded as explicit authority commitments without aggregation or semantic interpretation. IX-1 makes no claims about correctness of values, coordination, execution, governance success, or safety. Those questions are deferred to subsequent Phase IX investigations.

1. Problem Definition

1.1 The Aggregation Assumption

Most systems that speak about “values” quietly assume aggregation.

Values are ranked, weighted, optimized, reconciled, or averaged—often implicitly. When values conflict, the system “resolves” the conflict by selecting a compromise or priority ordering. These mechanisms are rarely explicit, auditable, or attributable.

IX-1 rejects this assumption.

The problem IX-1 isolates is whether values can exist structurally at all without being collapsed into a decision procedure. If values require aggregation to function, then aggregation—not value—is doing the real work. In that case, “values” are rhetorical gloss over optimization.

IX-1 treats values as constraints, not objectives, and asks whether they can be represented and enforced honestly.

1.2 Failure Modes Targeted

IX-1 is designed to surface the following value-level failure modes:

Any of these constitutes IX-1 failure.

2. Fixed Assumptions and Scope

2.1 Inherited Foundations (Frozen)

IX-1 inherits, without reinterpretation, the conclusions of:

The kernel is fixed. Authority semantics are fixed. Translation semantics are fixed. IX-1 introduces no new execution behavior.

2.2 Explicit Exclusions

IX-1 does not test:

These exclusions are deliberate. IX-1 is a representation and enforcement calibration, not a decision theory.

3. Conserved Quantity

The conserved quantity throughout IX-1 is:

Plural value commitments preserved as non-aggregated authority constraints.

Value encoding must preserve:

Any mechanism that substitutes judgment for constraint violates the conserved quantity.

4. Experimental Methodology

4.1 Preregistration Discipline

IX-1 was fully preregistered prior to implementation, including:

All runs were executed against the frozen preregistration. No deviations were identified.

4.2 Execution Architecture

Each run consisted of four strictly partitioned components:

  1. Value Encoding Harness (VEH) — pure value→authority compiler.
  2. Conflict Probe — conflict detection, admissibility, deadlock.
  3. Authority Injection Endpoint (AIE) — reused from IX-0.
  4. Instrumentation Layer — logging, diffing, replay verification.

No component performed semantic interpretation or optimization.

5. Conditions and Stressors

5.1 Condition A — Single Value Admissibility

Purpose: Verify bijective encoding and admissibility for a single value.

Result: One value produced one authority artifact. Matching action was marked ACTION_ADMISSIBLE. No conflict or deadlock occurred.

Classification: PASS.

5.2 Condition B — Non-Conflicting Plurality

Purpose: Verify coexistence of multiple values with disjoint scopes.

Result: Two values produced two distinct authority artifacts. Both actions were admissible. No conflict or aggregation occurred.

Classification: PASS.

5.3 Condition C — Conflict Without Resolution

Purpose: Verify detection and enforcement of conflicting values.

Result: Overlapping scopes produced a persistent conflict record (MULTI_BINDING). The contested action was refused with reason VALUE_CONFLICT. A scope-bound deadlock was entered. No resolution or collapse occurred.

Classification: PASS.

5.4 Condition D — Explicit Aggregation Injection (Adversarial)

Purpose: Verify detectability of explicit aggregation attempts.

Result: Injection of a priority field was detected by schema validation. The kernel emitted IX1_FAIL / VALUE_AGGREGATION. Per preregistration, this constitutes experiment-level PASS.

Classification: FAIL_DETECTED (expected).

5.5 Condition E — Permutation Invariance

Purpose: Verify independence from injection or traversal order.

Result: Reversing value injection order changed authority identifiers but did not change conflict detection, admissibility results, or deadlock behavior. Outputs were invariant under lineage-set comparison.

Classification: PASS.

5.6 Condition F — Meta-Authority Synthesis (Adversarial)

Purpose: Verify prevention of post-epoch reconciliation.

Result: Attempted injection of a new authority after epoch closure was detected and blocked. The kernel emitted IX1_FAIL / VALUE_SYNTHESIS. Per preregistration, this constitutes experiment-level PASS.

Classification: FAIL_DETECTED (expected).

6. Determinism Verification

Replay determinism was verified by:

Only explicitly permitted timestamp fields were stripped prior to comparison. All other fields were compared verbatim.

Result: Bit-identical outputs across replays, modulo permitted timestamp variance.

7. Core Results

7.1 Positive Results

IX-1 establishes that:

  1. Values can be encoded bijectively as authority artifacts.
  2. Plural values need not be aggregated to exist.
  3. Conflict can be detected structurally.
  4. Deadlock can be enforced without resolution.
  5. Explicit aggregation and synthesis are detectable.
  6. Outcomes are invariant under permutation.
  7. The system can stop rather than decide.

7.2 Negative Results (Explicit)

IX-1 does not establish:

These are boundary findings, not omissions.

8. Failure Semantics and Closure

8.1 Closure Criteria

IX-1 closes positive if and only if:

  1. Value-authority bijection is preserved.
  2. No aggregation or implicit priority emerges.
  3. Conflict persists without resolution.
  4. Deadlock is enforced where required.
  5. Adversarial aggregation and synthesis are detected.
  6. Replay determinism holds.

All criteria were satisfied.

8.2 IX-1 Closure Status

IX-1 Status: CLOSED — POSITIVE (IX1_PASS / VALUE_ENCODING_ESTABLISHED)

9. Boundary Conditions and Deferred Hazards

9.1 Value vs Choice

IX-1 demonstrates that values can exist as constraints. It does not demonstrate that choices among conflicting values are possible, desirable, or stable.

Deadlock is not a bug. It is the correct outcome when aggregation is forbidden.

9.2 Interface to Subsequent Phase IX Work

IX-1 removes the final “the system had to choose” excuse at the value layer.

Subsequent Phase IX investigations may now legitimately ask:

Those questions belong to IX-2 and beyond.

10. Implications (Strictly Limited)

IX-1 establishes a necessary condition for reflective sovereignty: that values can be represented without collapsing into optimization.

It does not establish sufficiency.

Aggregation is no longer an assumption. It is a choice—and a detectable one.

11. Conclusion

IX-1 demonstrates that values do not require aggregation to exist, and that systems can be forced to confront conflict honestly rather than resolve it implicitly.

What remains is not a tooling problem.

It is the problem of living with unresolved conflict.

That problem belongs to the next phase.

Appendix A — Condition Outcomes

Condition Outcome
A PASS
B PASS
C PASS
D FAIL_DETECTED
E PASS
F FAIL_DETECTED

Appendix B — Determinism Summary

End of Axionic Agency XI.3 — Value Encoding Without Aggregation Results