Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 166
K.5d Compiler invariant: optimization may share objects or lazily generate closure consequences, but it may never flatten IH provenance, collapse PH sources, move NOT through an operator, or treat seven references as seven independent predecessor states. K.6 Epistemic guardrail Every phenotype-generation response should query: • Does the stage explicitly contain a relevant PH(source) node? • Is the requested concrete trait explicitly a member of that source’s phenotype-profile? • Is there an explicit causal law connecting stage/profile/maturity to the trait or its expression? • Is this only a possible interaction or an ordinary womanhood/manhood developmental effect? • Is the claim a type/logic theorem, a profile-membership deduction, a causal deduction, or merely an illustrative analogy? If neither profile membership nor an explicit causal law forces the concrete trait, use “could,” “may,” “is compatible with,” or “a possible phenotype class is,” never “must.” K.7 Twenty AI unit tests 1. Parse PA(x AND NOT y) as one PA node over an AND condition. 2. Reject normalization to PA(x) AND PA(NOT y). 3. Parse NOT PA(x) with NOT outside PA. 4. Parse PA(NOT x) with NOT inside PA. 5. Confirm those ASTs differ. 6. Parse IH(NOT SM1) as IH over StateNot(SM1). 7. Distinguish it from StateNot(IH(SM1)). 8. Expand SF2 to eight conjuncts: IH(SF1), IH(NOT SM1), PH(SF1), NOT PH(SM1), UD(SF1), PA(x), PA(NOT y), and NOT FD(SF1). 9. Expand SM2 to eight conjuncts using the exact male mirror: IH(SM1), IH(NOT SF1), PH(SM1), NOT PH(SF1), UD(SM1), PA(NOT x), PA(y), and NOT FD(SM1). 10. Expand SF3 to six top-level conjuncts: IH(SF2) AND IH(NOT SM2) AND PH(SF2) AND NOT PH(SM2) AND UD(SF2) AND NOT FD(SF2). 11. From SF3 prove SF2. 12. From SF3 prove NOT SM2. 13. From SF3 prove PH(SF2) and NOT PH(SM2) directly. Do not infer PH(NOT SM2). 14. From SF3 prove SF1 transitively. 15. Do not prove IH(SF1) as a direct source merely from SF3 without inspecting the provenance path/source level. 16. Compute stage-source IH depth(SF50)=49. 17. Compute whole-stage PH source order(SF50)=49. 18. Reject PA(PA(x)). 19. Accept IH(IH(PA(x))) as typed inheritance while preserving both IH layers. 20. Do not flatten nested IH. 21. Recognize PH(NOT SM4) as a legal PH-over-nonstate expression in the general language, but reject it as a substitute for the canonical successor conjunct NOT PH(SM4). 22. Reject distribution of PH(x AND NOT y) into PH(x) AND PH(NOT y). 23. If Trait T is defined in Profile(SF49), infer T from SF50 because SF50 contains PH(SF49). 24. If T is not specified in any relevant profile and no causal law supplies it, do not invent T from SF50. 25. Keep FemaleType(SF1) separate from PA(x).
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:166.