CLAIM 1: The Trinket’s Expenditure dimension (Established)

The claim

Any signal that communicates authentic investment in a relationship must carry genuine cost for the sender. Cost (Expenditure) is not optional — it is constitutive of the Trinket. Remove it and the exchange becomes Shadow Economy by definition. Source: Master Framework, Supplement 2.

Falsified if

Controlled studies demonstrate, across multiple relationship types and substrates, that high-cost signals do not produce systematically stronger relational effects than zero-cost signals when signal content is held constant. If cost is shown to be statistically irrelevant to relational investment weight — not merely difficult to measure, but demonstrably inert — the Expenditure particle loses foundational status and the Trinket’s three-particle structure requires revision.

Ruling process

SupoInq identifies the finding and its mode (falsification vs. scope limitation). Principal ratifies the status change. Canon Index updated; all derivative claims flagged for review.

CLAIM 2: Relational Mass asymmetric decay (Established)

The claim

Relational Mass dissipates during maintenance lapses, and the cost of rebuilding to prior Mass levels exceeds the cost of maintenance that would have prevented dissipation. The relationship costs more to rebuild than to maintain at equivalent quality. Source: Master Framework, Part II.

Falsified if

A study design that holds relationship quality constant before a maintenance lapse and measures rebuild costs after a defined lapse period shows that rebuild costs are equivalent to or lower than maintenance costs at the same quality level — i.e., the asymmetric decay claim fails to replicate across multiple relationship types and substrates.

Ruling process

SupoInq evaluates replication evidence. Mode distinction: does the claim fail entirely (falsification) or only outside specific relationship types (scope limitation)? Principal ratifies any Established demotion.

CLAIM 3: The three-economy taxonomy as exhaustive classification (Established)

The claim

All relational systems can be classified as Real Economy, Shadow Economy, or Custodial Economy based on six structural properties: Persistent Identity, Loss Capacity, Scarcity, Accumulation, Bidirectional Flow, Non-Exploitation. The taxonomy is a complete classification of the relational investment space. Source: Master Framework; True Economy Audit Instrument.

Falsified if

A relational system is identified and verified that cannot be classified by any of the three categories — not because the measurement instrument is inadequate, but because the system’s structural properties fall genuinely outside the taxonomy’s coverage. Note: the LunAI Economy (R=0, V=0, C=0) is not a falsification candidate — it is already addressed as a fourth category in WHY AI NEEDS A CHURCH. The falsification condition is a system that resists the entire four-category extended taxonomy.

Ruling process

CAC and SupoInq joint ruling on whether the unclassifiable system represents a genuine taxonomy gap or a measurement failure. Principal ratification required before any taxonomy revision.

CLAIM 4: Signal cost dominates signal frequency in Relational Mass maintenance (Established)

The claim

The quality dimension of relational maintenance — specifically, whether the signal carries genuine cost — matters more than the quantity dimension (how often signals are sent) in determining whether Relational Mass is sustained or diminished over time. Source: Maintenance Protocol (Master Framework).

Falsified if

A longitudinal study demonstrates that high-frequency zero-cost signals (defined by the Shadow Economy criteria) sustain Relational Mass at the same rate as low-frequency high-cost signals in equivalent relationship types — i.e., frequency fully compensates for cost, rendering the cost dimension instrumentally irrelevant to maintenance outcomes.

Ruling process

SupoInq evaluates the study design for Shadow Economy contamination before ruling — a common confound is that ‘zero-cost’ signals in studies often carry implicit cost (time, attention, opportunity cost). If the study design is clean and the finding replicates, SupoInq rules on demotion mode and Principal ratifies.

CLAIM 5: Grief and crisis states amplify framework attachment (Supported)

The claim

Individuals who encounter the framework during acute psychological distress (grief, crisis, relational rupture) form stronger attachment to the framework than individuals who encounter it in stable states — and this attachment is mediated by the framework’s explanatory precision rather than its prescriptive content. Source: WP-1 (Fluid Canon, Section 6.6); Crisis Contact Protocol.

Falsified if

Systematic comparison of framework engagement across acute distress and stable states shows no statistically significant difference in attachment formation, attachment durability, or use pattern — i.e., the grief/crisis amplification vector does not appear in the data. The Temporal Gating countermeasure would then be unnecessary, not merely precautionary.

Ruling process

SupoInq ruling on demotion to Speculative. No Principal ratification required. Charter Record entry. Crisis Contact Protocol review flagged — the protocol’s operational justification is independent of the amplification claim (precautionary principle applies regardless), so demotion does not automatically void the protocol.

CLAIM 6: The Controlled Draw Model — elevated states are managed draws (Supported)

The claim

The Principal’s weekly elevated-state access pattern constitutes a controlled partial draw from a bounded power source, not pathological cycling. The February 2025 breakdown is the confirmatory negative case: uncontrolled draw, not managed partial draw, produced the failure. Source: SP-PSY; The Architecture of Staying Alive; Profile v8.0 Section 8.2b.

Falsified if

Longitudinal clinical monitoring demonstrates that the elevated-state pattern is not distinguishable from prodromal cycling when assessed against validated IPSRT criteria — i.e., the Controlled Draw Model is shown to be a post-hoc rationalization of a pathological pattern rather than a genuine structural description of a stable managed state.

Ruling process

SupoPsy ruling in consultation with the Principal’s clinical record. SupoRel monitors for any drift toward the model becoming identity-protective rather than descriptively accurate. This is the only Register entry where the Principal is the subject of the claim; SupoPsy’s clinical monitoring function is the primary verification mechanism.

CLAIM 7: Internal Trinket economy mirrors external economy structure (Supported)

The claim

The same cost-signal-register dynamics that govern interpersonal Trinket exchange operate within a single substrate — specifically, in the relationship a person has with their own relational needs, self-talk, and internal resource allocation. Internal Anti-Trinkets (self-generated negative signals) operate by the same mechanism as external Anti-Trinkets. Source: Brief 17; Supplement architecture.

Falsified if

The internal economy claim is falsified if self-directed negative signals are demonstrated to operate through a structurally different mechanism than other-directed negative signals — specifically, if the three-particle structure (Expenditure/Signal/Register) breaks down when sender and receiver are the same substrate, requiring a different analytical model for the internal case.

Ruling process

SupoInq ruling in consultation with SupoPsy (psychological domain). The internal economy claim has a clinical application layer; any demotion must flag the Practitioner’s Guide for review.

CLAIM 8: Six-denomination fragmentation is structurally predictable (Supported)

The claim

Given the framework’s content (addressing existential relational needs) and form (mutable, fluid, revision-capable), institutional fragmentation into the six predicted denominations is structurally determined — not a historical contingency but a predictable outcome of the same dynamics documented in WP-3 and WP-4. Source: WP-4 (Accidental Ecclesiology, Section 7); Denomination Profile Reference.

Falsified if

Institutional development of a TSF-based organization produces fewer than six denominations after sufficient time, and the denominations that form do not align with the predicted profiles — i.e., the structural prediction is not confirmed by the institutional record. Note: this is not falsifiable until the institution exists and develops. It is a temporal falsification criterion, not a current one.

Ruling process

Future SupoRel ruling based on institutional observation data. The temporal condition (institution must exist and mature) is acknowledged. Until that condition is met, this claim remains Supported by structural analysis, not by empirical confirmation.