The General Theory of Interpretation

Authors: Jordan Vallejo and the Transformation Management Institute Research Group

Status: Monograph A6 | November 2025

Abstract

This monograph formalizes the classification claim that the Institute’s A-Series architecture satisfies scientific criteria for a General Theory of Interpretation (GTOI). It specifies what must be true for “general-theory status” in the interpretation domain and maps those criteria to the canon’s deliverables: declared system-objects for evaluable claims, a minimal diagnostic variable architecture for interpretive reliability, a proportional stability constraint, and an inference discipline that preserves comparability under coupling and partial evidence coverage.

A6 introduces no new variables, forces, dynamics, regimes, or thresholds. Its purpose is certification. System Existence Theory (SET) governs whether a proposed unit is admissible as a system at a stated boundary. Meaning System Science (MSS) supplies the diagnostic architecture for evaluating interpretive reliability inside an admissible unit. The interpretive process and its construct ordering are defined in the canonical definition layer and are presupposed here.

1. Scope and classification claim

In GTOI, interpretation is treated as a functional system behavior evaluated through checkable traces, not through psychological, cultural, or ideological labels. The phenomenon class is restricted to cases where signals are evaluated against declared reference conditions and produce action-relevant governance within an admissible system boundary.

Interpretive claims are evaluated through bounded cycles that leave observable artifacts, including reference artifacts, signal streams, decision and correction pathways, and event outcomes. These cycles are treated as Interpretive Events: the minimal admissible unit for evaluable interpretive claims within a declared meaning-system boundary and membership condition.

Meaning System Science (A2, A4, A5) specifies the system-object declaration posture, diagnostic variables, proportional stability constraint, and inference discipline required to evaluate interpretive reliability within an admissible unit. A7 specifies forces and dynamics that condition event-internal commitment behavior and cross-boundary propagation, and is not re-derived here. B4 specifies temporal behavior of crystallized meaning and re-opening signatures, and is not re-derived here.

This monograph introduces no new constructs. Its sole purpose is to formalize the classification claim that the A-Series architecture supports general-theory status for interpretation.

1.1 What A6 is not

A6 is not a re-definition monograph for the definition layer terms (System, Meaning, Meaning System, Interpretation, Interpretive Jurisdiction, Binding, AGM, Meaning Regimes, Drift, ADL). A6 is not a forces-and-dynamics monograph (A7), not a temporal behavior monograph (B4), and not a measurement protocol. Measurement posture is formalized in the diagnostics and standards layer.

2. What counts as a general theory

In scientific practice, a general theory specifies constraints that remain valid across contexts, scales, and implementations. Mechanisms can vary by substrate. Behavioral constraints do not.

For interpretation, general-theory status requires that the theory remain applicable to systems where meaning governance occurs without language or reflective awareness, provided that interpretive claims can be evaluated through traces inside a declared boundary and membership condition.

GTOI general-theory status requires five criteria.

3. General-theory criteria for interpretation

3.1 Defined variables

Criterion. A general theory specifies variables that condition stability and failure across the phenomenon class. Variables must remain applicable across admissible meaning-system types without definition change.

Admissibility test. Variable claims must be operationally definable from traces (artifacts, pathways, correction behavior, event outcomes) inside a declared system-object, and must remain stable under scale changes.

3.2 Governing constraint relation

Criterion. A general theory formalizes a relationship that restricts expected behavior across environments and supports constraint-based prediction under changing conditions.

Admissibility test. The relationship must impose mutual constraint (limit which combinations can remain stable) rather than serve as post-hoc narrative summary.

In the Institute’s canon, this role is provided by the Proportional Stability Constraint formalized in The Physics of Becoming (A4). A6 relies on that constraint as a general-theory criterion but does not re-derive or operationalize it.

3.3 Cross-scale validity under coupling

Criterion. A general theory remains valid across scales without changing definitions, including under coupling, where instability can be locally produced, imported through dependencies, or co-produced across interfaces.

Admissibility test. The theory must support analysis that distinguishes local production from imported variance without collapsing attribution into default narratives (for example “culture,” “communication,” or “process”) as driver substitutes.

3.4 Stable units of analysis via declaration

Criterion. A general theory requires stable units of analysis. For interpretation, claims must be evaluated against a declared meaning-system rather than an implied one.

Admissibility test. At minimum, analysis must declare:

• the meaning-system boundary

• membership conditions for agents, artifacts, and authority channels admissible to generate, modify, or finalize meaning inside the boundary

• the evaluation window over which stability and change are assessed

• the interpretive event unit used for evaluation and comparability

• coupling status and major dependencies likely to import instability

System Existence Theory (SET) governs whether the proposed unit is admissible as a system at the stated boundary. GTOI presumes admissibility and evaluates interpretive reliability within the declared meaning-system. Without explicit declaration, disconfirmation is not possible because the object can shift while appearing unchanged.

3.5 Disconfirmation posture

Criterion. A general theory must allow meaningful failure. It must be falsifiable at the level of its architecture, not protected by content-specific escape hatches.

Admissibility test. The classification claim fails if any of the following are observed:

• the proposed variables cannot be applied across admissible meaning-system types without definition change

• the proportional stability constraint fails to restrict stability patterns under changing load and correction capacity

• drift cannot be treated as a post-crystallization rate condition observable through event-series traces and recurrence structure

• explanatory claims require content-specific narrative substitution rather than remaining constrained by declared structure, trace evidence, and bounded inference

A minimal counterexample is sufficient. For example: if stable, comparable, action-governing meaning reliably persists across cycles while declared reference conditions remain non-reconstructable, authority signals remain inconsistent, pathways remain non-comparable, and inconsistency accumulation rate rises without correction integration, the architecture’s constraint claims are falsified.

4. Why a general theory did not emerge earlier

Interpretation shaped coordination long before MSS and GTOI. The absence of a general theory reflects integration barriers and historical observability limits.

First, the relevant dimensions of interpretation developed across disciplines with incompatible explanatory standards, producing partial models without a shared architecture that could constrain cross-context stability. Second, earlier environments reduced the visibility of rate effects. Slower information movement, more local reference sharing, and lower operational throughput often allowed informal correction to compensate before proportional mismatch became measurable at scale.

Contemporary environments change the observability regime. Distributed channels, rapid iteration, cross-context signaling, and high-throughput coordination increase inconsistency production relative to correction throughput. Under these conditions, drift becomes detectable as a temporal rate condition in event-series traces, correction load, and baseline reuse behavior.

4.1 Artificial meaning-systems as an observability amplifier

Artificial meaning-systems increase measurement resolution for GTOI claims without changing the phenomenon class. They operate under high throughput, produce dense artifacts, and allow repeated evaluation across controlled variation.

This amplification does not require a separate theory of AI “meaning” to validate GTOI. It increases the resolution with which interpretive traces, recurrence structure, correction routing, and drift behavior can be observed inside declared meaning-systems that include artificial agents.

5. Criteria-to-canon mapping

A6 maps the general-theory criteria to the Institute’s canon without introducing new constructs.

5.1 Defined variables

Meaning System Science specifies a minimal diagnostic variable architecture required for interpretive reliability across admissible meaning systems:

• Truth Fidelity (T)

• Signal Alignment (P)

• Structural Coherence (C)

• Drift (D), treated as a post-crystallization inconsistency accumulation rate

• Affective Regulation (A), treated as correction and update capacity under load

These variables remain invariant across scale, substrate, and implementation. Their role in A6 is classificatory: a general theory must specify stable variables that condition stability across the phenomenon class without contextual redefinition.

5.2 Governing constraint relation

The Physics of Becoming (A4) formalizes the Proportional Stability Constraint that restricts expected stability patterns under changing load and correction capacity.

A6 treats this as a requirement for general-theory status. It does not impose a measurement equation here, and it does not treat proportional stability as an authorization doctrine. Authorization is governed by meaning regimes operative at binding (PCMR/DMR). Persistence is classified by crystallization. Drift is a post-crystallization temporal variable.

5.3 Cross-scale validity under coupling

Cross-scale validity follows from the system-class claim: interpretation is defined by invariant requirements, not by substrate or local mechanism.

Under coupling, instability can be locally produced or imported through dependencies. Valid attribution must remain constrained by the declared system-object and trace evidence, including interface artifacts and correction routing traces. This is why A7 is necessary in the canon: it supplies the propagation and event-internal pressure mechanics needed for causal resolution without changing the variable architecture.

5.4 System-object declaration and inference discipline

A2 requires boundary and membership declaration as a condition of evaluation. A5 formalizes Proportionism as the inference discipline required for multi-variable diagnosis under partial coverage and coupling.

Proportionism constrains attribution: claims about interpretive stability must be stated as variable-level hypotheses inside a declared system-object with explicit coupling awareness. Symptom labels remain observations, not causes. Where evidence coverage is partial, attribution remains bounded by what the structure supports.

5.5 Disconfirmation posture

A2, A4, and A5 jointly supply an architectural disconfirmation posture:

• variable definitions remain stable across system types

• proportional constraint restricts stability patterns under changing demand

• drift remains a rate condition observable post-crystallization across event series

• inference rules restrict content-driven narrative substitution

These conditions make the classification claim falsifiable at the architectural level.

6. What general-theory status changes

Classifying the A-Series architecture as a general theory changes what counts as a valid claim about interpretation.

6.1 Scientific status

Interpretation becomes comparable across contexts without redefining the object each time. Stability claims can be stated as diagnostic hypotheses with explicit declaration requirements, trace requirements, bounded attribution, and architectural disconfirmation criteria.

6.2 Governance status

Interpretive instability becomes diagnosable as a structural condition visible in traces, baseline reuse behavior, and correction routing, rather than treated primarily as intent conflict or content disagreement. Problems labeled “communication,” “alignment,” or “culture” can be re-expressed as proportional strain, pathway incoherence, coupling exposure, and governance conditions inside a declared system-object.

6.3 Division of labor across the canon

General-theory classification clarifies the division of labor:

• SET: admissibility of system objects under declared boundaries

• MSS (A2): diagnostic variable architecture for interpretive reliability

• Physics of Becoming (A4): proportional stability constraint under load and change

• Proportionism (A5): inference discipline and bounded attribution

• A6 (this monograph): admissibility and falsifiability conditions for GTOI general-theory status

• A7: forces and dynamics for propagation and event-internal commitment behavior

• B4: temporal behavior of crystallized meaning and re-opening signatures

• Standards/Diagnostics: operational instrumentation and governance requirements

7. Conclusion

The Institute’s A-Series architecture satisfies the criteria for a General Theory of Interpretation. It defines interpretation as a system class with invariant requirements, specifies a minimal diagnostic variable architecture, formalizes a proportional stability constraint, remains valid under coupling across scales, and constrains analysis through declared system-objects and disciplined inference.

Under contemporary observability conditions, these requirements can be evaluated through traces without relying on content-specific narrative substitution. A6 certifies the general-theory classification by specifying admissibility requirements for claims and by stating disconfirmation conditions at the level of variable invariance, proportional constraint restrictiveness, drift rate observability, and inference discipline.

Citation

Vallejo, J. (2025). Monograph A6: The General Theory of Interpretation. TMI Scientific Monograph Series. Transformation Management Institute.