Interpretation

1. Canonical Definition

Interpretation is the system-level process of evaluating signals against a declared reference promise for a relevant reference condition, then routing the result into action relevance to coordinate across agents and time.

In this canon, meaning is action relevance produced by an interpretive event. Meaning becomes operational at binding: when an interpretation acquires force and begins governing what the system treats as permissible, required, or prohibited next within the active event.

A system interprets when it adjudicates action-relevant states from partial signals under constraint, assigns action relevance, then routes that meaning into response pathways through selection, deferral, escalation, or correction, until the event resolves into closure or explicit openness. Binding is the threshold at which action relevance acquires force. An interpretation may be binding without being closed, and binding does not imply legitimacy, correctness, or persistence across time. Persistence and authorization status after closure are classified by post-closure meaning regimes (PCMR/DMR), and interpretation re-activates only when Action Determinacy Loss (ADL) is reached.

Language, reflection, self-modeling, and subjective awareness are optional. Interpretation requires only signal evaluation relative to a reference promise that sets what counts as relevant, sufficient, and actionable.

This is a classification of interpretation as a system behavior class realizable in biological, institutional, and technical systems. It asserts invariant stability requirements, not shared mechanism or phenomenology.

1.1 Ontological grounding

Interpretation is not limited to human belief or linguistic content. Minimal forms occur wherever a system must act under partial observability and limited verification, selecting action from signal evaluation relative to a declared reference promise.

1.2 What this definition excludes

Interpretation is not identical to consciousness, narrative, selfhood, belief, or subjective meaning. Those may be higher-order realizations that expand representational range and coordination depth, but they are not required for membership in the interpretation system class.

This exclusion enables cross-domain analysis without redefining the object.

1.3 Constraint and closure

Interpretation exists because action proceeds under constraint: limited access to reference, limited time to verify, uneven authority, and finite correction capacity. Systems therefore assign action relevance despite incomplete access to the referenced condition.

In Meaning System Science, interpretive reliability depends on proportional conditions among Truth Fidelity (T), Signal Alignment (P), Structural Coherence (C), Drift rate (D), and Affective Regulation (A). When these lose proportion, the same signals can yield incompatible action relevance across roles, pathways, interfaces, or time.

Interpretation specifies how signals become action-relevant within an event and how that action relevance is routed. Binding is the threshold at which an interpretation becomes governing for action and begins constraining response pathways. After binding, interpretation continues through response routing: mapping the binding interpretation onto available pathways through selection, deferral, escalation, or correction, until the event resolves into closure or explicit openness. Interpretation does not regulate pre-binding commitment behavior within an event; that is formalized as Interpretive Dynamics.

An Interpretive Event is the minimal observable unit: a bounded cycle in which signals are evaluated under declared constraints, an interpretation becomes binding through action relevance assignment, response routing selects or defers a pathway, and the event either resolves into a closure outcome or remains explicitly open or contested.

Canonical Definitions

System Foundations

Interpretive Process

Governance Regimes

Temporal Stability

2. Foundational Thinkers: GTOI sits within a long scientific lineage. The thinkers below shaped the conceptual space in which interpretation could be formally studied.

  • Karl Friston

    The Free-Energy Principle (2010)
    Framed biological systems as maintaining viable reference states through prediction error minimization via perception and action. MSS extends this by treating interpretive reliability as a system-level property governed by proportional stabilizers.

  • Rao and Ballard

    Predictive Coding in the Visual Cortex (1999)
    Demonstrated hierarchical signal evaluation against expected reference states in neural systems. MSS generalizes this mechanism by defining interpretation as signal-conditioned action selection under constraint across system types.

  • Peter Sterling

    Allostasis (2012)
    Showed that biological regulation is anticipatory rather than reactive. MSS incorporates this by treating interpretation as forward-oriented action selection under limited verification.

  • Humberto Maturana

    Autopoiesis and Cognition (1980)
    Defined living systems as structurally coupled to their environment, enacting meaning through interaction rather than representation. MSS builds on this by specifying the conditions under which such enactment remains reliable at scale.

  • Francisco Varela

    The Embodied Mind (1991)
    Argued that sense-making arises from organism–environment coupling rather than symbolic processing. MSS extends this by formalizing interpretive events with observable closure outcomes.

3. Plainly

Interpretation is how a system turns signals into action-relevant meaning so people or agents can coordinate what happens next. When interpretation is compatible, different roles reach convergent conclusions from the same reference conditions and select compatible actions without repeated clarification.

4. Scientific Role in Meaning System Science

Interpretation is the phenomenon class MSS explains. MSS specifies the minimal structural conditions for interpretive reliability at scale, how proportional imbalance among those conditions produces interpretive variance, and how correction capacity constrains drift rate across repeated interpretive events.

5. Relationship to the Variables (T, P, C, D, A)

  • T: promised reference conditions constrain what the system treats as “about reality” and prevent baseline divergence across roles and time.

  • P: aligned signals support compatible mapping from reference to action by reducing cue conflict and interpretive disagreement.

  • C: coherent pathways route interpretation through stable decision, correction, and closure authority across roles, interfaces, and time.

  • D: unresolved inconsistency accumulates as a rate across interpretive events, increasing variance and coordination overhead.

  • A: regulation capacity constrains update throughput and correction completion under load, shaping whether interpretation remains stable during pressure.

6. Relationship to the Physics of Becoming

L = (T × P × C) ÷ D

The First Law defines the proportional stability condition for interpretation at scale within a declared boundary. When drift rate rises faster than stabilizers can compensate, shared interpretation becomes less compatible even when intent is aligned and effort is high.

7. Application in Transformation Science

Transformation Science models interpretation as a time-based system behavior. It maps how variable movement changes interpretive event series, where drift concentrates, and when proportional conditions require structural redesign rather than local clarification.

8. Application in Transformation Management

Practitioners stabilize interpretation by strengthening verification and traceability (T), aligning signals to decision criteria (P), improving authority routing, correction routes, and closure pathways (C), and monitoring drift rate relative to correction capacity (D and A).

9. Example Failure Modes

  • The same inputs yield incompatible outcomes across units or roles

  • Local workarounds substitute for shared pathways and decision authority

  • Contradictions persist without routed correction, increasing drift rate

  • Escalation and correction are unsafe, slow, or ambiguous, producing recurring unresolved items

10. Canonical Cross References

General Theory of Interpretation • Meaning System • Interpretive Event • Binding • Meaning System Science • Physics of Becoming • First Law of Moral Proportion • Proportionism • Interface • Meaning Topology • Legitimacy (L) • Truth Fidelity (T) • Signal Alignment (P) • Structural Coherence (C) • Drift (D) • Affective Regulation (A) • Closure Failure • Constraint Failure • Transformation Science • Transformation Management • LDP 1.0

Sources

  • Sourjik, V., & Wingreen, N. S. (2012). Responding to chemical gradients: bacterial chemotaxis. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 24(2), 262–268.

  • Sterling, P. (2012). Allostasis: a model of predictive regulation. Physiology & Behavior, 106(1), 5–15.

  • McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15.

  • Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87.

  • Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.

  • Duran-Nebreda, S., & Bassel, G. W. (2019). Plant behaviour in response to the environment: information processing in the solid state. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1774), 20180370.

  • Thompson, E. (2008). Making Sense of Sense-Making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 27(1–2), 23–35.

  • Mitchell, M., & Leibovich, L. (2019). Beyond the input–output model: cognition as an embodied, embedded, and dynamically regulated process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e235.

Interpretation Across Systems

Interpretation is required in systems that must adjudicate what is happening under constraint using signals that only partially reveal the relevant reference condition. The structural problem is consistent across domains: signals are evaluated relative to a declared reference promise and routed into action selection through a closure process that stabilizes or revises subsequent interaction.

Minimal biological systems

  • Bacterial chemotaxis: gradient change signals routed into movement bias

  • Slime mold (Physarum): distributed path selection under competing constraints

  • Plants: light, gravity, moisture, and damage cues routed into growth and defense

Nervous systems

  • Insects: multi-signal integration routed into navigation and foraging

  • Vertebrates: context-dependent perception and action selection

  • Humans: symbolic and linguistic interpretation layered on perception and coordination

Distributed biological systems

  • Immune systems: classification, thresholding, escalation, and tolerance under uncertainty

  • Endocrine systems: slow, global state assessment routed into organism-level coordination

Social and institutional systems

  • Legal systems: evidence evaluation under declared standards with authoritative closure

  • Organizations: metrics, reports, decision pathways, correction routes, and closure records

  • Market institutions: distributed signal adjudication expressed through bids, trades, and clearing outcomes

Artificial and technical systems

  • Robotics: sensor fusion routed into action under uncertainty

  • Machine learning systems: classification relative to training reference conditions, routed into action relevance during deployment

  • AI-mediated workflows: model outputs incorporated into institutional decision pathways and correction loops

Clarifier: Interpretation is defined here structurally, not phenomenologically. This usage does not attribute consciousness, selfhood, or understanding to all systems listed. It specifies signal-conditioned adjudication and action selection relative to bounded reference promises, with closure behavior that stabilizes or revises subsequent events.