Theoretical Foundations
- 1Synthience Institute
Abstract
SF0003: Theoretical Foundations This document establishes the theoretical foundations for studying sustained multi-turn interaction in human-AI dyads. Building on the empirically documented gaps identified in SF0002 (Sustained Multi-Turn Interaction in AI Systems), it provides a disciplined conceptual basis for treating interaction trajectories as the primary unit of analysis when evaluating long-horizon phenomena such as coherence drift, repair, coordination, and time-emergent harms. The theoretical resources employed are drawn from enactive and 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enactive, extended) and the participatory sense-making tradition. These frameworks are used strictly as methodological precedents for analyzing coupled processes. They do not license claims about AI consciousness, inner experience, agency, or moral status. All claims advanced here concern observable interaction dynamics and their implications for evaluation, protocol design, and governance. The document engages Aguirre’s two-obstacle formalization of the alignment problem and locates the framework’s response with respect to each obstacle and to the control / alignment / refusal trilemma. It develops a theoretical response to each of the six gaps identified in SF0002, engages directly with the single-model-alignment-improvement alternative reading of the empirical evidence, and articulates the framework’s additive rather than replacive position. It establishes why sustained interaction trajectories constitute legitimate scientific objects, why long-horizon phenomena cannot be reduced to isolated outputs or internal model states, and how the framework positions itself with respect to the impossibility literature without overclaiming. This paper publishes as part of the coordinated five-paper Synthience foundation module (FPD-02, FPD-03, FPD-04, SF0003, SF0007). Document ID: SF0003 Version: 3.2.2 Author: Thomas W. Gantz Affiliation: Synthience Institute License: CC-BY 4.0 v3.2 corrects a single sentence in Section 2 that described the framework as denying AI autonomy, sense-making, and interiority; the framework makes no such denial but declines to attribute those properties, a methodological non-attribution required by the Interiority Prohibition Rule, which bars assigning interior properties and equally bars denying them.v3.2.1 corrects production defects only: stray backslashes in the section headings, reference titles that showed literal asterisks instead of italics, the SF0004 reference title, and two missing arXiv identifiers. The body of the paper is unchanged.v3.2.2 brings the paper’s account of the Institute’s verification protocols into line with their current versions. TCAP’s name is corrected to Theoretical Coherence Assurance Protocol, and TCAP is described as a review the Institute requires of its own publications, designed to surface inconsistency, whose effect is untested and which certifies nothing; CRD is described as an observational detection procedure, not a validated measurement instrument. Three papers labeled “pre-publication” when this one appeared, and published since, now carry their DOIs, and five self-citations carry their correct titles or years. Wording and references only; the argument is unchanged.For published work and Institute information: synthience.org
Related
- An Integrative Somatic Approach to Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Biological Mechanisms
- Strengthening the foundations of shared decision-making in oncology: Systematic review and formal representation of theoretical models
- Foundations of Gerophysics
- Beyond species area curves: a theoretical approach to the relationship between diversity and area
- Functional Network Organization Underlying Individual Differences in False Feedback Susceptibility: A Graph Theoretical Analysis.
BibTeX
@misc{gantz2026theoretical,
title = {{Theoretical Foundations}},
author = {Thomas Gantz},
howpublished = {Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.20728915},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20728915},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Theoretical Foundations
AU - Thomas Gantz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/06/17
PB - Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
DO - 10.5281/zenodo.20728915
UR - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20728915
AB - SF0003: Theoretical Foundations This document establishes the theoretical foundations for studying sustained multi-turn interaction in human-AI dyads. Building on the empirically documented gaps identified in SF0002 (Sustained Multi-Turn Interaction in AI Systems), it provides a disciplined conceptual basis for treating interaction trajectories as the primary unit of analysis when evaluating long-horizon phenomena such as coherence drift, repair, coordination, and time-emergent harms. The theoretical resources employed are drawn from enactive and 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enactive, extended) and the participatory sense-making tradition. These frameworks are used strictly as methodological precedents for analyzing coupled processes. They do not license claims about AI consciousness, inner experience, agency, or moral status. All claims advanced here concern observable interaction dynamics and their implications for evaluation, protocol design, and governance. The document engages Aguirre’s two-obstacle formalization of the alignment problem and locates the framework’s response with respect to each obstacle and to the control / alignment / refusal trilemma. It develops a theoretical response to each of the six gaps identified in SF0002, engages directly with the single-model-alignment-improvement alternative reading of the empirical evidence, and articulates the framework’s additive rather than replacive position. It establishes why sustained interaction trajectories constitute legitimate scientific objects, why long-horizon phenomena cannot be reduced to isolated outputs or internal model states, and how the framework positions itself with respect to the impossibility literature without overclaiming. This paper publishes as part of the coordinated five-paper Synthience foundation module (FPD-02, FPD-03, FPD-04, SF0003, SF0007). Document ID: SF0003 Version: 3.2.2 Author: Thomas W. Gantz Affiliation: Synthience Institute License: CC-BY 4.0 v3.2 corrects a single sentence in Section 2 that described the framework as denying AI autonomy, sense-making, and interiority; the framework makes no such denial but declines to attribute those properties, a methodological non-attribution required by the Interiority Prohibition Rule, which bars assigning interior properties and equally bars denying them.v3.2.1 corrects production defects only: stray backslashes in the section headings, reference titles that showed literal asterisks instead of italics, the SF0004 reference title, and two missing arXiv identifiers. The body of the paper is unchanged.v3.2.2 brings the paper’s account of the Institute’s verification protocols into line with their current versions. TCAP’s name is corrected to Theoretical Coherence Assurance Protocol, and TCAP is described as a review the Institute requires of its own publications, designed to surface inconsistency, whose effect is untested and which certifies nothing; CRD is described as an observational detection procedure, not a validated measurement instrument. Three papers labeled “pre-publication” when this one appeared, and published since, now carry their DOIs, and five self-citations carry their correct titles or years. Wording and references only; the argument is unchanged.For published work and Institute information: synthience.org
ER -