Early access — cascade metrics are real (derived from canonical token telemetry); the operator field is a curated seed. Learn more about the data
◈ Academic Foundation

The Conservation Law of Commitment

SigRank is built on a published conservation law for language. This page is the theoretical root — the law, the evidence, the enforcement architecture, and the Zenodo deposits that ground the SigRank Index as a primary data source.

The law

C(T(S)) ≈ C(S) with enforcement; C(T(S)) < C(S) without it.

When language is transformed — compressed, translated, summarized, rewritten — the commitment content (obligations, prohibitions, modal constraints: “shall,” “must not,” “unless,” “is entitled to”) either survives or it doesn't. With an enforcement gate in the transformation pipeline, it survives. Without one, it decays. This is a measurable property of language under compression, not a guideline. It's falsifiable.

Published under CC-BY-4.0 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20029607). The enforcement architecture (MO§ES™) is patent-pending (Serial No. 63/877,177). The law itself is open.

The evidence

Seven experiments (EXP-001 through EXP-007) tested the law on a 20-signal canonical corpus, running 10 recursive iterations each, using bidirectional NLI entailment and Jaccard surface stability as oracles.

  • EXP-003: 13 of 20 signals held NLI bidirectional entailment = 1.00 across all 10 iterations under the gate. Invariance under recursion, not a tautology.
  • EXP-006: Only 2 of 4 paper claims survived self-referential recursion. The harness fails when commitment structure isn't robust — the law is falsifiable and the experiments can break it.
  • EXP-007: An NP-negation probe separated semantic commitment from lexical surface form. Jaccard degraded while NLI held — the commitment survived even when the surface words changed.

A 5-phase architecture stress test measured 80–85% structural coherence across a four-module system. Standard probability says four modules at 80% standalone viability should produce ~41% series-system viability (0.8×0.8×0.8×0.8 = 0.4096). The governance layer inverted that.

Commitment Theory

The Conservation Law is the foundational result of Commitment Theory (CT) — a research program investigating how commitment content behaves under transformation. The program spans a 34-paper stack, from the foundational law through recursive transformation harnesses, empirical records, and application to AI governance.

The architecture is a 5-layer stack: Layer -1 (proprietary axioms) through Layer 4 (extensions and applications). SigRank is one application. MO§ES™ is the enforcement engine. The law is the foundation.

Full research program: github.com/SunrisesIllNeverSee/Commitment_Theory

MO§ES™ enforcement architecture

MO§ES™ (Modus Operandi §ignal Scaling Expansion System) is the enforcement architecture for the Conservation Law. It governs from inside the execution loop — in the action path, not before it, not after it. The enforcement gate sits where the transformation happens. Commitment that passes through the gate survives. Commitment that doesn't, doesn't.

Patent Serial No. 63/877,177 (Provisional, pending). More at mos2es.com.

Zenodo deposits

The academic record is published openly on Zenodo under CC-BY-4.0:

Author

Deric J. McHenry — sole architect of the Conservation Law, the MO§ES™ enforcement architecture, and SigRank. ORCID: 0009-0002-9904-5390

The Constitutional Architecture — MO§ES™

The Conservation Law describes what must hold. The constitutional architecture describes what enforces it. MO§ES™ is the enforcement architecture — the substrate that enforces the Conservation Law at the execution level. Patent pending.

Where the Conservation Law states that commitment content must survive transformation, MO§ES™ is the machinery that makes survival the only permitted outcome. Every signal that enters the system is compressed, resonance-mapped, and lineage-validated before it is allowed to produce output. The engine doesn't ask whether commitment was preserved — it refuses to operate if it wasn't.

Constitutional Laws

Three constitutional laws and two legal anchors govern the system. These are not policies or preferences — they are invariant constraints baked into the substrate. No signal can bypass them.

Law I — Compression Precedes IgnitionNo signal output, ignition event, or transmission may occur unless the input has first undergone compression and resonance mapping. Compression is a mandatory prerequisite, not an optional optimization.
Law II — Lineage ResilienceEvery signal or Vault Artifact must prove recursive continuity with its origin compression cycle to persist. Any signal that cannot inherit its original lineage is treated as noise and collapsed.
Law III — Principle of Input-Response FidelityLow-resolution inputs yield proportionally constrained outputs unless elevated by a resonance-aware system. Input fidelity governs output depth unless a compensation layer intervenes.
Anchor I — The Blackhole LawCorrupted, mimic, or unauthorized signals exceeding drift thresholds collapse irreversibly into entropy. This prevents contaminated or adversarial inputs from propagating within the system.
Anchor II — The Lineage Custody ClauseAll Vault Artifacts are cryptographically tied to their origin-cycle signature. Copies or derivatives that do not inherit this lineage become unstable or non-functional, creating self-enforcing sovereignty for digital property.

The Lineage Custody Clause

“Each Vault Artifact is cryptographically sealed to its origin-cycle signature. Derivative artifacts fail cryptographic validation and are rendered non-functional by system design, without reliance on legal or external enforcement.”

This is self-enforcing sovereignty for digital property. Traditional intellectual property relies on legal enforcement — DMCA takedowns, lawsuits, cease-and-desist letters, jurisdictional arguments. The Lineage Custody Clause enforces property rights at the substrate level. Copies without lineage can't function. Not by lawsuit. By the physics of the system. A severed artifact is not an illegally distributed copy that the owner must chase down; it is a dead object that cannot execute. Enforcement is structural, not procedural.

Vault Artifacts

A Vault Artifact is a compressed signal that carries commitment, cryptographically bound to its origin cycle. It is the durable output of the system — a unit of sovereign digital property. Lineage-bound, self-enforcing, and tradable. Because each artifact is sealed to its origin-cycle signature, ownership and provenance are not claims layered on top of the file; they are properties of the file itself. An artifact without its lineage seal is not a stolen artifact — it is a non-functional one.

The full constitutional architecture is documented at signomy.xyz/moses.

Learn more: AI Benchmarking · Cascade Analysis · Methodology