The locked stack

How the framework is built

How the framework fits together, and how good the evidence is at each level. The frame and the premises are assumptions we start from. Everything above them is built from converging evidence, and each node carries its own grade.

This page lays out the stack in six layers. Read top to bottom - each node says what it claims and where the support comes from. How the 15 mechanisms are grounded is spelled out just below.

The frame and premises are starting assumptions. The convergences are places where separate research traditions land on the same structure. Of the 15 mechanisms, 5 are forced by a dedicated convergence that entails them (M1, M2, M3, M11, M14); the other 10 are associated - grounded by convergent evidence without a single convergence entailing them. Two convergences (C11, C14) are open by design and carry no foundational parent yet.

On each node, the grade chip (for example "established" or "strongly supported") reports confidence in that node. That is a separate axis from entailment: a mechanism's "Forced by" line, when present, names the convergence that entails it. A high-confidence node is not automatically an entailed one.

For the claims the framework refuses to give up and the specific results that would refute it, see the research programme.

01FrameWhat an interface can be. Everything else is built on this.
OF1Fitness Interface

Access to the world is mediated by evolved fitness interfaces, not guaranteed veridicality.

Forced byHoffman (Interface Theory of Perception), Prakash et al. (Fitness Beats Truth theorem).
ScopeEverything experienced is a species-specific interface shaped by natural selection to track fitness payoffs, not truth. The specification operates entirely within this interface. OF1 does not enter the derivation chain - its function is to clarify that every mechanism output is a fitness-relevant signal by design, and to keep the door open to ontological questions outside the interface.
OF2Signal-Default Epistemology

Motivational-emotional outputs are treated as prima facie informative about the organism's regulated conditions, by default. The signal is read as information about input conditions and current state, not as noise to be suppressed. This is a diagnostic default, not a presumption of veridicality (OF1 stands) and not a contraindication to symptom relief where indicated. The default is displaced by positive evidence of decoupling or direct physiological perturbation: developmental miscalibration carried forward, chronic dysregulation, acute organic disease or state shift (sleep deprivation, inflammation, endocrine perturbation, delirium), structural damage, and substance or medication effects.

Forced byFrame layer, sibling of OF1. Methodological commitment that follows from P2 + DA1 + DA7: if the architecture is domain-sensitive (P2), and aversive outputs are intelligible defensive signals (DA1), and the architecture calibrates to developmental input (DA7), then the default reading of any mechanism output must be accurate to the environment the mechanism was calibrated for. Decoupling is the exception requiring evidence.
ScopeOF2 is a diagnostic default, not an ontological claim. OF1 establishes that perception is not guaranteed veridical at the fitness-interface level; OF2 establishes that motivational-emotional signals are read as informative about state and input conditions before being read as noise. The two claims operate at different levels and do not contradict. Positive evidence sufficient to displace the OF2 default includes: time-locked onset coincident with medical illness, medication, or substance exposure; lab or neurological evidence of acute physiological perturbation; persistence of the output across environmental changes that would normally resolve a defensive signal; or gross loss of context-sensitivity that breaks the expected defensive logic. The five-category list of decoupling exceptions is the working set, expanded from the original four after Codex adversarial review (April 8, 2026) flagged acute physiological state shifts as missing.
02PremiseThe starting commitments the frame admits.
P1Inclusive Fitnessestablished

Inclusive fitness - survival and reproduction - is the loss function of selection, not of the organism's runtime computation.

Forced byDarwin, Hamilton (kin selection, inclusive fitness).
ScopeThe architecture exists because it contributed to the survival and reproduction of the organism and its genetic relatives across evolutionary time. The loss function explains why the mechanisms exist (ultimate). The mechanisms are how the loss function is implemented (proximate). No organism computes inclusive fitness explicitly - the mechanisms are proximate implementations shaped by selection. This is why proxies fail: they trigger input cues while failing to supply resolution conditions.
P2Domain-Sensitive Interacting Adaptationsestablished

The organism contains evolved, domain-sensitive, interacting functional adaptations.

Forced byTooby & Cosmides (design principle), confirmed empirically by Panksepp, Bowlby, Dunbar, Boehm, Trivers, Gilbert, Rozin.
Scope"Organism" not "mind" - the immune system, HPA axis, circadian biology, gut-brain axis, thermoregulation are all evolved functional adaptations with environmental requirements. "Interacting" not "modular" - dense cross-system connections disprove informational encapsulation.
P3Systematic Mismatchestablished

Modern environments often push these adaptations outside their expected or regulatable operating ranges.

Forced byEaton & Konner (discordance), Gluckman & Hanson (developmental mismatch), Li/van Vugt/Colarelli (mismatch review). Constrained by Boyd & Richerson / Henrich.
ScopeThree modes - deprivation (expected inputs missing), conflict/overload (incompatible simultaneous demands), proxy hijack (false cues overstimulating systems). "Matched" means within the expectable range, often culturally scaffolded - NOT ancestrally identical in surface form. Modernity is mixed - it also brought sanitation, reduced violence, analgesia, literacy. The spec is diagnostic, not blanket indictment.
03PropertyWhat follows about the architecture once the premises hold.
DA1Defensive Signals Under Mismatchestablished

Many aversive outputs are intelligible defensive signals under mismatch, not evidence of defective design.

Forced byP2 + P3 + Nesse (negative outputs as defenses) + McEwen (reversible with environmental correction) + Birkett & Newton-Fisher (all 40 captive chimps studied showed abnormal behavior; none reported in wild observation).
ScopeDoes NOT claim all psychiatric presentations are mismatch signals. Four categories must be distinguished: defensive activation, dysregulation, damage, developmental miscalibration.
DA2Socially Scaffolded Regulationestablished

Human regulation is constitutively socially scaffolded; social context is likely the highest-leverage cross-cutting input dimension.

Forced byDunbar + Coan & Sbarra (social baseline) + Bowlby (attachment) + Hrdy (cooperative breeding).
DA3Recurrent Coupling and Cascadingestablished

Systems are recurrently coupled; perturbations propagate and can self-maintain across domains.

Forced byPanksepp (cross-system inhibition) + Felitti (ACE dose-response) + Borsboom (network psychopathology) + McEwen (cumulative cross-system activation).
DA4Proxy Hijacking via Open Loopsestablished

Proxy cues can activate systems without meeting the conditions that normally regulate or terminate them.

Forced byTinbergen (supernormal stimuli) + Berridge & Robinson (wanting/liking dissociation).
ScopeNot all proxies fail equally. Resolution conditions must be independently specified, not inferred backward from proxy failure.
DA5Defensive Over-Activation Biasestablished

Defensive systems err toward over-activation under asymmetric error costs.

Forced byHaselton & Buss (error management) + Nesse (smoke detector) + P1.
DA6Competing Motivational Programsestablished

The architecture contains partially competing motivational programs and tradeoff structures.

Forced byTrivers (parent-offspring conflict, reciprocal altruism) + Boehm (dominance + anti-dominance) + Gilbert (approach + submit).
Scope"Matched" does NOT mean "conflict-free." Matched vs mismatched = managed vs unmanaged tension.
DA7Developmental Calibrationestablished

The architecture calibrates to developmental and ongoing environmental input within evolved ranges.

Forced byBowlby (internal working models) + Hrdy + McEwen + Meaney (HPA-axis calibration).
ScopeBROAD life history theory rejected. NARROW architectural calibration (specific systems calibrate during specific windows) is forced.
DA8Phylogenetic Priorityestablished

Motivational programs have phylogenetically determined priority relations. Older, survival-critical systems can suppress or commandeer newer systems.

Forced byPanksepp (phylogenetic depth of affective circuits) + cross-species conservation evidence.
DA9Non-Substitutability of Mechanism Resolutionstrongly supported

Mechanism resolution conditions are not fully interchangeable. Improvement in one mechanism can buffer or modulate consequences in another, especially where mechanisms are recurrently coupled (DA3), but cross-system buffering does not generally replace the specific resolution conditions of an impaired mechanism. Well-being is often bottlenecked by severe unresolved deficits in individual mechanisms and is not well described as a simple average across mechanism states.

Forced byFollows from P2 (domain-sensitive interacting adaptations: if mechanisms are domain-sensitive, their resolution conditions are not freely interchangeable). Coupling and cross-system buffering effects are handled separately by DA3 (Recurrent Coupling and Cascading); DA9 specifically claims non-fungibility of resolution conditions, not absence of cross-system effects. Liebig 1840 Law of the Minimum is a historical heuristic for the bottleneck pattern, not a claim of strict biochemical non-substitutability.
ScopeCodex adversarial review (April 8, 2026) established that the strong version bounded by the most-degraded mechanism is contradicted by empirical cross-system buffering literature (oxytocin effects on HPA-axis, exercise effects on sleep, meaning effects on illness coping). These findings are coupling effects (DA3), not substitution, and the weakened DA9 wording accommodates them while preserving the structural distinction from utility-aggregation frameworks. The Liebig analogy is preserved as a heuristic about bottlenecks, not as a claim of strict non-substitutability.
DA10Heritable Parameter Variationstrongly supported

Architecture parameters (drive gains, thresholds, calibration setpoints) vary between individuals within heritable ranges.

Forced byComplements DA7: DA7 says the environment tunes the operating point, developmentally and ongoing; DA10 says the tunable ranges themselves differ per person, substantially heritably. Grounded by C15 triangulation across three independent method families: twin designs (Polderman et al. 2015 meta-analysis of fifty years of twin studies), adoption/family designs (Plomin program), and molecular SNP-heritability from unrelated individuals (Yang et al. 2010 GCTA line). Canonical framing: Turkheimer 2000 three laws of behavior genetics.
ScopeHeritability is a population statistic under a given environment distribution, not individual determinism: it describes variance partitioning within that distribution and says nothing about what a changed environment does to the population mean. DA10 therefore does not weaken P3 - mismatch shifts the whole distribution regardless of where an individual sits in it. Nor does it license trait fatalism, which would contradict DC1 reversibility. The underlying heritability findings are among the most replicated in the field (Turkheimer first law); the mapping from measured trait heritability to architecture parameters (gains, thresholds, setpoints) is Cor's architectural interpretation, and that interpretive step is why the grade is strongly_supported rather than the top confidence tier.
04ConsequenceWhat those properties mean for allostatic load, for markets, and for what you can do about it.
DC1Allostatic Load Accumulationestablished

Chronic unresolved activation accumulates as allostatic load.

Forced byMcEwen (allostatic load) + DA3 + P3.
ScopeMuch wear reverses with environmental correction. Some may not (telomere shortening, hippocampal volume loss).
DC2Market Proxy Exploitationstrongly supported

Markets can industrialize proxy exploitation of unmet regulatory needs.

Forced byP3 + DA4 + market incentive structures + empirical (Moss food, Schull gambling, Haugen attention, Muldoon & Parke companion AI).
DC3Environment as Primary Intervention Layerplausible synthesis

Cortical override of subcortical activation is metabolically expensive, and chronic defensive activation downregulates the cortical override machinery itself. Interventions that change the organism's actual input conditions are therefore frequently more durable and less effort-dependent than interventions targeting cognitive override alone. The environment is a primary intervention layer for systemic and population-scale change, and is currently underweighted by major institutions. This does not preclude individual-level cognitive, pharmacological, or psychotherapeutic interventions where indicated; the claim is about default leverage and systemic design, not exclusivity or head-to-head comparative efficacy in individual cases.

Forced byEmpirical corollary of DA8 (phylogenetic priority) + DA9 (non-fungibility of resolution conditions). DA8 + DA9 do not logically entail DC3 - they make environmental intervention a plausible higher-leverage path for systemic design, but the strength of the leverage is an empirical question. Supported by Sapolsky Forest Troop (N=1 troop, striking but limited generalization); Roseto Effect (observational, contested); Ilardi Therapeutic Lifestyle Change (RCT-grade for depression remission); BEIP foster care (single trial, large effect on reactive attachment disorder signs); captive-chimpanzee enrichment (variable but reproducible).
ScopeDC3 is a leverage claim and a systemic-design claim, not a head-to-head comparative-efficacy claim. CBT, mindfulness-based interventions, CBT-I, and pharmacotherapy all have meta-analytic support and remain valid tools. The CBT-as-proxy question - whether what is measured as cognitive intervention efficacy is partly driven by hidden environmental scaffolding such as therapeutic alliance, weekly attention, and structured agency-enabling tasks - is an open question Cor does not currently take a position on, but if true it would strengthen the underlying claim about leverage. DC3 was revised after Codex adversarial review (April 8, 2026) flagged the original reliably outperforms across measured domains as an unsupported comparative-efficacy claim, and the original follows from DA8 + DA9 framing as smuggling an empirical corollary into a derivation slot.
05ConvergencesSeparate research traditions arriving at the same shape. Each one forces part of the structure underneath.
C1Inclusive Fitness as Loss Functionestablished

Natural selection operates on inclusive fitness - survival plus reproduction weighted by relatedness - establishing a single loss function that all evolved motivational architecture serves, as demonstrated independently by Darwinian selection theory, Hamilton's kin-selection formalism, and experimental altruistic-punishment findings that humans enforce cooperation at personal cost where inclusive-fitness logic predicts.

Grounded in
P1Inclusive Fitnessinstantiates · high

P1 'inclusive fitness = the loss function' = C1 verbatim; shared lit Darwin + Hamilton.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Darwin natural selection theoryHamilton inclusive fitness formalismFehr & Gächter experimental economics of altruistic punishment
No single forced mechanism
C2Domain-Sensitive Organism Architectureestablished

The human organism contains evolved, domain-sensitive, interacting functional adaptations rather than a general-purpose learner - supported independently by Tooby & Cosmides' design-principle derivation, Panksepp's conserved subcortical affective-motivational systems, and Bowlby's attachment-as-primary-motivational-system framework.

Grounded in
P2Domain-Sensitive Interacting Adaptationsinstantiates · high

P2 'evolved, domain-sensitive, interacting functional adaptations' = C2 verbatim; shared lit Tooby & Cosmides.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Tooby & Cosmides evolutionary psychology design principlePanksepp affective neuroscience seven-systems taxonomyBowlby attachment theory
No single forced mechanism
C3Systematic EEA-Modern Environment Mismatchestablished

Modern post-agricultural, post-industrial environments push evolved adaptations outside their expected operating ranges in systematic and predictable ways - established independently by Eaton & Konner's discordance hypothesis, Li/van Vugt/Colarelli's mismatch-identification framework, Boyd & Richerson's gene-culture coevolution constraint (matched must include cultural scaffolding), and Henrich's WEIRD empirical diagnostic showing Western populations anchor the extreme end of the cross-cultural distribution.

Grounded in
P3Systematic Mismatchinstantiates · high

P3 'push adaptations outside expected/regulatable operating ranges' = C3 verbatim; shared lit Eaton & Konner, Li/van Vugt/Colarelli, Boyd & Richerson, Henrich.

Established independently by 4 literatures
Eaton & Konner evolutionary medicine / discordance hypothesisLi van Vugt Colarelli mismatch hypothesis reviewBoyd & Richerson gene-culture coevolutionHenrich WEIRD cross-cultural psychology
No single forced mechanism
C4Phylogenetic Conservation of Subcortical Affective Systemsestablished

The core affective-motivational systems (SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, PLAY, LUST) are anatomically and functionally conserved across mammals and extend into birds for specific systems - established independently by Panksepp's deep-brain-stimulation and cross-species neuroscience, Bowlby's attachment cross-mammalian homology, and Hrdy's cross-primate parental/alloparental evidence.

Grounded in
DA8Phylogenetic Priorityinstantiates · high

DA8.derivation literally cites 'cross-species conservation evidence' (= C4's claim); shared Panksepp cross-species lit. Phylogenetic conservation is DA8's evidentiary basis.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Panksepp affective neuroscience cross-speciesBowlby attachment cross-mammalianHrdy primatology and cooperative breeding
No single forced mechanism
C5Socially Scaffolded Regulation via Attachmentestablished

Human regulation is constitutively socially scaffolded: the organism's default expectation is proximity to trusted co-regulators, and this scaffolding is architectural rather than optional - established independently by Coan's Social Baseline Theory fMRI program, Bowlby's attachment theory, Hrdy's cooperative-breeding thesis, Dunbar's social-brain hypothesis, and Holt-Lunstad's mortality meta-analysis showing 50% survival advantage from strong social relationships.

Grounded in
DA2Socially Scaffolded Regulationinstantiates · high

DA2 name + claim 'socially scaffolded regulation' identical to C5; shared lit Coan, Bowlby, Hrdy, Dunbar.

Established independently by 5 literatures
Coan social baseline theory affective neuroscienceBowlby attachment theoryHrdy cooperative-breeding primatologyDunbar social brain hypothesisHolt-Lunstad social-relationships epidemiology
ForcesM3Social Bonding
C6Wanting-Liking Dissociation as Proxy Hijackestablished

Motivational pursuit ('wanting', mediated by mesolimbic dopamine) is dissociable from hedonic satisfaction ('liking'), creating an open-loop vulnerability where proxy cues can activate the SEEKING system without providing the conditions that normally terminate or resolve it - established independently by Berridge & Robinson's incentive-salience neuroscience, Tinbergen's supernormal-stimuli ethology, and Panksepp's SEEKING-circuit affective neuroscience.

Grounded in
DA4Proxy Hijacking via Open Loopsinstantiates · high

DA4 'proxy cues activate systems without meeting terminating conditions' = C6 verbatim; shared lit Tinbergen + Berridge & Robinson; C6 extractions carry foundation_code DA4.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Berridge & Robinson incentive salience / mesolimbic dopamineTinbergen ethology and supernormal stimuliPanksepp SEEKING circuit affective neuroscience
ForcesM2Pursuit / Exploration
C7Adverse Experience Cascading Dose-Responseestablished

Chronic or developmental adverse experiences cascade across physiological systems in a dose-response manner, with effects that propagate and self-maintain across domains (metabolic, immune, neural, behavioral) - established independently by Felitti's ACE Study clinical epidemiology, McEwen's allostatic-load neuroendocrinology, and Panksepp's cross-system inhibition evidence for affective-system propagation.

Grounded in
DA3Recurrent Coupling and Cascadinginstantiates · high

DA3 'recurrently coupled; perturbations propagate and self-maintain across domains' = C7 verbatim; shared lit Panksepp cross-system inhibition, Felitti ACE, McEwen.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Felitti ACE Study clinical epidemiologyMcEwen allostatic load neuroendocrinologyPanksepp cross-system inhibition affective neuroscience
No single forced mechanism
C8Error Management Asymmetry in Defensive Systemsestablished

Defensive systems evolved under asymmetric error costs err reliably toward over-activation (false-positive) because the cost of missing a true threat historically exceeded the cost of reacting to a non-threat - established independently by Nesse's smoke-detector principle in evolutionary psychiatry, Haselton & Buss's Error Management Theory in evolutionary social psychology, and the Öhman/Mineka fear-module visual-attention program in cognitive neuroscience.

Grounded in
DA5Defensive Over-Activation Biasinstantiates · high

DA5 'defensive systems err toward over-activation under asymmetric error costs' = C8 verbatim; shared lit Haselton & Buss + Nesse smoke-detector.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Nesse smoke detector principle evolutionary psychiatryHaselton & Buss Error Management TheoryÖhman & Mineka fear module cognitive neuroscience
No single forced mechanism
C9Allostatic Load Accumulationestablished

Chronic unresolved activation of stress-response systems produces cumulative physiological damage across multiple organ systems (allostatic load), reversible in part by environmental correction - established independently by McEwen's neuroendocrinology of allostasis and allostatic load, Felitti's ACE dose-response clinical epidemiology, and Sapolsky's primate stress physiology linking hierarchy type to cortisol and downstream pathology.

Grounded in
DC1Allostatic Load Accumulationinstantiates · high

DC1 name + claim 'chronic unresolved activation -> allostatic load' identical to C9; shared lit McEwen.

Established independently by 3 literatures
McEwen allostasis and allostatic load neuroendocrinologyFelitti ACE clinical epidemiologySapolsky primate stress physiology
No single forced mechanism
C10Threat-Detection via Ancient Subcortical Circuitsestablished

Threat detection and defensive response are mediated by phylogenetically ancient subcortical circuits (amygdala, periaqueductal gray, hypothalamus) that operate pre-attentively and can override cortical processing - established independently by Panksepp's FEAR-system neuroanatomy, the Öhman/Mineka backward-masking fear-module research program, and Nesse's clinical evolutionary psychiatry linking panic and anxiety to these defensive systems.

Grounded in
DA1Defensive Signals Under Mismatchinstantiates · medium

COMPOSITE. Defensive-signal aspect of C10; C10 extraction 5 carries DA1 (defensive signals under mismatch).

DA5Defensive Over-Activation Biasinstantiates · medium

COMPOSITE. Threat over-activation / smoke-detector aspect of C10; C10 extractions carry DA5 (Oehman & Mineka, Nesse).

DA8Phylogenetic Priorityinstantiates · medium

COMPOSITE (primary). 'Ancient subcortical circuits override cortical processing' = DA8 (older systems suppress/commandeer newer); C10 extractions carry DA8.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Panksepp FEAR/RAGE circuit neuroanatomyÖhman & Mineka fear module visual attention / backward maskingNesse evolutionary psychiatry of panic and anxiety
ForcesM1Threat Management
C11Reciprocity, Norm Enforcement, and Coalition Architecturestrongly supported

Humans have specialized architecture for reciprocal exchange, cheater detection, norm enforcement, and coalitional identity - supported independently by Fehr & Gächter's experimental altruistic-punishment findings, Boehm's reverse-dominance coalition dynamics in hunter-gatherer anthropology, and Tomasello's shared-intentionality comparative-cognition research.

Grounded in
Open - no foundational parent yet
Established independently by 3 literatures
Fehr & Gächter experimental economics of cooperationBoehm political anthropology of egalitarianismTomasello comparative cognition and shared intentionality
ForcesM11Cooperation / Alliance
C12Developmental Calibration within Evolved Rangesestablished

Specific physiological and behavioral systems calibrate during specific developmental windows to environmental inputs within evolved parameters; inputs outside those parameters produce persistent miscalibration - established independently by Bowlby's attachment developmental calibration, McEwen's HPA-axis calibration neuroendocrinology, and Felitti's ACE Study dose-response evidence for durable effects of early-life exposure.

Grounded in
DA7Developmental Calibrationinstantiates · high

DA7 name + claim 'developmental calibration within evolved ranges' identical to C12; shared lit Bowlby, McEwen.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Bowlby attachment developmental calibrationMcEwen HPA-axis neuroendocrinologyFelitti ACE Study clinical developmental epidemiology
No single forced mechanism
C13Aversive Outputs as Intelligible Defensive Signalsestablished

Many aversive psychological and physiological outputs (anxiety, low mood, pain, grief, fatigue, anger) are intelligible defensive signals produced by architecture that is functioning correctly in response to inputs outside its expected operating range - established independently by Nesse's 'good reasons for bad feelings' evolutionary psychiatry, Panksepp's affective neuroscience of conserved aversive systems, and Fehr & Gächter's finding that anger/moralistic outrage is the proximate mechanism for prosocial norm enforcement rather than a dysregulation.

Grounded in
DA1Defensive Signals Under Mismatchinstantiates · high

DA1 'aversive outputs are intelligible defensive signals' = C13 verbatim; shared lit Nesse.

Established independently by 3 literatures
Nesse evolutionary psychiatry of defensive signalsPanksepp affective neuroscience of aversive systemsFehr & Gächter experimental economics of moralistic outrage
No single forced mechanism
C14Reproductive Motivation as Distinct Architectureestablished

Reproductive motivation (desire, attraction, pair-bonding) is a distinct architectural system independent of general-purpose pursuit, with sex-differentiated substrates and a characteristic proxy gradient from real partner to pure proxy - established independently by Panksepp's LUST-circuit affective neuroscience, Buss's sexual strategies theory and sex-differentiated mate preferences research, and Haselton/Buss's error-management prediction of sex-differentiated perceptual biases around mating cues.

Grounded in
Open - no foundational parent yet
Established independently by 3 literatures
Panksepp LUST circuit affective neuroscienceBuss sexual strategies theoryHaselton & Buss error management in cross-sex mind reading
ForcesM14Reproductive Motivation
C15Heritable Individual Variation in Behavioral Traitsestablished

Individual differences in human behavioral and psychological traits are substantially heritable in every adequately measured domain, established independently by twin designs (Polderman et al. 2015 meta-analysis of fifty years of twin studies: 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications, average reported heritability 49%), adoption and family designs (the Plomin program: significant genetic influence on all psychological traits with corroborating adoption evidence), and molecular SNP-heritability estimated from unrelated individuals (the Yang et al. 2010 GCTA line), with Turkheimer's three laws of behavior genetics as the canonical framing. Heritability is a population statistic under a given environment distribution, not individual determinism.

Grounded in
DA10Heritable Parameter Variationinstantiates · high

C15's trait-level heritability triangulation grounds DA10's parameter-variation claim; the trait-to-parameter mapping is DA10's architectural interpretation (see DA10 scope_notes). Shared lit Polderman, Plomin program, Yang GCTA, Turkheimer.

Established independently by 4 literatures
Polderman twin-study meta-analysis (behavior genetics)Plomin adoption and family designs (behavior genetics)Yang GCTA molecular SNP-heritability (statistical genetics)Turkheimer three laws (framing)
No single forced mechanism
06MechanismsThe architecture the stack forces. Each opens its detail view.
M1Threat ManagementM2Pursuit / ExplorationM3Social BondingM4Social Calibration / PlayM5Status MonitoringM6Controllability / AgencyM7Circadian RegulationM8Immune RegulationM9Care / AlloparentingM10Movement / RegulatoryM11Cooperation / AllianceM12Contamination AvoidanceM13Energy RegulationM14Reproductive MotivationR1Touch

Each mechanism carries its own resolution conditions and evidence. The detail view shows what resolves it and where the proxy fires the cue without supplying the resolving function.