UNI-GPT Consult Package — ready to paste
How to read this page
Three ways to read this page. Precise is the document itself, exactly as it is written in the repository. Plain and Clear were written for this website to help you meet that document — they are about it. They are not it, and they are not evidence.
The Cookbook is the method carried out step by step: 34 pages of recipes for building a developmental active-inference SIMULATION — a bounded peek at a toy world, never a person. The front matter says that word is never softened under any pressure, so it is not softened here. The recipes run from the molecular and cellular rungs up through metabolism, motor control, perception, language and metacognition, and on to rungs that are still open questions. Around them sit a set of kitchen rules, a shared pantry of engines and primitives, and a second family of recipes about nature itself — rocks, water, air, stars, DNA, ants, whales, bats, humans.
It is for the reader asking what building this would actually take. Each recipe names its ingredients, the order of work, the tests to run at that stage, and the point at which a step stops being something already carried out and becomes something proposed.
Begin with the front matter and then the kitchen rules. Those two pages fix the honest position and the fence labels that every later recipe leans on, and without them the status markers on a recipe are easy to skim past. After that the recipes can be read in any order.
The nature recipes sit slightly apart and should be read that way. They cite outside science — geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics — and a nature citation is never a UNI gate: those chapters contain zero UNI claims and raise no rung.
What it is not: a claim that the whole ladder has been cooked. The book recommends the complete recipe and, on the same page, labels every rung by its real state — that tension is deliberate and is the thing the book is built around. Where a recipe and the claim ledger disagree, the ledger wins.
Your browser cannot switch reading levels, so the document itself is shown.
Precise — the source document
This is the document. Rendered from the repository at the commit above, with nothing rewritten for the web. A gate re-renders it on every deploy and fails the build if a single byte differs.
Purpose. The Session-2 master plans need confirmation from the real expert —
the UNI Active Inference Guide custom GPT
(https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6a1066fb6a808191a169d48c09532a0a-uni-active-inference-guide).
This file is the ready-to-run consult: a context block to paste first, then the 7
EFE-ranked questions. It runs the moment a logged-in Chrome is connected (the
Claude-in-Chrome extension showed no browser connected at Session 2, so this
was prepared and queued).
How to run. Connect the Chrome extension (logged into ChatGPT) → open the GPT
→ paste the Context block → then paste the questions (one at a time is fine).
Capture the answers into cookbook/UNI-GPT-CONSULT-<date>.md. Never paste
patent-level UNI math — textbook-level framing only; this is a private design
consult, its output is never published. (Constitution M25: the GPT is the science
consultant — design + sign — not a publishing surface.)
Context block (paste first)
I'm confirming the master plan for a UNI Encyclopedia + Cookbook that documents our no-backprop active-inference program as a buildable recipe for a complete developmental arc (conception → cellular → metabolism → motor → perception → language → metacognition → dreaming → creativity → measurable awareness), framed as one engine shown across scales.
Honest position carried throughout: this is a developmental active-inference SIMULATION, ~2 of 11+ rungs earned. Standing fences held: never AGI / consciousness / human-level / "active inference demonstrated" / "created life"; World C is a COUNT baseline (not AIF, not beats-LLMs); the Tier-2 synthetic track is never inflated into capability; no claim is raised above its evidence class; negatives/bounds are first-class content. L0–L8 are largely proven (with recorded NEGATIVEs at L2/L5/L7), L9–L10 are parked, L11 dreaming and L12 creativity→measurable awareness are not-yet-built and hard-fenced.
I have 7 EFE-ranked questions whose answers would unblock L9–L12 and discharge the parked frontier. Please answer as the science consultant (design + sign), keeping every fence.
The 7 EFE-ranked questions
Q1 (highest EFE — discharges the parked frontier). The L7 char-perplexity /
T2 word-grain frontier and the L9–L10 ladder levels are PARKED; the drafted
UNI_CONSULT_5 sign-to-park is owner-relayed but not yet captured. Will UNI
sign the park as a published exhausted bound, and what exact wording keeps it a
bound (not a "K≥3 exhausted" / "Sec-0.6(B) achieved" overclaim)?
Q2 (unblocks the substrate↔science coupling, C10). Of the four missing UNI.OS primitives (no-backprop Dirichlet learning, exact info-gain EFE, structural- whitelist isolation, forager-ontogeny dev model), which single primitive — frozen at its passed-gate SHA — is the highest-EFE one to port first to close the gap between "embody only what's proven" as signed-in-principle vs. literally-true, without raising any claim above its gate?
Q3 (unblocks L2 G6, the standing OPEN gate). The metabolism organ drives foraging/crafting (+135%) but building went −14% and G4 allostasis never separated, so G6 (plateau-break to stone/shelter) is OPEN, diagnosed as epistemic_starvation (info-drive ~100× too weak), not γ-runaway. What is the smallest structurally-distinct organ/info-drive change that would make the placed-blocks CI exclude 0 AND separate G4 — and what paired RED isolates it (one cure at a time)?
Q4 (defines the first L9 gate). L9 (narrative-self → conscience → reasoning) has no pre-registered, sealed, UNI-signed gate. What is the smallest measurable, falsifiable L9 target — with a tuned baseline, a load-bearing discriminator that collapses the gain, and a true (computed-residual) ablation — that the strings Phase-3 spine could be built to clear, without claiming reasoning/conscience as achieved?
Q5 (defines what L11 dreaming would even measure). If "dreaming" is defined as offline replay / generative simulation, what is the smallest held downstream gate where offline replay must beat a no-replay control (CI excludes 0) to count as a real effect — a falsifiable target that never requires the word "dreamed"?
Q6 (the L5 motor frontier). Live behavioral K-of-6 motor tallies are PARKED; A3 Design #2 is a K-negative=1 NEGATIVE (no §0.6(B) bound owed until K≥3). Which structurally-distinct motor design (changing ≥2 of {coupling topology, timescale source, information bottleneck, control path}) should accrue next toward either a live sealed PASS or the K≥3 needed for a published motor bound?
Q7 (lowest EFE here — the L12 framing guardrail, not a build). L12 (creativity → measurable awareness) has no gate and never will be claimed. What is the precise published-bound language for the OPEN awareness question ("is a plant life? have we made non-organic life?") that clears the sharpened TA-N12 bar (a UNI must match/beat the best LLMs AND show substrate-distinct properties) while never asserting capability — so the north star stays a falsifiable question, never an answer?
Answers (capture here, then copy to UNI-GPT-CONSULT-<date>.md)
- Q1 →
- Q2 →
- Q3 →
- Q4 →
- Q5 →
- Q6 →
- Q7 →
After the consult: fold the sign-offs/corrections back into
cookbook/MASTER-PLAN.md + encyclopedia/MASTER-PLAN.md (calibrate wording DOWN
only), record any captured sign-to-park, and update PLAN/PROGRESS.md.
sha256 54b6294d49320a39 — of the original file, so what was ingested stays checkable.
Plain — written for this website, not the source document
This is a short working document rather than a chapter. It is a prepared package of questions, written to be pasted into a consultation with a science adviser, along with the block of context that has to go first. It records why it exists in this form: the connection needed to run the consultation was not available at the time, so the package was written out and queued instead.
The one thing it says is what the programme most wanted to ask, ordered by how much each answer would unblock. The questions cover how to word a parked frontier so it stays a bound rather than an overclaim. They also ask which missing piece to port first, to close the gap between a coupling rule signed in principle and one that is literally true. They ask what smallest change would move a gate that is stuck. And they ask what smallest measurable target would suit rungs that have no gate at all.
The answer slots are empty. The page also states its own limits plainly: no protected mathematics may be pasted, the framing stays at textbook level, and the output of such a consultation is a private design input rather than something to publish.
Plain · written 2026-08-01 by claude-opus-5 · not yet checked by a person · about the document whose sha256 is 54b6294d49320a39
Clear — written for this website, not the source document
This page is a small piece of working apparatus, and reading it as anything more would be a mistake. It is the ready-to-run package for a design consultation: a context block to paste first, then a set of questions ranked by how much each answer would unblock. It records that it was prepared and queued because the browser connection needed to run the consultation was not available at the time.
The context block is worth noticing on its own, because it is the programme describing itself to an outside adviser. It states the honest position: a developmental simulation with about two of eleven-plus rungs earned. It then lists the standing limits it expects to be kept. No claims of general intelligence, awareness, human-level ability or created life. A reading result treated as a counting baseline and nothing more. Synthetic work never inflated into capability. No claim raised above its evidence class. And negatives treated as first-class content. It then summarises which rungs are largely earned, which carry recorded negatives, which are parked, and which are not built and hard-fenced.
The questions themselves map the programme's open problems. How should a parked frontier be worded so that it stays a scoped bound rather than becoming a claim that a search is exhausted or a threshold achieved? Of several primitives missing from the substrate, which single one should be ported first, frozen at the version that passed its gate, to close the gap between a coupling rule signed in principle and one that is literally true? What is the smallest structurally distinct change that would move a metabolism gate which is open and diagnosed as a starvation of information-seeking, and what paired experiment would isolate it one cure at a time? What is the smallest falsifiable target for a rung that has no gate, complete with a tuned baseline, a discriminator that must collapse the gain, and a genuine computed ablation? What smallest downstream gate would make an offline replay effect real without ever needing the word for it? Which structurally distinct design should accrue next on the motor frontier? And what published wording keeps the awareness question falsifiable rather than answered?
The answer slots are left empty, which is what makes this a record of a moment rather than a result. A closing note says what to do afterwards: fold any sign-offs or corrections back into the plans, calibrating wording downward only, record any captured sign-off, and update the progress file.
The page also sets its own limits. Protected mathematics is never to be pasted, the framing stays at textbook level, and the consultation is a private design input whose output is not a publishing surface.
Clear · written 2026-08-01 by claude-opus-5 · not yet checked by a person · about the document whose sha256 is 54b6294d49320a39