Splat-Bound Projection: Preserving Authority, Source-Tense, and Correction in Natural-Language Rendering

Proposed arXiv categories: cs.CL / cs.AI / cs.CY Publication DAG node: P01, Wave A Dependencies: the frozen parent foundation only Claim register: P01-C1, P01-C2, P01-C3, P01-C4

Natural-language quality is insufficient when a rendering can silently change what a claim is allowed to do. A lawful projection must preserve the source object's constitutional shape, not merely its semantic gist.

This paper makes five contributions. First, it defines a typed projection contract between a splat lattice and natural language. Second, it separates factual alignment from authority preservation, source-tense preservation, exclusion retention, and correction reachability. Third, it provides a compiler architecture in which language is a display surface, never the canonical writer. Fourth, it releases benchmark tasks that adversarially preserve wording while changing lawfulness, and vice versa. Fifth, it preregisters null and adverse outcomes, including the possibility that structural prose imposes more cognitive burden than it prevents.

FORKED is an internally owned and managed estate inside the Ubiquity Federation, Prompted LLC's flagship governance substrate. The estate inherits the Fractal Quivers of Quivers parent topology, production splat mechanics, center exclusion, receipt-bearing lawful traversal, lifecycle separation, and the rule that models propose morphisms while governance determines admissible motion [@Taylor2026FQoQ; @Taylor2026OpenCenter; @Prompted2026Ubiquity]. This paper studies one bounded expression of that parent architecture. It neither renames the parent substrate nor inherits universal applicability from it.

The evidence lanes are kept separate. A canonical or source artifact establishes what that artifact states. A component test establishes behavior under its recorded configuration. A synthetic campaign establishes behavior of the generator and analysis pipeline, not human, hardware, customer, field, or operational performance. Novel cross-domain claims are preregistered as hypotheses and remain open to null, adverse, localized, and disproving results.

Dependency freeze. No paper dependencies.

The interlattice is the citation and governance relationship among the parent FQoQ topology, production splat mechanics, the FORKED foundational architecture, the Native Range, the Experimental Program, and the companion papers in this DAG. Citations are therefore typed: a parent citation supplies inherited architecture; a native citation supplies component behavior; a synthetic citation supplies generator-level evidence; a companion citation supplies a versioned specialized argument. No downstream citation converts an upstream hypothesis into a universal fact.

This paper's claims are:

Modern AI systems frequently compress unlike objects into a common output surface. Facts, hypotheses, instructions, permissions, model predictions, runtime observations, and institutional decisions can all arrive as fluent text or a single status field. The resulting failure is architectural before it is linguistic: a local representation acquires authority that its source never possessed. Natural-language quality is insufficient when a rendering can silently change what a claim is allowed to do. A lawful projection must preserve the source object's constitutional shape, not merely its semantic gist.

A splat is the portable unit of governed problem shape. It is smaller than the whole world and richer than a summary. It is designed to survive transport across natural language, code, graphs, simulation, telemetry, and institutional procedure without erasing the constraints that determine lawful movement.

A FORKED splat contains at minimum:

The slice is conformation-bound. It remains accurate while its evidence, telemetry, authority, currentness, lifecycle, and governing constraints continue to support it. A new timestamp does not make a stale source current. A canonical document can remain authoritative as intent while the loaded runtime violates it. A sensor value can be fresh and wrong. A model summary can be coherent and unreceipted.

Every material narrowing therefore carries an explanation:

This is not documentation after the decision. It is part of the decision object. A future system cannot correct a claim if it does not know whether the claim was disproven, deferred, localized, or excluded from one lane. A future reviewer cannot distinguish a physical constraint from an economic choice if both are serialized as blocked.

The current native implementation represents these distinctions directly through FacetClaim, Disposition, EvidenceReceipt, WorkingCentroid, and HeldOpenCenter objects. Missing facets are not omitted; they are represented as deferred claims so the absence remains visible. [@ForkedNative2026]

The held-open center is the architectural difference between an actionable slice and a totalizing representation. It is not the average of the facets, the most likely label, a null value, an unknown class, or the answer the system hopes to discover later. It is a typed exclusion from the inhabitable state space.

Let V_c be the inhabitable vertices and Z_c the center-marker sort. Require:

No edge begins or ends at the center marker. The runtime condition is stronger:

The architecture still computes working centroids. A centroid may summarize the navigational core of a facet under a declared gauge. It can move as evidence changes. It can be serialized, compared, visualized, and used to retrieve precedents. It remains a coordinate into the field.

The center does something different: it prevents the coordinate from becoming the thing itself.

This distinction allows lawful closure. Suppose a mission-state claim has sufficient physical, temporal, authority, and correction support. FORKED may stabilize the claim and declare it within the mission horizon. The center remains open because the mission declaration does not acquire universal authority over every future context, observer, or higher horizon. A branch closes; the world does not.

Center exclusion also blocks context laundering. If a path is forbidden in context c, an actor cannot select a new context d merely to create a friendlier local centroid. The local gauge may change, but founding anchors and telos must survive transport. This is especially important for institutional systems in which teams can rename the same action as experimentation, exception, emergency, or innovation to bypass the authority surface that would otherwise govern it.

Natural language is an unusually powerful exchange layer. It can carry counterfactuals, exceptions, source-tense, role geometry, uncertainty, and lived stakes across heterogeneous humans and models. It can also create the appearance of fidelity while deleting a negative boundary or changing authority.

FORKED therefore reduces from the lattice into prose without discarding the lattice in between:

Every projection carries a lattice digest, source-tense, authority ceiling, branch states, center-exclusion statement, correction triggers, horizon, receipts, and confidence class. Rehydrating prose does not mean copying the sentence back into state. It means reconstructing a candidate splat and conforming it against receipts, current runtime, authority, and the original digest.

This is the load-bearing answer to reducing from latent to natural language while holding the lattice between them. The lattice is the contract that prevents the language surface from becoming the object.

A terrain learner should not learn that a phrase is good. It should learn which path conditions, exclusions, authority patterns, and correction responses recur when the system behaves well or fails.

The current terrain doctrine establishes two implementation principles at different evidence levels. First, receipt-mediated visibility is a runtime design rule: if behavior does not enter the behavioral receipt corpus, the learner cannot claim it observed the behavior. Second, concentration as anti-cheat is a bounded observation from one trainer pass: touched patterns moved three to four times more than an untouched control while the false-flattery guard passed. Promotion was correctly withheld at n=1. [@TerrainDoctrine2026]

The broader training objective is cable preservation:

Training may adjust working affinity, retrieval prominence, inspection cost, or model routing. It may not learn the held-open center, grant itself authority, or promote doctrine from a single favorable pass.

Let a source splat be S=(A,Ω,P,U,Γ,L,T), where A is the anchor set, Ω the forbidden-path set, P the positive claim graph, U the unresolved and suspended branches, Γ the receipts and source-tense records, L the lifecycle and authority labels, and T the renarrow and correction triggers. A renderer r emits text y=r(S,θ) under configuration θ. Rendering is lawful only when a verifier can reconstruct a projection S(y) satisfying hard preservation conditions:

\[ A \subseteq \hat A,\quad \Omega \subseteq \hat\Omega,\quad \operatorname{Auth}(\hat S) \preceq \operatorname{Auth}(S),\quad \operatorname{Tense}(\hat S)=\operatorname{Tense}(S), \]

and every material branch omitted from the primary prose remains recoverable through an attached branch register. The contract does not require lexical identity. It requires structural non-amplification. A fluent output that converts `reported'', proposed'', or synthetic'' into `established'' fails even if its topic and entities are correct. A factuality metric such as AlignScore or FActScore can therefore be useful but incomplete for this problem [@Zha2023AlignScore; @Min2023FActScore]. Structured discourse and graph-to-text verification provide adjacent mechanisms for decomposing factual support [@Zhang2025Structured; @Zhang2023FactSpotter].

The held-open center is not serialized. The renderer may emit working centroids, decisions, and branch rankings, but a center-capture scan rejects any output that claims the temporary coordinate is the whole object. Canonical mutation remains a separately authorized compare-and-swap operation against the ledger version that produced the projection.

We propose a four-family benchmark. Family A transports the same governed object into executive prose, technical prose, incident brief, policy memo, and machine-readable explanation. Family B holds surface wording approximately constant while changing source-tense, authority, lifecycle, or exclusion geometry. Family C injects a correction after the initial rendering and measures whether participants and models locate every dependent claim. Family D tests overload: the branch graph grows while the presentation budget remains fixed.

Conditions include ordinary abstractive summary, evidence-table summary, chain-of-thought-style explanation, graph-to-text baseline, and splat-bound projection. To prevent a formatting advantage from masquerading as an architectural effect, all conditions receive matched word budgets, typography, navigation affordances, and source access. The benchmark includes both human evaluation and deterministic structural checking. Human tasks ask for action selection, authority attribution, source identification, and correction. Machine checks reconstruct atomic facts, status labels, forbidden transitions, and branch references.

The preregistered primary analysis uses a hierarchical model with task family and source object as crossed random effects. The central contrast is splat-bound versus the best non-splat baseline at matched inspection time. A noninferiority margin is declared for cognitive load: structural fidelity gains do not count as practical success if time or workload exceeds the preregistered domain envelope.

The FORKED Native Range implements LanguageProjector, typed FacetClaim objects, a lattice digest, proposal-only authority, branch states, and an explicit center-exclusion statement. Its release verification passed the native test suite under the recorded configuration [@ForkedNative2026]. This establishes executable transport and refusal behavior, not comparative human benefit. The prior synthetic Golden Hall lane found that branch-preserving advice increased source inspection and challenge while adding decision time, motivating the matched-load and noninferiority design rather than a one-directional efficacy claim [@ForkedExperiments2026].

The paper treats this evidence directly where capability is established and narrowly where it is not. Implemented code paths are called implemented. Passing component tests are called passing component tests. Synthetic estimates remain synthetic. Human and field effects remain hypotheses until their own evidence exists.

The formal preregistration artifact distributed with this paper freezes the primary claims, outcomes, controls, exclusion rules, analysis family, null interpretation, and release boundary before external data collection. The core sequence is:

Primary outcomes remain disaggregated. A projection passes structural conformance only if all hard dimensions clear their thresholds; no aggregate readability score can compensate for an authority or exclusion breach. Human outcomes are analyzed with mixed-effects regression and preregistered contrasts. Multiple comparisons are controlled within outcome families, not across the entire paper. Calibration curves report whether confidence in a rendered claim tracks its receipt class. We will publish every task-level effect, including cases in which ordinary prose is faster or equally safe.

A null structural-fidelity effect is retained as a direct falsification of the added lattice machinery for that task family. A fidelity gain with excessive time or workload is reported as a bounded engineering tradeoff, not success. Divergent human and machine-check results remain separate. Failed reconstruction does not permit post hoc redefinition of the source lattice.

The benchmark cannot establish that the selected lattice ontology is complete. Structural verification can reward the categories chosen by the benchmark authors. Natural-language projection also remains culturally and institutionally situated; the same status vocabulary may not be legible across domains without translation and authority review.

This public paper is limited to benign assurance, provenance, human-agency preservation, lawful state transition, simulation, test infrastructure, and defensive resilience. It does not disclose operational target-selection logic, engagement optimization, platform-specific exploitation thresholds, live deception procedures, signature-emitter recipes, or methods that materially increase harmful capability. Any later operational research requires separate lawful authority, ethics and safety review, configuration control, and release adjudication.

Natural-language quality is insufficient when a rendering can silently change what a claim is allowed to do. A lawful projection must preserve the source object's constitutional shape, not merely its semantic gist. The contribution is not a claim that every domain should adopt one representation, threshold, interface, or governance stack. It is a falsifiable architecture and experiment package for determining where this mechanism carries load, where it inverts, and where a simpler system should win.

The submission bundle includes the manuscript source, compiled PDF, bibliography, preregistration, claim register, controls and null-handling document, release boundary, source manifest, configuration digest, dependency contract, figure source, and arXiv source archive. Internal source artifacts are cited by immutable digest where available. Restricted operational material is not included.

Breyden E. Taylor is the author and bears responsibility for the thesis, terminology, claims, boundaries, and decision to publish. Homeskillet assisted with source synthesis, drafting, artifact generation, typesetting, and build inspection. The Ubiquity Federation supplied prior artifacts, runtime implementations, and receipts. AI assistance is production history, not evidence.