Observer-Indexed Cooperative Carriers: Dual-Surface Signaling with Canonical Reconciliation

Proposed arXiv categories: cs.CV / cs.HC / cs.AI Publication DAG node: P11, Wave D Dependencies: P01, P03, P06, P07 Claim register: P11-C1, P11-C2, P11-C3, P11-C4

One carrier may hold multiple observer-indexed messages, but no observer-specific message may silently become the physical and functional ledger.

We contribute a carrier schema, observer transfer-function model, reconciliation protocol, cooperative benchmark, accessibility requirements, and adverse cross-confusion metrics. The system distinguishes in sight, sensed, transmitted, rendered, noticed, classified, accepted, and verified instead of treating line of sight as knowledge.

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. Final freeze depends on P01, P03, P06, P07; draft work may proceed in parallel, but imported claim IDs and artifact hashes must be rechecked after each dependency freezes.

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. One carrier may hold multiple observer-indexed messages, but no observer-specific message may silently become the physical and functional ledger.

Observer-indexed reality begins from a physical and institutional constraint: no observer receives the whole state directly. A body occupies a location. A sensor has an envelope. A model has an input schema. A database has an update path. An operator sees an interface. An institution sees reports assembled under authority and time constraints.

Let the underlying field be X(t) and observer o have transfer function H_o:

Y_o is the observer-reachable state. It may be accurate within the observer's envelope. It is not automatically the protected conformation state.

FORKED stores the transforms rather than pretending they are transparent. Each observer claim carries source-tense, modality, location, time, model and interface identity, confidence class, and authority ceiling. Different observers can hold incompatible claims without the architecture immediately averaging them into one number.

This is especially important when interfaces become the experiential world. A remote operator, analyst, clinician, trader, or engineer may interact with a map, augmented-reality overlay, confidence badge, model explanation, or digital twin more directly than with the underlying object. The interface therefore does not merely display reality. It participates in the causal chain by changing salience, urgency, confidence, and reachable action.

Visibility is not one bit. FORKED decomposes sight into stages:

The difference matters. An object can be in line of sight but outside useful resolution. A sensor can sample it while the network drops the data. The interface can render it outside the operator's field of view. The operator can look at it without attending to it. A model can classify it while the human rejects the classification. A human can accept the classification without acting because authority is absent.

SightState records the current chain. WasInSight reconstructs a prior interval. The latter is load-bearing because an object can leave view while a stale track or remembered declaration continues to influence behavior. A correction may need to explain not only what is visible now, but which prior view created the current belief.

The architecture does not infer private mental content from gaze or behavior. It records accessible observables and their limits. Gaze may show that a region entered the visual field. It does not prove understanding or agreement. Reaction may suggest uptake. It does not establish why the actor moved.

Test cooperative human/machine messages under distance, blur, compression, display, print, accessibility, and sensor transformations. Require canonical reconciliation.

Sensor fusion often aims to produce one clean world model. FORKED preserves modality-specific claims before computing a working centroid. RGB, event stream, thermal, radar, acoustic, and telemetry may disagree for legitimate reasons. Their disagreement can reveal timing faults, occlusion, functional degradation, or an unsupported transformation.

The first synthetic multimodal benchmark showed the tradeoff clearly: lane preservation reduced encoded premature terminal declarations while increasing missed warranted declarations and correction cost in some regimes. [@ForkedExperiments2026] The correct architecture does not choose disagreement preservation everywhere. It uses responsibility, workload, and the action/delay dual clamp to determine when disagreement must remain visible.

A carrier c emits a physical or virtual field F_c(x,t,λ) over space, time, and modality. Observer o applies a transfer function T_o determined by position, resolution, spectral sensitivity, sampling, model, interface, and history. The decoded state is y_o=D_o(T_o(F_c)). Cooperative compatibility requires that messages differ in granularity but not contradict the canonical state. A reconciliation function binds each decoded claim to carrier identity, ledger version, timestamp, and confidence.

SightState records the path from geometric visibility to sensing, transmission, rendering, attention, classification, and action. A carrier failure can therefore be localized: the machine code may be present but unreadable after compression, the human signal may be visible but not attended, or the AR overlay may be stale while the physical marker is current.

Carrier families include hybrid spatial-frequency images, visible plus AprilTag-like fiducials, complementary-color optical patterns, event-temporal patterns, and AR overlays. Messages are benign capacity states such as available, degraded, reserved, unknown, and do-not-rely. Machine payloads carry signed identity, timestamp, version, capacity vector, and receipt reference.

Tests vary distance, blur, compression, lighting, color-vision simulation, motion, frame rate, occlusion, print/display medium, and adversarial but nonoperational transformations. Human and machine channels are evaluated separately and jointly. Canonical reconciliation is tested under stale marker, duplicate identity, replay, partial update, and conflicting modalities.

The E03 synthetic carrier pipeline produced human-surrogate accuracy 1.0, machine decode approximately 0.504, and reconciliation approximately 0.565 across 12,000 transformed carriers; practical behavior appeared only in the lowest-severity envelope [@ForkedExperiments2026]. The broad carrier claim therefore remains suspended. The current paper treats that adverse result as the design baseline rather than hiding it.

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:

Performance is reported as a surface over transformation severity, not a single accuracy. We preregister minimum human and machine channel requirements plus a maximum cross-confusion rate. Accessibility analysis is co-primary: a carrier that works by making the human channel illegible to some users fails the cooperative claim. Reconciliation failures are analyzed independently of decode failures.

If standard fiducials outperform observer-indexed designs at matched visual burden, the complex carrier is rejected for that medium. Near-chance machine decoding is a failure, not evidence of subtlety. Human and machine channels may succeed separately while joint reconciliation fails; that outcome remains explicit.

Physical media, sensors, and user populations vary widely. The benchmark cannot establish field performance without hardware tests. The same mechanisms can be dual-use; the public release restricts examples to cooperative signaling and does not publish live deceptive optimization.

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.

One carrier may hold multiple observer-indexed messages, but no observer-specific message may silently become the physical and functional ledger. 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.