Established in scope
Report repeatability is not complete state stability
In the question: Observable reality: minimal conditions and counterworlds
Standard residual representation consequence and explicit counterexamples, not a new ontology. Distinguishability, repeatability, context reproduction and serial availability are separate assumptions. Separate L1/L2 from L3.
Read the exact result, assumptions and evidence
Result
The separate benchmark assumptions give at least two continuation-distinguishable classes and preserve the selected report label under uninterrupted repetition. This largely restates the substantive repeatability premise rather than explaining physical origin. A test can preserve its report while incrementing a separately readable modulo3 counter; result repetition therefore forces no complete idempotence, preservation of all correlations, metric time or eternal material memory. Possible reports alone select no numerical weights.
Required assumptions
- Explicit repeatable-distinction benchmark
Recognizable reports, reproducibility of a declared context and available serial continuations are separate commitments. The sharp benchmark additionally has an immediately result-repeatable test and two preparations with different certain reports. These conditions are stronger than mere observability; probability, free erasure, re-preparation, replica control or physical time are not assumed to follow.
Original evidence
- OBSERVABILITY.txt lines 1–92
Source checked at this snapshot
Original location and fingerprint
experiments/theory-contracts/foundational-process-classification-20261016/OBSERVABILITY.txt
5253c7df5f3347129e2eb5d8e6bb161d09d9fa19ae64a456ca967eebc7439468
- OBSERVABILITY.txt lines 213–235
Source checked at this snapshot
Original location and fingerprint
experiments/theory-contracts/foundational-process-classification-20261016/OBSERVABILITY.txt
5253c7df5f3347129e2eb5d8e6bb161d09d9fa19ae64a456ca967eebc7439468
finding:repeatable-reports-do-not-imply-full-state-stability