The Methodology's Applicability Mapped as a Domain

Status: Research document. Drafted.

Purpose: Apply the 12-step procedure to the meta-domain "analyzable domains" — i.e., the space of objects to which the methodology might be applied. The aim is to produce a structural map of the methodology's range using the methodology's own vocabulary, so that we can see which combinations of structural features admit methodology application, which don't, which produce high-value output, which produce partial output, and where the empty regions of the meta-landscape are.

Input: the bounding-range exploration in methodology-bounding-range.md (twelve test cases plus the existing corpus). Failure modes F1–F5, structural assumptions A1–A6, and candidate Layer-3 patterns from that document feed in as material to be analyzed structurally here.

Discipline: this is exploratory analytical work. The primitive set proposed below is a candidate. The 3/3b iteration loop has been exercised once; further iteration may revise the set. The empirical recurrence test is satisfied by the test cases in the prior document and the existing corpus; the candidate set may need extension to cover further domains added later.

Step 1–2: Information gathering and landscape

The domain "analyzable domains" is the set of objects to which the methodology might be applied. Surveyed instances:

• Existing corpus: biology arrangement, entity arrangement, cognition arrangement, methodology arrangement, abiogenesis bridge, QG, QM, Planck substrate, information theory, the genetic code sub-domain, the Convergence Domain, the SSA topology, the abstract-substrate / surface / ecosystem abstractions.
• Twelve mentally-run test cases: governance, language, category theory, music, religion, disease, counterfactual histories, cooking, sports, conversation, fluid dynamics, visual art.
• Additional candidates surfaced this turn: economics, law, software-engineering practice, chemistry-as-domain, materials science, ecology-as-domain, climate systems, game design, architecture, medicine-as-practice, education, urban planning, astronomy/cosmology.

The landscape is structurally varied. Some instances admit clean analysis with high-value output; some admit analysis with partial value; some degenerate; some don't admit analysis at all. The aim is to map this variation structurally.

Step 3: Primitive extraction

What varies across the surveyed instances that determines whether the methodology applies and what value it produces? Six candidate primitives, each surviving the three-test extraction:

• Compositionality (Cm) — the degree to which the domain admits decomposition into interacting parts. Surfaced by: the atomic-holistic test (D4 music, D12 art) showing that low Cm domains resist the methodology; corroborated by the substrate arrangements at high Cm producing clean analyses.

• Dependency-cycle density (Cy) — the degree to which the domain's dependencies form cycles vs an acyclic partial order. Surfaced by: D1 governance and the candidate economic / ecological / climate domains where mutual constitution forces a cyclic dependency structure.

• Empirical groundedness (Eg) — the count and observability of the domain's instances. Surfaced by: D3 (category theory, axiomatic — Eg low) and D7 (counterfactual histories, no instances).

• Judgment convergence (Jc) — the degree to which competent analysts converge on the same primitive set after iteration. Surfaced by: D5 (religion), with the cognition-arrangement energy-semantics within-domain analog as a domain-internal example.

• Granularity (Gr) — the degree to which the domain's primitives admit natural discrete partial-level gradation, vs continuous-only description. Surfaced by: D11 (fluid dynamics) and continuous- field regions of physics.

• Function-structure alignment (Fs) — the degree to which the domain's value or function is located in its compositional structure (vs being non-discursive, aesthetic, experiential, or otherwise outside the structural map). Surfaced by: D4 (music), D5 (religion), D12 (visual art). Also visible in candidate domains: game design, sport, certain forms of practice.

Three tests applied:

• Structural minimality: removing any one of these primitives forfeits a class of analytical predictions. Removing Cm forfeits the whole methodology's applicability question; removing Cy makes governance and economics indistinguishable from substrate arrangements analytically; removing Eg makes counterfactual histories indistinguishable from biology; removing Jc makes religion indistinguishable from chemistry; removing Gr makes fluid dynamics indistinguishable from the entity system; removing Fs makes music indistinguishable from language.

• Compositional productivity: combinations produce new analytical predictions. The combination (Cm=4, Cy=0, Eg=4, Jc=3, Gr=3, Fs=3) predicts "high-value substrate-style output," which matches biology, entity, cognition, language. The combination (Cm=4, Eg=1, Jc=4) predicts "fits but axiomatic transcription risk" which matches category theory.

• Empirical recurrence: each primitive recurs as a variation across the test cases. We have not yet run the methodology on a domain where any of the six primitives is structurally absent; every test case takes some value on each.

Six primitives. The methodology's typical primitive count, which is consistent with the cross-domain pattern observed in the prior chapter.

Step 3b: Partial-level decomposition

Each primitive admits a discrete gradient. Working levels:

Cm: Compositionality

• Cm=0: atomic / holistic. No decomposition admits without losing the domain's content. (Pure qualia, mystical experiences, irreducible aesthetic moments.)
• Cm=1: weakly compositional. Some structural decomposition possible but most of the domain is holistic. (Visual aesthetic experience with some formal-element analysis.)
• Cm=2: moderately compositional. Parts identifiable but interactions resist clean modeling. (Sport at the class level; cuisine.)
• Cm=3: clearly compositional. Parts and primary interactions discrete and identifiable; some interactions still complex. (Most social/cultural domains; medicine as practice; education.)
• Cm=4: fully compositional. Clean primitive set with well-defined interactions. (Biology, entity-system, language, chemistry, the methodology itself.)

Cy: Dependency-cycle density

• Cy=0: fully acyclic. Dependency DAG forms a clean partial order. (Entity system, information theory, language at substrate.)
• Cy=1: weakly cyclic. Cycles isolable to subgraphs that can be re-modeled with context primitives or bridge decomposition. (Biology substrate, cognition substrate.)
• Cy=2: moderately cyclic. Cycles span multiple primitives; cycle- breaking requires substantive analyst convention. (Religion, disease at fine resolution.)
• Cy=3: pervasively cyclic. Most primitives participate in cycles; DAG modeling significantly distorts. (Law, education.)
• Cy=4: cycle is the structure. No useful DAG exists; the domain's primary structure is its feedback loop topology. (Governance, economics, ecological systems.)

Eg: Empirical groundedness

• Eg=0: no observable instances. (Counterfactual histories, fictional worlds.)
• Eg=1: very few instances or universal-locked-in instance. (Genetic code = N=1 universal; entity-system pre-release.)
• Eg=2: moderate instances. (Cognition arrangement N~7; Planck-substrate candidate physics, N~few.)
• Eg=3: many instances. (Methodology landscape N=13; biology arrangement ~50 after the buildout.)
• Eg=4: dense instances. (Entity arrangement N=47 instances + 10 anchors; natural languages N~7000.)

Jc: Judgment convergence

• Jc=0: deeply contested, multiple traditions producing fundamentally different primitive sets. (Religion across traditions; politics across schools.)
• Jc=1: weakly convergent. Most analysts agree on a subset of primitives but disagree on the rest. (Music theory across cultures; education across pedagogical schools.)
• Jc=2: moderately convergent. Core primitives agreed; some primitives debated. (Cognition substrate across cognitive-science traditions; medicine as practice.)
• Jc=3: strongly convergent. Minor disagreement at the edges, core agreed. (Biology substrate, language at substrate, conversation analysis.)
• Jc=4: full convergence. Uncontested or definitional. (Category theory primitives by axiom; information theory; the periodic table in chemistry.)

Gr: Granularity

• Gr=0: purely continuous. No natural discrete levels at any resolution. (Quantum field theory at finest resolution; raw fluid dynamics.)
• Gr=1: regime-discretizable. Continuous but with named regimes (laminar / turbulent / chaotic). (Fluid dynamics, materials science at some resolutions.)
• Gr=2: hybrid. Some primitives discrete, some continuous. (Climate systems; epidemiological models.)
• Gr=3: naturally discrete. Clear ordinal gradations of each primitive without forcing. (Biology, cognition, language, governance.)
• Gr=4: explicitly discrete. Definitional or count-based levels. (Information theory, entity-system primitives, the genetic code.)

Fs: Function-structure alignment

• Fs=0: function entirely non-structural. Domain value located in experience that the structural decomposition cannot represent. (Qualia, mystical states.)
• Fs=1: function weakly structural. Aesthetic / emotional / experiential. Structural map exists but misses the point. (Music, visual art at the experience layer.)
• Fs=2: function partly structural. Cultural meaning and social function partly captured by structure. (Religion, sport, conversation, certain practices.)
• Fs=3: function mostly structural. Domain's function lives in its compositional structure but has supplementary non-structural components. (Biology, cognition, governance, medicine.)
• Fs=4: function entirely structural. Domain's content IS its compositional structure. (Information theory, the entity system, language at substrate, the methodology itself.)

Step 4: Dependency specification

Dependencies among the six primitives:

• Cy ← Cm: dependency cycles require compositional structure to have something to cycle. Cm=0 forces Cy=0 trivially.
• Gr ← Cm: discrete partial-level structure requires compositional structure to gradate. Cm=0 forces Gr=0.
• Fs ← Cm: structural function alignment requires structure to align with. Cm=0 forces Fs=0.
• Jc ← Cm (weakly): judgment convergence on primitive sets requires there to be a primitive structure to converge on. Cm=0 makes Jc moot.
• Jc partly depends on Eg: more instances support analyst convergence (more recurrence checks). Empirically: high-Eg domains tend to have higher Jc, though not strictly required.

Conditional partial-level dependencies (the methodology's standard form):

• $\mathrm{Dep}(\mathrm{Cm} \geq 1, \mathrm{Cy} > 0)$: any non-zero cyclicity requires compositional structure.
• $\mathrm{Dep}(\mathrm{Cm} \geq 1, \mathrm{Gr} > 0)$.
• $\mathrm{Dep}(\mathrm{Cm} \geq 1, \mathrm{Fs} > 0)$.
• $\mathrm{Dep}(\mathrm{Cm} \geq 2, \mathrm{Gr} \geq 2)$: regime discretization needs moderate compositional structure to anchor the regime boundaries.

Cm is the root primitive. Eg is the other root (independent of Cm: a domain has instances or doesn't, regardless of its structure). The other four primitives all depend on Cm to some degree; Jc depends on Eg.

This is R11 / domain-type declaration: the meta-domain is a structural classifier domain — neither substrate, surface, ecosystem, bridge, nor context, but a classifier of the analyzable. It is structurally adjacent to Layer-3 abstractions like SSA and Convergence Domain.

Step 5–6: Pair enumeration and classification

$\binom{6}{2} = 15$ pairs. Working classification by load:

Heavy-pair count: 6/15 = 40%. Within the typical 40–53% range we have observed in other domains. The meta-domain is structurally typical at the pair-load level.

Cm is the hub primitive: it forms heavy pairs with all five other primitives. This is consistent with Cm being the root of the dependency DAG.

Eg–Jc is an anchor pair: their joint level determines the licensed-claim path more than either does alone. Low-Eg with high-Jc (the genetic code) works; high-Eg with low-Jc (governance) does not. The pair carries information neither component does.

Step 7: Coherent sub-lattice

The coherent sub-lattice excludes:

• All positions with Cy > 0 and Cm = 0.
• All positions with Gr > 0 and Cm = 0.
• All positions with Fs > 0 and Cm = 0.
• Positions with Gr ≥ 2 and Cm < 2 (regime discretization needs some compositional structure).

Coarse lattice size: $5^6 = 15{,}625$ positions. Fine sub-lattice after filtering: rough estimate ~5,000 coherent positions (~32%). Substantially looser than substrate arrangements (typically 12–20%); closer to surface or Layer-3 abstract domains (Layer 4 was 29.7%; the convergence domain 14.1%; methodology Layer 1 is 18.75%). The looser filter reflects that this is a classifier domain rather than a substrate: positions are mostly independent of each other beyond the Cm root.

This filter percentage is itself diagnostic. If we had found a 20% filter we would suspect that the meta-domain is structurally a substrate. The ~32% reading aligns it with surface / classifier abstractions, which fits its content.

Step 8: Hasse walks

Walks through the coherent sub-lattice correspond to degrees of methodology-applicability.

Canonical build-up walk: $\emptyset \to +\mathrm{Cm} \to +\mathrm{Cy} \to +\mathrm{Eg} \to +\mathrm{Gr} \to +\mathrm{Fs} \to +\mathrm{Jc}$

Reading this as a walk through methodology-applicability:

1. +Cm. The domain admits compositional decomposition. Without this, no methodology applies.
2. +Cy. The dependency structure can be modeled — either cleanly (low Cy) or with cycle-breaking conventions (high Cy).
3. +Eg. Empirical instances are available to support cross-recurrence testing.
4. +Gr. Partial-level decomposition admits discrete gradation.
5. +Fs. The domain's function is captured by its structural map.
6. +Jc. Analyst judgment converges on the primitive set.

This walk is one path; many others exist. Different walks correspond to different modes of methodology application. A walk that goes +Cm → +Eg → +Jc → +Gr → +Fs → +Cy is the typical substrate-style domain entry; a walk that goes +Cm → +Cy → +Fs (and stops, because Eg and Jc don't reach high enough) is the governance profile.

Step 9–10: Core triads and emergent properties

Core triads (three primitives all pairwise heavy with a load-bearing triangle):

Triad 1: Structural-decomposability = {Cm, Cy, Gr}. Determines whether the domain admits clean lattice representation. Emergent property: lattice representability. A domain with high Cm, low Cy, high Gr produces a clean lattice; a domain with mixed values produces a distorted lattice.

Triad 2: Empirical-grounding = {Cm, Eg, Jc}. Determines whether the lattice representation admits cross-recurrence testing and licensed-claim production. Emergent property: licensed-claim path availability.

Triad 3: Useful-output = {Cm, Fs, Jc}. Determines whether the methodology's structural map is functionally relevant. Emergent property: output value. A domain with high Cm, high Fs, high Jc produces output that captures what the domain is for; a domain with low Fs (music, art) produces correct but functionally-irrelevant output.

All three triads share Cm as the common vertex. Cm is the hub and root, consistent with its position in the dependency DAG.

Three core triads, all branching from a common hub: this is the same shape as Layer 4's three core triads branching from the Mn–Cx anchor pair. The meta-domain of applicability has the same Layer-4-like classifier structure that Layer 4 has. The methodology-on-methodology recursion produces a structurally similar result.

Step 11: Cross-domain comparison

This is the heart of the exercise. Position the analyzed-and-test-case domains in the meta-domain:

Empirical structural attractors in the meta-landscape

Reading the positioning above for clusters:

Attractor A: The high-value substrate zone

Positions with Cm=4, Cy≤1, Eg≥3 (or Jc=4 compensating low Eg), Gr≥3, Fs≥3. Inhabitants: entity-system, biology, cognition, language, chemistry-as-domain, information theory, the methodology itself, the Layer-3 abstractions (SSA, Convergence Domain), the genetic code (low-Eg high-Jc edge case). This is where the methodology produces high-value output.

Attractor B: The cyclic-domain zone

Positions with Cm=3–4, Cy≥3. Inhabitants: governance, economics, law (somewhat), education (somewhat). Partial-value output; analyst's cycle-breaking convention biases the result.

Attractor C: The function-mismatch zone

Positions with Cm=3–4, Fs≤2. Inhabitants: music, visual art, religion (where Jc=0 also bottoms it out), parts of game design, some forms of practice. Structural output correct but functionally irrelevant.

Attractor D: The granularity-bottleneck zone

Positions with Cm low or Gr≤1, Fs≥3. Inhabitants: fluid dynamics, climate systems, parts of physics, materials science at fine resolutions. Methodology produces taxonomy not mechanism.

Attractor E: The empirical-bottleneck zone

Positions with Eg=0. Inhabitants: counterfactual histories, fictional worlds. Methodology does not apply.

Attractor F: The axiomatic-degeneracy zone

Positions with Cm=4, Eg=1, Jc=4 but with formal axiomatic character. Inhabitants: pure mathematical branches (category theory). Methodology degenerates to transcription. Note: the genetic code has the same profile (Eg=1, Jc=4) but is not axiomatic — its primitives were discovered empirically over a long biological history. Both occupy the same numerical position but differ in whether the primitives are discovered or stipulated. This suggests a seventh primitive Discovery vs Stipulation (Ds) may be needed to distinguish them; the current six-primitive set misses this distinction.

Failure surfaced by the 11th step: the genetic code and category theory occupy the same point in the six-primitive meta-domain but produce qualitatively different methodology outputs. This is a 3/3b iteration loop signal: the primitive set needs revision. Either Ds (discovery vs stipulation) gets added, or Eg's partial-level decomposition gets refined to distinguish "empirically discovered unique instance" from "axiomatically stipulated unique structure."

The simpler repair is to refine Eg's partial-level definition: Eg=1 splits into Eg=1d (one discovered instance) and Eg=1s (one stipulated instance). This is a within-primitive refinement rather than a new primitive. The 3/3b loop converges on this revision.

Attractor G: The contested-judgment zone

Positions with Jc≤1. Inhabitants: religion across traditions, politics across schools, parts of ethics, education across pedagogical schools. Multiple equally-defensible analyses coexist.

Attractor H: The mature-craft zone (low marginal value)

Positions with all primitives moderate-to-high but where the analysis space is already articulated by existing practice. Inhabitants: cooking, parts of medicine-as-practice, parts of software-engineering practice. Methodology output exists but is redundant with practitioner knowledge.

These eight attractors are the kinds of domains the methodology encounters — the archetypal structures.

Empty and forbidden regions

Several regions of the meta-lattice are empty or forbidden:

Forbidden regions

• Cm=0 + Cy>0: cyclicity requires compositional structure. The combination is structurally impossible.
• Cm=0 + Gr>0: discrete gradation requires compositional structure.
• Cm=0 + Fs>0: structural function alignment requires structure.

Forbidden by the dependency DAG; these positions have probability zero in the methodology's Bayesian-network reading.

Empty (but not forbidden) regions

• Cm=4 + Cy=4: clean compositional structure with full cyclic constitution. Plausibly empty because high Cm tends to force at least some acyclic decomposition. Possible inhabitants: ecosystem-level biology at finest resolution with full organism-environment coupling? Possibly.
• Cm=2 + Fs=4: low compositional structure with full structural function. The combination is structurally tense: how can function be entirely structural if the structure is incomplete? Empty in practice.
• Cm=4 + Cy=0 + Eg=0 + Jc=0: clean structure with no instances and no analyst agreement. Empty because in the absence of instances, judgment has nothing to converge or diverge on; Jc would default to "undefined" rather than to a specific level.
• Gr=0 + Fs=4: purely continuous with fully structural function. Tense: if function is fully structural, discrete decomposition should be available. Empty in practice.

Sparse regions

• Cm=4 + Cy=3: clean compositional structure with pervasive cyclicity. Inhabitants: law (the inheritance vs precedent cycle), possibly chemistry's catalytic-cycle regions at fine resolution. Sparsely populated.
• Cm=3 + Eg=4 + Jc=0: well-instanced contested domains. Religion across traditions sits here; politics. Sparse because it requires both rich empirical material AND deep contestation.

What the empty regions show

Empty regions are structural predictions: positions the methodology's classification admits but no current real-world domain occupies. Two interpretations:

1. Genuinely empty — the combination is structurally inconsistent in some way the dependency DAG doesn't capture but reality does (e.g., Cm=4 + Cy=4 may be self-undermining: full cyclic constitution may prevent the stable identity of primitives that Cm=4 presupposes).
2. Empty for accident — the combination is consistent but no investigator has analyzed a domain that inhabits it.

This is the same situation as design-opportunity discovery in any Layer-1 domain: unpopulated coherent positions are candidates for domains-the-methodology-could-encounter-but-hasn't-yet, or for domains-the-methodology-cannot-encounter-because-they-don't-exist. We do not know which without further work.

Step 12: Literature alignment

The meta-domain analysis aligns with several established literatures:

• Philosophy of science distinguishes structural / empirical / normative / interpretive domains. Our Cm/Cy/Eg/Fs primitives map approximately to that classification.
• Cybernetics and dynamical systems theory addresses cyclic- domain analysis (high Cy zone) where the methodology produces partial output.
• Phenomenology addresses the function-mismatch zone (Fs≤1) --- the experience-laden domains the methodology cannot capture.
• Foundational mathematics addresses the axiomatic-degeneracy zone (D3 / category theory) — defining what stipulated structure is and how it differs from empirical structure.
• Hermeneutics and interpretive social science addresses the contested-judgment zone (Jc≤1) — domains where multiple legitimate interpretations coexist.

Each external literature illuminates one of the methodology's attractors. The methodology does not replace these literatures. It provides a unified coordinate system for understanding their respective scopes. This is the closest the methodology comes to a foundational claim about analysis-in-general; it should be made carefully, since it is an empirical observation about how methodology-applicability maps to existing analytical traditions, not a meta-philosophical commitment.

Implications for the methodology itself

The methodology-applied-to-itself produces several findings:

1. The methodology is structurally a Layer-3 classifier domain

The meta-domain analysis has filter stringency ~32%, three core triads branching from a hub primitive, six primitives clustering at the typical methodology scale. The methodology's range is structurally similar in shape to Layer 4 itself. This is consistent with the Convergence-Domain reading of the methodology: Layers 1–3 build Space and Constraint, Layer 4 operates Distribution through Determination. The meta-domain analysis is yet another instance of the same Layer-4-like classifier shape.

2. The 6-primitive set may need a 7th: Discovery vs Stipulation

The genetic-code vs category-theory comparison surfaced a within-Eg distinction (discovered vs stipulated unique instance) that the current Eg primitive doesn't capture. Either Eg's partial-level decomposition is refined, or a seventh primitive Ds is added. We have proposed the partial-level refinement as the lighter-weight fix.

3. The methodology's eight attractors are the archetypal structures

Attractors A through H identify the kinds of domains the methodology encounters in practice. Each has characteristic methodology output:

• A (high-value substrate): high-value structural map.
• B (cyclic): partial output biased by convention.
• C (function-mismatch): correct but functionally irrelevant map.
• D (granularity-bottleneck): taxonomy not mechanism.
• E (empirical-bottleneck): no application.
• F (axiomatic-degeneracy): transcription of axioms.
• G (contested): multiple equally-defensible analyses.
• H (mature-craft): redundant with existing practice.

These are the archetypal structures of the methodology's range.

4. Empty regions are candidate exploration targets

Empty regions like Cm=4 + Cy=4 (clean structure with full cyclicity) suggest investigation: is there a domain that inhabits this position, and if so what does the methodology produce there? The existence of empty-but-not-forbidden regions is itself an open research direction.

5. The methodology's claim of domain-generality needs the qualifier

The honest statement: the methodology is domain-general within attractor A and produces graded value as one moves into attractors B, C, D, H. Attractors E, F, G are where the methodology does not apply. The previous framing of "domain-general" elided this gradation.

6. A meta-Layer-3 abstraction may be available

The meta-domain analysis itself is a Layer-3 abstraction: the classifier of analyzable domains. Whether this counts as another characterized Layer-3 alongside SSA and Convergence Domain depends on whether further iterations of the procedure stabilize this primitive set. The current draft has gone through one 3/3b iteration (surfacing the discovery-vs-stipulation refinement); further iterations may revise.

Open avenues

Several extensions of this analysis are within reach:

• Push more candidate domains through. Each new domain added refines the partial-level meanings and possibly the primitive set. Economics, law, materials science, chemistry-as-domain are the highest-leverage next additions.
• Push the discovery-vs-stipulation refinement. The category theory vs genetic code distinction is the cleanest open primitive- refinement signal. Whether it becomes Eg's partial-level structure or a seventh primitive Ds requires another 3/3b iteration.
• Push the candidate Layer-3 patterns from the bounding-range document. Crystallization, cyclic constitution, substrate-vs-architecture, function-substrate-mismatch — each can be pushed through the 12-step procedure to test whether it stabilizes as a Layer-3 abstraction.
• Investigate the empty regions. Cm=4 + Cy=4 in particular is interesting. Possible candidate: certain quantum-field-theoretic regimes? Certain deeply-coupled ecological systems?
• Cross-reference with the SSA and Convergence Domain. The meta-domain analysis shares structural shape (six primitives, three core triads, hub-and-anchor structure, classifier filter range) with our Layer-4 analysis and may be linked to it formally.

Where this leaves the methodology paper

The meta-domain analysis above is heavier and sharper than the previous range-of-domains catalog. It does several things the catalog did not:

• Names the primitives that vary across domains.
• Specifies the partial-level structure of each.
• Identifies the dependency DAG and resulting filter stringency.
• Pinpoints empirical structural attractors.
• Identifies empty and forbidden regions.
• Surfaces an open primitive-refinement signal (discovery-vs-stipulation).
• Qualifies the methodology's domain-generality claim with structural precision.

This material is what Paper 11 should reflect, replacing or substantially augmenting the prior "Range of Domains Analyzed" section. It would land naturally as either:

• A revised version of the "Range of Domains Analyzed" section that uses the meta-domain analysis as its scaffold; or
• A new section "The Methodology's Range as a Domain in Its Own Right" inserted after the existing range section.

The second option is more honest about what just happened: the methodology was applied to itself one more time, the bounding-range question turned out to admit a Layer-3 classifier analysis, and the output is a structural map of methodology-applicability with eight empirical attractors and several open primitive refinements. This is research, not regurgitation.