L–ORDINANS-L3-TMP — Engineered World Submission Template

Author: U. Warring Affiliation: Institute of Physics, University of Freiburg Version: 0.1.1 Last updated: 2025-12-19 License: CC BY 4.0 Disclaimer — This document defines a boundary-condition design framework. Its authority derives from transparency, not finality.

---

Introduction

What This Template Does

This template enforces system–environment separation for all Layer-3 "Engineered World" submissions in the Ordinans framework. It ensures that claimed emergent phenomena—irreversibility, scaling behaviour, decoherence, measurement-induced effects—are:

• Falsifiable: Testable against a defined Null Environment

• Reproducible: With explicit environment specifications and algorithmic standards

• Properly attributed: To engineered environments, not hidden system assumptions

The Core Principle

If the Null Environment reproduces the effect, the physics is not in the system.

This is the Margin Principle, invariant across all template versions. It prevents claims of "emergent complexity" that actually arise from uncontrolled or poorly documented experimental conditions.

Why It Exists

In quantum simulation and open-system research, it is easy to attribute complexity to "the system" when it actually originates from:

• Uncontrolled environmental couplings

• Measurement back-action

• Finite-size recurrence effects

• Undocumented algorithmic choices in numerical simulations

This template forces authors to make these influences explicit, documented, and testable.

Who Uses This Template

Anyone documenting:

• Quantum simulations with engineered baths or noise sources

• Open-system experiments (trapped ions, cavity QED, circuit QED)

• Measurement-induced phenomena (quantum trajectories, adaptive protocols)

• Environment-contingent universality classes

...where the Spin⊗Mode Ordinans ($\mathcal{H}{\text{spin}} \otimes \mathcal{H}{\text{mode}}$) serves as the invariant system core.

Relationship to Other Frameworks

This template is a Map of Coastlines (invariant procedural framework), not an Implementation Interface:

• Maps of Coastlines (Invariant Frameworks) — Define boundaries, constraints, and falsification criteria. Stable, citation-bearing, slow-changing.

• Implementation Interfaces — Operational protocols for specific tasks (e.g., Causal Steering Protocols).

• Sails and Repair Kits (Essays) — Interpretive, motivational perspectives. Non-normative.

Related pages:

• What Can Make a Complex System an Ordinans? — Conceptual foundation for system–environment separation

• Causal Clock Unification Framework — Example of an invariant framework in timing metrology

---

Methodological Foundation

This template enforces the system–environment separation principle central to the Ordinans perspective: all irreversible, stochastic, or scaling behaviour arises from explicitly coupled environments, not from the isolated system itself.

Methodological precedents:

• Leggett et al. (1987): Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system — established environment-coupling formalism for open quantum systems (Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1–85)

• Breuer & Petruccione (2002): The Theory of Open Quantum Systems — systematic framework for Kraus operators and environmental certification

• Lock-Key Rule (Warring, 2025): Architectural separation between invariant structure (template) and interpretive context (World instantiations)

---

Template Structure

The template consists of 8 mandatory sections plus change log:

Section	Purpose
§0	Identity & Genealogy
§1	World Assumption (hypothesis)
§2	Environmental Construction
§3	Environment Certification
§4	Null Environment (falsification suite)
§5	Stability Boundary
§6	Emergent Laws
§7	Interpretation Boundary
§8	Version & Provenance (including waiver/versioning policies)

---

§0. Identity & Genealogy

World ID: SW-[Number] Title: [Concise phenomenological description]

Parent Interface (Layer 2): → §[X] [Interface name]

Ordinans Core (Layer 1):

$$\mathcal{H}_{\text{sys}} = \mathcal{H}_{\text{spin}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\text{mode}}$$

Invariant Statement (Required): The Ordinans Core is referenced but not modified. All irreversible, stochastic, or scaling behaviour arises exclusively from the environment defined below.

---

§1. World Assumption

Hypothesis: Describe in one paragraph what kind of environment is being simulated or engineered.

Examples:

• "A clock environment with infinite memory"

• "A continuously monitored environment with finite information extraction rate"

• "A structured bosonic bath with a sub-Ohmic spectral density"

Scope Declaration: The laws described in this World apply to the coupled system + environment, not to the isolated Ordinans system.

---

§2. Environmental Construction

§2.1 Environment Class

☐ Classical stochastic environment ☐ Quantum bath (unmonitored) ☐ Measurement channel (monitored) ☐ Feedback / controller environment ☐ Hybrid (specify)

§2.2 Coupling Axiom (Mandatory)

All couplings must be specified in the form:

$$\mathcal{H}_{\text{int}} = \sum_k S_k \otimes E_k(t)$$

• System operator(s) $S_k$: [e.g. $\sigma_x$, $a+a^\dagger$, parity, etc.]

• Environment operator(s) $E_k(t)$: [stochastic process, bath operator, measurement record, etc.]

Guardian Rule — No Ghost Environments: Any effect attributed to "noise", "drift", or "imperfections" must be represented here as an explicit $E_k(t)$.

§2.3 Environment Generator (Reproducibility)

Generator Type: ☐ Probability distribution ☐ Noise spectrum ☐ Kraus map / POVM ☐ Algorithmic controller

Specification (required):

[Provide the explicit algorithm, distribution, or update rule. Vague descriptions are not acceptable.]

v1.1 Enhancement — Algorithmic Controller Standards:

If "Algorithmic controller" is selected, the following fields are mandatory:

• Version: [Software/algorithm version identifier]

• Seed policy: [Fixed seed / randomized / time-based / hardware RNG]

• Determinism: ☐ Yes — Algorithm produces identical output for identical input ☐ No — Algorithm contains stochastic elements (specify layer: [e.g., Monte Carlo sampling, thermal noise injection, measurement back-action])

Rationale: Algorithmic environments must be reproducible by independent groups. Without version control and seed documentation, certification becomes impossible. (Precedent: Open Science Framework pre-registration protocols; Simmons et al., Psych. Sci. 2011)

---

§3. Environment Certification (Required)

Before claiming emergent physics, the environment must be validated.

Certification checklist:

• ☐ Target statistics measured (e.g. $\psi_{\text{exp}}(t)$ vs. $\psi(t)$)

• ☐ Agreement verified over ≥ 2 decades (if scale-free) [see note below]

• ☐ Renewal / independence test passed (if applicable)

• ☐ Environment parameters logged and archived

v1.1 Clarification — Scale-Free Status:

Scale-free status is itself a testable hypothesis, not an input assumption. Before invoking the "≥ 2 decades" criterion, provide independent justification that the phenomenon exhibits power-law or scale-invariant behaviour.

Acceptable justifications include:

• Collapse of data onto a master curve under rescaling

• Log-log linearity with $R^2 > 0.95$ over the claimed range

• Dimensional analysis predicting scale invariance

• Explicit removal of characteristic scales from the coupling operators

Failure mode prevented: Circular reasoning where "we assume scale-free" → "2 decades verified" → "therefore scale-free". (Precedent: Bak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987 — self-organized criticality requires independent scaling evidence)

Failure Rule: If the environment cannot be independently certified, all emergent claims are invalid.

---

§4. Null Environment (Falsification Suite)

Null Environment Definition: Specify the control environment that should produce trivial dynamics.

Examples:

• Gaussian timing jitter with finite variance

• White phase noise

• Measurement strength → 0

Null Condition:

If the Null Environment produces the same phenomenology as the Engineered Environment, the World is rejected.

Methodological precedent: Falsification requires a testable alternative hypothesis (Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959). The Null Environment serves as the $H_0$ hypothesis against which the Engineered World is tested.

---

§5. Stability Boundary

Define the validity window:

$$t \ll \tau_{\text{stab}}$$

with:

$$\tau_{\text{stab}} = \min(\tau_{\text{heating}},\;\tau_{\text{phase drift}},\;\tau_{\text{recurrence}})$$

Cross-references (Layer 2):

• ☐ Phase stability baseline

• ☐ Heating / loss rates

• ☐ Finite-size recurrence

Guardian Rule: Data taken outside this window may not be interpreted as physical scaling.

Rationale: Finite-size quantum systems exhibit Poincaré recurrence on timescale $\tau_{\text{rec}} \sim \exp(S)$ where $S$ is entropy. Claims of "irreversibility" or "thermalization" valid only for $t \ll \tau_{\text{rec}}$. (Precedent: Bocchieri & Loinger, Phys. Rev. 1957)

---

§6. Emergent Laws (World-Specific)

Phenomenology (equations required):

[Insert scaling laws, distributions, or asymptotics]

Guardian Statement (Mandatory): These laws describe the Engineered World, not the isolated Ordinans system. They are contingent on the specified environment and disappear when the coupling is removed.

---

§7. Interpretation Boundary

This Engineered World:

• ☐ Does not define a new Hamiltonian

• ☐ Does not extend the Ordinans Core

• ☐ Does not constitute a control primitive

v1.1 Enhancement — Positive Affirmation:

This Engineered World does establish: A falsifiable, reproducible demonstration of environment-contingent phenomenology within the stated validity window (§5).

Its value lies in:

• Falsifiable emergence

• Stress-testing system–environment separation

• Classifying environment-induced universality

Rationale: Negative constraints alone risk misreading as "this proves nothing". Explicit positive statement clarifies what is scientifically established without overclaiming. (Precedent: Meehl, Psych. Rep. 1967 — scientific theories must state both what they predict and what they forbid)

---

§8. Version & Provenance

World Version: v[ ] Template Version: ORDINANS-L3-TMP v1.1 Status: ☐ Exploratory ☐ Certified ☐ Deprecated

Council Review: ☐ Yes ☐ Pending Notes: [optional]

§8.1 Waiver Policy (v1.1)

v1.1 Enhancement — Explicit Waiver Criteria:

Waivers of specific template sections are permitted under the following conditions:

(a) Written justification citing which section is inapplicable and why (b) Guardian review confirming the waiver does not compromise falsifiability (c) Archival in Divergent log with expiry date (≤ 2 years)

Critical constraint: Waivers do not modify this template. They acknowledge context-specific inapplicability, not template revision.

Rationale: Prevents erosion of discipline through accumulation of informal exceptions. Waiver = documented exception, not precedent. (Precedent: Lock-Key Rule — keys (waivers) never modify locks (template structure) without re-ratification)

§8.2 Template Versioning Policy (v1.1)

v1.1 Enhancement — Backwards Compatibility:

Worlds certified under earlier template versions retain validity. Re-certification against updated templates is voluntary unless structural incompatibility is declared by Council.

Version upgrade triggers:

• Patch (X.Y.Z → X.Y.Z+1): Editorial clarifications, no re-certification required

• Minor (X.Y → X.Y+1): New optional fields, re-certification recommended

• Major (X → X+1): Breaking changes, re-certification required within 1 year

Structural incompatibility: Declared when a fundamental assumption of the earlier template is invalidated (e.g., discovery that Ordinans Core is non-unitary, violation of system–environment separation).

Rationale: Protects scientific investment in certified Worlds while allowing template evolution. Analogous to semantic versioning in software (Preston-Werner, SemVer 2.0.0, 2013).

---

Margin Principle (Non-Negotiable)

If the Null Environment reproduces the effect, the physics is not in the system.

This principle is invariant across all template versions.

---

Usage Notes

For Authors

• Complete all mandatory sections before submission

• Guardian review triggered automatically for waivers

• Certification status updated in central registry

For Reviewers

• Verify Null Environment is genuinely distinct from Engineered Environment

• Check coupling operators $S_k \otimes E_k(t)$ are explicit, not schematic

• Confirm stability boundary $\tau_{\text{stab}}$ is justified by cross-references

For Replicators

• Algorithmic controllers must specify version, seed policy, determinism

• Environment parameters archived in machine-readable format (JSON/HDF5)

• Null Environment data available alongside Engineered World data

---

References

Methodological Foundations

• Leggett, A. J., Chakravarty, S., Dorsey, A. T., Fisher, M. P. A., Garg, A., & Zwerger, W. (1987). Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system. Reviews of Modern Physics, 59(1), 1–85.

• Breuer, H.-P., & Petruccione, F. (2002). The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press.

• Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.

Precedents for Template Design

• Bak, P., Tang, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. (1987). Self-organized criticality. Physical Review Letters, 59(4), 381–384.

• Bocchieri, P., & Loinger, A. (1957). Quantum Recurrence Theorem. Physical Review, 107(2), 337–338.

• Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115.

• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

Open Science Infrastructure

• Preston-Werner, T. (2013). Semantic Versioning 2.0.0. Retrieved from https://semver.org

• Warring, U. (2025). The Lock-Key Rule of Open Science. Open Science Harbour Framework.

---

Change Log (v1.0 → v1.1)

Section	Enhancement
§2.3	Algorithmic Reproducibility: Added mandatory fields (Version, Seed policy, Determinism)
§3	Scale-Free Clarification: Independent justification required before 2-decade criterion
§7	Positive Affirmation: Explicit statement of what Engineered Worlds establish
§8.1	Waiver Policy: Structured criteria (a-b-c) replacing informal language
§8.2	Versioning Policy: Backwards compatibility rules and structural incompatibility definition
References	Expanded to include methodological precedents and versioning standards

---

Status: This template is the canonical submission format for all Layer-3 entries.

Any Horizons content not conforming to ORDINANS-L3-TMP v1.1 is out of scope unless explicitly waived under §8.1.

---

Version History

v0.1.1 (2025-12-19) — Guardian-cleared revision incorporating:

• §3: Scale-free hypothesis clarification

• §2.3: Algorithmic reproducibility standards

• §8: Explicit waiver criteria and template versioning policy

• §7: Positive affirmation of established claims

v0.1.0 (2025-12-18) — Initial template structure (Internal)