# PBRF Success Criteria and Metrics per Layer ## 1. Purpose This document defines the specific success criteria and associated metrics for each layer of the Principle-Based Reality Framework (PBRF) development, as required by the PBRF OMF v2.0 [[archive/projects/PBRF/0213_PBRF_OMF_v2.0]]. These criteria provide objective benchmarks to assess progress, determine readiness for proceeding to the next layer, and trigger fail-fast/pivot decisions [[0121_IO_Fail_Fast_Directive]]. The focus is on demonstrating internal consistency and the successful emergence of required features at each stage, prior to final URFE validation. ## 2. Layer 0: Foundational Principles * **Objective:** Establish a minimal, consistent, well-justified set of foundational principles. * **Success Criteria:** * SC0.1: Principles (P1-P7 or refined version) are clearly stated and conceptually distinct. * SC0.2: Each principle is explicitly justified based on broad, paradigm-independent observation or logical necessity. * SC0.3: The set of principles is demonstrably logically self-consistent (no derivable contradictions using only the principles). * SC0.4: The set is arguably minimal yet sufficient to ground the *possibility* of a dynamic, structured, causal reality. * **Metrics/Tracking:** * Completion of node(s) defining and justifying the final Layer 0 principle set. * Documented analysis confirming logical self-consistency (e.g., demonstrating no obvious contradictions between P1-P7). * Qualitative assessment of minimality and sufficiency arguments. * **Readiness Check:** Proceed to Layer 1 when SC0.1-SC0.4 are met and documented. ## 3. Layer 1: Conceptual Framework * **Objective:** Derive a coherent conceptual framework from Layer 0, defining core concepts and qualitative dynamics. * **Success Criteria:** * SC1.1: Core concepts (e.g., "Event," "Pattern," "Influence," "Stability," "Complexity," "System," "Context") are operationally defined *using only Layer 0 principles and logic*. * SC1.2: Plausible qualitative mechanisms for key generic phenomena (e.g., pattern formation/persistence (P4), local influence propagation (P3), conservation (P6), complexity increase (P7)) are derived conceptually from the interplay of P1-P7. * SC1.3: The conceptual framework successfully withstands internal consistency checks and adversarial thought experiments designed to reveal contradictions with Layer 0 or internal incoherence. * SC1.4: The framework provides plausible, qualitative, principle-based answers to the core *conceptual* aspects of URFE questions (demonstrating sufficient explanatory scope conceptually). * **Metrics/Tracking:** * Completion of nodes providing operational definitions for core Layer 1 concepts. * Completion of nodes detailing the conceptual mechanisms for emergence, stability, etc., derived from P1-P7. * Documented record of consistency/adversarial checks and their outcomes. * Completion of Layer 1 URFE response nodes demonstrating qualitative explanatory scope. * **Readiness Check:** Proceed to Layer 2 search *only if* SC1.1-SC1.4 are met. Failure after **one** major revision cycle triggers OMF Pivot/Halt. ## 4. Layer 2: Formalism Search & Definition * **Objective:** Identify or develop a novel formal structure (mathematical/computational) that naturally embodies Layer 0/1 principles. * **Success Criteria:** * SC2.1: A specific formal structure (e.g., graph rewriting rules, category-theoretic model, non-standard field dynamics) is proposed. * SC2.2: A rigorous justification is provided explaining *why* this formalism is chosen and *how* it directly embodies the Layer 0 principles (P1-P7) and Layer 1 concepts (operational definitions). Conventional formalisms require exceptionally strong justification. * SC2.3: The formalism is demonstrably mathematically/logically self-consistent. * SC2.4: Key Layer 1 concepts (e.g., state, transition, interaction, stability metric) can be clearly represented within the formalism. * **Metrics/Tracking:** * Completion of node(s) defining the chosen Layer 2 formalism and its rigorous justification linking it to L0/L1. * Mathematical proofs or strong arguments for the formalism's self-consistency. * Demonstration (analytical or via minimal examples) of representing core L1 concepts. * **Readiness Check:** Proceed to Layer 3 *only if* SC2.1-SC2.4 are met for a candidate formalism. Failure to find *any* suitable formalism after exploring a limited number (e.g., 2-3) of distinct, well-motivated approaches triggers OMF Pivot/Halt (likely requiring revision of L1/L0). ## 5. Layer 3: Modeling & Validation * **Objective:** Implement the Layer 2 formalism and demonstrate its ability to generate targeted emergent phenomena robustly. * **Success Criteria (Defined *before* simulation):** * SC3.1: Successful computational implementation of the Layer 2 formalism. * SC3.2: **(Primary Criterion)** Demonstration of specific, pre-defined emergent phenomena (e.g., "formation of stable, localized patterns meeting metric X," "propagation of influence satisfying constraint Y," "emergence of statistical behavior Z") robustly across a defined range of parameters and initial conditions. * SC3.3: Results pass rigorous numerical artifact checks (precision, resolution, method sensitivity) [[0146_Implied_Discretization_Summary]]. * SC3.4: Qualitative (and potentially quantitative, if possible) consistency with broad features of observed reality relevant to the simulation's scope. * SC3.5: Generation of at least one unique, qualitative (or ideally quantitative, if formalism allows) prediction differentiating the model from conventional explanations. * **Metrics/Tracking:** * Working simulation code. * Simulation result nodes documenting achievement (or failure) against pre-defined emergence targets (SC3.2) using quantitative metrics [[0128_IO_Metrics_Definition]] where applicable. * Explicit documentation of artifact checks (SC3.3). * Documented analysis of consistency with observation (SC3.4) and novel predictions (SC3.5). * **Readiness Check:** Consider the PBRF potentially viable for final URFE evaluation *only if* SC3.1-SC3.5 are met for key emergent phenomena. Failure after **one** major revision cycle on the Layer 3 implementation/analysis triggers OMF Pivot/Halt (likely requiring revision of L2 or lower). ## 6. Overall Framework Success (Post-Layer 3) * **Objective:** Provide a complete, consistent, unifying, and empirically validated framework answering the URFE questions. * **Success Criteria:** * SC-Final: Provides consistent, well-justified answers across all relevant URFE sections, integrating L0-L3 findings. * SC-Final: Demonstrates significant unification across domains previously requiring separate explanations. * SC-Final: Makes novel predictions (from SC3.5) that are successfully confirmed empirically. * SC-Final: Offers significant advantages (e.g., conceptual clarity, paradox resolution, parameter reduction) over existing paradigms. * **Metrics/Tracking:** Final URFE response document, publications detailing novel predictions and confirmations, comparative analyses against other theories. ## 7. Conclusion These criteria provide a structured, measurable pathway for PBRF development. By defining clear goals and validation points for each layer, focusing initially on logical and conceptual rigor before demanding specific formalisms or empirical results, and incorporating strict fail-fast conditions, this approach aims to ensure that progress is genuine and resources are focused effectively on developing a potentially successful Principle-Based Reality Framework.