Viability criteria (stable, unique, novel within target bandgap)

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Availability to unfolding needs in the here and now serves as a kind of meta-rule for alignment that scales with intelligenceclaim0.730
  Central claim in Section 4 proposing present-moment responsivity as overarching alignment principle
• The four concept criteria (motivation, no redundancy, no overloading, uniformity) are neither necessary nor sufficient but can explain design flaws.claim0.727
  Acknowledging the heuristic nature of the criteria.
• The process to design for is not stability or predictability, but promoting natural processesclaim0.725
  Key design philosophy of the talk, rejecting engineered stability in favor of dynamic, process-driven restoration.
• Smith & Boyd (1991) criteria are irrelevant across the vast majority of the space of possible agents.claim0.724
  Dismissal of earlier criteria as too narrow.
• If systems are designed with proper purpose-oriented abstractions expressed in appropriate language, then modular structure with guaranteed reliability becomes achievable.hypothesis0.723
  Core hypothesis underlying Oberon design; validated by the system's successful modularity and extensibility.
• "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective."quote0.721
  Russell's statement opening Section 2 articulating the core motivation for the Contemplative AI approach
• Target bandgapconcept0.718
  Desired electronic bandgap for semiconductor candidates.
• Curiosity, insight, decision-making, and diverse phenomena can all be accommodated by a single imperative: minimization of expected free energy (resolution of uncertainty).claim0.713
  Central thesis of the paper unifying cognitive phenomena under one objective function