Slow subsystems were distributed among internal and external states, not segregated.

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

• Internal states significantly predicted motion of external subsystems; best prediction for the farthest subsystem (magenta circle, Fig 4d).finding0.772
  Result of canonical variates analysis showing statistical dependency between internal states and external motion.
• Functionally closed subsystems are systematically expelled to the periphery of the ensemble.finding0.757
  Simulated result showing that subsystems unable to influence others cannot invade internal organization, supporting Markov blanket partition.
• Functionally closed subsystems were rusticated to the periphery of the ensemble; no simulation produced a functionally closed internal state.finding0.750
  Emergent spatial segregation of closed subsystems.
• The results generalise readily to non-equilibrium systems where scaling relationships remain similar (e.g., dynamic or localised scaling).claim0.743
  Claim about broader applicability of the scaling argument
• How Do Diverse Subsystems Maintain Shared Semantics Despitequestion0.739
• The inability for autoregressive large language models to maintain states of long-range order resembles tangential speech or derailment in formal thought disorder.claim0.735
  Analogy between LLM incoherence and schizophrenia symptoms
• Multiscale systems like those prevalent in biology are capable of organizing into complex patterns, whereas rudimentary language models are challenged by long sequences of outputs.claim0.733
  Conclusion about why biology organizes complexity well and flat LLMs do not
• Hierarchical structures in biological systems enable local order while globally disordered, explaining complex patterning.claim0.730
  Claim that multiscale organisation produces complex patterns via clique-based local coherence