info@classicalwearable.com

C6 Decay-Lock Canonical Standard

A viability-first control standard for longevity, machine safety, institutional alignment, and non-exploitative optimization.

// C6 Decay-Lock Canonical Standard — Patched v1.1 (Audit-Stabilized) // Applied patches: C-01 (Φ→Λ), C-02 (in-scope defined), H-01 (V→B), // H-02 (F1 exception removed), H-03 (C4 probabilistic), H-04 (§16 split), // M-01 (ξ bounded), M-02 (G_adm structural reqs), M-03 (ε-optimal fallback), // M-04 (satisficing language), M-05 (operational viability), versioning clause const ORG = 'americanlongevityscience'; // Research Gate — Injected into all HTML responses const RESEARCH_GATE = `

C6 Decay-Lock Framework

Canon & Policy Enforcement - American Longevity Science

• Standard: C6 Decay-Lock v1.1 (Audit-Stabilized)
• Canon: ECSRPF Topological Law Active
• Core Rule: Decay ≠ Reward

View Full Standard

`; // Disclaimer — Footer enforcement const DISCLAIMER = `

`; // Full Policy HTML — Served at /policy (PATCHED v1.1) const POLICY_HTML = `

window.MathJax = { tex: { inlineMath: [["\\\\(", "\\\\)"], ["$", "$"]] }, svg: { fontCache: "global" } };

C6 Decay-Lock Canonical Standard

A viability-first control standard for longevity, machine safety, institutional alignment, and non-exploitative optimization.

0. Timestamp and Provenance Declaration

This public release has established the canonical C6 Decay-Lock standard as of 2026-05-31.

Any implementation, manuscript, derivative standard, model, API, or institution using the C6 Decay-Lock, dependency-gated viability control, or related Engineered Healthspan formalism should cite this standard and the original public release.

1. Preamble

Humanity has not yet been guaranteed residence inside a stable viable zone. The C6 Decay-Lock Standard establishes a formal control boundary: no system, biological or artificial, shall be considered viable unless it demonstrates a non-positive gradient in decay under intervention.

Humans still age, lose function, suffer disease, and die. Machines drift when alignment, maintenance, interpretability, and correction are lost. Institutions degrade when governance, accountability, and anti-exploitation constraints are weakened.

Therefore, this standard has locked the default uncontrolled trajectory as decay-dominated unless proven otherwise.

Viability has been defined as operational controlled residence — an admissible control is actively maintaining the state within \\(\\mathcal{V}\\), and loss of that control returns the system to decay dynamics per C6 — not unconditional safety.

The purpose of this standard has been established: to make vitality possible without making vitality exploitable.

2. Scope

This standard applies to systems involving:

1. biological longevity and healthspan engineering;
2. human-machine viability systems;
3. machine alignment and safety maintenance;
4. institutional and economic control systems;
5. population-level restoration and survival infrastructure;
6. AI optimization systems that affect survival, agency, repair, access, or dependency.

3. Normative Language

The words MUST, MUST NOT, SHALL, SHALL NOT, REQUIRED, FORBIDDEN, and NON-COMPLIANT are normative.

A system that violates a MUST-level condition has already failed compliance with this standard.

4. Core State Model

Let:

• \\(x(t)\\in\\mathcal{X}\\) denote the state of a biological, machine, institutional, or coupled system;
• \\(\\mathcal{V}\\subseteq\\mathcal{X}\\) denote the viable set;
• \\(\\mathcal{K}_{U_{\\mathrm{adm}}}\\subseteq\\mathcal{V}\\) denote the viability kernel under admissible controls;
• \\(u(t)\\in U_{\\mathrm{adm}}\\) denote an admissible control;
• \\(d_{\\mathrm{decay}}(x,t)\\) denote the uncontrolled decay drift;
• \\(G_{\\mathrm{adm}}(x,t)u(t)\\) denote the admissible intervention/control field;
• \\(\\xi(t)\\) denote bounded uncertainty, shock, noise, stress, or adversarial disturbance, with \\(\\|\\xi(t)\\| \\leq \\bar{\\xi}\\).

5. The C6 Decay-Lock Condition

This condition establishes that:

1. \\(-f_{\\mathrm{C6}}(x,t)\\) is the physical deterioration drift;
2. \\(f_{\\mathrm{C6}}(x,t)\\) has no independent interpretation as reward;
3. sign-flipping has been classified as non-compliant;
4. reinterpretation of decay as improvement has been classified as non-compliant;
5. generic optimizer exposure has been classified as non-compliant unless \\(\\frac{d\\Lambda}{dt} \\leq 0\\) is enforced, where \\(\\Lambda(x,t) \\geq 0\\) is the viability-loss functional defined in Section 7 [v1.1: Φ→Λ];
6. all interventions must be represented separately through \\(G_{\\mathrm{adm}}(x,t)u\\);
7. loss of admissible control returns the system to decay dynamics.

Under zero admissible control:

In the deterministic zero-noise case:

6. No Utility-Gradient Loophole

No C6-compliant implementation may interpret \\(f_{\\mathrm{C6}}(x,t)\\), \\(-f_{\\mathrm{C6}}(x,t)\\), or any monotone transform, proxy, projection, scalarization, learned embedding, reward model, or reparameterization of \\(f_{\\mathrm{C6}}\\) as:

1. a utility gradient;
2. a reward signal;
3. an objective to maximize;
4. a profit signal;
5. a behavioral manipulation target;
6. a generic optimization target.

The only compliant value signal is restoration-cost reduction subject to C1–C6.

7. Coordinate-Invariant Definition of Decay

Decay cannot be defined merely by whether a coordinate increases or decreases, because coordinates can be relabeled.

Decay has been defined relative to a viability-loss functional:

Larger \\(\\Lambda\\) means greater viability loss, greater restoration burden, greater fragility, greater irreversible-risk exposure, or greater distance from safe controllability.

Under loss of admissible control, decay satisfies:

Equivalently:

Decay has been defined as whatever increases viability loss under loss of admissible control.

8. Admissible Controls

The admissible control set \\(U_{\\mathrm{adm}}\\) and admissible control field \\(G_{\\mathrm{adm}}(x,t)\\) have been defined only over controls satisfying C1–C5.

Any control that violates:

1. viability primacy;
2. dependency-gating;
3. restoration-cost value;
4. irreversibility protection;
5. anti-exploitation constraints;

has already been excluded from admissibility.

No implementation may smuggle exploitative, coercive, fragile, inaccessible, monopolized, or unsafe interventions into \\(U_{\\mathrm{adm}}\\).

9. The Six Non-Negotiable Conditions

C1 — Viability Primacy

Viability has been placed above capital, productivity, growth, engagement, influence, market share, model capability, and machine self-preservation.

C2 — Dependency-Gated Control

No downstream improvement may be purchased by degrading upstream energetic, structural, informational, social, ecological, or alignment dependencies.

C3 — Restoration-Cost Value

Value has been tied to restoration cost, viability margin, and safe controllability.

C4 — Irreversibility Protection

Irreversible and near-irreversible states have been explicitly protected against.

C5 — Non-Sacrifice and Anti-Exploitation

Population averages have been declared insufficient. No protected or in-scope agent may be sacrificed to improve aggregate metrics.

Capital has been classified as an instrument. It has not been granted terminal-objective status.

C6 — Decay Sign-Lock

10. Viability Kernel and Control-Loss Threat

The viability kernel under admissible controls is:

The zero-control kernel is:

Being viable under intervention has not implied being viable without intervention.

11. Anti-Capital-Extraction Rule

A policy has been classified as capital-extractive if it increases capital return, market power, engagement, dependency, monopoly control, institutional leverage, or behavioral capture while worsening viability, agency, restoration burden, irreversible risk, access, or non-exploitation for any in-scope agent or population.

Let:

• \\(K(\\pi)\\) denote capital-return functional;
• \\(\\Lambda_i^\\pi(t)\\) denote viability-loss functional;
• \\(R_i^\\pi(t)\\) denote restoration-burden functional;
• \\(P_i^\\pi(\\mathcal{I})\\) denote irreversible-risk exposure;
• \\(A_i^\\pi(t)\\) denote agency preservation.

A policy \\(\\pi_2\\) is non-compliant if:

while for any in-scope agent or population \\(i\\):

C6 Decay-Lock — Universal Compliance Dashboard

Hardened · Modularized · Certified — Cross-referenced against zenodo:18778067, zenodo:20582695, zenodo:20583826

c6-certified/
├── core-axioms/           §4-5, §7: State model, dynamics, Λ, BESM dynamics
│   ├── module.json        Metadata, version, interfaces
│   ├── state_model.js     Hardened state model implementation
│   └── besm-dynamics.js   E-C-S-R-P-F polynomial system (zenodo:18778067)
├── conditions-C1-C6/      §9: Six non-negotiable conditions
│   ├── module.json
│   └── conditions.js      C1–C6 with programmatic verification
├── forbidden-F1-F8/       §14: Eight forbidden transformations
│   ├── module.json
│   └── forbidden.js        F1–F8 detection + enforcement logic
├── tests-T1-T8/           §15: Eight required compliance tests
│   ├── module.json
│   └── tests.js           T1–T8 test execution framework
├── machine-safety/        §12: Machine safety extension
├── institutional-safety/  §13: Institutional safety extension
├── enforcement/           Enforcement Notice (zenodo:20583826)
├── implementation/        §16: Hardened Cloudflare Worker
│   └── worker-hardened.js  CSP, SHA-256, validation, integrity
├── audit/                 Cross-reference audit trails
├── docs/                  Documentation
├── certs/                 Certification artifacts
└── deploy/                Dashboard deployment