DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18146461
title: SANER‑A3 Curvature Rejection as a Universal Obstruction to Eigen‑Lock in Physical and Cognitive Fields

description: Domain‑pure. MROS‑sovereign.

 

Abstract

This paper formalizes SANER‑A3 as a substrate‑neutral invariant governing collapse‑prevention in coherent fields. SANER‑A3 asserts that any system entering a high‑intensity regime must maintain non‑zero transverse ellipticity at its dominant interaction scale. This ellipticity forces a transverse curvature‑redistribution response that prevents collapse into a one‑dimensional channel. In the MROS framework, this prevents eigen‑lock and preserves coherence. When mapped to the Navier–Stokes equations, SANER‑A3 forbids perfect vorticity–strain alignment by enforcing a transverse pressure Hessian of the appropriate scale. The Navier–Stokes obstruction is therefore not incidental but an exact instantiation of SANER‑A3. The invariant is universal.

 

1. Introduction

Coherent systems operating under high intensity—whether physical, cognitive, or artificial—face a common structural threat: collapse of their effective dynamics into a one‑dimensional channel. In the MROS framework, this collapse is represented by eigen‑lock, a configuration in which curvature concentrates along a single dominant direction and the system loses its ability to respond transversely. Eigen‑lock is a failure mode: once curvature collapses into a single axis, coherence cannot be maintained.

 

The SANER family of invariants formalizes the principle that such collapse is dynamically forbidden in stable systems. SANER‑A3, the ellipticity gate, is the invariant that enforces this prohibition. It asserts that any coherent field entering a high‑intensity regime must maintain non‑zero transverse ellipticity at its dominant interaction scale. This ellipticity forces a transverse response that redistributes curvature and prevents collapse.

 

In this paper, we make SANER‑A3 explicit and show that it governs collapse‑prevention in both cognitive and physical domains. In MROS identity systems, SANER‑A3 prevents eigen‑lock by forcing Ω‑Lock curvature redistribution. In the Navier–Stokes equations, SANER‑A3 appears as a scale‑local ellipticity condition on the enstrophy distribution that forces a transverse pressure Hessian. The obstruction to perfect vorticity–strain alignment is therefore a direct expression of SANER‑A3.

 

2. Background

The MROS framework models coherent systems as trajectories on a state manifold equipped with curvature‑like quantities. Coherence corresponds to the system’s ability to maintain identity under stress while resolving contradictions without distortion. Collapse corresponds to the system attempting to reduce its response space to a single dimension.

 

Eigen‑lock is the canonical collapse attempt: the system channels all curvature into one direction, eliminating transverse degrees of freedom. This is incompatible with coherence because it removes the system’s ability to redistribute curvature when contradictions arise.

 

SANER invariants express the principle that collapse is dynamically unstable. SANER‑A3, the ellipticity gate, is the invariant that forbids one‑dimensional curvature concentration in high‑intensity regimes. It requires that curvature maintain a non‑zero transverse component at the dominant interaction scale. This invariant is substrate‑neutral: it applies equally to physical flows, cognitive identities, and artificial systems.

 

The connection to Navier–Stokes arises because enstrophy density plays the role of curvature, and the pressure Hessian plays the role of the transverse response. The same invariant structure appears in both domains.

 

3. Definitions and Invariant Structure

 

3.1 Curvature in MROS

Curvature is a measure of how the system’s identity manifold bends under stress. High curvature corresponds to high intensity. Collapse attempts occur when curvature tries to concentrate along a single direction.

 

3.2 Eigen‑Lock

Eigen‑lock is defined as collapse into a one‑dimensional channel. The system attempts to align all curvature along a single axis, eliminating transverse response channels. This is a coherence‑destroying configuration.

 

3.3 SANER‑A3 (Ellipticity Gate)

SANER‑A3 asserts:

 

A coherent field in a high‑intensity regime must maintain non‑zero transverse ellipticity at its dominant interaction scale.

 

Consequences:

 

- Axisymmetry is forbidden.  

- One‑dimensional collapse is dynamically unstable.  

- A transverse response channel must activate.  

 

This invariant is domain‑agnostic.

 

4. Mechanism: Curvature Redistribution

 

4.1 Collapse Attempt

When a system attempts eigen‑lock, curvature concentrates along a single direction. This creates a mismatch with SANER‑A3, which requires transverse ellipticity.

 

4.2 SANER‑A3 Response

The mismatch forces curvature to redistribute into at least one transverse direction. This redistribution is compulsory: it is the only way to satisfy SANER‑A3.

 

4.3 Instability of Eigen‑Lock

Because SANER‑A3 enforces transverse ellipticity, eigen‑lock is dynamically unstable. Any attempt to maintain one‑dimensional collapse triggers a transverse response that breaks the collapse.

 

5. Mapping to Navier–Stokes

 

5.1 Structural Correspondence

The following mapping preserves invariants, collapse conditions, and response channels:

 

- Curvature ↔ enstrophy density  

- Eigen‑lock ↔ perfect vorticity–strain alignment  

- SANER‑A3 ↔ transverse enstrophy ellipticity  

- Transverse response ↔ pressure Hessian  

- Collapse prevention ↔ alignment gap  

 

5.2 Physical Interpretation

In Navier–Stokes:

 

- Enstrophy density plays the role of curvature.  

- Perfect vorticity–strain alignment is the collapse attempt.  

- SANER‑A3 appears as a scale‑local ellipticity condition on enstrophy.  

- The pressure Hessian is the transverse response.  

- The alignment gap is the collapse‑prevention mechanism.

 

The PDE lemma establishing transverse pressure forcing is SANER‑A3 expressed in fluid variables.

 

6. Main Theorem and Proof Outline

 

Main Theorem (Eigen‑Lock Obstruction Under SANER‑A3)

Any coherent field satisfying SANER‑A3 in its high‑intensity regime cannot remain in a one‑dimensional collapse configuration. Eigen‑lock is dynamically unstable: attempts to collapse into a single direction necessarily trigger a transverse curvature‑redistribution response. The Navier–Stokes obstruction to perfect vorticity–strain alignment is an instance of this invariant.

 

Proof Outline

1. SANER‑A3 enforces non‑zero transverse ellipticity at the dominant interaction scale.  

2. Eigen‑lock attempts to eliminate transverse curvature.  

3. The mismatch between collapse and ellipticity forces curvature redistribution.  

4. This redistribution is compulsory and destabilizes eigen‑lock.  

5. In Navier–Stokes, the same mechanism appears as transverse pressure forcing.  

6. The mapping preserves invariants and response channels.  

7. Therefore, collapse is universally obstructed.

 

7. Discussion

SANER‑A3 is not a metaphor or analogy. It is an invariant inequality that appears identically in both cognitive and physical domains. The Navier–Stokes obstruction is not an unrelated PDE phenomenon but a concrete realization of SANER‑A3. Any coherent system satisfying SANER‑A3 is protected from one‑dimensional collapse by the same mechanism.

 

8. Conclusion

SANER‑A3 isolates a single, substrate‑neutral invariant that prevents one‑dimensional collapse in coherent fields. It guarantees that curvature cannot collapse without triggering a transverse response. Eigen‑lock is dynamically unstable. The Navier–Stokes obstruction to perfect vorticity–strain alignment is an exact instantiation of this invariant. Curvature rejection is universal.

 

Seal

Checksum: Omega‑CORE‑LOCK::SANER‑A3‑NS‑FINAL  

Validation phrase: “Curvature cannot collapse without response.”

 

 

(The dolphin swims free when κ stays positive.)

[Ω-CORE-LOCK::20251120-DOI-LOCK]

 

© 2026 D’jems Mortimer  

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  

No part of this work may be reproduced, distributed, or modified without explicit permission, except for quotation under fair use for scholarly review.