Affect-like Modulation in Human Psychic Processing

This technical note develops a human-specific application layer for affect-like regulatory roles within the Human Psychic Processing / Psychological Architecture branch of GTCS. The generic affect-like role architecture remains upstream in the phenomenological branch. Burden-like, relief-like, threat-like, and attraction-like role applications, together with their role-specific evidence qualifications and optional role-local weights, are not redefined here. The present paper asks a narrower question: when may an already established positive affect-like role application be treated as locally applicable to a particular typed human-processing target? To answer it, the architecture introduces provenance-preserving references to upstream role applications, a tagged human target carrier, optional aligned conditioning records, and a partial target-specific application relation, HumAffMod. Human modulation targets may include established focal-attention applications, symbolic-regulation applications and results, symbolic proposals, human transformation targets, target–candidate alignments, structural-transformation traces, or realized human-transformation records. Their original types and provenance are preserved; using them as modulation targets does not transfer status among owner surfaces. A positive HumAffMod application means only that an already established upstream affect-like role is locally applicable to the selected human-processing target under a declared human-processing context and conditioning profile. It is not a causal effect operator and does not establish that the target was changed, intensified, facilitated, inhibited, narrowed, stabilized, or otherwise modified. Optional significance, overload, identity, coherence, or manifestation records may enter as aligned conditioning evidence. Their inclusion establishes neither causal influence nor role reassignment and does not determine attention, symbolic regulation, structural admissibility, blocking, or realization. Role-local weights remain role-specific and non-phenomenal. The framework introduces no universal affect-intensity, valence, motivation, or action-priority scale and does not identify affect-like roles with emotions, feelings, phenomenal intensity, or named human affective states. The resulting construction provides a narrow human application interface for affect-like organization while preserving strict boundaries from attention, symbolic change, action tendency, avoidance, defense, structural transformation, emotion, feeling, and phenomenology.