Restricted Psychic Accessibility in Human Psychic Processing

This technical note develops a human-specific architecture of restricted psychic accessibility within the Human Psychic Processing / Psychological Architecture branch of GTCS. The paper does not redefine the generic restricted-access construction of GTCS. Core Restricted Accessibility of Coherence concerns differentiated access within the discrepancy, signalization, and admission architecture. The present construction addresses a different question: whether one exact, provenance-bearing human-processing target is accessible relative to a declared human-processing interface. Interface-relative accessibility is modeled as a partial Boolean assessment over a typed target, a typed interface contract, a context, and provenance-preserving aligned evidence. Positive, negative, and undefined results remain distinct, and a negative accessibility result is local to the exact target–interface–context–evidence tuple rather than a global statement about the target. Restricted psychic accessibility is defined separately. It consumes a complete negative interface-accessibility application and additionally requires independently established, positively aligned limitation evidence. Negative accessibility therefore does not by itself establish restriction. Same-target accessibility profiles may preserve independently assessed results across multiple interfaces without imposing a universal ladder, depth ordering, severity scale, monotonic relation, temporal trajectory, or structural-admissibility ranking. Imported interfaces may reference manifestation, focal attention, attentional holding, symbolic form, symbolic capture, or symbolic regulation while preserving their original source semantics. The paper also defines a narrow local speakability interface as evidence-based availability for explicit verbal-symbolic formulation in a declared communicative context. Speakability is formulation availability rather than actual speech, disclosure, reportability, communication success, recipient understanding, or therapeutic effect. Processing-level presence, actionability, and transformability are not defined as accessibility interfaces. The architecture does not infer restricted accessibility from negative attention, missing symbolic records, affect-like modulation, repetition, avoidance, structural inadmissibility, overload, identity, or a Core restricted-access status by identity. The resulting framework provides a bounded human target/interface accessibility and restriction layer while preserving strict separation from persistence, protection, rigidity, defense, clinical interpretation, trajectory dependence, and structural transformation.