Recoverable Continuity as a Falsifiable Biological Constraint: Experimental Tests Across Cellular Reprogramming, Regeneration, Lineage, and Evolution

Biological systems persist while replacing matter, changing state, branching, regenerating,reproducing, and evolving. Prior work formulated recoverable continuity as a necessary structural conditionfor biological identity: a later biological state remains attributable to an earlier state only while a lawfulinheritance relation can be recovered. That claim is not yet a distinct experimental theory. Lineage tracing,epigenetic memory, organoid self-organization, regeneration, historical contingency, and experimentalevolution already demonstrate that biological history can matter. Repeating those observations undernew terminology would not independently test C 2 = C. This paper therefore separates the upstreamstructural condition from additional bridge hypotheses that can be falsified. It defines a multiscalebiological state, a declared measurement closure, source-attribution recoverability, a Biological RecoverableContinuity Profile, and a matched-state residual criterion. The central bridge hypothesis states thatrecoverable transformation history adds prospective predictive information after genotype, epigenome, cellcomposition, spatial organization, regulatory state, physiology, environment, and population structure havebeen matched to a prespecified tolerance. Six coordinated studies are proposed: matched-endpoint organoidhistories; chained lineage and transformation closure; regenerative branching in planarians; matched-endpoint divergent-history evolution; convergent evolution versus engineered endpoint substitution; and arevival–reconstruction boundary study. Evolution is treated as a central scale of recoverable continuityrather than an appendix: ancestry, mutation order, selection, ecological sequence, and branching aremeasured across generations using frozen fossil records and ancestral replay. Each protocol specifiesestablished biological baselines, intervention arms, measurements, statistical tests, competing explanations,preregistration requirements, and explicit null outcomes. The program does not presume that a historyresidual is nonstandard; hidden state, environmental memory, batch effects, and incomplete closure mustbe excluded first. Null results would constrain the proposed biological bridge without negating thestructural requirement that coherent biological attribution depends on recoverable succession. The resultis a falsifiable research program for determining whether recoverable continuity has predictive biologicalcontent beyond conventional state descriptions.