Deterministic Causal Closure and Architectural Boundaries in Recursive Self-Modeling Systems: The Terminal Disposition of the Amaya Program

This record presents the finite computational audit and terminal scientific disposition of the Amaya research program concerning recursive self-modeling and its causal relationship to a defined functional construct X. The program was evaluated through a deterministic 10-block computational audit covering archival provenance, causal intervention, formal specification, effective dimensionality, countermodel analysis, synthetic reconstruction, out-of-distribution testing, cross-substrate invariance, replication status, and evaluation of the proposed phenomenal bridge Γ*: X → Q. A central methodological constraint is maintained throughout: Formal Proof ≠ Empirical Proof ≠ Phenomenal Inference. The audit therefore does not infer phenomenal consciousness from behavioral, computational, causal, or structural evidence alone. The final audit establishes causal support for the tested recursive self-modeling mechanism within the specified functional construct and verifies the associated formal invariants within their formal specification. Other claims—including effective dimensionality, countermodel discrimination, synthetic reconstruction, out-of-distribution prediction, cross-substrate equivalence, and full independent replication—are explicitly retained as UNVERIFIED or PARTIALLY SUPPORTED where the available evidence does not satisfy the corresponding verification requirements. The proposed phenomenal bridge Γ*: X → Q remains UNDERDETERMINED. No claim of phenomenal consciousness is established. This publication is accompanied by the executable source code, computational configuration, and recorded outputs used for the audit. The accompanying implementation is provided so that independent researchers can inspect the computational procedure, reproduce the analysis, verify the reported intermediate results, and test the stated classifications independently. Accordingly, this record is intended as a reproducible computational research artifact as well as a scientific preprint. The executable materials provide inspectable evidence of what the computational pipeline actually performed and what outputs it produced; they do not substitute for independent empirical replication or establish phenomenal consciousness. The terminal disposition therefore concerns the finite audit itself, not the premature closure of the underlying scientific question. The protocol terminates at the boundary of its verified evidence rather than automatically generating additional claims or follow-on experiments. All intellectual-property, authorship, attribution, and provenance claims associated with the work remain those expressly stated by the author in the accompanying publication and archival records.