Coherence, Obstruction, and Underdetermination in the Operatiology–Noology Theory of Intelligence and Intellect

This paper presents an Ev5 formal analysis of the Operatiology–Noology theory of intelligence and intellect across its Noological, operational, dynamical, and cross-layer formulations. Rather than treating the source corpus as a single continuous derivation, the analysis distinguishes source-native definitions and claims from audit repairs, reconstructions, finite models, obstruction results, and semantic diagnoses. Its central aim is to determine which parts of the theory are jointly satisfiable, which claimed derivational routes withstand formal scrutiny, and which cross-layer relations remain insufficiently specified. The analysis produces a four-part Formal Status Decomposition. First, a repaired Noological core together with a minimal operational core is shown to be finitely satisfiable. Second, the universal necessity route associated with the Dynamics V5 scope condition is formally obstructed under the effective-history normalization adopted in the paper; this blocks that particular route to Dynamical Structural Leap without establishing that Dynamical Structural Leap itself is impossible. Third, a conditional Intellect-form construction is shown to be finitely satisfiable in a four-state audit model satisfying the strict intrinsic operational carrier requirements. Fourth, the transition from Noological Arbitrium to operational satisfaction remains semantically underdetermined because the source corpus does not uniquely specify the cross-layer satisfaction semantics required for Functional Void and source-intended Intellect. The paper therefore neither globally validates nor rejects the Operatiology–Noology programme. Instead, it separates formal possibility, necessity, carrier adequacy, and semantic adequacy, showing that failure at one logical level does not automatically imply failure at another. Its final classification identifies a finitely satisfiable audited core, an obstructed necessity mechanism, a conditionally satisfiable downstream Intellect-form structure, and an unresolved Arbitrium-to-operational semantic interface. The analysis is formal rather than empirical and does not claim that contemporary artificial-intelligence systems instantiate Subjectivity, Functional Void, Q-Structure, or Intellect. Its contribution is instead to clarify the dependency structure, logical strength, and remaining formal boundaries of the theory.