System Logic as a Research Program: Falsifiability, Boundary Conditions, and Future Tests—A Meta-Theoretical Framework for an Open, Revisable, and Practice-Tested Research Program

The first eight papers in the System Logic series established systemic adequacy, boundary and time, local optimization and systemic failure, feedback and systemic correction, the Systemic Impact Ledger, the System Logic of social cooperation from private good to public good, the theory of institutional adaptation and public good civilization, and the general theory of adaptive civilization. Together, these papers constitute a theoretical framework that extends from individual judgment to civilizational adaptation. However, a theoretical framework that cannot be tested risks degenerating into a closed system. This paper, as the ninth and concluding paper in the System Logic series, addresses the meta-theoretical question of the research program itself. It asks what the hard core of System Logic is, what its protective belt is, which propositions are non-negotiable, which are adjustable, what evidence would force revision, and what its boundary conditions are. The paper first distinguishes three types of propositions in System Logic: philosophical framework propositions, empirically testable propositions, and normative propositions. It then proposes the hard core and protective belt structure of the System Logic research program, specifying its non-negotiable core claims and its adjustable auxiliary hypotheses, together with legitimacy constraints on protective belt adjustment that prohibit ad hoc accommodation of counterexamples. Next, the paper selects six key falsifiability conditions covering boundary robustness, temporal integrity, feedback openness, cost externalization, institutional alignment, and civilizational adaptive capacity, and provides an operationalization lead for each. It further discusses the boundary conditions of System Logic, including applicability, evidential, cultural, temporal, and theoretical boundaries. On this basis, it establishes the evaluative criteria of the program itself, distinguishing progressive from degenerating problem shifts, and offering four progress criteria, four degeneration alarms, and three revision rules. Finally, the paper proposes three key future research directions—empirical research, cross-cultural research, and historical research—and discusses the competitive relationship between System Logic and existing research programs. The core proposition of this paper is that System Logic is not a closed ultimate theory but an open, revisable research program tested in practice. Its hard core deserves protection, its protective belt requires testing, and its future directions require exploration.