The Experand Framework

Seven papers written between September and October 2026 develop the Experand framework: adequacy conditions for representing owned, intrinsically valenced felt orientation; a finite coherence witness; a minimal-state theory of history after closure; an evidence-grounded specification of closure; bounds on latent absorption; a restricted-event observability result; and a locked transformer test. Because they were written in sequence, they use overlapping but unequal vocabulary. “Closure” carries four meanings across the sources. One phrase, recovery without reset, names two properties; a countermodel in Finite Experand Dynamics, read in the terms of Closure Is Not Erasure, separates them (Section 2.2). Several letters denote different objects in different papers. This paper states the framework once. It fixes a single terminology and notation, with a translation table for every source. It separates three levels of closure — the closure criterion carried by an unresolved condition, disappearance of the unresolved marker, and certified closure — and places each of the four source notions of closure at its level, or between two levels for one of them. It distinguishes a state-readable history label from an output-observable one, the distinction that lets the audit-trail theorem and the restricted-event result hold together. Every theorem is cited to its source and none is restated as new. Besides that separation, two connecting observations are proved here: in the 24-state witness the never-adverse and recovered states form a delayed-revelation pair under the full event alphabet and form none when the adverse event is excluded from the probes; and, under the guarded reading of the witness, the history label is state-readable but, without that probe, not output-observable. The paper closes with a register of claims by evidential standing, the non-implications that must remain visible, and the open obligations that bound the program. No result here establishes experience in any system.