Turing Completeness and the Ableman Prime Directive

Turing-complete execution offers broad computational expressiveness but admits program properties that no general decision procedure can determine for every program and input. The Ableman Prime Directive (APD) asks a different question: whether bindings that affect an agent remain detectable, refusable, and renegotiable. The paper's central claim is not that undecidability can be removed or that arbitrary computation can be made fully visible and reversible. It is that a Turing-complete executor can be placed behind a more limited constitutional boundary: a terminating policy evaluator admits bounded plans; an effect membrane constrains external actions; an independent supervisor enforces epochs and resource limits; and external observation produces claim-bounded receipts. These mechanisms can preserve bounded APD properties for declared effects even though arbitrary internal behavior remains incompletely predictable. The result depends on explicit assumptions. Historical evidence is limited by observation coverage; checkpoint rollback does not undo arbitrary external effects; hash chains show integrity relative to trusted inputs and canonicalization rather than factual truth; and a decidable law layer must actually restrict its language and evaluation. This is an architecture and proof-obligation program, not a formal proof or verified implementation.