The Human Control System Has No Specification: Why AI Cannot Have a Body (The Kuriyama Protocol, Introduction)

Part 19 of a series; the fourteenth of fifteen chapter-by-chapter articles. Part 1: 10.5281/zenodo.23587879 · Part 2: 10.5281/zenodo.23587670 · Part 3 (v2): 10.5281/zenodo.23723510 · Part 4: 10.5281/zenodo.23609857 · Part 5: 10.5281/zenodo.23610607 · Part 6: 10.5281/zenodo.23682055 · Part 7: 10.5281/zenodo.23684537 · Part 8: 10.5281/zenodo.23684996 · Part 9: 10.5281/zenodo.23685960 · Part 10: 10.5281/zenodo.23686289 · Part 11: 10.5281/zenodo.23720048 · Part 12: 10.5281/zenodo.23723725 · Part 13: 10.5281/zenodo.23834848 · Part 14: 10.5281/zenodo.23854475 · Part 15 (v2): 10.5281/zenodo.23886603 · Part 16: 10.5281/zenodo.23859894 · Part 17: 10.5281/zenodo.23874674 · Part 18: 10.5281/zenodo.23886834 The introduction of The Kuriyama Protocol frames the book's question: machines beat humans at chess and write text, yet cannot wash and shelve dishes like a person. The gap is treated not as missing computation but as a missing specification. Structural repair does not automatically update the control law; everyday actions are the least documented; only contact forces and gravity move the centre of mass; human walking uses falling rather than continuous support; the body offloads control to structure; and near-optimal postures produce the smallest sensory signals. Five gaps found while writing: - A prediction in section 0-1 still relied on conscious detection of error, contradicting Part 16; restated as task constraints under which the old pattern fails. - Two of three examples of "one word changes output" also changed physical input (fingertip touch; head orientation); only one isolates words. - "Pulling, too, lies within pushing" holds only for foot–floor contact; gripping hands transmit tensile contact forces, so maximal rope tension is the lesser of the foot-slip and grip-slip limits. - The falling-versus-supporting dichotomy holds fore–aft; mediolateral balance requires active step-by-step foot placement (Bauby & Kuo, 2000). - The derivation that added load lowers the minimum detectable tilt assumes an absolute threshold; under Weber's law (Jones, 1986) mass cancels and the benefit vanishes, which also bears on Predictions 13–14 of Part 4. Five falsifiable predictions are registered (numbered 87–91, continuing the series): - P87. In residual post-injury guarding, task constraints that defeat the old pattern reduce weight-bearing asymmetry faster than awareness-based explanation. - P88. Difficulty rolling up while gazing at the ceiling follows head orientation, not the verbal cue. - P89. When the rope slips in the hands, higher-friction shoes do not raise maximal tension, but gloves do. - P90. Step-width variability increases at slower speeds, and light fingertip touch reduces it more at slower speeds. - P91. Added load lowers the minimum detectable tilt only in people whose threshold does not scale with load. Refutations are welcome. The author has no formal research training. Corrections will be issued as new versions, with earlier versions kept retrievable. The article body is in Japanese. An English summary, the registered predictions and the reference list are included in the document. Contact: [email protected]