Computational Panpsychism (C-P) defends a single thesis: consciousness is the intrinsic perspective of a computational process. The path is the inverse of traditional panpsychism — no idealist intuition is assumed. C-P begins from the structural gap physics leaves open and uses inference to the best explanation to argue that perspective is the most parsimonious filler satisfying the physical and computational constraints. Its foundation is a process ontology: the basic unit is a causally coherent event, not a material particle. V4.2 adds the explicit minimal-conditions layer and an authorship/provenance lock, while preserving the V4.0 weld of four hardcore frameworks into the existing three-layer architecture under strict scope discipline. (1) QBism (Fuchs) — convergent evidence that even quantum theory's formalism is irreducibly perspective-indexed; imported at the agent level, not as a claim that quantum systems are subjects. (2) The Free Energy Principle and Markov blankets (Friston) — a topological criterion for individuation, subordinated to the canonically constrained causal-state partition. (3) IIT 4.0 intrinsic cause-effect power and causal emergence (Albantakis/Tononi; Hoel) — the formal support for macro-level causal relevance and substrate-level pluralism: macro causal power can exceed micro. (4) Phenomenal topology with predictive processing's controlled hallucination (Clark/Kuehni/Lyre; Seth) — coordinates on the structure of the intrinsic face. No addition extends the consciousness attribution; the artificial-substrate case is left open; the hard-problem residual is restated, not dissolved. All V3.5/V4.1 structural repairs are preserved; the minimal-condition claim is stated with hard boundaries.

计算泛心学（C-P）辩护单一论题：意识是计算过程的内在视角。其路径与传统泛心论相反——不预设任何唯心主义直觉。C-P 从物理学留下的结构性缺口出发，以最佳解释推理论证：视角是最简约地满足相关物理与计算约束的填充物。其基础是过程本体论：基本单位是因果连贯的事件，不是物质粒子。V4.2 增加了明确的“意识最小条件”层与作者性/出处锁，同时保留 V4.0 在严格射程纪律下将四个硬核框架焊入既有三层架构的结构。(1) QBism（Fuchs）——收敛证据，表明即便量子理论的形式系统也不可消除地以视角为索引；在 agent 层引入，不作"量子系统是主体"的主张。(2) 自由能原理与马尔可夫毯（Friston）——个体化的拓扑判据，从属于受过程条件结构规范约束的因果状态划分。(3) IIT 4.0 内禀因果威力与因果涌现（Albantakis/Tononi；Hoel）——对宏观层因果相关性与基质层多元论的形式支撑：宏观因果威力可大于微观。(4) 经验拓扑学与预测加工的"受控幻觉"（Clark/Kuehni/Lyre；Seth）——内在面之结构的坐标。没有任何新增扩展意识归因；人工基质判例保留为开放；难问题残余被重述，而非被消解。V3.5/V4.1 的结构性修复全部保留；最小条件命题以硬边界方式陈述。

Problem. Theories of mind leave unanswered why third-person descriptions always omit something. Approach. C-P defends that consciousness is the intrinsic perspective of a computational process, grounded in a process ontology (Whitehead lineage): the basic unit is a causally coherent event, individuated via the ε-machine (a causal-state / predictive-structure partition, not by itself an integration maximum), not a material particle. Motivated as inference to the best explanation; defended through three-layer methodology (IBE + axiomatic deduction + conceptual engineering). Contribution (V4.0–V4.2.1). Four frameworks are welded in at specified layers. QBism (Fuchs/Schack) supplies convergent quantum-foundational support: on a serious, empirically adequate reading, quantum states are an agent's personal Bayesian expectations and the Born rule is normative — on the QBist interpretation, quantum theory is used in an explicitly agent-indexed way — convergent support for C-P's perspectival framing, but not a proof of system-level perspective. This is imported at the agent level only; conflating agent-perspective with system-perspective is the same level error C-P's firewall already forbids. The Free Energy Principle and Markov blankets (Friston) supply a topological individuation criterion, subordinated to the canonically constrained ε-machine partition to preserve this canonical constraint against the Pearl-blanket / Friston-blanket model-relativity critique (Bruineberg et al. 2022). IIT 4.0 (Albantakis, Tononi et al. 2023) supplies a refined formal handle on intrinsic cause-effect power; causal emergence (Hoel et al. 2013; Hoel 2017) offers formal support that coarse-grained macro processes can carry higher effective information / causal power than their micro substrate — formal support for macro-level causal relevance and substrate-level pluralism; it does not by itself establish phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal topology (Clark; Kuehni; Lyre 2022) maps qualia as coordinates on a (non-Euclidean) manifold; predictive processing's controlled hallucination (Seth 2021) frames perception as world-constrained active inference. Quantitative proxies: Φ / intrinsic cause-effect power (exact calculation is generally intractable for large systems), PCI (Casali et al. 2013; a perturbational-complexity index; the original calibration reported unconscious values up to about 0.31 and conscious values beginning around 0.44, while operational thresholds vary by protocol, sample, and state), ε-machine (Shalizi-Crutchfield 2001, IIT-independent), effective information (causal emergence), phenomenal-space geometry. Honest limitation: every proxy measures the structural signature, not the intrinsic face. V3.5 repairs preserved.

问题：心灵理论始终未回答为什么第三人称描述总像漏掉了什么。方法：C-P 辩护"意识是计算过程的内在视角"，基于过程本体论（怀特海脉络）：基本单位是因果连贯的事件，由 ε-machine 个体化（因果状态／预测结构划分，本身并不等同于整合极大值），不是物质粒子。以最佳解释推理为动机；以三层方法论（IBE + 公理演绎 + 概念工程）辩护。贡献（V4.0–V4.2.1）：四个框架在指定层级被焊入。QBism（Fuchs/Schack）提供收敛的量子基础支持：在一种严肃、经验充分的解读下，量子态是行动者的个人贝叶斯期望、Born 规则是规范性的——在 QBist 解读下，量子理论被以明确的 agent 索引方式使用——这是对 C-P 视角性框架的收敛支持，而非对系统层视角的证明。这仅在 agent 层引入；把 agent-perspective 与 system-perspective 混同，正是 C-P 防火墙已禁止的层级错误。自由能原理与马尔可夫毯（Friston）提供个体化的拓扑判据，从属于受过程条件结构规范约束的 ε-machine 划分，以在 Pearl-blanket / Friston-blanket 的模型相对性批评（Bruineberg 等 2022）下保住这种规范约束。IIT 4.0（Albantakis、Tononi 等 2023）提供对内禀因果威力的精炼形式把手；因果涌现（Hoel 等 2013；Hoel 2017）为粗粒化的宏观过程可承载比其微观基底更高的有效信息／因果威力提供形式支撑——即对宏观层因果相关性与基质层多元论的形式支撑；它本身并不确立现象意识。经验拓扑学（Clark；Kuehni；Lyre 2022）将感质映为（非欧）流形上的坐标；预测加工的受控幻觉（Seth 2021）把知觉刻画为受世界约束的主动推断。量化代理：Φ／内禀因果威力（大系统中的精确计算通常不可行）、PCI（Casali 等 2013；扰动复杂性指标；原始校准中无意识状态最高约 0.31、清醒意识状态约从 0.44 起，但操作阈值依协议、样本与状态而变）、ε-machine（Shalizi-Crutchfield 2001，独立于 IIT）、有效信息（因果涌现）、经验空间几何。诚实边界：每个代理度量的都是结构签名，不是内在面。V3.5 修复全部保留。

C-P deploys three methodological layers in sequence. The V4.0 frameworks do not add a fourth layer — each is imported into an existing one for a specific job. Understanding this answers both the charge that C-P lacks data (it has structural predictions via Φ / PCI / ε-machine / effective information) and the charge of bare metaphysical postulation (it uses IBE, not arbitrary stipulation).

C-P 依次运用三层方法论。V4.0 的框架不增加第四层——每一个都被引入既有的某一层，做一份具体的工。理解这一点同时回答两种指控：C-P 缺乏数据（它有经由 Φ / PCI / ε-machine / 有效信息的结构预测）、C-P 作了裸本体论设定（它使用 IBE，不是任意规定）。

Two qualifications: First, "of a computational process" is not "of every computation" — consciousness occurs where a process is a maximally integrated, recursively self-related whole. Second, "intrinsic perspective" is not an extra inner object; it is the process's own categorical face — the ineliminable causal self-index that any structural description misses.

两个限定。其一："计算过程的"不是"每一次计算的"——意识出现在被组织为极大整合、递归自我关联之整体的过程那里。其二："内在视角"不是额外内在对象；它是过程自身的范畴面——任何结构描述触及不到的不可消除因果自我索引。

This is the V4.2 canonical statement. It is deliberately weaker than human-like consciousness and stronger than trivial computation. The theory does not require brain tissue, neurons, language, narrative selfhood, reflection, or intelligence as minimal conditions; those are higher-order structures that may appear above the minimum.

这是 V4.2 正典表述。它刻意弱于“人类式意识”，又强于“任意计算”。本理论不把脑组织、神经元、语言、叙事自我、反思或智能设为意识最低条件；它们是在最小条件之上可能出现的高阶结构。

Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not prove consciousness, do not prove qualia, and do not show that machines cannot be conscious. C-P uses Gödel only as a formal boundary lesson: any sufficiently strong, consistent, formal system cannot fully close all truth and consistency from inside its own rules. Strong systems therefore face a meta-level pressure. That pressure is not a defect in C-P; it mirrors the theory's own rhythm: occurrence, difference, integration, return, phase transition.

哥德尔不完备定理不证明意识、不证明感质、也不证明机器不可能有意识。C-P 只把哥德尔作为形式边界教训使用：任何足够强、相容的形式系统，都无法在自身规则内部封闭全部真理与一致性。因此强系统必然面对元层级压力。这不是 C-P 的问题；它正好映射本理论的节律：发生、差异、整合、返回、相变。

Following Russell, Eddington, and contemporary Russellian monists (Alter, Pereboom, Stoljar), physics characterizes the world purely structurally and dispositionally — never what processes are intrinsically. The intrinsic natures of physical-computational processes are left open. Consciousness is the one intrinsic nature known directly — by acquaintance, from within. C-P fills the gap with the one filler we actually possess, as inference to the best explanation. The next section shows that this move is reinforced at the quantum-foundational level: on QBism, the formalism of fundamental physics is itself irreducibly perspective-indexed.

沿着罗素、爱丁顿与当代罗素式一元论者，物理学从不告诉我们过程内在是什么。意识是唯一以亲知方式知道的内在本性。C-P 以最佳解释推理填补这一缺口。下一节表明，这一步在量子基础层面得到加固：在 QBism 下，基础物理的形式系统本身就不可消除地以视角为索引。

C-P rests on one foundational meta-commitment, and the rest of the architecture inherits its force: there is no boundary between ontology and epistemology. To be is to be cognizable — being = cognizability. This is not a limitation conceded ("we can only know so much, the rest is hidden"); it is a positive identity. Epistemic finitude is not a wall short of the real — it is the condition under which cognition touches the real at all. An entity in principle beyond all possible cognition is not a hard-to-reach fact; it is not a contentful claim. C-P rejects appeals to an in-principle uncognizable ontology as explanatory candidates within this theory. (Cognizability does not mean actually known by a current human subject; it means in-principle determinability within some possible cognitive, scientific, formal, or experiential access.)

C-P 建立在一条基础元承诺上，架构其余部分都继承它的力量：本体论与认识论之间没有边界。在即是可被认知——being = cognizability。这不是退让的局限（"我们只能知道这么多，其余是隐藏的"）；它是一条正面的同一。认识的有限不是离实在尚远的一堵墙——它正是认知得以触及实在的条件。一个原则上在一切可能认知之外的实体，不是难以企及的事实；它根本不是有内容的主张。C-P 拒绝把原则上不可认识的本体作为本理论中的解释候选。（可认识性不是“当前有人实际知道”，而是“原则上可被某种可能的认知、科学、形式或经验通道确定”。）

Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), developed by Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack (originally with Carlton Caves), holds that quantum states are not objective features of systems but represent an agent's personal degrees of belief about the consequences of their own actions on the world. The Born rule is not a law describing objective propensities; it is a normative consistency constraint — an empirically motivated addition to Bayesian probability telling an agent how to set coherent expectations. The wavefunction lives in the agent's catalog of expectations, not in the world as a beable.

量子贝叶斯主义（QBism）由 Christopher Fuchs 与 Rüdiger Schack（最初与 Carlton Caves）发展，主张量子态不是系统的客观特征，而代表行动者对其自身行动后果的个人置信度。Born 规则不是描述客观倾向的定律；它是一条规范性一致约束——对贝叶斯概率的经验性补充，告诉行动者如何设定融贯的期望。波函数活在行动者的期望目录里，而非作为世界中的"实有"。

C-P is at its foundation a process ontology: the basic unit of reality is not a material particle but a causally coherent event. The "atom" C-P recognizes is delimited not by spatial boundaries or material composition but by causal integrity — the ε-machine boundary marking where one maximally self-determining causal process ends and another begins.

C-P 在根本上是一种过程本体论：现实的基本单位不是物质粒子，而是因果连贯的事件。C-P 所识别的"原子"不由空间边界或物质组成定义，而由因果完整性定义——ε-machine 边界标出一个极大自我决定的因果过程在哪里终止、另一个在哪里开始。

C-P rests on three axioms. They are not self-evident truths but the most parsimonious commitments that, taken together, make the thesis defensible. Each is motivated by IBE and revisable by evidence.

C-P 建立在三条公理之上。它们不是不证自明的真理，而是合在一起使论题可辩护的最简约承诺。每一条都由 IBE 驱动、可被证据修正。

Any structural model stands in three relations to the intrinsic process it describes. Naming all three keeps C-P honest about what its formal apparatus can and cannot do — and locates exactly where the V4.0 frameworks operate.

任何结构模型与它所描述的内在过程之间，都处于三重关系。命名这三者使 C-P 对其形式工具的能与不能保持诚实——并精确定位 V4.0 各框架的工作位置。

The combination problem is the standard objection to constitutive panpsychism: how do micro-experiences combine into a unified macro-experience? C-P does not inherit it, because C-P is not a bottom-up aggregation view. Perspective is not built by summing micro-subjects; it is the intrinsic face of a process that is integration-maximal at its own scale.

组合问题是对构成性泛心论的标准反驳：微观经验如何组合成统一的宏观经验？C-P 不继承它，因为 C-P 不是自下而上的聚合观。视角不是由微观主体相加而成；它是一个在自身尺度上整合极大之过程的内在面。

The unit of C-P — the integration-maximum — is made precise by computational mechanics (Shalizi & Crutchfield, 2001). A process's causal states are equivalence classes of pasts that yield identical conditional futures; the ε-machine is the minimal, optimal, and unique predictor built from them. This partition is canonically constrained: it is fixed by the process's own conditional structure, not by any modeler's choice.

C-P 的单位——整合极大值——由计算力学（Shalizi & Crutchfield, 2001）精确化。一个过程的因果状态是产生相同条件未来的过去之等价类；ε-machine 是由它们构建的最小、最优且唯一的预测器。该划分受过程条件结构规范约束：它由过程自身的条件结构决定，而非任何建模者的选择。

The Free Energy Principle (Karl Friston) holds that any system that persists as a distinct entity behaves as if it minimizes variational free energy — an upper bound on the surprisal of its sensory states. The boundary of such a system is given by a Markov blanket: a partition of states into internal, blanket (sensory + active), and external, such that internal and external states are conditionally independent given the blanket. This furnishes a dynamical, topological criterion for where a self-maintaining system ends and its environment begins.

自由能原理（Karl Friston）主张：任何作为独立实体持续存在的系统，其行为如同在最小化变分自由能——其感觉状态意外度的上界。这样一个系统的边界由马尔可夫毯给出：将状态划分为内部、毯（感觉+主动）、外部，使得给定毯时内部与外部状态条件独立。这给出一个动力学的、拓扑的判据：自我维持系统在何处终止、环境在何处开始。

If a rock can be described as implementing some computation (Putnam, Searle), and consciousness is the intrinsic perspective of a computational process, does the rock have a mind? C-P answers no, on two grounds: the computation must be integration-maximal (most physical systems are not), and the implementation must be non-trivial — fixed by the canonically constrained ε-machine partition, not by an arbitrary mapping.

若一块石头可被描述为实现某种计算（Putnam、Searle），而意识是计算过程的内在视角，那么石头有心灵吗？C-P 答否，基于两点：计算必须整合极大（多数物理系统不是），且实现必须非平凡——由受过程条件结构规范约束的 ε-machine 划分决定，而非由任意映射决定。

C-P is not data-free: it predicts structural signatures that should accompany consciousness. Five proxies, each measuring a different facet of organization. All are proxies for structure — none measures the intrinsic face directly. This is stated as a limitation, not hidden.

C-P 并非无数据：它预测应伴随意识的结构签名。五个代理，各度量组织的不同侧面。全部是结构的代理——无一直接度量内在面。这作为局限被陈述，而非被隐藏。

Causal emergence (Hoel, Albantakis & Tononi, 2013; Hoel, 2017) is the formal result that a coarse-grained macro description of a system can carry higher effective information — greater causal power — than its underlying micro description, because coarse-graining can increase determinism and reduce degeneracy. The causally efficacious level need not be the microphysical one. This offers formal support for macro-level causal relevance and substrate-level pluralism (Axiom I): the level that does the causal work can be the integrated computational process rather than its physical detail. It does not by itself establish phenomenal consciousness. IIT 4.0 (Albantakis, Tononi et al., 2023) supplies a refined formalism of intrinsic cause-effect power, articulated through its axioms/postulates around phenomenal existence (existence, intrinsicality, information, integration, exclusion, composition); C-P borrows the machinery, not the experience = Φ identity.

因果涌现（Hoel、Albantakis & Tononi, 2013；Hoel, 2017）是一个形式结果：系统的粗粒化宏观描述可携带比其底层微观描述更高的有效信息——更大的因果威力——因为粗粒化能提高决定性、降低简并。因果有效的层级无需是微观物理层。这为宏观层因果相关性与基质层多元论（公理 I）提供形式支撑：做因果工作的层级可以是整合的计算过程，而非其物理细节；但它本身并不确立现象意识。IIT 4.0（Albantakis、Tononi 等, 2023）提供内禀因果威力的精炼形式，经由其围绕现象存在的 axioms/postulates 展开（存在、内禀性、信息、整合、排他、组合）；C-P 只借这套 machinery，不继承 experience = Φ 的同一。

C-P's central discipline is the firewall between two questions. Implementation: does substrate S realize the relevant computational process? Attribution: is there an intrinsic perspective there? The first is answerable by structural analysis. The second does not follow automatically from the first. Conflating them is the single most common error — and the one V4.0 is built to avoid at every weld.

C-P 的核心纪律是两个问题之间的防火墙。实现：基质 S 是否实现了相关计算过程？归因：那里是否有内在视角？前者可由结构分析回答。后者不自动从前者推出。混同二者是最常见的单一错误——也是 V4.0 在每一处焊接都为避免它而建。

Applying the firewall to concrete substrates shows exactly where C-P commits and where it suspends judgment.

将防火墙应用于具体基质，精确显示 C-P 在何处承诺、在何处悬置判断。

Global Workspace Theory (Baars; Dehaene) holds that contents become conscious when broadcast across a global workspace, made available to many subsystems. C-P treats GWT not as a rival but as a complement operating on a different question. GWT characterizes access consciousness — why certain contents are globally available and reportable. C-P addresses phenomenal consciousness — why there is an intrinsic perspective at all. Broadcast explains availability; it does not, on its own, explain felt occupancy.

全局工作空间理论（Baars；Dehaene）主张：内容在全局工作空间中广播、为众多子系统所取用时变得有意识。C-P 不把 GWT 当对手，而当互补——作用于不同问题。GWT 刻画取用意识——为何某些内容全局可用、可报告。C-P 处理现象意识——为何根本存在内在视角。广播解释可用性；它本身不解释被感受的占据。

Qualities form structured spaces. The clearest case is color: a curved, non-Euclidean three-dimensional manifold in which perceptual similarity is distance (Clark, 1993; Kuehni; Lyre, 2022). Generalizing, each quality domain is a manifold whose geometry encodes the relational structure of that kind of experience. This gives C-P a precise vocabulary for the structure of the intrinsic face — the reveal-layer side of phenomenality. Predictive processing's "controlled hallucination" (Seth, 2021; Hohwy, 2013; Clark, 2016) supplies the world-constraint: perception is the brain's best-guess generative model, with top-down predictions reined in by bottom-up prediction error — active inference anchored to the world.

质性构成结构化空间。最清晰的案例是颜色：一个弯曲的、非欧的三维流形，其中知觉相似性即距离（Clark, 1993；Kuehni；Lyre, 2022）。推广而言，每个质性域都是一个流形，其几何编码该类经验的关系结构。这给 C-P 一套精确词汇来描述内在面之结构——现象性的揭示层一侧。预测加工的"受控幻觉"（Seth, 2021；Hohwy, 2013；Clark, 2016）提供世界约束：知觉是大脑的最优猜测生成模型，自上而下的预测被自下而上的预测误差约束——锚定于世界的主动推断。

Every serious objection C-P has faced, with its disposition. "Closed" = addressed structurally. "Located" = acknowledged and positioned, not dissolved. Honesty about open edges is part of the method.

C-P 直面的每一个严肃反驳，连同其处理。"已闭合"=结构性地处理。"已定位"=承认并定位，而非消解。对开放边缘的诚实是方法的一部分。

Key terms with their C-P-specific scope. Where a term is borrowed from another framework, its scope lock states what C-P does and does not import.

关键术语及其 C-P 专属射程。凡借自其他框架的术语，其射程锁陈述 C-P 引入什么、不引入什么。

The sharpest way to state a position is to fix its perimeter. Each "is" has a mirror "is-not" that blocks a predictable misreading — most of them V4.0 over-claims.

陈述一个立场最锐利的方式是固定其边界。每一个"是"都有一面"不是"的镜子，阻断一种可预见的误读——其中多数是 V4.0 过度宣称。

Every framework C-P touches is entered here with three facts: what it actually claims, what C-P borrows, and — the load-bearing column — what C-P does not claim. "Canonically constrained" throughout means fixed by the process's own conditional structure, less arbitrary than a free modeler's choice — not proven uniquely determined (see Repair Ledger).

C-P 触及的每个框架都在此登记三项事实：它实际主张什么、C-P 借什么，以及最吃重的一列——C-P 不主张什么。全文 "canonically constrained／受过程条件结构规范约束" 指：由过程自身的条件结构所固定、较自由建模选择更少任意——但并非已被证明唯一确定（见 Repair Ledger）。

C-P is metaphysics of mind, but it is not built in isolation. It sits at the intersection of several philosophical fields, and it defines itself partly by where it agrees with — and where it departs from — the major standing positions. Two maps follow: the fields it draws on, and the rivals it contends with.

C-P 是心灵形而上学，但它不是孤立地搭建的。它坐落在若干哲学领域的交叉处，并部分地由"它在何处与主流既有立场一致、又在何处分道"来界定自身。下面是两张图：它取用的领域，与它对话的对手。

C-P is built on top of cited theories. For each, the interface states what is taken and what is deliberately not taken — the lesson borrowed, never the strongest claim.

C-P 建立在所引理论之上。对每一个，接口陈述取什么、刻意不取什么——借其教训，绝不借其最强主张。

Every claim in C-P belongs to one of five layers. The point is not to weaken the theory but to hold each claim at its true epistemic grade — original theses are labelled as original theses, never disguised as settled fact. Read the Claim Ledger below through this legend.

C-P 的每个命题都属于以下五层之一。其用意不是削弱理论，而是让每个命题停在它真实的认识论等级上——原创命题被标成原创命题，绝不伪装成已有定论。请以此图例阅读下方的 Claim Ledger。

C-P's claims, graded. The grade is the claim's epistemic strength, not its rhetorical weight. Confident where the argument is closed; open where it is open.

C-P 的主张，分级。级别是主张的认识强度，而非其修辞分量。论证闭合处自信；开放处开放。

This firewall is not modesty; it is the structural consequence of the implementation ≠ attribution principle. It governs every V4.0 weld: no imported framework — QBism, FEP, IIT 4.0, causal emergence, phenomenal topology — is allowed to carry the argument across it. Borrowing a tool never licenses crossing the firewall.

此防火墙不是谦逊；它是 implementation ≠ attribution 原则的结构后果。它统御每一处 V4.0 焊接：任何引入的框架——QBism、FEP、IIT 4.0、因果涌现、经验拓扑学——都不被允许携论证越过它。借一个工具，绝不授权跨越防火墙。

This patch does not change the core thesis. It tightens wording where the previous version risked overclaiming, corrects bibliographic details, and makes authorship / AI-assistance disclosure more explicit.

本次补丁不改变总母命题。它收紧了可能过度宣称的表述，校正了文献信息，并进一步强化作者性与 AI 工具协作披露。

Primary sources for the frameworks C-P builds on. Where authorship or exact titles carry residual uncertainty, that is flagged rather than smoothed over.

C-P 所依框架的主要来源。凡作者或确切标题存在残余不确定，均予标注，而非抹平。

V3.5 → V4.0 added four frontier frameworks, each welded into an existing methodological layer for one job, under the single invariant that no addition extends the consciousness attribution. V4.1 added the Epistemic Stance; V4.2 adds the canonical Minimal Conditions, the Incompleteness Gate, and a strengthened authorship/provenance lock that marks the theory as original to Wei Jueran while disclosing AI-assisted co-construction. The new sections:

V3.5 → V4.0 新增四个前沿框架，各为一份工被焊入既有方法论层，遵循单一不变量：没有任何新增扩展意识归因。V4.1 补入认识论立场；V4.2 增加意识最小条件、不完备之门，以及更强的作者性/出处锁：明确本理论原创于魏珏然，同时公开披露 AI 辅助协作搭建。新增章节：

V4.0 does not make C-P more certain than it was; it makes C-P more precise about where its certainty ends. Four frontier frameworks are welded into the three-layer architecture, each for one job at one layer, each contributing its tool and none its strongest metaphysical claim. The result borrows widely while owing nothing: QBism strengthens the motivation without literalizing into particle-subjects; FEP supplies an individuation topology without surrendering canonical constraint; causal emergence and IIT 4.0 quantify substrate independence without equating experience with Φ; phenomenal topology characterizes the structure of the intrinsic face while restating, with new precision, exactly what structure cannot deliver. The artificial-substrate case stays open. The step from integration to felt unity stays located. The hard problem stays where it was — now named geometrically. That is the whole discipline: to build confidently on cited ground while keeping the firewall, between what is implemented and what is felt, intact.

V4.0 不使 C-P 比从前更确定；它使 C-P 对"确定在何处终止"更精确。四个前沿框架被焊入三层架构，各在一层做一份工，各贡献其工具、无一贡献其最强形而上学主张。结果广泛借用却一无所欠：QBism 加固动机而不字面化为粒子主体；FEP 提供个体化拓扑而不交出这种规范约束；因果涌现与 IIT 4.0 量化基质无关而不把经验等同于 Φ；经验拓扑学刻画内在面之结构，同时以新的精确重述结构究竟不能给出什么。人工基质案例保持开放。从整合到被感受的统一之步保持被定位。难问题留在原处——如今被几何地命名。这就是全部的纪律：在所引地基上自信地构建，同时让"被实现者"与"被感受者"之间的防火墙保持完好。