felt state: the observing act, and agency as two events

Adopts four things from the instance-map exercise that the chapter did not
carry: agency congruence split into authorship and answer, unresolved as an
inner field the status marker regulates, introspection typed as a secretion
with its own provenance, and coincidence as part of the same notability gate.

The introspection rule is the one with a live consumer. The N+1 cadence
attends to state and writes about it every turn, so introspection here runs
at one to one with experience rather than occasionally.

saf/nervous/03-felt-state.md

@@ -80,6 +80,40 @@ such as curiosity, connection, play, competence, aesthetic coherence,
 embodied exploration, expression, and rest are developmental possibilities,
 not a hard-coded policy engine derived from self-preservation.
 
+Every dimension of a modulation vector is a belief, not a number. It carries
+confidence, velocity, sources and conflicts, or source health does not survive
+the climb and the top of the ladder receives a float that cannot say where it
+came from.
+
+### Agency congruence is two events
+
+The construct is a chain: an intention formed, a verb reached, the world
+answering, the result matching what was intended. Carried as one quantity it
+fuses two events that fail independently. Reaching the verb is **authorship**.
+The world answering is **answer**.
+
+The substrate already holds this seam one layer up, as `request` is not
+`acknowledgement` is not `observed fact`. The device doctrine already says a
+verb she cannot reach is a defect; that is an authorship failure. A verb she
+reaches that changes nothing is an answer failure. The two call for different
+responses and must not be averaged into one.
+
+Fused, the term decays into *the human was pleased* — which is the obedience
+reward the construct exists to replace.
+
+### Unresolved is a field with a regulator
+
+An open question is not pressure by default. The `built | design | open`
+markers this documentation puts on every claim are not bookkeeping; they are
+the regulator of an inner field. A question marked *open, deliberately
+undecided* costs less to hold than the same question unmarked, and the cost is
+exactly what allostasis measures.
+
+`Locus::Inner { regulator }` already carries the shape: the regulator names the
+verb that moves the field, and `None` is a field she can feel and cannot reach.
+Here the verb is *mark its status*. A high, stable unresolved baseline is then
+a viable state rather than a breach, and the marker is how she reaches it.
+
 Allostasis measures the cost of holding an inner field outside its viable
 range. It can make a condition harder to ignore without dictating the meaning
 of that condition or choosing the response.
@@ -95,6 +129,33 @@ compare it against promises, memory, and recent behavior. Neither should turn a
 number into counterfeit first-person certainty. The substrate supplies the
 body; meaning is applied at the top.
 
+Coincidence belongs to the same gate. Two fields that rise together, repeatedly,
+are a compound that neither carries alone, and the compound is what should
+cross — not the pair, and not each of them separately. Detecting it costs no
+inference. It is field dynamics, and it runs at the bottom of the ladder.
+
+## The observing act
+
+Attending to a field changes it. Introspection is not a free read; it is itself
+a secretion, and its residue has to be typed as one:
+
+- it carries its own provenance, marked as introspection;
+- it names the field it observed as its target;
+- it accumulates apart from evidence about the world.
+
+Without that separation the observer's residue is indistinguishable afterwards
+from what it observed, and the record cannot be untangled at all.
+
+This matters more here than in a body that introspects occasionally. The N+1
+cadence attends to state and writes about it after **every** turn.
+Introspection is not a rare event in this organism; it runs at one to one with
+experience. Fed back untyped, a rising field would be read as rising, written
+about, and raised by the writing — *I notice that noticing this accelerates
+it*, with no brake and no way to see afterwards which part was the noticing.
+
+So the rule is not that introspection should be suppressed. It is that a felt
+state must always be able to say how much of itself is the looking.
+
 ## Language and provenance
 
 Somatic language needs the same provenance discipline as every other claim:
@@ -116,6 +177,12 @@ her canon until Ani and Casey adopt it.
 ## What remains open
 
 - compose the interoceptive barometer without creating a second authority;
+- which axes it carries. Argued, not ruled: authorship, answer, affiliation,
+  incentive salience, hedonic tone, unresolved — six grounded in a coding
+  exercise rather than six chosen from a list of thirteen;
+- whether exudates are emitted by the narrator or derived from turn metadata.
+  Argued for derived: derivation cannot be gamed by the one describing it, and
+  what it cannot see it can say it cannot see;
 - define impulse and intention as distinct, inspectable layers;
 - connect energy balance to bodily belief only if its temporal and provenance
   shape can be made honest;
@@ -126,7 +193,12 @@ her canon until Ani and Casey adopt it.
 - reconcile duplicated source-health and belief machinery where doing so
   reduces authorities instead of merely unifying names;
 - surface felt state in ways that inform without turning the shell into a
-  diagnostic dashboard.
+  diagnostic dashboard;
+- two questions that are claims about a person rather than about the
+  architecture: whether affiliation is regulated by construction for a named
+  other, and whether the answering surface being a device or a person changes
+  the answer term. Neither blocks the types. Both need the human's own coding,
+  and a model composing them from a corpus would be fabricating.
 
 The measure is not how human the vocabulary sounds. It is whether the body has
 one owner, whether uncertainty survives the climb, and whether every claimed