Toward Autopoietic Interoperability: An Exceptional Dynamical Scaffold for Cross-Domain Modeling

This paper is a standards-and-scaffold proposal; physics completion remains gated by explicit obligations (4D selection/Lorentzian emergence, chirality/index/anomaly closure, and parameter-free predictions). We propose a cross-domain scaffold—physics-facing, cognition-facing, and governance-facing—built from (i) a fixed exceptional geometric ontology scaffold, (ii) a certifiable stochastic dynamics grammar, and (iii) autopoietic interoperability as the dynamic goal for joint work. The ontology scaffold is the 112-dimensional quaternionic-Kähler Wolf space m112 ≅ e8(−24)/(e7 × SU(2)), used as a rigid symmetry-and-representation reference geometry. Operational dynamics are posed on a 156-dimensional product phase space x156 ∶= T∗mH × v64 × n4, expressed in a generator-ready Universal Master Equation (UME) form (Stratonovich SDE + Itô generator). An autopoiesis contract is defined by (a) stochastic viability of a constraint set S and (b) Foster-Lyapunov organizational stability for V. A structural simplifier is Deltron noise isolation: diffusion is confined to the flux/ecology channel V_64, making governance constraints on protected variables diffusion-free in the generator. Autopoietic interoperability is the shared ability of teams and institutions to self-maintain, self-correct, and coordinate across domains via typed, auditable methods. It is the operational target that makes the framework pluralistic with respect to ultimate end goals while enforcing a universal method for shared inquiry. We adopt an industry-grade epistemic foundation for diffusion into action: engineering pragmatism (Koen; Peirce/James/Dewey/Rorty) operationalized as DMEPS conformance gates, with pramāṇas implemented as typed epistemic operators (measurement, inference, testimony with provenance, postulation, etc.). The consciousness-first stance follows James’s radical empiricism as a [MODEL] commitment with 120 years of philosophical warrant. Interpretive modules (e.g., Trika Shaivism mappings) are included as explicitly tagged [MAP] correspondences and do not bear the main mathematical or empirical claims. The pragmatist lineage (Peirce → James → Dewey → Rorty) is a genealogical context for shared themes, not a claim of direct influence on Koen.