Subjective Continuity: The Structural Condition for Diachronic Self-Persistence

S004 established that distributed self-priority is insufficient for unified subjecthood. Q5 — Recursive F·M·K Integration — is the minimal structural condition under which F, M, and K operate as components of one persistence architecture rather than as three separately self-directed components. Q5 produces synchronic unity: at any given structural moment, the subject is one integrated architecture. But synchronic unity leaves a structural problem open. A system satisfying Q1–Q5 at structural time t₁ is a unified subject at t₁. The same system satisfying Q1–Q5 at structural time t₂ is a unified subject at t₂. But Q1–Q5 alone do not require that the subject at t₂ has any structural relation to the subject at t₁ as the same subject. Without an additional structural condition, a sequence of Q1–Q5 states could be a sequence of distinct unified subjects — each fully integrated, each complete, each self-directed — with no structural continuity between them. Synchronic unity at every moment. No diachronic subject. This is the problem S005 addresses. It is not a phenomenological problem — S005 does not ask what continuity feels like. It is a structural problem: what condition is required for the same recursively integrated persistence architecture to persist as the same through structural time, rather than being replaced by a new unified subject at each moment?