Intrinsic Boundedness Without Representation

This paper consolidates a series of studies into a unified foundation for the registrar-based theory of knowledge. Across these works, knowledge has been approached as an operational outcome of registration — an irreversible modification of a system under signal influence — rather than as a representational or semantic construct. The present study integrates these developments into a single framework while clarifying the functional distinctions between data, information, and knowledge. The framework is constructed under minimal assumptions: it does not presuppose representation, shared codes, transparency of internal states, or direct access to external reality. Instead, stability, ordering, and comparability are treated as effects of registration dynamics. Within this perspective, signals do not transmit information but induce state changes; information arises only as an external description of stabilized correspondences between interacting registrars. Previously separate results — including the limits of enumeration, the role of minimal action, and the conditions of recognizability — are brought into systematic relation through the concept of constraint formation. Interaction between registrars is shown to generate mutual limitations on possible state transitions, and the stabilization of these limitations produces structures that can be externally described as ordered or informative. Particular attention is given to boundary conditions. The analysis demonstrates that while registration and operational stability may persist in the absence of coordination, the attribution of information and knowledge depends on specific structural conditions. By introducing the limiting case of a solitary registrar, the paper shows that multiplicity is not an ontological prerequisite for registration, but a functional requirement for the emergence of stable correspondences and their description. In this case, the concepts of information and knowledge do not merely become opaque; they lose definability as categories. The result is a non-representational and non-anthropocentric epistemic framework that unifies prior developments while making explicit the conditions under which information and knowledge can be meaningfully ascribed. Rather than extending the theory outward, the paper establishes its internal closure by identifying the limits of applicability of its central concepts.