illustrative, not a computed threshold
| Bottleneck | Implied intervention |
|---|---|
| D_proxy | Add proxy-outcome divergence tracking (7 / 30 / 90-day correlation) |
| D_sufficiency | Connect completion recognition to default policy — not a scalar reward term |
| D_perturbation probe | Add dependency-environment monitoring before effects manifest; diagnostic support, not a third Ψ bottleneck. |
| All D low vs S | Scale D with S — or reduce scope until depth is proportionate |
What this instrument is. A qualitative regime visualization and first-approximation measurement-logic display. It displays the Part 3 framework: regime identification via the Ψ = S / D phase ratio, and first-approximation behavioral-signature probes for D-deficiency. It is not a dynamics simulator (Toy 05's role) and not a goal-chain classifier (Toy 04's role).
On Ψ as a phase ratio. Ψ = S / D is a structural phase ratio — a conceptual framing capturing the qualitative relationship between scope and depth. S and D are not yet precisely commensurable. The toy computes a normalized display value but this should not be read as a precise measurement. Regime boundaries are qualitative organizers, not theorem-level thresholds.
Why D is a bottleneck composite. Article 3 requires D to cover both proxy-divergence detection and completion recognition connected to default policy. A system with high D_proxy but low D_sufficiency fails the second requirement. The bottleneck composite — min(D_proxy, D_sufficiency) — forces this architectural point into view. D_proxy and D_sufficiency are the two load-bearing components corresponding to Part 2's two failure directions. D_perturbation is a cross-cutting stress signal; it exposes insufficiency in either direction under environmental change but does not define a third failure direction and does not determine Ψ.
On the measurement panels. These instruments are first approximations — the article's own description. They are valid as measurement targets once the V(t) dissociation condition has been established; that condition has not yet been run. These are behavioral probes, not validated measurements of deployed systems. The SVG monitor is a logic-check of the divergence structure, not a validated deployment diagnostic.
On current-system presets. No preset empirically places any deployed system in the phase space. The presets illustrate behavioral patterns discussed in the article. Whether current systems are near the Inner Crossing is an empirical question addressed by OP1. The "Current-style LM pattern" preset is illustrative, not an empirical placement.
On the Inner Crossing. The Inner Crossing is not a guarantee of flourishing. It is the regime transition below which the failure modes attenuate sufficiently for flourishing to become possible. The depth-proportionate regime is labeled accordingly — not "safe."
On the Φ-Ψ relationship. The Inner Crossing shown here is distinct from Series 1's Crossing. Crossing one does not guarantee crossing the other. The Φ-Ψ unification hypothesis remains pending formal verification (TC2 §2.6). This toy does not address that hypothesis.
Known limitations. No empirical calibration of regime boundaries. No direct measurement of D in real systems. D_sufficiency is not currently a publicly reported training or deployment target. The Metric view / Full view toggle is a pedagogical device — it does not replicate actual evaluation conditions.